Sitting of 4 June 1998

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

LLOYDS TSB BILL [Lords](By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Thursday 11 June.

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

  Food Safety
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: What steps he is taking to improve food safety. [42720]
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): We are setting up what will be a powerful, effective and independent Food Standards Agency operating across the whole food chain, clearly focused on protecting consumers. In the meantime, I have already ensured that public health is our first consideration in matters of food safety.
  Mrs. Campbell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that, after 18 years of Tory Government and a disastrous record on food safety, there is still widespread concern and anxiety about food safety, and especially about genetically modified food? Does he agree that it is important that we give consumers real choice in the consumption of such foods, and that labelling genetically modified foods would be an important step forward in giving consumers that choice? What progress has my right hon. Friend been able to make in persuading other countries to agree with us on that important issue?
  Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is still a high level of public concern about food safety. We must continue to be vigilant in protecting the public and in bringing to them the best available scientific advice on those matters. On genetically modified food, the British presidency recently negotiated an agreement in the Agriculture Council that will ensure that food is clearly labelled. The labels will say either that food contains a genetically modified product or that it does not. There will therefore be absolutely no doubt in consumers' minds. I was very pleased to be able to negotiate that outcome in the Agriculture Council.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In looking at the issue of food safety, will the Minister consider, too, the issue of vitamin safety—and, in particular, the safety of vitamin B6? The United States Government allow over-the-counter sales of 100 mg of vitamin B6, whereas the Government are proposing to restrict such sales to 50 mg. The US is the toughest regulatory authority to the world. Is not the British restriction therefore simply another case of the Government acting as nanny state and knowing better than their subjects?
  Dr. Cunningham: To the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's assertion, the answer is no, it is not. Neither is it the case, as he asserts, that the United States necessarily employs the toughest regulations. The United States allows, for example, hormone growth promoters, which are banned in the European Union. So the hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point, too. We are still consulting and considering responses to the work on B6 being undertaken by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that the farmers in my constituency reckon that it costs them 38p a pound to raise lamb, which they can sell at only 43p a pound at Ashford? They see lamb on sale at Sainsburys, Tesco or Asda at £2.78 a pound. Is there a chance that, within the Foods Standards Agency, we could consider having a regulator for supermarkets?
  Dr. Cunningham: The answer to that is no.

  Farming Incomes
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the level of farming incomes. [42721]
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government are working to create the conditions that will enable farmers to develop their businesses and maximise their income by pressing for market-oriented reform of the common agricultural policy.
  Mr. Swayne: I should be very interested to know precisely what those conditions are. The fact is that farming incomes have fallen by well over 40 per cent. Farmers have been hit again today, by a sixth rise in interest rates. Those who can no longer afford farming and want to get out have been devastated by the abolition of retirement relief on capital gains. Meanwhile—all this time—the Chancellor of the Exchequer is building up a war chest for the next general election. Will the Minister ask for some of that money now, while we still have a farming industry?
  Mr. Morley: The Government have helped the hardest-hit sections of the industry with £85 million of aid for the sheep and suckler sector and by absorbing £70 million of start-up costs. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might ponder the enormous overspend on BSE aid to renderers by the previous Conservative Administration. Some of that money could have gone to farmers.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: May I bring my hon. Friend back to a point that I made in a recent debate about the damage done on the hills by overstocking? The only way for hill farmers to increase their income is by increasing the number of sheep and cattle on the land, which is doing serious damage. Is my hon. Friend considering ways of compensating those farmers to reduce the number of animals on the hills?
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right that overstocking and overgrazing are serious problems in some hill areas. We need to address that as part of the structural changes and negotiations for Agenda 2000 and potential reform of hill livestock compensatory allowances.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Has the Minister seen the well-researched and well-documented evidence that appeared recently in Farmers' Weekly of the number of farming households that have to claim family credit, income support and other social security benefits? Is that not a sad indictment of the present plight of many in the farming community? Given that the Government have obstinately refused since last May to access the European funds that could be available, will the Minister take the opportunity to promise to set up an interdepartmental analysis of whether withholding that money, when set against the money being claimed from the Department of Social Security, will cost the British taxpayer—as well as the farmers, their families and their communities—more in the long term than help is received in the short term?
  Mr. Morley: We are not withholding compensation. We have accessed nearly all the available resources for the beef and sheep sector. Farming incomes have been under pressure in the past year, but that agrimonetary compensation would not benefit the pig, horticultural or poultry sector. Some sections of the industry have had a difficult time, but others have successfully targeted their customers, broadened their customer base and diversified.
  Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the dismay of farmers in my constituency, who have seen farming incomes decline while a supermarket chain such as Tesco claims that it makes no money on selling meat? Will he join me in commending the investigation by the Welsh Affairs Committee and its recommendation that the matter should be referred to the Office of Fair Trading?
  Mr. Morley: I accept that there is concern in the agricultural sector about certain aspects of the role of retailers. However, retailers have also played a positive role in developing markets and driving up standards.
  Mr. Michael Jack: The answers that the Minister has given so far on this serious issue of falling farm incomes—particularly in the light of the Government's failed inflation policy, which has now led to a sixth increase in interest rates—are nothing short of complacent. Does he accept that today's announcement on interest rates will increase borrowing costs for farmers and lead to further reductions in farm incomes? Will he come clean on whether he has sorted out the level of arable area payments and livestock payments in the
  488
  agrimonetary arrangements—or is he content for another £400 million disappear from farming at the end of the year?
  Mr. Morley: Surveys show that, because of three exceptionally good years of farm income, almost 50 per cent. of farmers have no borrowing with the banks. The right hon. Gentleman should also be aware that the UK taxpayer has to find 71p of every pound of agrimonetary compensation. I presume that that is why the Conservative Government voted against the setting up of the agrimonetary scheme.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Dr. Rudi Vis: If he will make a statement on the Agenda 2000 proposals on reforming the common agricultural policy. [42722]
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): The Commission's proposals broadly reflect the direction of reform that the Government have advocated, but, in some respects, they are insufficiently radical or discriminate against United Kingdom interests, and, therefore, need changing accordingly.
  Dr. Vis: I thank my right hon. Friend for that rather optimistic answer. It is my understanding that the Agriculture Council is rather protectionist. Why has he been relatively successful and why has such progress been made? Is it to do with the Government's more thoughtful attitude to the single currency, as compared with that of the Conservative party?
  Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right. We were able to secure unanimous agreement to interim conclusions on the consideration of Agenda 2000 at the Agriculture Council in May. Those conclusions will go to the Cardiff European summit later this month and be considered by the Heads of Government. The conclusions contain almost all the major points of emphasis from the United Kingdom point of view. My hon. Friend mentioned the Conservative party's position on the single currency: as it meanders aimlessly further to the right and further into a hopelessly anti-European stance, that party abandons not only the interests of the United Kingdom in general but of farmers in particular.
  Sir Michael Spicer: If, as part of reform of the common agricultural policy, the Government return to some efficiency payment system, will they ensure that they do so on a national basis so that we support British farmers and not farmers in foreign countries?
  Dr. Cunningham: If the hon. Gentleman is really asking whether we will oppose proposals that may take financial support from British farmers and reallocate them to the benefit of farmers in other European member states, the answer is yes, we oppose any such proposal.

  Cattle Traceability Scheme
  Mr. Don Touhig: If he will make a statement on progress of the cattle traceability scheme. [42723]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We are making good progress in implementing the cattle tracing system, and we are on course to launch it and go live on Monday 28 September.
  Mr. Touhig: I thank my hon. Friend for that information; progress in setting up the British cattle movement service is most welcome. Will he assure the House that reports that the system will be so bureaucratic as to require farmers to register the twice-daily movement of cows to the milking parlour are completely false?
  Mr. Rooker: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes. Reports in one of the Sunday newspapers last week were wholly inaccurate; farmers will not be required to record those daily movements. The cattle movement service is, I admit, a complex operation, but we are very confident that we will be able to make it work and track the estimated 20 million cattle movements a year. That figure compares to, say, the 16 million Visa cards in this country. We shall also issue 3 million cattle passports every year, which is double the number of new pension and child benefit books issued by the Department of Social Security.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Notwithstanding the Minister's statement in the House on 21 May, livestock producers in the west country are still unclear—as are we all—about what will happen to the over-30-months scheme once there is a date-based scheme. Surely the Minister of State understands that beef finishers need to know now whether they will be able to market animals in February next year which are reaching 30 months of age. They are already having to plan their food regimes for the summer and the autumn. Given the continued failure of the Minister to visit the west country to answer questions personally, will the Minister of State take this opportunity to answer them clearly and without equivocation?
  Mr. Rooker: I will do my best, although the hon. Gentleman's questions do not relate to the question on the Order Paper. The cattle-tracing system that will go live in September is not connected to the date-based scheme; the two are quite separate and must not be linked—otherwise, success of the date-based scheme will be more difficult to achieve. We have said repeatedly in the House that, for the foreseeable future, the over-30-months scheme will remain in operation. It will definitely remain in operation as long as the advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee is such that it is required to be in operation.

  Beef Cull
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: If he will make a statement on the progress of the selective beef cull. [42725]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The selective cull is progressing very well. We have now slaughtered over 71,000 animals in the United Kingdom. The cull of animals in Northern Ireland is already complete.
  Mrs. Mahon: That progress is good news, but does my hon. Friend agree that nothing better illustrates the 18 years of Tory misrule than the BSE scandal, and that, although the Tories have now walked away from it, the rest of the country will pay a heavy price for it in future?
  Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. The cost to the taxpayer of the selective cull—that is, of the 71,000 animals slaughtered so far—is more than £100 million. We have also slaughtered 2.25 million cattle under the over-30-months scheme, and 1.25 million calves under the calf processing aid scheme, otherwise known as the Herod scheme—all healthy animals—in addition to the 172,000 cattle identified as having BSE. It is a financial disaster.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Given the serious and sad nature of the scheme, does the Minister agree that it has been effectively carried out? Will he pay tribute to the work that is being done under the scheme, and will he also send a message of good will to the world congress of the Sussex Cattle Society, which opens next week at the Ardingly showground? Does he agree that Sussex cattle, like all the other native breeds, have a heroic place in British agriculture?
  Mr. Rooker: Yes, I am happy to do that. I am also happy to pay tribute to the work involved in the selective cull. It is extremely difficult and complex, as some Opposition Members will appreciate, simply because we are dealing with animals which, by definition, are several years old and will never enter the food chain—any of those that are not found, that is. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, farm records were not as good as they are now, but we estimate that we are on course for finishing the selective cull this autumn.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Minister tell the House when he expects the National Audit Office report of its investigation into the costs of the cull to be published? Did he hear, on the "Today" programme just before the Whit recess, the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), admit that, without going out to tender, excess sums of public money had been spent on the cull, and that the large rendering companies and some large abattoirs had profited at the expense of farmers and small abattoirs? Can he confirm that that is the case, and can he tell us when the NAO report will be available?
  Mr. Rooker: Not only can I not confirm any of that, I cannot even comment on it. None of the papers that the NAO has looked at are available to my right hon. Friend or me; they date from the previous Administration. I do not know when the NAO will publish its report; that is not a matter on which it would consult the Government. However, we all await the report with great interest.
  Mr. William Thompson: I welcome the fact that the cull is now complete in Northern Ireland.

  491
  Will the Minister accept the thanks and appreciation of the farmers of Northern Ireland now that the beef ban has been lifted there? May I add that we also greatly appreciate the £2 million that has been given to help with marketing, to get the beef back into the foreign countries? Thank you very much.
  Mr. Rooker: I am happy to say, for once in a while, thank you for a thank you.

  Farmers (Paperwork)
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will introduce an audit of the volume of forms which need to be completed by farmers. [42727]
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We already have systems in place to keep the number of forms that farmers need to complete to the minimum consistent with our obligations to observe legislative requirements and to safeguard health and public funds.
  Mr. Fabricant: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I think farmers will find it rather complacent, especially as the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), admitted a week or two ago that farm incomes have fallen by 43 per cent. over the past year, and the increase in interest rates will mean a further drop in incomes as the green pound rises. What will the Minister actually do to reduce the burden of form filling by farmers who are already hard-pressed enough?
  Mr. Morley: I can tell the hon. Gentleman what we have actually done: we have introduced changes that have so far saved the equivalent of £5.4 million in the reduction in time spent filling in forms. A further £1.1 million in savings is to be found in the coming year, by rationalising forms, pre-printing names and addresses, introducing bar codes and trying to minimise the costs and the burdens for farmers.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Am I right in believing that most of the forms that farmers fill in were introduced by the previous Administration? Does my hon. Friend agree that no one in the farming community minds filling in forms if they are for a purpose, which surely must be to help the small and medium farmers to make a good living? The more encouragement they receive to specialise in niche markets such as organic farming, the better, as that is the way forward.
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right. It is also the case that most of the forms are related to European Union subsidy schemes.
  Mr. James Paice: Will the Minister now accept that farmers are not concerned only about more subsidy—or even any subsidy? More than anything else, they want to believe that they are being treated fairly in comparison with producers from all the other countries from which we import food. Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Ministry will set up a study to examine the application and enforcement of rules and regulations placed on British farmers and on
  492
  farmers in the countries from which we import food, so that British producers can be sure that the hygiene, animal welfare, pesticide and other regulations that affect them are being applied elsewhere, and the British consumer can know that, if she buys imported food, it is being reared or produced to the same standards as apply in Britain?
  Mr. Morley: It is important that European rules are applied equally and fairly across all member states. When the industry brings us complaints, we have on occasion asked it to provide information on what it regards as a deficiency in the uniformity of enforcement. The Government will not hesitate to take action in such matters. For example, under Britain's presidency, we have brought forward new measures in the Fisheries Council to improve cross-European enforcement to ensure that the same standards are applied in all member states and that there can be confidence in all countries.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What submissions did the Minister or his colleagues make on the new integrated administration and control system form and its ridiculous notion of having to remove outcrops from acreage, which is a rather time-consuming and stupid measure?
  Mr. Morley: We have considered the IACS form, which is an example in which there has been some simplification, both in pre-printing and in the fact that we are not asking farmers to resubmit full details if there has been no change in the acreage. We are always willing to consider representations on future improvements and the structure of forms—we shall obviously be pleased to look at any such representations from the hon. Gentleman or from farming organisations.

  Exchange Rate (Ancillary Services)
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: What assessment he has made of the impact of the level of the pound on the ancillary services in agriculture. [42728]
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We fully recognise and understand the concerns of those industries providing ancillary services in the agricultural sector about the recent level of the sterling exchange rate.
  Mrs. Spelman: The chamber of commerce in Hereford and Worcester estimates that for every job in agriculture there are 15 in ancillary industries, so does the Minister accept that today's announcement of an increase in interest rates is a bitter blow not only for agriculture but for the wide range of industries that serve it?
  Mr. Morley: There is no denying that an increase in interest rates is bad news for many sectors, particularly those involved in manufacturing and export. However, we should remember that an increase in inflation or a challenge to the strength and well-managed stewardship of the economy would be even worse news. The economy is being managed for the long term, not—as happened under the previous Administration—for the short term.
  Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the dramatic fall in sterling since the

  493
  successful launch of the euro—in stark contrast to the predictions of most Conservative Members—which has been welcomed across the whole of the agricultural industry? Does he agree that we can achieve a realistic and stable exchange rate only by being in the euro, which is why the National Farmers Union and now the Country Landowners Association support the Government's policy on the single currency?
  Mr. Morley: It is true that there has been a welcome decline in the pound in recent months. In relation to Opposition Members' criticism, membership of the euro is one of the ways to stop the swings in currency exchanges which damage many sectors of industry, including agriculture. Unlike the Conservative party, we judge membership of the euro by only one criterion—whether it is in the best interests of our country and not whether or not it should be ruled out for purely ideological reasons.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: When agriculture is doing well, the whole rural community is doing well—which is exactly the opposite of the present situation, as there has been a 43 per cent. drop in farming incomes. Is the Minister aware of the problems facing agricultural ancillary industries—the feed merchants, the markets, the machinery merchants and the haulage industry, to name a few? What does he propose to do about them?
  Mr. Morley: First, it should be remembered that two thirds of the rise in the level of the pound took place under the previous Government. Secondly, agriculture and ancillary industries have been hit—no one is denying that. However, it is worth pointing out that rural unemployment has fallen by 4 per cent. in the past year.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Does my hon. Friend recall that interest rates were nearly 15 per cent. under the Tories? Does he also recall that when he and I spoke from the Opposition Front Bench on agriculture in the early 1990s, we saw a steady stream of farmers complaining about very high interest rates under the Tories—rates which are double those of today?
  Mr. Morley: I do recall that, and I am confident that the management of the economy under the Government is in the best long-term interests of agriculture and industry in general.

  Beef on the Bone
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will review the ban on the sale of beef on the bone. [42729]
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): The Beef Bones Regulations 1997 are being kept under review, as is the case with all BSE-related control measures. Any future decision will be taken in the light of scientific developments and progress with the eradication of BSE.
  Mr. Robertson: Does the Minister not think it rather odd that in Northern Ireland beef can now be exported, but beef on the bone cannot be eaten?
  Dr. Cunningham: It is not odd at all because it cannot be exported on the bone.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Could there be a generous word to mine host at Carfraemill and the sheriff who so dramatically acquitted him?
  Dr. Cunningham: Since the case to which my hon. Friend refers is sub judice and the subject of an appeal, I shall not comment one way or the other.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: If, however, the law is found to be defective in Scotland, can the Minister guarantee that any English prosecutions will be withdrawn?
  Dr. Cunningham: No, because the law in Scotland does not affect the law in England, and this case has no relevance to England.

  Animal Feed (Antibiotics)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps he is taking to prevent the use of low-level antibiotics in animal feed as a prophylactic. [42730]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Low-level antibiotics are simply not authorised for prophylactic or preventive use in animal feeds. However, certain low-level antibiotics are authorised as growth promoters, but only under the terms of EC directive 70/524.
  Mr. Prentice: The Government moved swiftly last month on the Agriculture Committee's recommendations of 22 April. However, we are very close to witnessing some kind of biological Armageddon—and that is not overstating the issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] Well, perhaps it is overstating the issue. But, seriously, what can we do to persuade farmers to return to more traditional methods of animal husbandry? People are sick to death of all the food scares, of the fact that we seem to have been poisoned year after year and of the fact that farmers are congenitally incapable of producing food that is safe to eat.
  Mr. Rooker: For the record, the Government did not move quickly after receiving the Agriculture Committee's report. We are still considering our response. A week earlier, the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology reported on antibiotics for human beings and included a chapter on animals. That will also be carefully considered.
  We are taking a range of measures to encourage farmers to produce food without lots of chemicals. We have a rigorous surveillance programme for pesticide and veterinary medicine residues. We shall publish brand names when people exceed limits in future and we are giving more aid to organic farmers.
  Mr. David Maclean: Will the Minister accept from me, as someone who perhaps has a slightly longer memory of farming practices than the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), that there were no good old days of animal husbandry before some of today's wonderful medicines were developed? The matter of concern is not medicines, but how they are used. If today's agriculture did not have access to a range of antibiotics and other medicines developed by the Central Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge, the standard of animal welfare would not be the highest in the world, which it is. Will the Minister ensure that all farmers are given sufficient guidance to ensure that medicines are not inappropriately used and that there are no high residues in food to cause unnecessary concern?
  Mr. Rooker: I am happy to pay tribute to the work of the Central Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge, which is a world-class organisation. Last year, it examined 34,000 samples of residues in meat, fish and honey. Only 0.01 per cent. of samples proved to be over the limit, which is a tiny proportion. In future, we will even publish brand names. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right that there never was a golden age, and it is a mistake to assume that there was.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Minister will be aware of the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee's report on antibiotic resistance and of the alarming rise in methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus caused by it. The agriculture industry has rarely taken responsibility for that, but it is an urgent problem. Should not the Food Standards Agency, which is responsible to the Department of Health, investigate that problem in detail?
  Mr. Rooker: Yes, except that the Food Standards Agency will not be up and running until the second half of next year—and we are not waiting for that. The independent Veterinary Products Committee, which advises the Government, is to hold on 18 June a meeting on antibiotics in animal feedstuffs, and we await a report later this year from a sub-committee of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Tim Boswell: What steps he is taking to ensure that the revised common agricultural policy takes account of the opportunities for novel
  crops. [42731]
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): In recent Brussels discussions, the Government have argued that the common agricultural policy should take full account of the opportunities for novel crops, which we strongly support.
  Mr. Boswell: Will the Minister bear in mind the importance of ensuring that novel crops for foods and animal feeds are treated equally by CAP regimes and are not discriminated against if they have agronomic or technical advantages? Will he also bear in mind the importance of new developments in biomass production
  496
  and non-food crops, which can benefit farmers with difficult land and which may increase farm incomes and help to reduce global warming?
  Mr. Morley: I accept those points. The first biomass power station will open shortly and will encourage development of the crop involved. How the CAP treats crops is a serious point as, under the existing regime, there is a penalty for farmers who want to develop novel crops. We want that to be rectified.
  Ms Joan Walley: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to this week's report from the first citizens panel on food and biotechnology, which was horrified that new crops had been introduced without the Government doing anything to stop them? When considering CAP reform, will my hon. Friend put sustainability at the heart of agriculture policy, particularly for genetically modified food?
  Mr. Morley: Yes. Two issues are involved first, novel crops, such as biomass, which are generally welcomed, and, secondly, genetically modified organisms. It is important that any crop of that sort is exposed to the proper procedures. We are ensuring that that happens and that there is proper scientific evaluation of any such crop.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that the Central Science Laboratory has a role to play in developing novel crops? Will he make a statement on the laboratory's future and, in particular, where it will be located?
  Mr. Morley: That announcement has been made by my right hon. Friend the Minister.

  Bees
  Mr. Nigel Beard: What steps are being taken to prevent the spread of the Varroa Jacobsoni mite into British bee colonies. [42732]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): A statutory infected area was declared in 1992 to control the spread of varroosis. Movements in and out of the affected area are possible only under licence and imports of bees from third countries are restricted.
  Mr. Beard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he also recognise that the licensing of only one treatment for varroa—Bayverol—is likely to lead to immunity gathering in the mites that spread it? If that happens, the bee population of Britain could decline sharply, with serious repercussions for food growing and agriculture. Will he consider licensing at least two treatments so that they can be used alternately, therefore avoiding immunity gathering and reducing the threat of a serious plague in the bee population of the British isles?
  Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend refers to the bee population. I can inform the House that I had no idea about its size. Every hon. Member has beekeepers in their constituency, I think, to judge from the amount of representation that has been made on the matter. The population is actually 10 billion, and it produces some

  497
  4,000 tonnes of honey. My hon. Friend raises an important point. In many ways, we are governed by our membership of the European Union. Authorising veterinary products simply cannot be done on the nod by one state alone. I am well aware that some beekeepers use other preparations. By and large, as long as they do not end up as residues in the food, they are acceptable. Nevertheless, we are seeking information about some of them.
  Mr. James Gray: The Minister came close to admitting that the reason for one product being used is some Eurocrat's recent definition of bees as food-producing animals. Will he now admit that that is unfair European interference in the traditional British way of life and will he make representations to the European Union to turn round that definition and, by that means, allow British beekeepers to return to using tar and icing sugar, which are perfectly good ways to deal with Varroa Jacobsoni?
  Mr. Rooker: The Department spends a considerable amount of money to ensure that we have a viable United Kingdom honey programme.

  Cattle Traceability Scheme
  Mr. Ian Stewart: What steps he has taken to inform other EU Agriculture Ministers of progress on British cattle tracing systems. [42733]
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): I demonstrated the cattle tracing system to other EU Agriculture Ministers during the informal Agriculture Council in Newcastle upon Tyne on 11 May. I am glad to report to the House that they were impressed.
  Mr. Stewart: I note that the informal Council of Agriculture Ministers took place in Newcastle upon Tyne and believe that it has been reported as being highly successful. My right hon. Friend has to be congratulated on that. I am also aware that he dedicated a large part of that event to demonstrating the traceability of British cattle from birth to supermarket shelf. Does he agree that that shows that British beef is safe to export anywhere in the world?
  Dr. Cunningham: Yes, it does. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that, as I did again yesterday when addressing the Agriculture Committee of the European Parliament.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors have told EU Agriculture Ministers in the past what we were doing to eradicate BSE. Did he get assurances from his European Union colleagues that once the traceability system and the other measures that have been taken are working, they will immediately allow us to export British beef?
  Dr. Cunningham: I understand the hon. Gentleman's wish to be constructive, but the answer is no, because having the Workington centre operational is not a
  498
  condition for lifting the ban. We expect a proposal from the Commission before the operational date of 28 September.

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Ms Gisela Stuart: What safeguards are in place to ensure that consumers have adequate labelling and information on genetically modified foods. [42734]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): European Community regulations require all foods containing genetically modified materials to be clearly labelled. In addition, we have taken a number of initiatives to ensure that consumers have information about these types of food.
  Ms Stuart: I thank the Minister for that response. I understand that there are already several controls in place. Can he assure me that they are strictly monitored and updated in the light of new technology?
  Mr. Rooker: Yes. None of the crops involving genetic modification can be planted unless they are approved by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which reports to the Department of the Environment, not to the Ministry of Agriculture. On food production, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes has to examine and license every product that comes on to the market. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said earlier, we have taken steps with our European partners in the past few days to ensure that labelling will be more precise than ever contemplated by our predecessors.

  The Attorney-General was asked—

  Customs and Excise (Prosecutions)
  Mr. John Burnett: What guidelines he has given to HM Customs and Excise as to when they should seek his consent before initiating a prosecution. [42751]
  The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): The circumstances in which Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is required to seek my consent before initiating prosecutions are prescribed by the statutes that create the offences. I also exercise superintendence over prosecutions relating to defence exports and sanction breaches on a non-statutory basis. A paper outlining those arrangements was placed in the Library by my predecessor on 17 June 1996.
  Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to the Attorney-General. I understand that, in Scotland, Customs and Excise cases are run under the aegis of the Lord Advocate. Has the Attorney-General considered that such cases in England and Wales should be run under his aegis?
  The Attorney-General: As Attorney-General for England and Wales, my responsibility is confined to England and Wales. I have another responsibility as regards Northern Ireland. That is the extent of my responsibilities.
  Mr. David Lock: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain the circumstances in which his non-statutory supervision of Customs and Excise comes into effect and how it works in practice?
  The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Under the supervision arrangements, I am answerable to the House for action taken by Customs and Excise on individual prosecutions relating to defence exports and sanction infringements, other than those involving strict liability. Treasury Ministers continue to be answerable for general enforcement and prosecution policy, and remain responsible for investigation of such offences. Under the arrangements for consultation, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise will consult me in all prosecutions of defence export offences where intention is an ingredient of the offence and will keep me generally informed of activity in this area. I am also consulted by the commissioners on any proposals to change prosecuting policy. That may meet some of the fears of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett).
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Can the Attorney-General help me resolve a case involving two constituents of mine, whose son was tragically killed in a collision with a vehicle driven by a Customs and Excise driver who, I understand, was involved in a high-speed chase during an investigation? Because of complications under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, the fatal accident inquiry has been delayed and the case has not reached a conclusion. Can he use his good offices to expedite its conclusion?
  The Attorney-General: If the hon. Lady gives me the name and the details, I shall forward them to the appropriate agency.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service adopts common standards across England and Wales. [42753]
  The Attorney-General: The CPS issues guidance to staff to facilitate the consistent application of national standards on prosecution decisions, the consistent application of charging standards agreed with the police and agreed standards for victim and witness care.
  Mr. Sheerman: Why is it that in some parts of England and Wales prosecutions take place that criminalise children who have been caught soliciting, and children exploited in that way are given a criminal record, whereas in other parts of the country the CPS and the police do not take any action, but do what they should do and go for the evil people who manipulate those children?
  The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in home affairs generally and in this issue in particular, which he has raised in the House from time to time. I appreciate his continued concern.
  500
  I should explain that prostitution is not in itself a criminal offence; loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution is a criminal offence. The overriding principle in cases involving young people is that they should be protected from harm. In such cases, the public interest may require the prosecution of a young person who persistently and voluntarily returns to prostitution; but each case is considered on its merits. If there is any particular divergence apart from that, or if my hon. Friend draws my attention to a particular case, I shall refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  Mr. Edward Gamier: The Attorney-General will know that the Glidewell report on the CPS referred to the widespread, but inaccurate, perception throughout England and Wales that the CPS constantly downgrades criminal charges and it said that a further study is required, but the CPS has already had to cope with a year's uncertainty waiting for the report. What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman intend to do about that recommendation and how much would a further study cost?
  The Attorney-General: As the hon. and learned Gentleman, whom I welcome to the Opposition Front Bench in his new capacity, knows, the Government have accepted the broad thrust of Glidewell, which contains 75 recommendations in all. Unhappily, the CPS and Court Service statistics and, in some instances, the Home Office statistics, do not correlate, so further work is needed to get the basis of concern right. Sir Iain and his colleagues expressed concern and advocated further study.
  Sir Iain noted that there were variations in discontinuances as between different offences. The Government as a whole, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I must consider how we approach the matter. We have invited anyone concerned to make representations by 31 July and I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) to do so. We shall take all the representations into account when determining the best means of proceeding, because there is a great deal of concern about the matter.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell me whether, as part of the reorganisation following the Glidewell report, it will be possible for judges who are concerned about particular aspects of cases that come before them automatically to have the right to report that information, over the head of the CPS, to Ministers?
  The Attorney-General: The appointment of judges is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to his attention. Judges have always been forthright in bringing into the public domain their criticism and concern about cases, from the highest to the lowest.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: What percentage of cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service by the police resulted in (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions in the last year. [42754]
  The Attorney-General: During the year ending March 1998, the Crown Prosecution Service dealt with cases in respect of 1,354,208 defendants in the magistrates courts. It proceeded with 1,097,147 of those cases, amounting to 81 per cent. of the total. Convictions for the same period totalled 953,753 defendants, representing 98.1 per cent. of all cases proceeding to a hearing.
  In the Crown court, proceedings were completed in respect of 105,083 defendants, of which 95,721 were proceeded with. That amounts to 91.1 per cent. of the total cases. In the Crown court, 87,273 convictions were recorded, representing 90.6 per cent. of all cases proceeding to a hearing.
  Mr. Fabricant: I thank the Attorney-General for that detailed reply. Does he accept that there is concern among beat officers in the Staffordshire police and, I know, in other forces throughout the country that those high conviction rates—98.1 per cent. and 91.1 per cent., representing an average of over 90 per cent.—could be leading the Crown Prosecution Service to continue with prosecution only if it thinks that there is a high possibility of conviction? Is he aware that many beat officers who suffer assaults, albeit minor ones, feel that their cases are not proceeding to court simply because the CPS wants to maintain a high conviction average, rather than ensure that justice is done? Will the Glidewell report improve the situation for those police officers?
  The Attorney-General: There is concern and, over the years, my postbag has, like the hon. Gentleman's, contained correspondence about the concerns of victims, families and the police. I have given the House general figures, which include the high number of uncontested cases. For contested cases, in the year ending March 1998, convictions were recorded in 74.5 per cent. of contested hearings in magistrates courts and 59.8 per cent. of contested hearings in the Crown court. The hon. Gentleman may want to reflect on that, because those are the figures with which we should be particularly concerned.
  Mr. David Kidney: It was not clear whether the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) was referring directly to discontinuances; perhaps I might ask my right hon. and learned Friend about what the Glidewell report says about discontinuances. Is he alarmed that in the past separate statistics for discontinuances have not been kept and that there has been no significant analysis
  502
  of regional variations in discontinuation rates? Should not the public be reassured that cases that should be prosecuted are prosecuted and that those that should not are never even started?
  The Attorney-General: Sir Iain Glidewell and his team were very disappointed that they were not able to reach conclusions about that because of the problem of the variety of statistics, to which I referred earlier. Obviously, my hon. Friend will examine the details in the report, as will the House. On discontinuances, the report noted that there was a variation between offences. For some offences involving violence against the person, there was a higher rate of discontinuance than for offences such as motoring offences. That variation caused concern, and the team reflected on the matter and suggested that there should be a further study, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) mentioned, and that in cases of doubt and difficulty a second opinion should be obtained within the prosecuting authority.
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: Does the Attorney-General agree that the percentage of convictions in contested cases in the Crown court could and should be improved by simple measures? First, there should be higher salaries for CPS lawyers. Secondly, and most important, there should be less form filling and paperwork for those involved in the service. Thirdly, wherever possible, the CPS headquarters should be near the courts where the service operates.
  The Attorney-General: I know of the hon. Gentleman's experience, both judicially and in practice. What will help is a better interface between the CPS and the police, and Sir Iain makes detailed suggestions about the best way to integrate the two. The Home Secretary and I must study them carefully. The views of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the police will be very important in that respect. They have said that they welcome the move to the 42 areas, in which there will be a chief Crown prosecutor who will be akin to the chief constable. I very much appreciate their reaction.
  On form filling, Sir Iain found that there was over-centralisation, undue bureaucracy and insufficient autonomy to the chief Crown prosecutors. I hope that, with the appointment of a chief Crown prosecutor in each area, and with real devolution and a slimming down of headquarters, we can achieve what the hon. Gentleman and I agree is necessary.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Sir George Young: May I ask the right hon. Lady to give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 8 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 9 JUNE—For three hours, conclusion of remaining stages of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords].
Consideration of supplemental allocation of time motion relating to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
Consideration of a Lords amendment to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10 JUNE—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill.
THURSDAY 11 JUNE—Debate on the prospects for the Cardiff European Council on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 12 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.
MONDAY 15 JUNE—Consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords] (second allotted day).
TUESDAY 16 JUNE—Consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords](third allotted day).
WEDNESDAY 17 JUNE—Until 12.30 pm, debate on the fourth report of the Social Security Committee, on disability living allowance, followed by a debate on the first report of the Defence Committee, on peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They will be followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day (13th allotted day)—a day for the official Opposition. The Opposition motion subject will be announced in due course.
THURSDAY 18 JUNE—Opposition day (14th allotted day).
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion in the name of the minority parties. Subject to be announced next week.
FRIDAY 19 JUNE—Debate entitled "Enterprising UK—The Small Business Agenda" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Sir George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the information for next week, and for the indication of business the week after. We very much welcome the debate next Thursday on the prospects for the Cardiff European Council, but that leaves outstanding a more general debate on foreign affairs, for which my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), had been pressing for some time. When might we expect that?
504
We are anxious to have a debate on the national health service, whose 50th anniversary is within the next few weeks. Perhaps the Leader of the House can arrange a debate to coincide with that very important anniversary. There is still no sign of the promised debate on freedom of information. Perhaps we might have some idea of when we shall have that.
The Leader of the House must be aware of mounting interest in the outcome of the Chancellor's comprehensive expenditure review. Can she give us an idea of when we might expect its announcement, and an assurance that it will not be made in the days immediately before the summer recess? As that review is likely to set the financial parameters for the rest of this Parliament, it is clearly a most important statement and document. I am sure that the House expects to debate it in Government time before we rise for the summer recess. The need for a general economic debate is underlined by today's sixth rise in interest rates.
The right hon. Lady will be aware that it is customary to have three successive debates on the armed services. We had the Royal Air Force debate more than a month ago on 23 April, but debates on the other two services appear to have been grounded. Can the right hon. Lady assure the House that we shall debate the Army and the Navy before we rise for the summer recess? On defence-related matters, in his statement on the Madrid summit on 9 July last year, the Prime Minister promised a debate on NATO enlargement. Other countries are in the process of ratifying that document, but, almost a year later, we still have not debated that very important subject. When might we expect that debate?
I return to an issue raised by my predecessor in response to the first special report of the Foreign Affairs Committee and its request seeking the views of the House. I have seen the exchange of correspondence, but I suggest that the right hon. Lady has not addressed that crucial question or recognised the fact that it was a special report. Does the right hon. Lady propose to provide time for the House to give the Committee the guidance that it has specifically requested?
Finally, I have seen reports that, because of problems with the legislative programme that predate the welcome progress in Northern Ireland, the House may have to sit on Saturdays. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that she has no plans for the House to do that?
Mrs. Taylor: First, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position. We are pleased to see that his deputy, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), remains in his place. I hope that the combination of a new approach and continuity will work well. I am sure that it will.
I shall deal quickly with the right hon. Gentleman's questions, some of which have been raised before. We shall have a debate on Cardiff next week. I told the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and the House that we would like to find time for a more general debate on foreign affairs, but it is never possible to have all the debates that we would wish in any Session of Parliament. As to the right hon. Gentleman's comments about a debate on the national health service, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) suggested some weeks ago that we should have such a debate around the time of the 50th anniversary. I said then that I was sympathetic to

505
the request, although I could give no guarantees in view of the other requests that have been made and the difficulties we have satisfying them all.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about freedom of information. That legislation will be published first in draft form, and the relevant Select Committee will consider it at that stage. That is one of the procedures recommended by the Modernisation Committee, and I hope that several Bills can be treated in that way.
There will clearly be much interest in the spending review, both inside and outside the House. There will be a statement about that in the House in due course, but I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman when that will be—it will depend on when it is appropriate to debate the statement and other economic matters.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Royal Air Force debate and asked when we shall have the Army and Navy debates. I must admit that I did not notice much enthusiasm from some Opposition Members for that RAF debate. When I announced the debate, I was told by a senior Opposition Member—who is not a million miles away—that he did not demand such a debate. The right hon. Gentleman now asks for the other two service debates, and I shall bear his request in mind. However, as he has said, other matters also require debate and it is never possible to meet all requests.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned NATO enlargement. I have told the House that we shall seek to provide time for a debate on enlargement before ratification, and I hope that that debate can take place before the summer recess. I think that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Foreign Affairs Committee, and indeed that report, have been overtaken by events and by correspondence and discussions between the Foreign Secretary and the Committee.
With regard to sitting on Saturdays, we are certainly not considering that for the normal business of the House.
Mr. Harry Barnes: There is a drift mine at Moorside at Eckington in my constituency, which is the last pit in Derbyshire. Two men were killed this morning when a roof fell in at a heading—Mr. Hill, the assistant manager, and Mr. Martin. A third man escaped but is naturally somewhat traumatised by the experience. I am sure that the House will want to join me in sending sympathy to the families of the men who were killed and to the work force there, which consists of 20 people and is rather like a small family. To be in order, may I ask for a debate on safety in small mines?
Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the whole House will wish to associate itself with my hon. Friend's expression of sympathy to the families of the deceased. It is right that we should all associate ourselves with those remarks. It was a very bad accident and investigations are being carried out by the Health and Safety Executive's mines inspectorate. I understand that there have been no previous fatal accidents at the pit, but that does not ease the situation today. The most appropriate course for my hon. Friend might be to apply for an Adjournment debate on the matter that he raises.
Mr. Paul Tyler: We associate ourselves with the welcome to the new shadow Leader of the House, but we dissociate ourselves from his apparent
506
distaste for Saturday sittings, in one particular. There is widespread support in the House, as I hope the Leader of the House will accept, for the early ratification of the Ottawa convention on land mines, as is evident from the large number of signatures from all parts of the House on early-day motion 1387.
[That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government as one of the first signatories of the Ottawa Convention on 3rd December 1997; supports the commitment of the Government to encourage other states to sign and ratify the Convention at the earliest opportunity; applauds the efforts of the Inter- Parliamentary Union to encourage through parliamentary action the early entry into force of the Convention; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to fulfil the stated aim to be one of the first 40 states to ratify the Convention and to make early arrangements for the introduction of the necessary legislation in this House to enable ratification to take place as soon as possible.]
I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that that is urgent and should be in place before the anniversary of the death of Princess Diana. That could be a special case, and if there is difficulty in finding time, many hon. Members would agree that that is a worthy cause.
I do not know whether your morning, Madam Speaker, was brightened by the absence of the "Today" programme and in its place, soothing music. In my case, it was particularly improved by the fact that we did not have a succession of Ministers making statements to the wider world that they were not prepared to make to the House. Why have we had no statement on the group considering pension provision—an extremely important report? The Secretary of State for Social Security said that the statement issued today was clear and authoritative. It suggests that at least six in 10 of those going into retirement will find themselves in poverty under present provision. If that is not important to our fellow citizens, nothing is. Why was there no statement in the House this afternoon? Mr. John Humphrys may not be on duty, but we are.
Mrs. Taylor: From the reaction of some Opposition Members, I do not think that there is unanimity about sitting on Saturday for the purpose that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The Government are keen to make progress on the land mines issue. We signed the Ottawa convention in December. We have made it clear that we intend to ratify it as soon as parliamentary time allows for the passage of the necessary legislation.
The hon. Gentleman is a regular attender at these sessions and he will have heard me say that on several occasions. It is not just a question of hon. Members' views and it is not quite as simple as sitting on a Saturday. There are other responsibilities and there is other business before this House and before the House of Lords.
With reference to a statement on the pensions report, that report is one part of the information that will serve as background for the Green Paper on pensions that will be published later in the year. I see no reason for a statement every time another piece of information is published.
Mr. Chris Mullin: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that, despite recent improvements, the scrutiny that the House affords the security services

507
has been grossly inadequate? Are there any plans for the House to hold an annual debate on the security services, in the same way as we have annual debates on the armed forces?
Mrs. Taylor: As my hon. Friend knows, I am sympathetic to the idea of debates on the intelligence services. Perhaps we could have regular debates on the subject, although I cannot guarantee that they would be annual. The Intelligence and Security Committee, which, I think, knew that such debates were being suggested, has said that it is not opposed to a debate on its next report. As that report will not be available until the end of July, it may not be possible to have a debate until the spillover period, but I am certainly sympathetic to the idea of regular debates on such topics.
Mr. Peter Brooke: I had understood that yesterday was the second day of Committee proceedings on the Human Rights Bill. A further second day on 15 June will be an interesting procedural development.
May I raise a more important issue? When the Deputy Prime Minister made his statement about London Underground some months ago, he was good enough to say that he understood why hon. Members would want to debate the detail of developments. Can the Leader of the House tell us when we might have such a debate?
Mrs. Taylor: I am always open to new ideas and new procedural developments.
I know that there is considerable interest in the proceedings that will take place in London Underground, the agreements that have been reached and the suggestions that have been made, but there is a long list of topics that hon. Members wish to discuss. It is not possible to do everything: we still have a great deal of legislation to get through.
It is always possible for hon. Members to apply for Adjournment debates lasting for an hour and a half, as well as half-hour debates. Many of those debates have provided hon. Members with useful opportunities to raise issues of that kind.
Mr. David Winnick: Today is the 50th anniversary of the occasion when the Conservative party voted against bringing the national health service into existence—but let me turn to a different subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, go on."] I shall come back to that subject in due course.
Would it not be appropriate to debate the fact that a good part of the earnings of the highest-paid barristers in the country—some earn well over £1 million a year—comes from legal aid fees? At a time when legal aid has been severely restricted for so many of our fellow citizens, is it not shameful, indeed scandalous, that people earning well over £1 million a year should draw some of those earnings from public funds? The sooner that scandal is ended, the better.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has made his point about the fact that the Conservatives voted against the NHS. If it were possible to have a debate on the subject, he could make it again.
508
As for legal aid earnings, my hon. Friend may know that the House of Lords is to hold a judicial hearing to consider the fees that QCs are charging in a number of instances. The Lord Chancellor's Department has been asked to make representations at that hearing, and will be doing so. At this stage, the matter is judicial, and I do not think that it would be appropriate to comment further now; nor do I see any prospect of an early debate.
Mr. Edward Leigh: The right hon. Lady announced that there would be a debate on the Social Security Committee's report on disability. Will she confirm that, when the Minister concerned replies to that debate, he or she will apologise to the Government for the crass way in which the benefit integrity project was introduced by the Government, which has caused enormous distress to disabled people? In particular, will the Minister apologise for the fact that there was apparently such a lack of control in the Department that the responsible Minister only heard about the project a month after it was introduced, by way of a telephone call
at Preston railway station?
Mrs. Taylor: I am always amazed at the selective amnesia suffered by Conservative Members in regard to their own record. It really is a cheek for them to suggest that this issue should be discussed, in view of what happened previously.
One of my right hon. Friends will reply to the debate, and I am sure that that reply will be excellent.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I once said:
"If I have nightmares, they are about a Pakistani bomb … It is for that reason that I go on and on, at Prime Minister's Question Time, about the Khan incident, the Urenco incident at Almelo."—[Official Report, 24 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 726.]
Briefly, its relevance is this. The leader of the Pakistani team was then a research student at the university of Brussels who systematically stole much vital sensitive information from the Urenco project. At the time, all sorts of undertakings were given, outlined after endless written questions from me and others, about the security of nuclear secrets. Is there not a case for having a serious debate next week or some time, at any rate, before the recess, on the follow-up to Monday's statement? Few subjects are more immediate and more potentially catastrophic than the nuclear difficulties between India and Pakistan, and we have some role in the matter.
Mrs. Taylor: Not for the first time, my hon. Friend refers to warnings that he has given about potential catastrophes and dangers that lie ahead, and not for the first time he has been able to show that his warnings were relevant. He is aware of the statement on Monday and of the concern on both sides of the House about developments in Pakistan and India in respect of nuclear weapons. We have to watch the situation very carefully. There is serious concern, but, even with that serious concern, I do not think that it is possible to have an early debate on the matter.
Mr. William Ross: The Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill raises some fundamental questions with regard to crime and punishment and law and order. We are having the Second Reading debate next week, but, as yet, no provision seems to have been made

509
for the rest of the Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House, which we on Ulster Unionist Benches believe is the proper place for the Committee proceedings to take place, so that everyone may be properly informed as to what is going on in that regard. May we have that assurance and be given dates as to when the Bill will come back to Committee on the Floor of the House, rather than being kicked upstairs to a Committee Room and no one knowing what is going on?
May we also be told when the Second Reading debate on the Northern Ireland constitution Bill will take place? It seems monstrous that we should now be engaged in an election campaign for the Northern Ireland assembly, yet we do not know all that that assembly will be able to do, or the rules under which it will operate.
Mrs. Taylor: I have announced Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill and nothing further. The business that I have announced for the second week is, of course, provisional. I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that I do think it appropriate that the Committee stage should take place on the Floor of the House. We shall have discussions through the usual channels about arrangements for the handling of that Bill.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the Northern Ireland constitution Bill would have its Second Reading debate. He will understand that drawing up that technical legislation is complex and that it is important that we get it right. At this stage, I cannot give him a date for the introduction of that Bill.
Ms Sally Keeble: Will my right hon. Friend find time for either a statement or a debate about the recent flooding in our constituencies? There are still many problems in regard to benefits, insurance and flood warnings and defences. It has not been possible to raise them properly so far, and they affect more people than could normally be dealt with during an Adjournment debate.
We received the interim report from the independent inquiry just this week, but I think that the final report will come out only in the recess. It is extremely important for those of us who had the worst floods for more than 50 years that we have an opportunity to discuss the wide range of issues on the Floor of the House.
Mrs. Taylor: I can well understand why my hon. Friend is concerned about the impact of that flooding on her constituents. As she says, the preliminary independent report has been published. It identifies some lessons that should be learned from that exceptional event. Ministers are considering follow-up action with the Environment Agency for England and Wales. As she says, the review team will produce its final report later in the year, although we do not yet know exactly when.
My hon. Friend says that it might not be possible to deal with all the concerns in a half-hour Adjournment debate because of the seriousness of the matter and because so many hon. Members are interested. It might be possible for her and her colleagues to apply for one of the one-and-a-half-hour debates. That might be the best way in which to proceed.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Health
510
to make a statement about the projected reorganisation of health authorities in England? May I also draw to her attention the grave concern building up in Greater Manchester, particularly in Stockport, where an effective health authority coterminous with the council feels itself to be under threat and morale is dropping rapidly?
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot see prospects of an early debate, and am not aware of the specific details in Greater Manchester. However, I shall of course ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's worries about the prospects there.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Will the Leader of the House ask one of the Education Ministers to come to the House to clarify the position of grant-maintained schools? The Labour party has always been a strong opponent of grant-maintained schools, saying that it would return them to council control. However, in a parliamentary answer to me, the Government now deny that that will happen. In the press this week, the Government said that schools would be given more of their own funds to control. Will Ministers explain the exact position, so that schools, parents and the House might be aware of it?
Mrs. Taylor: Education and Employment questions will be next Thursday. The proposals are not about allowing schools to opt out of the local education authority sector but about giving schools maximum scope for self-management within that sector. We have consistently said that we see a vital role for local education authorities, but that they should do their job and, as far as possible, allow schools to get on with theirs. Consultation on the matter is under way and will end on 31 July. However, the proposals have been misrepresented by the hon. Gentleman—not least because he has, presumably, been reading press reports. I repeat that the proposals are not about allowing schools to opt out of LEAs.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Leader of the House find time in the near future for a debate on corruption in local government? Although we have recently heard a great deal about Scotland, I should like to home in rather closer to home—on serious allegations of local government corruption in Kettering, near my constituency. To assist that debate, will she make available not only internal Labour party documents on Scotland—which have been kept secret—but the internal national executive committee inquiry into corruption in Kettering? Before she answers, I hope that—knowing her to be an intelligent lady—she will not start nattering about Westminster, like some Blairite parrot. We are talking about current corruption, not corruption that occurred long before many of us were elected to the House.
Mrs. Taylor: I am amazed at the cheek of Conservative Members on such issues. Whenever there has been any suggestion of malpractice, the Labour party has acted swiftly and openly—very differently from the way in which the Conservative party has acted. The Conservative party has, of course, not yet even apologised for Westminster.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): Is not a debate overdue on the first early-day motion of this Parliament, early-day motion 1?
[That this House celebrates with joy and hope the election of what will be a great reforming Labour Government; applauds its manifesto declaration that 'all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation'; asserts that this can be achieved for the present generation of pensioners only by restoring the link between basic pensions and average earning; urges an immediate start to the promised manifesto review of 'all aspects of the basic pension and its value, second pensions including SERPS and community care' and a renewal of the commitment to retain SERPS.]
Should not that debate be combined with a discussion of the splendid Ross report—published today—which clearly identifies the 1980 breaking of the link between pensions and earnings as the main cause of pensioner poverty, and states that all basic pensioners are now losing £25 per week because that link was broken? Is it not true that the manifesto on which all Labour Members stood in the general election promised pensioners that Labour would ensure that they shared fairly in the United Kingdom's growing prosperity? Is it not true that, according to Ross and many others, the best way of informing the Government's review of the pensions industry is to ensure that justice is done to pensioners in the fairest and most efficient way—by restoring the link?
Mrs. Taylor: I said earlier that the report was a clear and authoritative statement which will provide an important background for the Government's Green Paper on pensions, to be published later this year. That and other information will be taken into account.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Given the enthusiasm in the House and, more importantly, in the country for progress on my namesake's Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill and the Government's understandable reluctance to give additional time from their important legislative programme, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be appropriate, as she does not need Saturdays for Government business, to allow voluntary overtime so that progress can be made on the Saturdays that have been pencilled in?
Mrs. Taylor: I have said several times that the responsibility for delaying the Bill rests with the Conservative Members who have tried to frustrate the will of the House. However, my hon. Friend's proposal is not the answer.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early statement on the Government's review of the roads programme? She will be aware that the statement was originally scheduled for spring 1998, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), told me in a written answer on 29 July last year. This is a serious matter. I recognise that a great deal of work has to go into the review, but for my constituents, particularly the long-suffering people of the village of Aston Clinton, who have long championed the cause of a bypass, an early
512
statement would be welcome. This is not a matter of party politics. People of all political affiliations and of none would welcome an early decision and statement.
Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that a great deal of work has to go into such a complex review. The work is well advanced and I do not think that we shall have to wait too long for further information.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Leader of the House will be aware of the thanksgiving service in Lichfield cathedral on Sunday for 50 years of the national health service. May we have a debate on the crisis in the NHS—not only the increasing waiting lists, of which she is only too well aware, but the growing and worrying habit of the positioning of Labour placemen and women in key posts in NHS trusts? Perhaps she will address the House in particular to the problem of Premier Health NHS trust in Lichfield. The tenure of the chairman of the trust was not renewed. She was replaced by a member of the Labour party who has a full-time job, is unable to meet the chief executive of the trust during normal working hours and is available only on Saturdays, some Sundays and occasional evenings.
Mrs. Taylor: I have already commented on the appropriateness of having a 50th anniversary debate, if possible. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that if the Conservatives were still in power, funding for the national health service would be lower and waiting lists longer. He and his colleagues have quite a nerve complaining about nominees to NHS trusts from this Government.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Lady agree that ministerial responsibility is a concept to be prized in the British constitution? Will she call for an early debate on it? Does she agree that it is very important that Ministers extend the courtesy of replying individually to hon. Members' mail rather than having officials sign the mail out, so that we can be convinced that Ministers have at least read our letters? It does not seem an intolerable burden for a Minister to be expected to sign approximately 25 letters a day—I gather that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has up to 6,000 a year.
Mrs. Taylor: On occasion, the number of letters involved is even greater.
Madam Speaker: It can be 500 a day.
Mrs. Taylor: As you remind us, Madam Speaker, the number is sometimes as much as 500 a day, which is indeed very significant. The issue of Ministers signing letters and the speed of response has been raised before. I have recently described the action that has been taken to try to ensure that the situation is as good as possible. Of course, there will always be some occasions on which Ministers cannot sign letters for reasons of urgency.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Leader of the House know when World Environment day is? Why are we not having a debate on the environment either on that day or within a reasonable period of it? Has the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions told her what it is doing to mark that day, as it

513
is being marked in more than 100 countries? When my office telephoned the Department last week, people there could not tell us.
Mrs. Taylor: Such announcements are made at the discretion of the Department; they will be made when the Department feels it appropriate to do so.
Mr. Edward Garnier: The right hon. Lady may well be a victim of one of the huge piles of correspondence to which you, Madam Speaker, have just referred. In business questions about 10 weeks ago, I asked the right hon. Lady a question, and she said that she would reply to me by letter. I had to ask her again shortly before the Whitsun recess. I am a very patient and good-natured fellow, but I am still waiting for a reply. I hope that it is not too difficult a question to ask her again.
Mrs. Taylor: The specific topic that the hon. and learned Gentleman raises is part of the subject of legislation going through the House. It will be dealt with when we reach the appropriate stage. I am not responsible for such detail in legislation. Until the matter is finally resolved, I cannot give him all the detailed information that he requires.
Mr. Eric Forth: Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), may we have an urgent debate on the relationship between the House and the Government, specifically the responsibilities of Ministers to give replies to Members of Parliament, and through them, to the public? Surely it cannot be the case that a Minister would allow, as the Leader of the House implied a moment ago—inadvertently, I trust—letters to leave his or her Department unsigned, except in exceptional circumstances. Nor can a very large quantity of letters going out in a Minister's name—committing the Minister and the Government collectively to the reply—be an excuse or an alibi. Can the matter be clarified, please, and in a proper debate? It is an emerging scandal.
Mrs. Taylor: This is not a new issue. When the Conservative party was in government, it was certainly not unusual to receive replies from Ministers signed by someone in the Minister's Department. It was usually said that the Minister had approved the letter. Ministers approve and take responsibility for all letters that go out in their names.
Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You said a few moments ago, in a sedentary intervention—[Laughter.] I make no criticism of you for doing so. You
514
have said that you conducted some research into the matter that we have just been discussing. You obviously take it very seriously, as we all do. Powers of Members of Parliament are somewhat limited, but we have always been able to ensure that, if our constituents have a grievance, at least they know that a letter about it has landed on a Minister's desk. That is a terribly important part of our constitution and the way in which we conduct politics. As well as doing some research, could you put gentle pressure on the Government, as only you can, to ensure that we maintain the fine and important tradition of Ministers replying to Members of Parliament?
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you also be kind enough to look carefully at the relationship between Members of Parliament and several Government agencies? One of the hazards is not that Ministers are not answering letters, but the increasing incidence of letters from hon. Members being diverted to civil service agencies—created by the previous Government—which have astonishing and nebulous lines of accountability. Frankly, such agencies are not fulfilling their tasks properly.
Madam Speaker: Let me say at the outset that those are not matters for me; they are matters for Government Departments. None the less, I understand the situation and I want to be helpful not only to Back Benchers but to Ministers. I have carried out some research on the matter, and I gave the House a figure today—something like 500 letters per week, I think. That is an inordinate number of letters, which I know that one particular Department has to send. It is not a matter for me, but I am trying to resolve it, and hon. Members will have to be good tempered and have some patience until the Department concerned can find a method of working the problem out to satisfy Back Benchers. I understand that they want to send their constituents letters signed by a Minister, but it is not the Minister who does the work for the Back Benchers; having had guidance from the Minister, they must do a lot of work themselves, too.

BILL PRESENTED
  NORTHERN IRELAND (SENTENCES)
  Secretary Marjorie Mowlam, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Dewar and Mr. Adam Ingram, presented a Bill to make provision about the release on licence of certain persons serving sentences of imprisonment in Northern Ireland: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 196].
Orders of the Day

  Registration of Political Parties Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.10 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is designed to improve the fairness of our democratic process. Before I deal with the detail, as this is the first occasion on which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) will respond to a debate in his new place on the Opposition Front Bench, I congratulate him on his further elevation to the esteemed position of shadow Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman and I have debated issues several times, although perhaps less often than one might have thought, given the time that we have both spent in the House. I look forward to the future, in which we shall have that opportunity in greater measure.
  The Bill will help to prevent the use of misleading candidates' descriptions on ballot papers at elections, thus helping to protect the identity of political parties and, therefore, the integrity of the political process. In addition, the Bill will allow, for the first time, a registered party's emblem to be printed on the ballot paper as a way of helping to distinguish as clearly as possible between candidates from different parties.
  The Bill introduces no criminal sanctions against non-registration. It does not make the registration of political parties compulsory, but it creates strong incentives for them to register. Any serious party that intends to put forward candidates at an election would be well advised to register so as to be allowed to do the following four things, which otherwise would not be permitted under the Bill.
  First, a party will be able to protect its name from misuse by others. Secondly, it will be able to put forward lists of candidates for the additional member system for election to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly, and, within Great Britain but not in Northern Ireland, for the regional list system of election to the European Parliament. We have had many fascinating debates on that system, and I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has missed them.
  In view of the Conservative party's new-found attachment to the algebra and algorithms of electoral processes, I shall send him a full briefing from the Home Office on the difference between the D'Hondt divisors, Sainte-Lague pure and Sainte-Lague modified. He may then wish that he had taken on a different job.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I bet you do.
  Mr. Straw: No, not at all.
  The third incentive for parties to register is an important new one—so that a party's emblem can be printed alongside a candidate's name on the ballot paper. I find it relatively easy to vote for the appropriate Labour candidate in parliamentary elections, because, for the last five elections, that has been me, so I have no difficulty spotting the name. However, when faced with a long list
  516
  in the three-member local government ward in which I live, I have wished for emblems so that I could immediately spot the names of the excellent Labour candidates alongside them.
  Fourthly, the Bill will ensure that only those parties that are registered will be eligible, but not entitled, to be offered a party political broadcast—unregistered political parties will not be allowed that benefit.
  Any organisation, large or small, will be able to register. The way in which a party is organized—or, as I should say to the Conservative party, whether it is organized—how it selects its candidates and its aims and objectives will remain for each party to determine individually in accordance with its rules or constitution.
  The key condition for inclusion in the register is that a party intends to put forward one or more candidates at a relevant election. If hon. Members turn to clause 2(2)—as I am sure that they have in preparation for the debate—they will see set out the relevant elections for these purposes, which include parliamentary and local government elections, and elections to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the New Northern Ireland Assembly and the European Parliament.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: What will happen if a registered party does not put up candidates for an election?
  Mr. Straw: Nothing, except that the party will have wasted the registration fee, as no benefits from registration could apply unless the party has put forward candidates at an election. Parties may want to register and then not put forward candidates, but we shall certainly not make that a criminal offence—"tough on crime" does not include such behaviour.
  We need a register of parties to cope with lists of candidates representing the same party that will be put forward for the additional member seats in the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales and in the regional list seats in the European Parliament. As the House knows, those seats will be allocated on the basis of each party's share of the votes in the region. For the system to work fairly, there has to be a simple and effective arrangement to ensure that the voters and the returning officers are clear which list of candidates is being put forward by each party.
  Apart from the other mischief with which we want to deal, the Bill's main purpose is to cope with the additional member and regional list systems, whatever their merits—I accept that they are controversial—which require a register of political parties. The Bill spells out the details of the registration scheme required for the new electoral systems, as requested by Opposition Members during the debates on the Scotland, Government of Wales and European Parliamentary Election Bills.
  This Bill follows extensive consultation with Opposition parties, so I hope that, although there may be many points to be made in Committee, it will receive support from both sides of the House. I have raised the issues with spokespeople for the other political parties in the House—last summer, in the case of the main political parties. I wrote formally to the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Scottish National parties and Plaid Cymru on 18 February and again on 23 April, setting out the plans for registration and giving them an opportunity to

  517
  comment both orally and in writing. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has kept the Northern Ireland political parties informed of our proposals on registration.
  Mr. Robert Syms: Under the Bill, if one does not register, one does not qualify for a political broadcast. Does that mean that if Sinn Fein does not register as a British political party—giving its name also in English—it will not qualify for a political broadcast in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Straw: The final clause—clause 26—makes it clear that the Bill extends to Northern Ireland; it applies without exception to every political party putting forward candidates anywhere in the United Kingdom. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1, which deals with the names of parties, requires that, whenever a language other than English or Welsh is used, a party should give a translation of its name. There is not a requirement for the translation to be shown on the ballot paper. The registrar simply needs to know what the words mean. That will not apply to Sinn Fein—the phrase has been used in common parlance for as long as the party has been in existence. Everybody knows what it means.
  These days, we are a multicultural, multi-ethnic society. Many of my constituents have a first language that is not English, but Gujarati, Urdu or Punjabi. There are similar groups across the country. If they put forward a name, it is important that there is a translation attached in English so that the returning officer can make a judgment on whether the name is consistent with the criteria in the Bill.
  I want to make it clear that the requirements on the translation being given in English have nothing to do with Ireland, because all the names there are well known. They were much more concerned with languages used by minority groups in Great Britain. In some languages, the same word may have different meanings—that is also true in English—and it is important that we know which meaning is being used.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: My right hon. Friend mentioned that he had written to Plaid Cymru, which recently decided on a—quite accurate—translation of its name as "the party of Wales". Clause 3(1)(a) refers to a name
  "likely to result in the party's being confused by voters with a party which is already registered".
  The party of Wales is the Labour party. We have 34 of the 40 Members of Parliament, yet Plaid Cymru chooses—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. This is a very long intervention.
  Mr. Williams: I shall try to be brief. Is clause 3(1)(a) relevant to this misleading translation?
  Mr. Straw: Under paragraph 2(2) of schedule 1, there is no requirement for a translation when the name is in Welsh. We do not need to argue what Plaid Cymru means—it means what it says in Welsh. Those of us whose knowledge of Welsh extends to a few words, and who do not presume to get involved in Welsh politics, will not require a translation. Welsh is separately identified in the schedule because Welsh is a separate statutory language under the Welsh Language Act 1967.
  518
  There are other languages in common use in other parts of the UK, including Gaelic and a number of languages from south Asia. Some might say that more people use Urdu every day than use Welsh. I could not possibly offer a view, but that is not the point. The point is that Welsh is the only language with statutory status, apart from English.
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: Would the same rules apply to Mebyon Kernow in Cornwall?
  Mr. Straw: No. I respect the fact that there is a vibrant Cornish language, but Cornish is not statutorily provided for; Welsh is. If someone wishes to register a name in Cornish, he or she would need to provide the registrar with a translation of the name. The words used on the ballot paper will be the Cornish words, provided they are in Roman script. However, the registration officer might not be versed in Cornish—or Welsh, Scots Gaelic or Irish Gaelic—and will need a translation in English so that he can check the name against the others being used, and against the prohibitions in respect of obscenity, for example. A party supporting Cornish nationalism, or a Gaelic language party, can stand not only in Cornwall or Gaelic-speaking parts of Scotland. They can stand where they like in the United Kingdom. It does not automatically follow that if a Cornish nationalist wants to stand in, say, Scunthorpe, the registration officer will know Cornish all that well.
  Mr. Swayne: The Home Secretary has revealed a wide flaw in the Bill. There are bound to be differences of opinion over what constitutes a rightful name for a political party. The Bill has no provision for third party involvement in making representations or appeals against registration.
  Mr. Straw: The scheme is similar to that for the registration of company names, although it is not the same. It makes use of the registrar of companies, which has had decades of experience of dealing with similar names and people trying to pass off one name against another. The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) seems to have volunteered to serve on the Standing Committee, which will surely come as a great relief to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. There are many ways to pick through the Bill, saying, "What if this, or that." The ingenuity of people who are interested in British politics knows no bounds. However, I suspect that, in practice, the difficulties will not be as great as the hon. Gentleman expects.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Before the Home Secretary leaves that point—I am not quite sure what it was—will he touch on a matter of interest to Members on both sides, which is the number of candidates at the last election, and in recent years, who have been guilty of passing off? They have called themselves Conversatives or Literal Democrats in a deliberate attempt to mislead the electorate. I welcome the thrust of the Bill, but will the Home Secretary explain whether it will assist in the striking out of that sort of candidate? Returning officers have powers now, but do not often use them. In my constituency, at the last election, a man—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.
  Mr. Straw: The Bill deals directly with misleading descriptions of parties. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall explain the provisions in detail.
  Mr. Graham Brady: The Home Secretary referred to the fact that some languages, particularly south Asian languages, have different meanings for the same word. Although the Bill requires an English translation to be published, it does not appear to provide for which English translation that should be. Do the Government intend to make sure that an appropriate and accurate representation of the meaning of names is given?
  Mr. Straw: South Asian languages are not alone in having words of the same spelling and different meanings. Invalid and invalid is one example. When people move on from the usual Christmas parlour game of naming 10 famous Belgians—I can help the House with the first name: Victor d'Hondt—they can move on to lists of homophones, homonyms and homographs, with which we have whiled away many a happy hour in my household.
  As the House knows, we originally intended to use the Bill to introduce regulations on funding of political parties, as I said last October. At the request of Lord Neill of Bladen, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, those provisions have not been included in the Bill. His committee is in the middle of an inquiry on the wider funding of political parties, so I agreed with him that it would be wrong to pre-empt its conclusions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] I am glad to hear that that has the approbation of Opposition Front-Bench Members.
  As was spelt out in our manifesto, the Government remain committed to requiring details of all donations to political parties above a set figure to be published and to introducing a ban on the foreign funding of political parties. Therefore, we remain committed to legislation in that area, but will bring forward our proposals only in the light of the Neill committee's recommendations.
  Dr. Tony Wright: On further and wider legislation, is it also the Government's view that we need to bring all aspects of the conduct of elections, including funding, together under some sort of electoral commission, as is often proposed outside the House? The Bill will clean up particular problems, but are we finally moving in the direction of such a commission to pull it all together?
  Mr. Straw: The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), is chairing a working party that includes representatives of all the main political parties and their organisation departments, to look into electoral practice. For many years, an electoral commission has been proposed, which could merge the work of the two boundary commissions—parliamentary and local government—with some of the work currently undertaken by the Home Office. I understand the arguments in favour of such an electoral commission and we are certainly open to argument about such an idea, but we have no proposals to put before the House for the moment.
  520
  The Bill provides for the register of political parties to be maintained by the existing Registrar of Companies for England and Wales based at Companies House in Cardiff. I am sure that the House will agree that it is much better to base the register on an existing tried and tested organisation, which is used to providing a highly efficient service both to companies needing to register and to members of the public seeking information from the register.
  The register of political parties will be quite separate from the companies register and much smaller. More than 1 million companies are registered at Companies House, whereas we expect that no more than 100 or so parties will seek to register, although that, of course, is a matter for the parties that choose to do so and it is only our guess.
  The expertise of Companies House staff in providing public access to the register and deciding whether a company may use a particular name will prove invaluable and the Government believe that it is right, therefore, to have a single register of political parties for the whole of the United Kingdom.
  Before a party can be registered, the registrar will need to make sure that its name is not likely to be confused with a name that is already registered. That would mean, for example, that if the "Conservative Party" were to be registered, the registrar could refuse to allow another party to register the name the "Tory Party", in case it was confused with the party led by the Leader of the Opposition.
  Under the Bill, the name of a registered party will have to be six words or fewer, to ensure that it meets the existing rules governing the candidate's description for nomination and ballot papers. The Bill provides that the party's name should not be obscene or offensive and must not include words that would be unlawful, in the sense, for example, of an incitement to racial hatred.
  The Bill also contains an order-making power in clause 3(1)(f) to allow any word or expression to be prohibited. In case hon. Members are worried about that, I should explain that it is there to prevent certain words, such as "Royal", from being used in the title of a party. It will also help ensure that certain generic words or phrases, such as "Independent" or "Residents Association" are not registered by a single party so as to prevent their being used widely by individual candidates. It would be possible to use that power to require any party wishing to use such a term to qualify it with a geographical area, for example—choosing one entirely at random—the "Blackburn Residents Association Party", or the "Revidge Independents". That is the ward in which I live in Blackburn.
  Clause 9 requires each party to provide the names of two "responsible officers" as the "registered leader" and "registered nominating officer", who, together, will be responsible for authorising any change to the registered details of the party. In addition, the nominating officer is to be responsible for authorising use of the party's name by candidates at elections, either directly or by someone acting on his or her behalf.
  To keep the register up to date, parties will have to confirm their registration annually. There will need to be a fee, set by regulations, both for initial registration and for the annual confirmation of registration. Although the exact amount has yet to be determined, we think that it

  521
  will be about £100 for initial registration. That is not likely to be onerous, even for the Conservative party. Parties will be able to register an emblem.
  Mr. Sanders: Would the £100 figure apply to a local council candidate standing for, say, the Redbridge residents association?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, but only if he or she decides to register. There is no requirement to register. If such people decided to register, they would have to pay a fee, but I do not think that it is onerous.
  Mr. Steen: As I understand it, there is nothing to stop a local man standing in a general election as a Local Conservative or Loyal Conservative, even though he would be misleading the electorate into thinking that he is the official Conservative candidate. The Bill does not deal with that, so he could stand—just as at present. Are the Government thinking of adding something to help in those circumstances?
  Mr. Straw: The Bill provides for precisely that. In paragraph 2 of schedule 2, we have reworded rule 6 of the election rules. Rule 6A states:
  "A nomination paper may not include a description of a candidate which is likely to lead voters to associate the candidate with a registered political party unless the description is authorised by a certificate—

  (a) issued by or on behalf of the registered nominating officer of the party, and

  (b) received by the returning officer during the period for delivery of nomination papers set out … in rule 1."

  If a party's description is registered, a non-registered party cannot use a name that seeks, or is likely, to mislead voters about the identity of a party. We anticipate that the use of names such as Literal Democrat or Conversative or Conservatory party, all of which have been tried, or, just possibly, New Labour will not be permitted for a non-registered party.
  Mr. Steen: As I read it, rule 6A merely clarifies something that was not too clear, while leaving the onus on the returning officer during a general election to make a decision. If he decides against someone, that person would have go to the High Court, and the whole thing would become so extended that the general election would be over. Is there any new procedure whereby the returning officer would not have to go down that track if someone does not agree with his finding that a new or alternative name is not misleading?
  Mr. Straw: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for a long time, I do not believe that he has quite followed the true meaning of the provision.
  Mr. Steen: Quite likely.
  Mr. Straw: It is generous of the hon. Gentleman to say that. He has not followed the true meaning of the reworked rule 6A. It is possible, in extremis, for electors to challenge a decision of the returning officer and to seek judicial review of decisions. That is important for any person exercising such a key function in our democracy. Returning officers carry out their jobs to a high standard of integrity and professionalism, but there are sometimes
  522
  controversial decisions. It is important that there should be a safety valve of supervision by the courts, which will examine only the reasonableness of a returning officer's decision. They will consider whether the Wednesbury test applies: that is, whether the decision is manifestly unreasonable, rather than considering its positively reasonableness.
  The Bill does not deal directly with the issue of misleading candidates' names. It is a matter of record that, at the last general election, the courts showed themselves ready to grant injunctions to prevent that sort of passing off. That was the case in respect of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). The right hon. and learned Gentleman was faced with a candidate who had adopted the name "Sir Nicholas Lyell" and, in the same vein, my hon. Friend was faced with a candidate calling herself "Alice Mahon". [HON. MEMBERS: "Himself."] As I recall, there is provenance for men calling themselves Alice, but that is a very different point. We believe that there are remedies already available in law to deal with such cases.
  Mr. Mark Oaten: Having lived through such an experience twice in the past 12 months, I know that one of the difficulties is the period of time in which one is allowed to challenge these processes. What the Home Secretary suggests is fine, but what is not fine is the period of time in which the controls can be put in place. Has he any plans to extend that period from the current rather hurried 24 hours and so ensure that proper legal process can take place?
  Mr. Straw: The process of registering will take place in a relatively relaxed period, as any sensible political party—which category will, in my judgment, include all those that are currently represented in the House—will register at the first opportunity after the Bill becomes law. Once that happens, Liberal Democrats will be protected from, for example, people trying to apply the description "Literal Democrat", which produced a quite undemocratic result in an election during the 1994 European elections; and the Conservative party will be protected from the twist of using the words "conservatory" or "conversative", which has also caught out electors and tricked them into voting for one candidate when they wanted to vote for another.
  No one should underestimate the huge difference that the use of emblems on ballot papers will make. The Bill will ensure that, for the first time, emblems will be included on ballot papers. There is an illustration in the appendix on page 10 of the Bill. Only parties that are registered and have registered their emblem as a trademark, as it were, will be able to use that emblem. Given that party emblems are so widely known these days, that in itself will provide a major protection.
  In order to ensure the smooth introduction of the register, there will be two transitional registration phases, each lasting six weeks. The first phase will apply to all parties that have at least one Member of the House of Commons. The second phase will apply to any other party, but will require the registrar to defer any registration until the end of the period, so that he can consider any competing claims for the same or similar party names or emblems. In making a decision at the end of the second phase, the registrar will be able to take account of the history of parties with competing claims.

  523
  In making decisions on similar names, the registrar will need to ensure that voters are not likely to be confused. In case of doubt, clause 10 allows the registrar, before deciding an application, to seek advice from a Committee of Members of the House of Commons, appointed for that purpose by the Speaker. We thought long and hard about how we could best ensure that the registrar would not be left in the awkward position of having to make a judgment in an area where his expertise currently does not lie. We decided that the best approach was for him to be advised by a Committee of the House appointed by Madam Speaker.
  We initially took into account the remote possibility of the advice from the Speaker's Committee being unclear, confusing or contradictory. Therefore, clause 10(2) provides that if the registrar disagrees with the advice of the Committee, he must give the Committee his reasons in writing. However, there is no question but that the registrar will be expected to follow the Committee's advice.
  I recognise that there is a degree of impertinence in expecting a Committee under Madam Speaker to make a decision but allowing for the possibility of that decision being overturned by the registrar. Having considered that question further in consultation with Madam Speaker, I now think that the most appropriate course would be for the registrar, in circumstances where he is unhappy with the advice received from the Committee, to go back to the Committee for further clarification, but then, in the final analysis, to follow its advice. Therefore, in my judgment, there is no need for the final part of clause 10, and I propose to table amendments on that point in Committee. Once the two transitional phases are complete, any application to register a new party will be considered simply on its merits.
  Clause 14 deals with party political broadcasts. Once that provision comes into force, any party that is not registered will not be able to benefit from the opportunity of having a party political broadcast. That does not affect the existing arrangements for the allocation of party political broadcasts. In particular, it will not entitle registered parties to broadcasts, but will merely bring them into the group of parties that may be eligible.
  Schedule 2, which we have already discussed at some length, amends the parliamentary election rules to enable returning officers to refuse a nomination with the name of a registered party, or with any description that is likely to lead voters to associate the candidate with that party, unless the nominating officer has authorised the use of the party's name. As I have explained—I hope to the satisfaction of the House—I believe that that will deal with the long-standing problem of misleading candidates' descriptions.
  The Bill will return some of the sense and fairness to our democratic system by removing the anomaly of candidates who are able to exploit loopholes in the current electoral rules and who use such clearly misleading labels. The Bill may be a technical measure, but it is an important one. It introduces for the first time provisions allowing parties' names to be registered and party emblems to be shown on ballot papers and prevents misleading candidates' descriptions. I hope that the House will agree that the Bill is a positive step forward, and I commend it to the House.
  4.45 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: Listening to the Home Secretary, it seems to me that, in some ways, we have regressed on the question of rules for elections. In the debate on proportional representation, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a former Member of Parliament for my home town of Chelmsford in Essex, the late Sir Hubert Ashton. He reminded the House of Sir Hubert saying that his job was to represent Chelmsford at Westminster and not the other way around.
  As the Home Secretary revealed, we are both Essex-educated men: I at the local grammar school; he, rather more grandly, at the posh public school down the road, but I do not hold that against him. He will know from those earlier days that, for many years, there was no description of party at all on the ballot paper. In Chelmsford, one voted for Ashton or for Millington—the Liberal candidate did not really count; nothing really changes in Chelmsford. In those days, when class sizes could be more than 40, let alone 30, the people were sufficiently politically aware to work out for whom they should vote: they had received the election address; they had seen the posters; they were capable of remembering the allegiances.
  Now, with the Bill, the Government are introducing a system whereby not only will the party of the candidate be set out on the ballot paper, but symbols will be printed on it, so as to make even clearer the party position. In his press release announcing the Bill, the Home Secretary said that casting one's vote will become even "simpler" as a result of the Bill, but I am not sure whether the illustration on page 10 of the Bill proves his case. My feeling is that the net effect of the symbols is to make a more crowded and rather bizarre ballot paper that is more likely to confuse than to inform. I remain deeply sceptical as to whether that change is necessary.
  Mr. Swayne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that complexity arises out of the electoral changes that the Government either have already initiated, or have in prospect, which will make the whole business of voting and the ballot paper so much more complicated that we might require such symbols in order to find out where we stand?
  Sir Norman Fowler: My hon. Friend takes me, in an almost seamless flow, on to my next points.
  We have moved on a long way from the 1947 committee report on electoral law reform, which said,
  "we think the nomination paper should describe the candidate and not the cause".
  The Home Secretary set out some of the events that have led to confusion among the electorate and, at times, deliberate attempts to deceive them. That is the one good reason for supporting the Bill on Second Reading, and that is why we shall not be pressing for a Division.
  There is no question but that confusion has been caused by candidates deliberately seeking to deceive and take advantage by getting on to the coat-tails of a well-recognised party or personality. I shall come to that later. The Bill is at least an intention to improve the position concerning the name of the party.
  At the last general election, my former colleague Rod Richards, was opposed by a candidate who stood not only as Rod Richards, but for the so-called Conservatory party.

  525
  Although Rod Richards obtained an injunction on the misleading person or name, the candidate was still able to stand for the Conservatory party under his real name. There have been other well-known cases, including the case in the European elections in which a Literal Democrat stood. All parties have suffered as a result of those deceptions. I am on record as having sought a change in the position, which is why I give one cheer, at any rate, for the Bill and welcome its intention to prevent the confusion of the electorate.
  However, we should be in no doubt about why the Bill is being introduced. It is not, first and foremost, to prevent the confusion that we have had in the past. The Home Office has seen many such problems. The Bill is being introduced because of the demands of proportional representation and, in particular, of a list system whereby parties, not candidates, are voted for. In the first sentence of the press release announcing the Bill, the Home Secretary said:
  "A formal register of political parties is essential for the smooth operation of the proposed PR systems for the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the European Parliament."
  The Bill has been introduced for the wrong reasons: to enable the introduction of a list system and an additional member system, which I and, I suspect, the Home Secretary find objectionable.
  In Scotland, there will be 73 members elected by first past the post and 56 additional members. In Wales, there will 40 members elected by first past the post and 20 additional members. The additional members will be based on the old European constituencies, which will, in any event, disappear next year. We shall then have a new regional system of members without constituencies for the European elections. If ever there was an example of the Government making it up as they go along, it is this. The position may be bad enough already, but it would be worse if such a system were adopted for Westminster. On that point, I have hopes of making common cause with the Home Secretary.
  Up to now, as the Home Secretary said, we have had a rather vicarious political relationship that dates back to the last time that I was in the shadow Cabinet. That was in Margaret Thatcher's first shadow Cabinet, when I was shadow Secretary of State for Social Services. I know that I do not look that old. The Minister opposite me was the then Barbara Castle, a left-wing, self-avowed socialist—all the words that today induce a collective wince on the Government Benches. The Secretary of State's special adviser at that time was none other than the left-wing, socialist gentleman who is now the Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Politically, they were so close that he inherited her seat.
  The reason that I mention that—apart from being gratuitously offensive—is that in my first debate on pensions, which the Home Secretary may remember, the then Secretary of State, supported, I presume, by her adviser, hastened away from the Chamber for a press conference on the referendum on Europe. She, perhaps with the right hon. Gentleman's support, was passionately opposed to entry into the European Community. Never mind the single currency—they did not want to go into the Community at all.
  Mr. Swayne: Hear, hear.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I know that I am carrying at least one of my hon. Friends with me.
  526
  At that time, the Cabinet had decided that Ministers could campaign on either side of the question. As we look ahead, therefore, we know that with the right hon. Gentleman's experience and his influence in Cabinet, he will be able to persuade his colleagues that if there is to be a referendum on proportional representation, Government Ministers will be able to follow their conscience. I look forward to the Home Secretary campaigning with us on that issue in favour of first past the post. I have waited 25 years to be on the same side as the right hon. Gentleman, and that is the fairest offer that I can make him, although I see that his natural discretion keeps him very much in his seat at this point.
  Irrespective of whether that referendum happens, there are basic questions to be asked about the Bill. The first arises straight from the additional member system that the Government are introducing and has been raised by Michael Dyer, a lecturer in the department of politics at Aberdeen university. He raises the question whether political parties that are likely to receive few additional members should not create or foster surrogate parties. He uses the example of Scotland at the last general election—not, I emphasise, the next election. On that basis, Labour would have had such a high number of first-past-the-post victories that it would receive no additional members, or almost none.
  Mr. Dyer goes on to offer a number of solutions. One, which he calls "a greater prize", involves Labour forging a pact with another party and delivering its list vote to that party. That would leave that party heavily dependent on continued Labour good will, rendering it less likely to desert a Labour-dominated coalition in difficult times.
  The point that relates directly to the Bill is a further example that involves Labour, or its voters, forming an understanding with a so-called Independent Labour party that had received no first-past-the-post votes. Mr. Dyer estimates that if all Labour voters supported the ILP list, no fewer than 35 of the 56 additional members would be elected and, of course, the majority would be overwhelming. Equally, the spirit and principle of the change would be utterly defeated.
  The question is, what can be done to prevent such a situation from arising. I am aware of the assurance given by a Minister in another place, but the question is not simply what is the Government's intention or even what is the Labour party's intention. We are making law. Doubtless we could create other scenarios in which other parties took similar actions, but the question is how abuse can be prevented.
  The second question is even more relevant. The 1947 committee said that
  "the nomination paper should describe the candidate and not the cause",
  but there have been well-known examples of attempts to deceive the electorate. I mentioned the case of Rod Richards, and the Home Secretary mentioned that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), when Peter Rubery-Hayward decided to rechristen himself Sir Nicholas Lyell. As it happened, injunctions were granted on both occasions.
  In the 1983 general election, there was the famous case of a man who changed his name by deed poll to Margaret Thatcher and declared the address of his flat to be henceforth Downing Street mansions, while an associate changed his name to Ronald Reagan in order to act as his

  527
  agent. In that case, the returning officer declared the paper invalid, on the grounds that it was an abuse of the right of nomination, and was an obvious unreality.
  A more difficult case was that of Roy Jenkins. Unlikely as it may seem, someone had the temerity to seek to impersonate that grand figure.
  Mr. Straw: Impossible.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Almost impossible, but perhaps not in name.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: A good Welshman.
  Sir Norman Fowler: If he is a good Welshman, I am a Dutchman.
  In 1981, an artificial Roy Jenkins attempted to fight the Warrington by-election, but the returning officer ruled that his nomination was invalid. However, in November 1982, in the Glasgow, Hillhead by-election, the artificial Roy Jenkins was allowed to stand, on the grounds that the returning officer there felt that the name Jenkins had been used for some nine months and no objection was received in time from the real Roy Jenkins.
  As I understand the Bill, we shall legislate to make it more difficult for political parties to be confused, but there is no similar provision for individuals. We intend to leave it to the existing processes, whether the returning officer or the courts. In other words—the Home Secretary should take this point to heart—if legislation closes the door on political party deception, there is a danger that all attempts will move to personal candidate deception. We shall have turned the position of the 1947 committee on its head.
  However, that position raises a further question about the position of individual returning officers. Self-evidently, different returning officers have made different interpretations of the law. The Bill is intended to set general rules to prevent the public's being deceived. However, what is being done to ensure that the policy of individual returning officers is the same as that of the registrar of political parties? How do we ensure a uniform policy throughout the country?
  The detail of many Bills is crucial; never has that been truer than of the Bill before us. The Bill is presented as a voluntary system of registration, but, as the Home Secretary freely admitted, it is voluntary only if a party wants to forgo the advantage of party political broadcasts and the help that it can receive for the costs of security at party conferences. If it wants those advantages, it must register.
  Equally, there is the question of appeal from the registrar's decision—the point rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East.
  Mr. Syms: West.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I beg your pardon; I meant my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
  The registrar grants an application for inclusion in the register unless the proposed registered name would be likely to result in the party being confused by voters with
  528
  a party already registered. What does that mean? I do not make a party point, but one could make a sensible case that a candidate who stands as "Old Labour" is distinguishing himself from the present Administration. Equally, one could make a sensible case that a person who wants to stand as an "Independent Conservative" is giving himself a sensible description. From experience as party chairman, I can vouch for the presence of many independent Conservatives in the mid-1990s—and Independent Conservatives is only one of the descriptions that I gave them at the time. Probably, however, none of those descriptions would be allowed under these rules.
  Who will settle these disputes, and who will settle the question of symbols? I really want to know that. I am deeply sceptical about the need for symbols; disputes are bound to break out as a result. The Home Secretary looks forward to our having 100 parties; the mind boggles as to what they will be. If we have 100 political parties jostling around, some will tend to push to make their symbols as provocative, or outrageous, as they possibly can. Who settles those disputes?
  In short—this is a short debate—we shall want to explore a range of questions in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) raised another important point during the Home Secretary's speech. I have said that we shall not oppose the Bill on Second Reading because, obviously, we support the principle of trying to reduce confusion among the electorate—deception of the voters. However, we wish to reserve our Third Reading position, depending on the answers that we receive. By definition, we do not want legislation that makes the position worse or produces glaring loopholes in the law.
  That apart, it would be wrong of me not to warn the Home Secretary that, in my belief—which, I suspect, he substantially shares—we are embarking on a dangerous electoral journey. This is but one small part of a much bigger picture. My greatest worry is about the way in which, step by step, we are moving away from the constituency basis of our democracy. In my view, the constituency link, which enables constituents to hold individual elected representatives to account, is right in principle and has served the country well.
  I find the list system—whereby the public are asked to vote for parties, not individuals, and where control can easily pass to the centre and not be held at the local level—objectionable. I suspect that the Bill will raise some of the questions that will become part of the national debate in months to come, and I suspect that, when the issues have been properly exposed, the public will deplore the direction in which the Government have chosen to take the country.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Martin Linton: I am the representative of the constituency that is, in many ways, the cause of all the trouble. In Wandsworth, in 1967, when each party had four vacancies to fill, a Liberal candidate named Pritchard stood against a distinguished Labour councillor in the area, Sir Norman Prichard, and received 4,000 votes more than the three other Liberal candidates. As the Labour candidate named Prichard was distinguished and popular, it was an inescapable conclusion that the confusion over names had misled 4,000 voters. As a result, the Representation of the People Act 1949 was amended by the Government of the day, to allow a six-word description of candidates.

  529
  That reform was very reasonable, but, in many cases, the description has become not as much a description as an advertisement, a form of abuse, a campaigning message or an attempt to confuse. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) spoke about the terrible distress caused to some of his constituents when they discovered that when they voted "New Labour" they had voted, not for him, but for an unofficial candidate—so much so that one of his constituents burst into tears, and another ate her ballot paper rather than put it into the urn.
  I very much welcome the Home Secretary's assurances about the meaning of the grounds—set out in clause 3—on which names can be refused, especially his explanation of clause 3(1)(d), which, as I understand it, refers mainly to words likely to stir up racial hatred, and the expression "prohibited by order" in clause 3(1)(f), which refers mainly to words such as "royal". I assume that the main casualties of this clause will be those parties that set out deliberately to confuse. At the last election, some candidates stood as Literal Democrats, Conservatories, and Conversatives, and many others stood under the inaccurate title of New Labour. Many other categories of parties may or may not be affected by the measure, and I would appreciate further explanation from the Minister.
  If candidates are allowed to use a six-word description without registering as a party, will they be allowed to give themselves party names although they are not registered? I refer not to the Monster Raving Loony party—which I have no doubt will register as a fully fledged political party—but to parties such as Happiness Stan's Free to Party party, the Juice party, the Rizz party, the Ronnie the Rhino party, the Sub-genius party and the Teddy Bear Alliance party.
  Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in reality, what constitutes a political party is democratic legitimacy? Having members elected to Parliament is what designates a political party. Under this legislation, anyone may be the leader of a political party in much the same way as anyone can buy a company off the shelf and become a company director.
  Mr. Linton: I do not think that one must win an election in order to qualify as a political party. The hon. Gentleman cannot seriously believe that—if he does, I take it that he will stand at the next election as a candidate for the Sub-genius party.
  At the last election, we also encountered the problem of candidates using their six-word descriptions as forms of advertising. I do not know whether that is covered by the Bill. For example, the Mongolian Barbecue Great Place to Party party strikes me as being a commercial message rather than a party description. The West Cheshire College in Crisis was clearly an attempt to use six words to make a point—I do not know whether it is correct. There were also a few lonely hearts-type candidates. One candidate described himself as Black Haired Medium Build Caucasian Male and there was also an Independently Beautiful party candidate. I look forward to hearing whether those examples will be affected by the Bill.
  There is also the question of the commission of an offence. Several parties, such as the Legalise Cannabis party and the New Millennium New Way Hemp party,
  530
  could, on a strict reading of the legislation, be in jeopardy. Several parties at the last election used descriptions that some people may consider offensive. Most of them were what might be called anti-political parties whose titles were attempts to deride other candidates on the ballot paper. Some examples were the Common Sense Sick of Politicians party, the Lord Byro versus the Scallywag Tories party and the People in Slough Shunning Useless Politician party—whose name I think was chosen mainly for its potential as an acronym. One candidate, whose surname must have begun with "W" or "Y", stood as a candidate for None of the Above Parties party.
  I do not imagine that the Government want to use the legislation against such parties, but it would be useful to have a better idea of what the word "offensive" is intended to mean to acting returning officers. I hope that the tradition in this country of having not entirely serious electoral candidates, such as Screaming Lord Sutch and the Monster Raving Loony party, will not be lost. It may give our democracy a bad name sometimes when people from overseas see the joke candidates standing behind the serious ones, but I would hate to think that this Bill could be used to limit people's freedom to such an extent that they were prevented from standing in elections.
  5.13 pm
  Mr. Bob Russell: I should like, at the outset, to offer the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who has had to return to his constituency because his son has been taken to hospital. I am pleased to say that he is now recovering.
  It is difficult to see how any democrat could object to the principles behind the Bill. It is obvious that the details must be discussed, but there is nothing of substance to which we can object. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, which we believe will allow political parties to register and protect their names and logos. My party, above all others, has reason to support such legislation.
  The Bill relates also to the proportional systems that will be used for elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh assembly and the European Parliament next year, and it will allow registered parties to provide lists of candidates. I agree to some extent with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) in that it is disappointing that voters in those elections will not be able to select candidates from within the party list or across the parties, but the Liberal Democrats nevertheless welcome the new systems as an improvement on the unfair first-past-the-post system. We look forward to seeing further improvements.
  It is pleasing to see that the Bill extends to local government elections, although they will use first past the post. The debate so far has concentrated on Westminster, but I believe that local government will also benefit greatly from the proposals. Elections to this place will also use first past the post. Let us hope that the experience of using fairer voting systems in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Europe will encourage people to vote in the promised referendum to change the system that is used here.
  The use of the registrar of companies to avoid creating a separate registrar of political parties is appropriate, but the Bill leaves to local returning officers the important decision whether a candidate not representing a registered

  531
  party can use a description on the ballot paper. Unlike the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), I shall not give an exhaustive list, but we have heard of and seen such candidates. I wonder whether they help the democratic process—although they certainly liven things up. The arrangement is likely to lead to inconsistent use of names on ballot papers in different parts of the country and will almost certainly cause disputes and legal action. As the Bill progresses, I hope that those matters can be examined afresh and, perhaps, resolved.
  The Liberal Democrats have two particular reasons for welcoming the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) knows only too well the problem caused by candidates using misleading names. I do not think that any democrat would approve of what happened in my hon. Friend's constituency. My hon. Friend stood as the Liberal Democrat candidate in the 1994 European elections for the seat of Devon and East Plymouth and lost to a Conservative candidate by 800 votes. A previously unknown candidate stood as a Literal Democrat and got 10,000 votes.
  I think that hon. Members will agree that it is extremely unlikely that 10,000 people chose to vote for a candidate who had done no campaigning and had no published principles. The Liberal Democrats were thus deprived of our third Member of the European Parliament. However, it was good to see my hon. Friend go on to defeat the Conservative Member of Parliament at the general election and win a seat in the House—Europe's loss is our gain.
  The same Literal Democrat candidate who defeated my hon. Friend in Devon almost cost my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) his seat. At the 1997 general election, my hon. Friend won by an impressive two votes. A court later declared the result null and void and my hon. Friend went on to win a by-election this year with one of the largest majorities in Parliament—there may be a moral in that story. The Literal Democrat from Devon stood in Winchester in 1997 as the Liberal Democrat Top Choice for Parliament and won 640 votes—most of which were almost certainly intended for my hon. Friend.
  The Bill would not allow parties with names similar to registered parties to register, but there may be confusion when unregistered candidates seek to use names similar to those of registered parties. That needs to be clarified. The Bill does not deal with the problem of candidates using a name that is likely to confuse voters. We have already heard several examples of confusion deliberately caused by candidates. Each involved parliamentary elections. There is only one Andrew Mackinlay, but as has been pointed out there have been several Margaret Thatchers and Roy Jenkins. Such confusion is not dealt with in the Bill.
  The Bill would not prevent candidates from using terms that may cause confusion with registered parties in their election literature; it regulates only the use of names on the ballot paper. However, confusion occurs not just in parliamentary elections, but in local elections. Two years ago, in the borough of Colchester, four candidates stood as Conservatives in a deliberate attempt to undermine the Conservative party campaign.
  Mr. Straw: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the Bill applies to local government elections, just as it applies to national elections.
  Mr. Russell: I welcome that clarification. The example that I shall give may have cost the Conservatives control of Essex county council, for which a by-election is taking place today. At the county council elections last year, a rogue Conservative—I think that Conservative Members will agree with that term—stood, and split the vote, and a Liberal Democrat took the seat. With Essex county council being finely balanced, the result of today's by-election could well alter the political control of the council.
  It was expected that the Bill would include provisions on the funding of political parties. We support the Home Secretary's decision to await the report of the Neill committee before such legislation is introduced.
  We welcome the use of party emblems on the ballot paper and the fact that Welsh parties will be able to register both a Welsh and an English name and to use both on the ballot paper. Registered parties should also be allowed to register regional variations of emblems to allow bilingual emblems in Wales and, for example, to allow parties in Scotland to have a different emblem from their emblem in another part of the UK. That may be useful for the Conservatives north of the border.
  Can the Home Secretary tell us whether the emblems will be printed in the party colours? If so, perhaps there could be variations in tone to indicate where candidates stood in the various political parties, especially under the list system. I congratulate the person who designed the ballot paper on the good sense and humour that it reflects—the good sense to put the Liberal Democrat candidate at the top and the Conservative at the bottom. Typically for new Labour, its candidate has a hyphenated name. The Conservative emblem seems to be flopping over more than usual—misrepresentation?
  Mr. Sanders: It is leaning too far to the right.
  Mr. Russell: Perhaps the Conservative emblem is up to date.
  Another issue that is not covered in the Bill is the gender balancing of candidates on lists in proportional systems. Liberal Democrats are using a system known as zipping for the European elections; across the UK, half of the Liberal Democrat lists will be headed by a man and half by a woman. That is equality. On each list, men and women will alternate. The gender at the top of each list has been chosen according to electoral prospect, which should ensure that one half of Liberal Democrat MEPs are women. I should have thought that the Government would welcome that.
  A system of gender balance was agreed with Labour in November 1995 for elections to the Scottish Parliament but, because of the legal uncertainties and the lack of exemption from sex discrimination legislation in the Scotland Bill, it is unlikely to go ahead.
  Legal opinion on gender balance is inconclusive. We had, therefore, hoped that the Bill would include a widening of the existing exemptions under sex discrimination legislation to include party lists in elections under the proportional representation system. The Government seem reluctant to do that, despite the 1995

  533
  electoral agreement between Labour and the Liberal Democrats in Scotland. It would be possible to exempt political parties only for the first proportional elections, to give women a good opportunity to achieve fair representation.
  The Bill is another part of the constitutional reform of the United Kingdom. It will improve democracy in elections by preventing spoiler candidates from distorting results. It will allow party logos to appear on the ballot paper, which will assist voters in placing their votes for the party of their choice. I am disappointed that my former Essex man colleague—the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield—cannot see the sense of that.
  Liberal Democrats want an independent electoral commission to be established to oversee the running of elections and election campaigns. The commission would also have control of boundary reviews, the monitoring of election expenses and the allocation of broadcasting time, and would remove the regulation and control of elections from politicians. The Bill is only a first step towards the fairer management of elections. I hope that the momentum for reform will extend to the electoral system for this place to provide for a fairer distribution of seats.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: I am one of those odd individuals who collect election results. I have the various volumes of F. W. S. Craig going back to 1832. They usually contain a health warning that, although he has put down the results, he has added a description of the parties that may not have been recognised by the candidates. For example, following the split in the Liberal party in the 1880s, some candidates are listed as Liberals and some as Liberal Unionists. The distinction required historical research.
  We are unusual as a nation in that Parliament developed earlier than strong political parties, so there has always been a strong element of individualism in our political process. People have always been able to vote on a geographical basis, for individuals whom they trust with the description or political label sometimes worn quite lightly, certainly in earlier years. As time has gone by, the political process has become more intrusive.
  The debate in the 1960s, as the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) said, concerned political descriptions, which Sir Richard Sharples pointed out could be used to mislead people. We have heard several examples today. Nevertheless, I believe that a description of the political party for which the candidate is standing is a positive development. For example, in local government elections in multi-member wards, if one of the candidates is stupid enough to state that he is a farmer or a company director rather than use his political label he usually runs well below the other candidates with a political description.
  A description helps voters to make a decision. We in political life like to think that every elector has had a leaflet or two and has been canvassed, but, in reality, people turn up at the polling station with little idea who the candidates are until they read the ballot paper. At least that gives them the comfort of knowing that they are voting for the candidate who best suits their political views.
  534
  I welcome the Bill as an opportunity for us to deal with abuses—Literal Democrat is the one on which we focus most—but it is no panacea. In Committee and in later stages, we shall have to test many of the propositions in it to ensure that we get it right.
  The requirement that a description be no more than six words long is important, but when a party registers perhaps it should register all the other terms or uses of its name. For example, we are not only the Conservative party, but the Conservative and Unionist party, the Tory party, we can be Scottish Conservative or Welsh Conservative, and some people tell me that we are even the European People's party on occasions. It is important that registration should cover all those terms. I know that there is a party allied to the Labour party called the Co-operative party. Would that party register separately, or under the umbrella of the Labour party? All those matters need to be tested.
  The registrar's worst difficulty will probably lie in determining which party can use the term Unionist. In Northern Ireland, the majority community uses numerous versions of that term, with prefixes or suffixes. That causes a good deal of confusion.
  I mentioned earlier the issue of registration depriving people of broadcasting rights, and the issue of Sinn Fein. I am pleased that there is to be a Committee under the Speaker to give advice. Whatever we may say about looking ahead, circumstances will arise that no one will have anticipated, and it is sensible to establish a Committee that enables political parties to give their views to the registrar.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) referred to the difficulties of the additional member system and pointed out that, under a list system—as has been suggested by one or two academics—it may be possible to mislead people into voting for the alter ego of a major party, particularly one that wins all the first-past-the-post seats. I was reassured by what the Home Secretary said about disqualifying candidates using names very similar to those of existing political parties. It is important that people who have voted initially under the first-past-the-post system and then under the list system are not misled into voting for what they mistakenly believe to be an official party. How the electoral system that will be used in Scotland, Wales and indeed London is received will depend largely on whether people feel that it has operated fairly and has not deceived the electorate.
  I want to raise a couple of issues that I raised when we debated the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. The nomination of nominees for the European parliamentary elections will stand from one election to the next: for five years, until 2004. There will be no by-elections; if someone dies or resigns, the next person on the list will inherit the seat.
  It is one thing for someone who has been sworn in and has become a member of an assembly—particularly a European assembly—to decide after a few years to switch to a different party. Three years after an election, however, the first reserve on the list might decide to stop being a Liberal Democrat and join the Labour party. When a vacancy occurred, under the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, the returning officer would have to offer the post to the next available candidate. I assume that the system would give the candidate the

  535
  right to refuse, but it would not discriminate against someone who had left the political party involved. It is possible that the first reserve on a Labour, Liberal or Conservative list could inherit a seat without being a member of the relevant political party.
  Given a proportional list allowing people to vote Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour—a system in which proportionality is intended to be the key—it would be very odd if someone who had resigned or been expelled from a political party could still inherit a seat. Five years is a long time in this context. We should not forget that such an arrangement is entirely outside our experience: under the British political system, a candidate is elected or ceases to be the candidate. An ex-candidate—which many of us have been—is very much an "ex". What happens if, four years after an election, someone who is no longer a member of a political party—perhaps owing to expulsion from it—inherits a seat? Will that person have the right to take the seat?
  In New Zealand, which has a system of mixed member proportionality, some of those elected under a list system have switched parties, having given undertakings to their respective parties that they would not do so. In a famous case, a member of the Alliance became an independent. An electoral registration Bill promoted by the Labour party in New Zealand proposes that someone elected under a list system who switches to another party ought, in effect, to be resigned from Parliament. I do not think that that Bill will become law, and the issue is controversial, but we should ask whether, if people are voting for a party rather than an individual, the individual has the right to switch. Such action entirely destroys the purpose of proportionality.
  There are problems with the European parliamentary system that we have implemented. There may be problems with the additional member system—that will depend on how well the Bill works—but I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, I also welcome the introduction of symbols or emblems.
  Before I was a candidate in Poole, I was a candidate in Walsall, North and encountered a difficulty that was outside my experience, as I came from Wiltshire. There were wards with a high proportion of Asians who did not speak English. In such circumstances—especially in local elections, which involve multi-member wards—ballot papers have to be produced saying "Vote for 7, 9 or 14". Symbols or emblems would enable those who do not speak English to exercise their democratic right. Blackburn may be similar, but it is certainly true of parts of the midlands. Politicians who wish to mislead people may do so by messing up the order on the ballot paper: it has been done. Emblems may well prove beneficial, especially for ethnic minorities.
  Overall, I welcome the registration proposals, although it is rather sad that we have reached this stage—it is an inevitable consequence of the dreadful PR systems that we are introducing. We have an opportunity to make politics more transparent and honest and to rid ourselves of some of the discrepancies from which members of all parties have suffered.
  There has already been one volunteer for the Standing Committee; another may be standing here.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: There is a long and not entirely dishonourable tradition in British politics of candidates using descriptions on ballot papers to make a point. My favourite is the description used by one by-election candidate—"Reclassify Sun Newspaper as a Comic". Other candidates have formed their own parties or pressure groups to promote issues or highlight causes: the late Bill Boakes and Sir James Goldsmith come to mind, as do the numerous stop this or stop that campaign groups formed at both local and parliamentary level.
  Candidates who have fallen out with their parties, either locally or nationally, have stood as independents in the Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat interest. Others have disputed a change in a party's constitution and claimed to be members of that party's heir or successor. Social Democrat and Liberal candidates have done that in recent times.
  I understood that the Bill's purpose was not to outlaw any such legitimate descriptions, but to prevent people from deliberately frustrating the democratic process by confusing voters with lookalike descriptions. Having read the Bill, however, I fear that its effects could go much further than was intended. I have a number of questions to ask the Minister. I hope that he will be able to reassure us that the specific problem of spoiler candidates is the Bill's only target.
  Spoiler candidates are thieves: they steal people's votes. They violate our democracy, and legislation to outlaw them is long overdue. I know from personal experience in the 1994 European election how it feels to be a candidate for the party for which a majority of the votes were intended.
  My loss, however, was not as great as that of those who filled in their ballot papers and left the polling station believing that they had voted for a Liberal Democrat rather than a Literal Democrat. The descriptions sound different, but they look the same to someone who glances quickly at a ballot paper.
  The loss felt by those 10,000 voters was expressed in letters and radio phone-ins at the time, in terms used more often by people who have been recently burgled or assaulted. They felt violated—that something intangible had been taken from them without their permission. For them, it was not only that someone they had specifically voted against was going to represent them for the next five years, but that their rights had been taken away. They will be among the first to welcome legislation that prevents such a situation—as will I—but my concern is with the scope of the Bill and whether it would prevent someone from standing as a Unionist, Liberal or Co-op candidate if the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties registered those titles as their own.
  What will happen in Northern Ireland in relation to the competing claims on the Unionist description? Would the Bill prevent a person from standing as an independent Conservative, an independent Liberal Democrat or an independent Labour candidate'? Could an organisation register as the Independent party? If that were to happen, perhaps prospective council candidates would have to approach the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) for their voucher, although the Home Secretary made it fairly clear that he felt that there would be one generic term for independents—but what if there were a dispute between independent candidates?

  537
  I am concerned about the fate of residents or ratepayer candidates. We may get both a Redbridge residents association and a Redbridge tenants and residents association wishing to register. What would be the adjudication then?
  Is it right for someone to stand as an independent and suffix their leaning or political affiliation to their description? It is extraordinarily dishonest for people to stand as independents when they are from a political party and often align with it in a council chamber after the election.
  Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman accept—I entirely support him in his grievance—that that is effectively dealt with in schedule 2? Schedule 2 is all that is necessary to meet his principal grievance.
  Mr. Sanders: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman quite understood what I was saying. I was saying that independents should be able to use a suffix to show their leaning or political affiliation and I ask the Minister to clarify whether they will be able to do so. I do not believe that right hon. and hon. Members have the exclusive right to determine the legitimacy of those in dispute with a party that is represented here—no matter that, under the Bill, I would have benefited from more than 1,000 Liberal votes when I have a majority of just 12. People have an inherent right to describe their politics as they wish, and I fear from my reading of the Bill—I hope that I shall be put right—that that right will be taken away.
  If the Bill could be misused by Westminster-based parties to prevent what I view as the strength of our pluralistic democracy, it is a bad Bill which, rather than clarifying choices for electors, will reduce their choice. I seek the Minister's reassurance on that and the other points that I have raised.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I do not intend to detain the House long. Indeed, I do not believe that the Bill deserves to detain the House long; I am afraid that my view of the Bill is different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms).
  There seems to be something sinister about a Bill that describes itself as the Registration of Political Parties Bill. There is something vaguely totalitarian about the notion of registering a political party. Of course, the Home Secretary has told us that it is not like that at all—the Bill is in fact a mouse and the kernel of the Bill is schedule 2; that is really what it is all about.
  I accept the necessity of schedule 2 and entirely agree with the thrust of the remarks by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), including those on the particular grievance that has arisen. I accept entirely that schedule 2 is necessary. We need to amend the Representation of the People Act 1990 in that way. I hope that, when we come to Third Reading, schedule 2 will be all that is left of the Bill, although I somehow doubt it. The real agenda behind the Bill was revealed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler): this Bill is all about the party list system.
  We have relatively few political parties in this country. I know that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) rehearsed a great long list of political parties, but I reject the notion that they are political parties at all. As I said
  538
  to him, in this country, what constitutes a political party is democratic legitimacy. It is having Members of Parliament.
  Jackie Ballard: I am shocked that the definition that the hon. Gentleman gives of a political party is that it has Members of Parliament. Would he not say that the Green party, for example, is a political party?
  Mr. Swayne: I am a reasonable man and I realise that I have overstated the case. I am prepared to accept that the Green party is a political party and to adjust my definition. There are other political parties, but those on the list that was rehearsed by the hon. Member for Battersea do not constitute political parties. We have, and I stand by this, relatively few political parties. I accept that there is a Green party and a United Kingdom Independence party, but such parties are relatively few. We do not need a mechanism for the registration of political parties in the same way that we need a mechanism for the registration of companies.
  We need a mechanism for the registration of companies because there are so many. There are not so many political parties. Are we anticipating a great influx of political parties? I suspect that that is the reality. Party list systems give rise to a plethora of political parties. I fear that there is something in the fact that the companies registration mechanism has been selected as the mechanism for the registration of political parties.
  Mr. Syms: Part of the problem of modern politics in the television age is that frivolous candidates are increasing. That is far more of a factor since television, satellite and everything else came into being.
  Mr. Swayne: I accept that entirely and I hope that schedule 2 will ensure that such frivolous candidates will not be able to abuse our procedures so as to usurp the votes that were intended to be cast for serious candidates, but there is no mechanism that can rule out frivolous candidates standing at an election. In a moment, I shall say a few words about frivolity, of which my hon. Friend may care to take note.
  The selection of the mechanism for the registration of companies as the mechanism for the registration of political parties strikes me as unfortunate. As I said in an intervention, there is something unsavoury about meeting a citizen of the United States to be told that he is vice-president of a particular company. Anyone, it seems, can be a vice-president of a company, much in the way as, increasingly, anyone in this country can become a company director, having paid £100 and bought the title off the shelf.
  As a consequence of the Bill, anyone can be a leader of a political party.
  Mr. Paddy Tipping: It may come to that.
  Mr. Swayne: Indeed.
  The purpose of my intervention during the Home Secretary's speech was to highlight that. I asked him what would happen if a political party registered and then fielded no candidates and acquired no votes. He said, "That is entirely proper. Nothing would happen at all." One would therefore he able to become the leader of a

  539
  political party, and acquire the—quite false—authority of sitting on the "Today" programme and being interviewed as the leader of a political party, without having any intention of securing any political legitimacy. Allowing that to happen seems quite unnecessary.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): Will the hon. Gentleman help the House? As the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) has just held up a note up for the hon. Gentleman to read, does that mean that he is in imminent danger of becoming leader of his own political party?
  Mr. Swayne: The note concerned a domestic matter that my hon. Friend and I discussed earlier.
  I come now to the matter of frivolity, as there seems to be a measure of mirth in the House.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Before my hon. Friend moves on to frivolity—a subject close to his heart—will he tell us whether he agrees that the Bill contains not only a sinister element, which he rightly pointed out, but a deeply patronising one? Does the Bill not assume that voters are so dim, undiscriminating or unable to make up their own mind on the legitimacy of candidates or political parties that they need to be spoon fed and nannied throughout the electoral process? Does he agree that that is a most unfortunate development, which we hope will be resisted at all costs?
  Mr. Swayne: My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. However, the problem is even worse, as the trend that he mentioned will be assisted by the Bill.
  A principal difference between myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Poole is that I can think of nothing more dispiriting than logos appearing on the ballot paper. It is the dumbing down of British politics, in which candidates are to sell themselves in much the same way as they might sell soap powder. Only one symbol should legitimately appear on a ballot paper: an "X" marked against the name of one candidate. In the case of New Forrest, West, that name is mine.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poole was strenuous in attempting to be in line with the new politics—the consensual attitude that is engendered by proportional systems, four of which we have already legislated on. I was therefore struggling for something complimentary to say about the Bill. However, the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) has assisted me, as I now realise that I welcome in the Bill what is not in it. The hon. Gentleman wished that the Bill would empower the Liberal Democrats to circumvent the United Kingdom's very proper anti-discrimination and equal opportunity legislation, to persist with their extraordinary agenda of political correctness.
  Mr. Sanders: Will the hon. Gentleman define his comment, at the very beginning of his speech, about not wishing "to detain the House for very long"?
  Mr. Swayne: I have been fairly reasonable, so far, and certainly do not intend to detain the House for much longer. Were the hon. Gentleman to remain in his seat, I should be quicker.
  540
  The demand of the hon. Member for Colchester for a system allowing his party to circumvent equal opportunities legislation is rooted in the Liberal Democrats' attitude—their political correctness—which itself seems to be rooted in an attitude that pervaded the councils of the early Church—that men and women, the male and the female, are effectively two species that have antithetical interests and cannot be represented one by the other. The logical conclusion of such a system is that there has to be an equal number of male and female candidates to secure proper political representation. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a most ridiculous argument, and I welcome the fact that the Bill does not endorse it.
  The Home Secretary seemed to volunteer me for the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill, but I should certainly not relish the work that the Committee will have to put into it. The Bill seems to have been a very rushed job, and the Committee will have to do a great deal of work to sort it out.
  Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that the only hon. Members who should serve on Standing Committees are those who are fawningly in favour of some ghastly consensual Bill. I hope that he accepts that the essence of the House includes Standing Committees scrutinising Bills with a proper degree of criticality. If so, does he not agree that—if he can find it within himself—he should offer himself—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that we want to get into a debate on the operation of Standing Committees.
  Mr. Swayne: For precisely the reason given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I was not volunteering myself for the Standing Committee.
  The Committee will have so much to do, because the Bill contains so little that is necessary to make it workable. I have already mentioned to the Home Secretary the fact that the Bill contains no mechanism for third parties even to be notified that applications for registration are in prospect. It provides no means by which an application can be published, and therefore brought to the attention of other political parties that might wish to make representations. Nor does it contain an appeal procedure for those whose applications might be refused. All those matters will have to be dealt with.
  The Bill is quite inadequate. In clause 10, for example, the question arises whether the "Committee of Members of the House of Commons" will be a Committee of the House. Will it enjoy parliamentary privilege? That matter will have to be sorted out.
  I return to the point with which I began my speech. I wish that the Bill consisted of nothing more than schedule 2, which deals with the quite proper concern of the hon. Member for Torbay. The rest of the Bill is necessary as a consequence not of any inadequacy in our current electoral arrangements but of the awful systems that those on the Treasury Bench have in prospect for us.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: This has been a short but interesting debate. When he was Home Secretary, James Callaghan said:
  "I would hope that most people who stand for election would have a proper sense of responsibility. I agree that one cannot wholly rely on that". —[Official Report, 18 December 1968; Vol. 775, c. 1404.]
  In "The Times Guide to the House of Commons", when describing the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), Neil Hamilton and others at the count in Tatton at the general election, Matthew Parris said:
  "Behind both, towering above them and swaying from side to side in a weird dance, writhed a 7ft being. A 6ft transvestite in 12in platform heels, wearing a birdcage on her head, her face painted with wild shapes and red and green colours, dressed in royal robes, covered with glitter and plastered in £5 notes, 'Miss Moneypenny'—in reality Burnel Penhaul, 32, from Birmingham—was standing for the Miss Moneypenny's Glamorous One Party. Campaigning on the slogan 'Put the tat back into Tatton' she won 128 votes."
  I think that that shows how wrong James Callaghan was in 1968. The fact is that, at the most recent general election, a record number of candidates stood, and a record number of candidates lost their deposits.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said, it was not so many years ago that candidates stood without any label on ballot papers. The changes that are occurring in the United Kingdom electoral system—especially the list system in European elections—make it is absolutely necessary that the registered names of political parties should be protected. Next year, for the first time in this country, people will vote for a political party. That will be their wake-up call on the consequences of proportional representation and the list system.
  Not so many years ago, it was important for candidates to get their name known around the constituency. Now it is important for the party name and emblem to be known around the constituency, because that is what people will be voting for. That is not progress for politics in this country.
  We have heard about the d'Hondt system. The Home Secretary said that d'Hondt was one of 10 famous Belgians whom he knew. Unless Mr. d'Hondt had nine other family members, I would struggle to name 10 famous Belgians. The d'Hondt system is simple compared with how the Liberal Democrats will select their lists.
  The debate is about correcting a problem that we know exists because there have been a few Adjournment debates on it since the election. The problem is the spirit of fighting elections and allowing electors to choose clearly between candidates, individuals and clearly defined political parties. The arrangements have been flouted and, unless we do something, they will be flouted again.
  I was once told that politics is not cricket. I guess that it is not. Some people will not play the game as it is intended. Deception is the clear intention of rogue candidates. I am not referring to any of the genuine articles in the House of Commons today. In a less generous mood, I could say a lot about deception and rogue candidates, but I am a generous person.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) before the Christmas Adjournment reminded me of a typical "EastEnders" episode—it was depressing
  542
  and without hope to start with and then it got worse. We have an opportunity to end that soap opera. The Bill is not a cure-all and there will still be judicial appeals because of the problem of people changing their names rather than passing off political parties, but it is a step in the right direction.
  A quick review of "Dod" or "The Times Guide to the House of Commons" shows why we need to act. There were 3,717 candidates in 659 seats at the 1997 general election. "Dod" lists no fewer than six legitimate left of centre parties: Labour; Labour Co-operative; Scottish Socialist Alliance; the Socialist Labour party; the Socialist party of Great Britain; and the Workers Revolutionary party. That does not even include new Labour, which we all know to be a deception, whichever party uses the description.
  In Camberwell and Peckham, the Labour party, the Socialist Labour party, the Socialist party and the Workers Revolutionary party all appeared on the same ballot paper. In Cardiff, South and Penarth, the New Labour candidate, who stood against the Labour candidate, scored 3,942 votes-three times more than the Plaid Cymru candidate. In Blackburn, a Common Sense candidate stood against the Home Secretary. As we know, the electors turned their backs on common sense and voted Labour-we can see the Home Secretary in his place.
  A distinction has to be made between the more eccentric candidates—such as the Monster Raving Loony party, the Sub-genius candidate, the Glow Bowling candidate and the Independent OAP—and others with more sinister intentions to deceive, such the Conservatory candidate and other examples that we have heard this evening. I spoke to Rod Richards earlier today about the exercise that he had to go through. We have heard about it many times. A gentleman called David Neal, who did not even change his name by deed poll, gave the returning officer a nomination form filled in under the name Rod Richard. He dropped the letter "s" so that he would appear above Rod Richards on the ballot paper and called himself the Conservatory candidate.
  The hon. Member for Winchester mentioned the problem of the 24 hours available for an appeal. In many cases, the candidates have less than 24 hours because they do not find out about the problem immediately.
  Mr. Sanders: What is the hon. Gentleman's opinion of changing the order of the candidates for elections by pulling a letter out of a hat to start the list off so that those names beginning with "A" are not guaranteed to be at the top? That would stop the pre-emptive spoiler, whose name is guaranteed to come above the candidate from whom they are trying to steal votes.
  Mr. Evans: That would stop me from changing my name by deed poll to Aaron Aaronovitch, so I am not too sure about the idea. The Home Secretary says that a committee is considering the problem. It is one of many issues to be taken account. The hon. Member for Winchester mentioned several in his Adjournment speech, including the time available for postal ballot forms to be submitted, which is ridiculously long in these days of computers.
  The problem of changing names—not even by deed poll—such as that Rod Richards faced, desperately needs to be solved. It is a definite problem which is not covered

  543
  by the Bill. Even after the judicial review, in which the judge told the impersonator of Rod Richards to stand as David Neal, he was allowed to stand as the Conservatory candidate. He gained almost 600 votes, having changed his name just for the election and without campaigning or being well known in the area. We need to change the situation as soon as possible.
  We welcome the Bill, but it is not perfect. We shall table amendments in Committee, as will other parties—perhaps even the Government will do so, remembering the Government of Wales Bill.
  I am reassured by the Home Secretary's comment that nobody will be able to register the word "independent". I had thought that the hon. Member for Tatton might be able to register the word in the first round and that people would need to seek his permission to stand under that banner. We need clarification on whether a Conservative party member who was disgruntled with the Conservative party could stand as an Independent Conservative. He would be both a Conservative and independent. The Library has produced figures for the number of people who stood at local elections using the word "independent" before the party name—Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative. There were no figures for the 1998 elections, but in 1996, there were 51 candidates listed as Independent Labour, 30 as Independent Conservative and four as Independent Liberal Democrat. There were also 49 Militant Labour candidates and one Independent Green. We would welcome clarification on that.
  We have heard of the Liberal Democrats concerns about the protection of their party's name. There is also the problem of the Liberal party, which had candidates at the general election. The Liberal party is older than the current Liberal Democrats. It has no Members of Parliament, so it would not be able to register the word Liberal in the first round of registration, but I am sure that it would be keen to seek protection for its name. Would that be possible under the Bill?
  I should like to go into a little more detail on one issue that has been mentioned. It is not covered in the Bill, but it is important. It relates to the spirit of voting and to the Government of Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill, which are both in another place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said that there will be 40 first-past-the-post candidates and 20 additional members in the Welsh assembly, and 73 first-past-the-post candidates and 56 additional members in the Scottish Parliament. Under the d'Hondt system, people will be able to vote for a constituency member and use their second vote for the list system.
  The great worry, which was addressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) in Committee on the Government of Wales Bill, is that the split ticket will be abused. Alter ego parties could stand, and the spirit of the d'Hondt system would be totally destroyed. In reply to my right hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), said:
  "I thank the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) for advancing new clause 35 … We acknowledge the points that he has made and I concede that there may be scope for collusion between and within parties to exploit the two-ballot structure of the additional member system in the manner that he described. Such cynical manipulation … would be an affront to the electorate and
  544
  would undermine the democratic credibility of the elected body … If that were to happen in Wales, it would not reflect well on the guilty parties."—[Official Report, 2 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 804–05.]
  To return to the quote of Jim Callaghan, we might all hope that people standing for parliamentary elections would play the game, but it does not always work that way. We cannot say what will happen to political parties that might try to use and abuse the system.
  For instance, in Scotland, the Labour party sometimes stands as the Labour Co-operative party. What is to prevent the Labour party from fighting constituencies as the Labour party and list-system seats as the Labour Co-operative party? The Labour party would not be the only party able to do so. We have heard that Plaid Cymru is also to be known as the Party of Wales. It could stand as Plaid Cymru for constituencies and as the Party of Wales under the list system.
  When we argued against the d'Hondt system in the first place, we were told to be quiet and to be grateful for it, as the Government were being extremely generous because no Conservative Members represent constituencies in Scotland and Wales. We can hardly be grateful if the system is open to such abuse. Fine words from the Government are well and good, but we need guarantees to ensure that loopholes are closed. We shall have to return to that matter in Committee.
  I recently spoke to members of Charter 88 about their attitude to the Bill. They have major concerns about the fact that there is no appeal structure. We know that the registrar will be able to seek guidance from the Speaker's Committee, and that he can accept, ignore or overrule such guidance as he thinks appropriate. However, someone representing a potential political party has no right of appeal. Are the Government prepared to consider that matter in Committee, so that anyone who feels any grievance has a proper right of appeal? That is very important.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield also mentioned the importance to be given to electoral returning officers. Time and again, we have heard how returning officers did not want to become involved in making adjudications. Once nominations were submitted, and they were valid, that was it. They did not want to get involved in whether a candidate was really whom they claimed to be; a name is submitted and it is accepted. That is why there has been so much recourse to the courts. Going to court is expensive and stressful for individuals, political parties and local authorities, which must defend the adjudication. Are we to be assured that the 659 electoral returning officers will be properly guided to ensure uniformity, so that, if somebody is turned down as a candidate in one area, it will be extremely unlikely—indeed, rare—that that person will be able to stand elsewhere or that somebody else will be able to stand under exactly the same name?
  The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) mentioned some of the strange, weird and wonderful parties that stood at the general election. We know that the Secretary of State will have powers under the Bill to ban certain words from ballot papers. If, for instance, somebody tried to stand for a Legalise Cannabis Now party, would he be able to take a view on that, given that the message is in the party name? We know that, once the election campaign starts, people may campaign on all sorts of issues, but we should bear in mind the fact that, under

  545
  clause 3(1)(f), the Secretary of State, by order, will be able to ban all sorts of names. Does he expect to use that power a great deal? If so, in what circumstances?
  We welcome the Bill. I know that many of us are keen to serve on the Committee because we want to improve it. We are absolutely certain that change is needed, to protect not only candidates and political parties but the people, who genuinely treasure their votes. They have the opportunity to use their vote in a general election only once every four or five years, and the last thing that they want is to be deceived. People were deceived at the last election by candidates standing under fraudulent, rogue party political names. We welcome the fact that that will change. We are interested to hear the Minister's response to the questions that have been posed in the debate.
  6.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): This has been a very positive debate. Although there may have been slight echoes of dissent here and there, the general thrust of the Bill and its proposals have been welcomed by the whole House.
  The measure is essential, particularly if, it must be conceded, we are to deal with new electoral systems, such as those for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh assembly and the European Parliament. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) acknowledged, the Bill does not uniquely address that aspect. It deals with other problems which, as I think hon. Members accept, need to be addressed irrespective of views on proportional representation or any other electoral system. I assure hon. Members who do not support proportional representation for election to this House or anywhere else that there will be an opportunity in due course to consider whatever proposals the Jenkins commission makes on voting systems. The Bill concerns distinct issues relating specifically to the problems that have been mentioned in the debate.
  The setting up of a register for political parties is sensible, concerning as it does the means to combat deliberate attempts cynically to mislead electors. We have heard many examples of that. I was going to say that I would hope to reassure the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on the matter, but, on mature reflection, I am not sure whether anything that anybody said in the House could ever reassure him a great deal, such is the nature of his political approach. I shall return to the hon. Gentleman's comments.
  I ought to spend a little time dealing with several of the issues that have been raised. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned the importance to the Westminster Parliament of the constituency link. I do not want to labour the point, but if he reads what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in debates earlier this week and looks at the terms of reference of the Jenkins commission, he will—I hope—agree that we accept the important role of the constituency link in the House of Commons, and hope that, by whatever means we end up resolving the issue, it will be preserved.
  The right hon. Gentleman seems to be on the edge of his seat, but, as a constituency Member myself, I reaffirm everything that the Secretary of State said. Not only is that link a source of a great deal of information that makes
  546
  us better at taking decisions in the House, but it means that those whom we represent in the Westminster Parliament know clearly who represents them because there is a defined geographical area that sends us here. Those points were well made by the right hon. Gentleman, and we accept them. Does he want to intervene?
  Sir Norman Fowler: The question that I wanted to ask was whether the Minister would therefore give an assurance now that if there is a referendum on proportional representation, Ministers will have absolute freedom to campaign in favour of the first-past-the-post system.
  Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman spent a long time in government himself, and knows that it would be premature for me to give any such assurance now. At the appropriate time, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet will make that decision, and when the matter is decided, we shall be able to enlighten the right hon. Gentleman. In the meantime, he must exercise his customary patience.

  The right hon. Gentleman asked whether registration would prevent parties from colluding to exploit the additional member system—a question which was also raised by others. Any party that wants to contest the list part of the elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh assembly or the Greater London assembly will need to be registered. The registrar will not be empowered to refuse a registration application merely because he believes the party to be a bogus one set up purely for the purpose of manipulating the electoral system.
  However, any party set up as an "alter ego" party to try to win additional member seats would obviously be exposed by the media. That would become clear from the way in which it was campaigning, and I am sure that the voters would seek to punish it. Furthermore, the registrar would not register a supposedly new party if its name were too similar to that of an existing registered party.
  The Under-Secretary of State in the other place, Lord Williams of Mostyn, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, gave an assurance during the passage of the Government of Wales Bill through another place that the Labour party would not attempt to use collusion to deceive the electorate, and I hope that any responsible party would take the same view. No doubt such matters will be further debated in Committee, but it was important to get that point on the record now.
  The right hon. Gentleman and others asked why there was no appeal against decisions by the registrar. It will be for the registrar to decide whether in his opinion a name does not meet the tests in clause 3. As has been acknowledged, if he is in any doubt, he will be able to refer for advice to the Speaker' s Committee established under clause 10.
  It is important to reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said—that, as part of the process, the registrar will examine the history of any political party, and how that may have led to the development or evolution of a name. For example, the relationship between the Liberal party and the Liberal Democrat party could be considered in that context—I would not like to predict the outcome, but it should be fairly obvious. The registrar would determine which was the successor party to the original Liberal party. I must admit that I do not envy him that task.

  547
  The process is not as sinister as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley made out. Perhaps, on reflection, he did not mean to make it sound sinister, but that is the impression that he may have created. I believe that the registrar will operate the system in a sensible way, and there is no reason to suspect any compromise of independence or any favouritism. We should wait and see how it works, but I am confident that a lot of thought went into the most appropriate methods. I am confident, because those methods work well in many other contexts.
  Mr. Brady: I apologise if I am pre-empting something that the Minister was about to deal with, but I am interested in the question raised by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) about the legitimacy of calling oneself an independent Conservative, Labour or Liberal candidate. It is important that people should be able to do that. Does the Minister agree?
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right; he did anticipate an issue that I intend to deal with later. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield made a number of points, and I shall try to cover the remainder of those first.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked how misleading candidate descriptions are to be prevented. Any candidate standing on behalf of a registered party will require a certificate authorised by or on behalf of that party's registered nominating officer before the party's name or any form of words that voters are likely to associate with the registered party can be included on the ballot paper.
  The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members also asked why the Bill did not deal with misleading names of candidates as well as of parties—names such as "The Bogus Roy Jenkins". The Bill does not deal with candidates' names, as has rightly been said, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, at the general election injunctions were successfully granted in the High Court against spoiler candidates using the same or a very similar name to stand against the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and Rod Richards, the former Member for Clwyd, North-West.
  Mr. Evans: Is the Minister saying that for somebody to stand as an independent Labour candidate, whether at local elections or otherwise, he or she must seek permission from the leader of the Labour party to use the word "Labour" in that context?
  Mr. Howarth: I shall deal later with who is and who is not an independent candidate, but that is a separate issue. I am talking about names now.
  The Bill gives protection to the names of registered parties, and the possibility of including the party's emblem on the ballot paper should reduce any confusion arising from the use of misleading candidates' names.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, a little ungenerously, raised the possibility of emblems causing confusion and being used humorously. I think that emblems are a good thing. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) made a strong point about how the emblems
  548
  could help people whose first language was not English. I ask the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield to accept another point: emblems could be useful in helping people with poor vision. There is evidence from the general election that disabled people in general, but especially partially sighted people, sometimes had difficulty in voting. A well-placed emblem on the ballot paper would be easier for somebody with dim sight to make out than the name of a political party, so the emblem would be helpful.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked what there was to prevent inconsistency in decisions between different returning officers about what is misleading. That is a valid and important question. Different decisions will indeed be possible, because it will be up to each returning officer to decide whether a candidate's description is misleading when it is not supported by a registered party.
  However, by and large, the returning officers do their job well, and we expect them to make reasonable decisions. I do not therefore expect any great variation between decisions. All of us here have stood for election, so we know about the good sense of returning officers. They are often put under pressure by people such as ourselves, and they usually make reasonable decisions in line with common sense and the requirements of legislation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) raised several points, and asked whether non-registered candidates would still be allowed to use party names on the ballot paper. He is right that the Bill will not prevent the continuation of so-called joke candidates with party descriptions, so long as, in the opinion of the returning officer, those would not lead voters to associate the candidate with a registered political party.
  My hon. Friend also asked how the registrar of political parties would decide whether a proposed party name was offensive. That is up to the registrar to decide. If he is uncertain, he may seek advice from the Committee to be appointed by Madam Speaker under clause 10. Those are sensible arrangements. I do not want to be drawn into a debate with my hon. Friend as to what is and what is not offensive—first, because I detect some eagerness among hon. Members to get away tonight, and secondly because it might be slightly dangerous.
  The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell)—part of whose speech greatly upset the hon. Member for New Forose, West—asked why the Bill should not contain provisions to allow parties to adopt all-women shortlists. The Government share the aim of increasing the representation of women and minority groups in Parliament and the devolved legislatures, but we do not believe that it would be possible or, indeed, appropriate to use the Bill to enable political parties to introduce measures such as all-women shortlists.
  As has been made clear during discussions on the Scotland Bill, our legal advice is that, even if political parties were to be given a general exemption from the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, all-women shortlists would still fall foul of the European Union equal treatment directive. We could not have used the Bill to overcome that difficulty even if we had wanted to. We hope that political parties will do all that they can within the existing legal framework to encourage women candidates and to ensure that their selection procedures are not inadvertently discriminatory. I hope that the House

  549
  will agree that the huge increase in the number of women Members of Parliament following the general election last year has improved the way in which we conduct business.
  The hon. Member for Poole—I am about to damage his reputation, possibly beyond repair, and certainly in the eyes of the hon. Member for New Forose, West—made a typically thoughtful speech; I think that it was the second or third speech that I have heard him make this week. apologise if I am damaging his prospects, but he asked some useful questions, including whether a party would be able to register variants of its name, such as Conservative and Unionist, and who would be able to use words such as "Unionist" in their party's name. The Bill provides for each party to register one principal name, with an option, as was said earlier, for a Welsh-language name. It already provides protection for variations in a party's name. For example, if the Conservative party is registered, we would not expect the registrar to allow another party to register its name as Tory, Scottish Conservative or Young Conservative, as those names are associated with the Conservative party.
  There is nothing to prevent a party from advising the registrar of the alternative names or variants that it uses—although they would not be registered separately—which could be misleading if registered by another party. The test is whether, in the registrar's opinion, voters are likely to be confused. That means that more than one party could use the same word in its name—such as "Liberal" or "Unionist"—provided that it was clear that voters could distinguish between the parties; if there were any doubt, the Speaker's Committee would be able to advise. Again, the history of those political parties would be taken into account. I recognise that, because of the way in which the Conservative party has developed over the years, there is some difficulty in the use of the word "Unionist", but we would not in any way seek to exploit that.
  The hon. member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), who described his rather sorry experience of misleading party names, asked about the use of the title "independent"—the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) intervened somewhat prematurely to raise the same issue. The order-making power under clause 3(1)(f) allows any word or expression to be prohibited. That will prevent some words, such as "royal", from being used in the title of a party. It will also help to ensure that some generic words or phrases, such as "independent" or "residents association", are not registered by one party so as to prevent their being used by individual candidates. The power can be used to allow a party to use the words "residents association" in its registered name only if it is qualified to do so within a geographical area—in other words, a party would not be able to operate nationally using the name Residents Association. As has been said, it would be open to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell)
  550
  to remain an independent or to register under any name that he chose—perhaps the Martin Bell party or the Anti-Corruption party—
  Mr. John Greenway: The White Suit party.
  Mr. Howarth: Or, indeed, the White Suit party. He could use one of those names, provided that it could not be confused with that of another party and that it met the tests of the Bill. People will be able to continue to stand as independents provided that their use of the name is not intended to cause confusion through identification with a legitimate registered party.
  Mr. Brady: I fear that the Minister is missing the point. Our concern is not the permissibility of using the name "independent", but whether it is permitted to use the names Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat in conjunction with it. The use of the word "independent" must surely be sufficient to make it clear that there is no intention to deceive.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The conjunction of the words "independent" and "party" is probably a tautology, so perhaps we should not be drawn down that road—we can have that debate at greater length in Committee.
  As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said at the outset, the Bill is largely a technical measure, but it is none the less important. Once it has been enacted, there will be proper protection at elections for the names of political parties from spoiler candidates who use deliberately misleading descriptions. The electorate will have a much greater certainty that whoever they vote for represents the party that he or she claims to represent—I know that the House will welcome that.
  We believe that it is vital that, for the purposes of list-style elections, the political parties have a simple and straightforward means of putting forward their candidates. The Bill is also right for the other reasons that I have mentioned, and it meets all the challenges that were set for it. I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Registration of Political Parties Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment, and

  (2)the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Allen]

  Question agreed to.

  House of Commons (Modernisation)
  6.36 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I beg to move,
  That this House approves the Third and Fourth Reports from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on Carry-over of Public Bills and Conduct in the Chamber (HC 543 and 600).
  First, I welcome the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) to the debate. He has had to deal with business questions and a debate on modernisation on the same day, so I hope that he will soon feel truly initiated into his new role.
  The purpose of the debate is straightforward—to seek the approval of the House to the changes proposed in the third and fourth reports of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons.
  The Committee's first report, which dealt with the legislative process, recommended that, in appropriate cases, carry-over could be used as a positive means of improving the quality of legislation—the report was agreed by the House on 13 November last year. Our third report brings the attention of the House to a memorandum by the Clerks of both Houses on how the carry-over procedure could operate in practice. I should make it clear that the Government do not yet have any specific Bill in mind that should be subject to the procedure. Moreover, no change to Standing Orders is required at this stage. However, we should be clear about the process and the restrictions that would be placed on its use.
  The basic reasons for having some end-of-Session flexibility were laid out in our first report, but it may be worth reiterating them. It may mean that, in time, we can move towards spreading legislation more evenly throughout a parliamentary Session. We may be able to avoid Bills having to be rushed through just before the end of the Session to avoid the cut-off. As the Modernisation Committee pointed out, introducing this flexibility gives the Government some assurance that any extra time that might be necessary for extra scrutiny—such as by means of a draft Bill, or by using the mechanism of a Special Standing Committee—would not put a Bill at risk.
  Essentially, the carry-over procedure would be used in co-operation through the usual channels and between the two Houses. The Committee has suggested first that the Government Bills to be carried over should not have completed their passage through the House in which they originated—that is, not sent to the second House—although, presumably, they will have been advanced as far as possible. Secondly, it is suggested that they should be carried over by specific ad hoc motions and not by any easy change to Standing Orders. Thirdly, they should be Bills whose eligibility for the carry-over has been agreed through the usual channels. Those are important safeguards which should be mentioned.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: This is a very important point. Am I to take it that it will be made clear that this will be allowed to happen only on the basis of total agreement and on non-controversial matters, because, frankly, should this become a habit, it could become an extremely dangerous precedent in the hands of some Governments?
  Mrs. Taylor: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend. I and Committee members with ministerial experience in
  552
  previous Governments pointed out that worthy Bills can be squeezed because other measures have a high level of political priority. If certain measures could be introduced towards the end of a Session, it might be possible to deal with some of the important issues for which there is cross-party support. Those could be dealt with in a more measured way than is sometimes the case when we have the cut-off.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I fully accept my right hon. Friend's point, and she has done some good work on both reports. I am not sure whether we would need a motion on each of the matters to be carried over—a necessary safeguard, I should have thought—and whether the motions would be debatable. The report does not mention what sort of time my right hon. Friend has in mind for such a debate. Can she enlighten us?
  Mrs. Taylor: I hope that there will be agreement, but we would need the safeguard of allowing the House to express its opinion and we would need the House's formal approval. I would envisage that we would debate such a motion.
  Mr. Sheldon: Each one?
  Mrs. Taylor: Yes, were there to be more than one in any Session. At the moment, we are in new territory, and I have in mind no specific Bill on which to use the procedure in this Session. There is plenty of time to discuss the details of how this will work.
  Part of the reason for discussing the principle is to encourage the Government to be less hesitant. Previous Governments have always been hesitant about allowing Bills either to go to Special Standing Committees or to be considered in draft form by Select Committees, simply because of the time constraints that the cut-off at the end of a Session can provide. It is envisaged that specific motions would be moved on any measure proposed to be dealt with in this way.
  I remind the House that the Procedure Committee in the House of Lords recently recommended similar procedures to those I am proposing. It acknowledged that a Bill carried over in one Session and sent up from the Commons at the start of the subsequent Session should be treated in the same way as other Bills. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the appendix to the Modernisation Committee's third report make it clear that the carry-over should not give rise to any particular problems for the Lords, which is generally willing to accept this procedure.
  The Committee's fourth report, "Conduct in the Chamber", covers a wide variety of areas in which Members rightly feel that the House's way of working needs to be brought up to date. Looking at the list of recommendations, it is surprising that some of those procedures have survived for so long. The recommendations are a mixture of procedural and administrative changes, some of which can be implemented by the Chair, while others will need changes to Standing Orders—hence the motion.
  Some hon. Members think that the changes we are proposing are not necessarily the last word in terms of how the House conducts itself. The report deals with issues such as time limits on speeches; the ending of the

  553
  automatic precedent for Privy Councillors; and ending some of the anachronisms, such as opera hats for points of order in Divisions, spying strangers and the banning of quotations from the Lords. The report also contains some simple measures to be more helpful to Members, such as putting the names of Members' constituencies on the annunciator and, where possible, giving notice on the annunciator and the PDVN of time limits on speeches.
  I will deal first with changes that can be implemented by the Speaker without any change to Standing Orders. The first is our recommendation in paragraph 28 that the Speaker should be
  "under no obligation to give any precedence to Privy Councillors in debate."
  Considering the initial reaction, that may the most welcome of the changes we have suggested. I am aware that some, although not all, Privy Councillors have reservations.
  Mr. William Cash: Are we to understand from the rather delicate way in which this has been expressed that the recommendation that the Speaker be under no obligation to give precedence to Privy Councillors implies that Privy Councillors have, in the past, perhaps had a rather undue share of the cake in terms of the length of time allocated for speaking in the House? It has been rather difficult to understand why people who have had a lengthy career, but who have not necessarily illuminated the House during that career, should get the biggest share of the time.
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has illuminated the House with the reasons for the change. That is why I said that it was one of the more welcome changes we have proposed. There are one or two Privy Councillors who have some reservations, but many others think that it is a reasonable change.
  I hope that the House will accept the principle that all Members are equal, and that we all have an equal right to be considered to speak in any debate. It is a fact that some Privy Councillors will receive priority in certain debates because of specific roles that they occupy. For example, they might be the Chair of a specific Select Committee, which might mean that they receive preference in a particular debate. However, they should not get automatic preference just because they are Privy Councillors.
  The second point in terms of proposals that do not require a change to Standing Orders is the old practice of banning direct quotations from speeches made in the House of Lords in a current Session of Parliament. We recommend that that should be abolished, and it is right that we should be able to quote whomever we wish without fear of being pulled up.
  The third recommendation concerns how we behave in the House. Members who are here for a debate should be here at the beginning, should listen to others who speak, should stay after speaking, unless they have compelling reasons not to, and should certainly reappear for the winding-up speeches. On many recent occasions, it has been brought to the attention of the House that Members have not obeyed the usual courtesies of debate and have not listened to the speeches of others. Members who fail to observe the normal conventions of the House should not expect to get priority in being called to speak in future.
  554
  We have suggested that the Speaker should indicate to Members that that will be the case if they do not observe courtesies that should be obvious to any Member who is genuinely interested in a debate. Madam Speaker has indicated that she is "fully sympathetic" to that idea, although, understandably, she does not want to be placed under an absolute obligation to write to every Member on every minor transgression. We can leave it to the Speaker's discretion.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In discussions around the building over the past fortnight, I have become aware that many Members do not appreciate that recommendation, but it is one of the best to come from the Committee. It is extremely discourteous to expect other people to listen to our speeches, but to fail to return to the Chamber to listen to others. Can my right hon. Friend give any hint of how such matters will be quickly made known to Members so that the recommendation is enforced?
  Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises a genuine point. We sometimes assume that every Member reads every Select Committee report—including those of the Modernisation Committee—and every line of Hansard. That may not be the case. There will be occasions on which Madam Speaker will wish to draw points to the attention of Members; on other occasions, the Whips will wish to do so. Members who are not present for winding-up speeches cannot expect Ministers automatically to respond to their points. A combination of those factors may lead Members to understand the reasons for the conventions. They are simple courtesies, and, if a Member is genuinely interested in a debate, they are the least that can be expected.
  Our fourth recommendation relates to the absolute ban on direct quotations in supplementary questions. We recommend that it be lifted, although, as we have said, the Speaker should not hesitate to stop lengthy questions. The fact that a Member is quoting is no excuse for making a question unduly long. I am sure that Madam Speaker will not hesitate to act when necessary.
  We recommend a new procedure for raising points of order during a Division. At present, we have the opera hat, and, although some Members may feel that they look particularly fetching in it, it makes the House of Commons look ridiculous when someone wearing the hat is trying to raise a point of order from a seated position while everyone else is milling around and going to vote.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: The point is that everyone is milling around. If we must get rid of the opera hat, there must be some means by which a Member can indicate in the melee that he or she wishes to make a point of order.
  Mrs. Taylor: We dealt with that point in the report by suggesting that Members, having indicated to the Clerk or the Chair that they wish to make a point of order, should be able to do so. We suggest that a Member should do so from a position on the second Bench, as close as possible to the Chair and the Clerks' Table so that he or she can be heard by the Chair and by the Official Report without obstructing the movement of Members to the Lobby. I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to be sure

  555
  that Members will still be able, in rare circumstances, to make points of order, but we have offered an alternative that might be used.
  Mr. Bennett: I accept that it is difficult to make a point of order during a Division. When we put the hat on, most of the rose of the House is amused by our appearance. However, although having a special place to stand is perfectly all right for the person making the point of order, it often happens that once a Member has made a point claiming that something is absolutely outrageous, another Member wants to rebut it quickly. If one is standing in the far corner, it will not be easy, after hearing a point of order, to rush to the second Bench to make a point.
  Mrs. Taylor: It is not for other Members to rebut points of order, but for the Speaker.
  If we adopt the new procedure, what should happen to the top hats that have been in the Chamber until now? I understand that we have two hats here normally. Perhaps one could be displayed in our archive near the old annunciator downstairs. I am sure that many Members would like the other as a souvenir, but I do not think it best to do that with it. Perhaps we should find a way to raise money for charity by disposing of the hat. Perhaps Madam Speaker could give some thought to that.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: We could put it in the Dome.
  Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes an intriguing suggestion, and I will convey it to my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio. Wherever the hat goes, we will make sure that any money raised is used for a very good purpose.
  The Committee also recommended a couple of simple administrative changes. First, the constituency as well as the name of the Member who has the Floor should be displayed on the annunciators that are visible throughout the Palace of Westminster. That simple change would be of assistance, as would our second suggestion, that details of proposed time limits on speeches should be put out to Members on the annunciator and the PDVN.
  Madam Speaker has made it clear that she sees
  "the logic of this and it may well be possible to implement it on some (or indeed most) occasions",
  but she adds:
  "Equally, however, there will be occasions when I am not in a position to do so."
  That relates to whether Members inform the Speaker early enough that they wish to speak in a debate. Sometimes, Members inform her office rather late in the day, and it would not be possible at, say, 1 pm to indicate that a decision had been taken. Madam Speaker has undertaken to use her "best endeavours" to provide such information, and the House should accept her offer. If Members give the Speaker better notice of a wish to speak, it will be more likely that they will get a warning that a time limit has been placed on debate.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way.
  556
  Does the Modernisation Committee acknowledge that its recommendation threatens the spontaneity of debate in the House? I have always thought that one of the points of having debates in the Commons was that Members could listen to speeches and then feel moved to seek to catch the Speaker's eye. Does the Leader of the House accept that to oblige us all to write in advance, before we have heard the debate, could stultify the process and kill off the spontaneity of debate that I hope the House still treasures?
  Mrs. Taylor: If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the spontaneity of debate, I hope that he will support the suggestions on interventions, time limits and injury time that I am about to move on to. They are critical if we are to ensure that debates are more spontaneous.
  Time limits can apply at the moment. If they are to apply, and Madam Speaker can make an early decision on the matter, it is reasonable that hon. Members who wish to speak know that that is the case so that they can prepare a 10 or 15-minute speech, rather than thinking that they have the time to make a long speech and having to curtail it at the last moment. If there are to be time limits, surely there is nothing wrong in informing Members that that is to be the case.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way again. I have no problem with time limits—I hope that we all strive to be concise. My difficulty is that if we constrain too tightly the requirement always to notify the Speaker in writing if one wishes to contribute, the danger will be that hon. Members who might not have thought that they would speak, but who attend the debate and listen to other speeches, may wish to contribute but simply not be able to do so. Would the Leader of the House share my regret if that were ever to be the case?
  Mrs. Taylor: It is not a question of excluding people. There is not always high demand to speak in debates, although in many debates there is. If hon. Members have been waiting for a specific debate and have written to the Speaker and prepared in advance, and if they have perhaps not spoken for some time, that should be taken into account. I am not saying that one should not be able to participate in a debate if one has not written to the Speaker; nor is the Modernisation Committee.
  Mr. Cash: Occasionally, statements are made—the practice has become frequent in the past few years—on days when there is controversial business. They take up a great deal of time and thus considerably curtail debate on the main business, much to the infuriation of hon. Members who wanted to speak. Some people believe that that has been done deliberately to reduce the length of the main debate. Statements are bound to affect whether Madam Speaker wishes to impose a time limit. Will the right hon. Lady comment on that and on the eight-minute rule, to which she has not yet referred and about which the House can reasonably expect some explanation?
  Mrs. Taylor: I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's final point when I come to the changes that require amendments to the Standing Orders. The usual complaint from Opposition Members about statements is that we do not have enough of them. Now we have a complaint that

  557
  statements conflict with the desire for longer debates on certain matters. The hon. Gentleman merely illustrates the dilemma that we always face when we consider whether to have a statement on a particular issue. It always has to be a balance between the importance of the statement and the importance and pressure of the debate. Sometimes, statements are moved to protect Opposition days and there is always the possibility that a private notice question may be granted, which can also cut into the time for debate.
  The first recommendation of the Committee that involves amendments to the Standing Orders—I hope that Opposition Members who have intervened will welcome this change—is that extra time should be allowed for interventions in short speeches when there is a time limit. If hon. Members are inhibited from giving way during their speech to let other Members make a point, it can inhibit debate and lead to set speeches, with no flexibility. I raised that matter on the Floor of the House when we originally debated the Jopling changes in December 1994 and argued that we should consider the possibility of injury time. The experience since then has shown that there is a very strong case indeed for injury time, but we say that it should be for interventions and not for the full length of any answer; otherwise, it could lead to abuse of the time limit. I hope that the House will agree that there is a strong case for that.
  Our next recommendation is that the Speaker should be given discretion to impose a variable time limit on speeches. At the moment, the limit is 10 minutes between certain hours. There may be occasions when that is not the most appropriate limit. For example, in a debate where there is much pressure, but it is not intense, if everyone speaks for 15 minutes, every hon. Member who wants to speak may be able to do so, whereas if someone hogs the debate and takes much longer they will not. That was the reason for the recommendation. We decided on the lower limit of eight minutes, for example, for an order or a prayer after 10 pm, with only one and a half hours for debate, when there is great pressure. We thought that that limit might be useful on some occasions, but we do not envisage its being used frequently—certainly not in the near future. We thought it right to have that option for very short debates.
  Another recommendation is that hon. Members who are named by the Chair should lose their parliamentary salary for the period of their suspension and be excluded from the precincts. The latter point was considered by the Committee because it dealt with what we considered a loophole in the rule, which was shown up in the previous Parliament. Our proposal was recommended by the Procedure Committee then.
  Standing Orders provide for exclusion from the precincts for those who are suspended for disorder in the Chamber, but not for those suspended for other reasons—for example, following the report from the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. It is right to be consistent in our approach on those matters. Such a restriction would not prevent hon. Members from carrying out their constituency duties.
  The other recommendation that I must mention is the way in which we deal with the old procedure of spying strangers. The Modernisation Committee made a recommendation that would have had consequences that it had not foreseen: a motion could be passed in a well-attended House, and the business could be lost. Also, it was not a motion which could be used on all occasions.
  558
  For example, if the House were debating a matter on the Adjournment, the procedure could not be used because there would be no next business.
  The Standing Order change that I am suggesting would keep present procedure but dispense with the antiquated—and to some, offensive—wording. A Member would have to move that we should sit in private session, rather than using the words, "I spy strangers." The ability to use such a procedure is an important safety valve for individual Members and provides minimum change while modernising the language. Of course, the procedure could still be used to demonstrate the lack of a quorum if that was what the Member had in mind.
  Mr. Sheldon: We used to have the count—a procedure used to ensure that 40 Members were always present in the Chamber. That was of particular value in ensuring that hon. Members were present and that we did not have the depleted numbers that we have now. The change was one of Dick Crossman's less elegant ideas. At some stage in the future perhaps we might consider some variation on the count to ensure that the House is properly representative of the people who send us here.
  Mrs. Taylor: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point, but, as I said, the procedure can be used to demonstrate whether there is a quorum.
  There is only one significant change mentioned in our previous debate on the subject that we have not taken on board. That is whether we should refer to Members by name or by constituency. The Committee felt that we should make no change in that respect. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said in the previous debate that he wanted constituency references to continue because Members of Parliament are here as representatives of constituents, not in their own right. You, Madam Speaker, have pointed out on occasion that if we referred to each other by name, Members might be more likely to get hot-tempered or carried away.
  I think that I have dealt with all the points in the third and fourth reports. I was going to mention the electronic voting report that came out today and progress on other matters. Suffice it to say that, because of the time that I have taken as a result of accepting interventions, I will not detain the House further.
  We think that we are making good progress in testing some of the changes that we suggested in our first report. The Committee's future work will include a report on scrutiny of European legislation; we hope that it will be published quickly. We will then move on to discussing the parliamentary calendar. The changes that the House is being asked to approve tonight are not dramatic, but they are significant and I believe that, over time, they will improve the workings of the House of Commons.
  7.10 pm
  Sir George Young: I thank the right hon. Lady for her kind words at the beginning of her speech. I look forward to working with her for most of the time, but, inevitably, against her from time to time. I hope to make the transition from debating Eurofighters to debating top hats without too much discontinuity.
  I welcome the two reports, which seem to be a sensible, pragmatic approach to reform. It is easy for me to commend the work of the Select Committee because I am

  559
  not yet a member of it. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), whose co-operative approach at the beginning of the Committee's agenda helped get it off to a good start. I also commend the Leader of the House for the way in which she chaired the Committee, exhibiting patience when confronted with a wide range of views and distilling them into a consensus.
  Like other hon. Members, I got a parliamentary brief on the work of the Modernisation Committee and its reports in my post from Charter 88 a few days ago. I thought that its comments on the work of the Committee were a bit harsh. The ones that caught my eye were: "extremely cautious", "disappointing" and
  "minor amendments to existing practice".
  However, paragraph 2 of the fourth report makes it clear that the reports are an initial response, focusing on areas where immediate action can be taken. Charter 88 should suspend its judgment for three or four years until it can consider the work of the Committee in the round.
  I certainly prefer this cautious, incremental approach to the roller-coaster approach on constitutional reform with which we are confronted: devolution, the Human Rights Bill, Lords reform, elected mayors, change in the voting system, and all that. If I had to choose between the two approaches, I would back the approach of the Modernisation Committee.
  Some of the practical results of the Committee's work already benefit the House: the revised, user-friendly Order Paper; the more comfortable voting arrangements in the Lobbies; the programming of Bills by agreement, with proper respect for Bills of first-class constitutional importance; and more extensive use of pre-legislative scrutiny through a variety of means, some of which the Leader of the House mentioned. There is also clearer information about proposed legislation. The Committee already has a lot of good work to its credit.
  All Governments have occasionally found it necessary to make changes to the workings of the House. Our approach to reform should be guided by some principles. We should support sensible evolutionary reform, provided that it does not weaken the power of Parliament or the chain of accountability that links the elector and his or her elected representative and the ability to question and hold in check the Executive. It must not weaken, but enhance, the esteem in which the House is held and achieve practical improvement in the task of the House to scrutinise and make laws. It must help us to communicate with the nation and provide a focus for the concerns of the nation. As Bagehot said, it must allow Parliament
  "to be the cockpit of the whole life of English politics which is action and reaction between the Ministry and the Parliament."
  I turn briefly—I accept the representations about short speeches—to the third report, I acknowledge that there is a tension between the sessional cut-off and the proposals for better scrutiny of Bills. I also accept that it is right to resolve it by easing the sessional cut-off in certain circumstances. To use another analogy, we are extending the runway way for worthier, slower-moving Bills so that they can achieve take-off and not abort. I welcome the safeguards that the Leader of the House mentioned in her opening remarks. It is sensible for the usual channels to determine eligibility, and to have an experimental period before finalising procedure.
  560
  On the fourth report, I was struck by a sentence in paragraph 7, which states:
  "Ultimately it will be for the authority of the Chair, and the confidence which every Member should have in any Speaker, rather than the changes of procedure and practice which we are proposing, which will determine the regard in which the House is held and the effectiveness of its proceedings."
  There is much common sense in that. Anyone who has played football knows that it is not what the rules say, but what the referee decides, that is often crucial in determining a result.
  I accept the recommendations on short speeches. I looked up the last Opposition Supply day in which I took part, about two weeks ago. I spoke for 18 minutes, the Secretary of State, who followed me, for twice as long; so I hope that I have a good record in that respect. I accept that it is sensible to have injury time for interventions. I have noticed a tendency for Members who think that they may not get called, or who may not want to stay for the whole debate, to intervene in early speeches. I do not think that that is as yet a gross abuse but it is something to watch. It shows that if one has to, one can condense a speech into an intervention.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
  Sir George Young: I detect that the dinner hour is almost upon us. I suspect that my hon. Friend may have other engagements.
  Mr. Soames: Unfortunately, I have to go out to dinner and will miss the rose of my right hon. Friend's excellent, brief speech. If carried to a ridiculous length, interventions of the sort that he described would be vexatious and no doubt Madam Speaker would be swift to stamp on them. Nevertheless, does he agree that, given Back Benchers' opportunities to speak and the fact that many of them wish only to make one or two important points in an early speech because of other obligations, such interventions are not vexatious, provided that they are not abused?
  Sir George Young: A sense of balance is crucial. I remember sitting on the Back Benches, having prepared a speech and hoping to be called towards the end, seeing the clock tick as the Minister gave way to a succession of Back Benchers who then removed themselves. Often the chap who sits patiently on the Back Benches with some considered remarks does not get called because the Minister has given way too often to people with other commitments. It is not an abuse; it is something to watch.
  I agree that it is sensible to give the Speaker discretion on time. Although I may be a sufferer, I can live with the proposed changes to the rights of Privy Councillors. I note the determined fight by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) to preserve them.
  I paused at the proposals for the opera hat, but I believe that the Committee is right. We should now put on the black cap for the top hat. I have never used it, but I agree that the advent of television has probably brought that harmless, indeed rather utilitarian, device to an end. It sits uneasily with a modern legislature. However, someone conventionally dressed with a top hat on does not look much more unusual than people wearing some of the other

  561
  costumes worn by Members or Officers in other parts of the building from time to time. I notice the excellent suggestion to privatise the hat once it is redundant. The proceeds will be used for charitable purposes, but, under the definitions that the Treasury uses, it will be privatised.
  I applaud the work of the Modernisation Committee. I look forward to playing a part in it and I agree with the proposals before the House. The Opposition support the measures commended by the Committee and we shall continue to take a constructive approach toward its work to make the House as effective as possible, but I have to add a note of caution: however well the Committee does its work, its reforms will be swamped if we get too many ill-considered, hasty, piecemeal constitutional measures that threaten the precious chain of democratic accountability which has made our parliamentary democracy the envy of the world and which the Opposition will fight to the last to preserve. With that endorsement, I commend the measures to the House.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I shall take only a few minutes. The recommendations are to be welcomed. At first, I was naturally a little concerned about some of the possibilities that might ensue, bearing in mind that we have had some rather dramatic changes made to the way in which the House of Commons conducts its business over the past 20-odd years, especially in the 10 to 12 years before Labour assumed office. I thought that that trend would continue, but it has not.
  The arrangements in respect of short speeches are sound. Privy Councillors have been mentioned for the first time with a view to telling them that, except on rare occasions when they have a special interest in the subject, they will be treated like anybody else; that is a sound suggestion and I am certain that Madam Speaker will ensure that it is carried out. The ideas relating to interventions are pretty good, because they would allow people to make short interventions, although I note that, if a long answer is given to an intervention, that time will be lost. Hon. Members who allow interventions should be aware that they will get only half the time back.
  I have to confess that I could not put on the top hat. Nearly every time there was an argument during a Division in the past 18 years, I wanted to raise a point of order, as hon. Members probably realise, but I could not bring myself to wear the top hat. I used to throw it to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) or anyone else and then tell them what to say—tell them to use my point of order. After the cameras came on the scene, I was even more determined to stay as far away from the top hat as possible, so I am pleased to see the back of it now.
  I believe in some traditions—even though I want to get rid of the House of Lords, I want to save the building, because it was built by workers and is a wonderful place. Some traditions serve a useful purpose, but, for the life of me, I could not see why we needed the top hat. I did not know what would be done to replace it, but I now realise that we are to go to the second Bench back, as close to the Speaker as possible, so as to stand out while putting our points of order. I suppose that that is marginally better than standing on the Table; it is certain that far more people would see any hon. Member who did that, but my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish would have a job to climb up, as would many other hon. Members.
  562
  What worried me most was the fact that "I spy strangers" might be abolished. I see that the Committee has come up with a fairly reasonable proposal to replace it. If I have read it correctly, the only difference is that we will not be calling for the Gallery to be cleared—although I have to say that, in the 28 years I have been a Member of Parliament, I have never seen the Gallery cleared. Those of us who call "I spy strangers" do so for another purpose—especially in the past 18 years. I should not reveal this, but we want to test whether the Government have their troops here at quarter to 10 on a Friday morning, which is not a bad idea when the streets have not been properly aired.
  I well remember one famous occasion, which others will recall, when we were desperately trying to get the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill through. We had been trying for years and, one Friday, it was No. 4 on the agenda. No. 4 is not good news and the first item had been tied up by loads of amendments from Tory Back Benchers to ensure that we would never reach the disability Bill. At about quarter to 10 in the morning, I came in and shouted "I spy strangers" and, sure enough, the Tory Government had only 27 Members here. That was great news—the first business fell.
  I caught my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) in a moment when he did not fully understand what was going on and said, "Ken, pull yours off." He had a few minutes on his debate and then pulled his off—that was two down, with only one more to go. I spotted the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who is now second-in-command on these procedural matters, and I said, "You've got the third Bill—are you in favour of the disability Bill?" He was—in fact, he was one of the few Tories who had voted with us—so he was in a bind. He pulled his Bill off and, within a few minutes, we had got the disability Bill on the agenda. Mr. Scott had to hotfoot it here from Chelsea and speak on behalf of the Government against the Bill.
  We did not quite win, but we came close. That indicates that what we did was not an abuse, but a sensible use of "I spy strangers". It enabled us to elevate a part of our business that should have ranked much higher than some of the others ahead of it, but had been pushed to the back, mainly because it was the disability Bill. I am pleased that a way has been found to ensure that the principle of "I spy strangers" will continue. I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) speak earlier about the old quorum rules. Calling for a quorum would have been a great device for people like me, but that mechanism has gone and I do not think that it will ever return.
  All in all, it is not a bad package. I have to tell any hon. Member from either side of the House who tries to claim that it is an attack on parliamentary democracy that it ranks very low when compared with all those orders that were shunted upstairs, which we used to debate until two or three o'clock every morning—an hour and a half for each, after my then hon. Friend Bob Cryer and I had insisted that they be taken separately, because we were masochists and, more important, because it would keep the Government Members up. The Opposition have only limited power and doing that is one of the ways to make an impact on the Government.
  The Tory Government of yesteryear decided to get rid of all those opportunities to filibuster—I should not say filibuster—all those opportunities to harry the

  563
  Government, and they sent all those matters upstairs. I warned them at the time, saying, "Do it and you will regret it when Labour gets into power," to which they responded, not believing that it would ever happen, "When Labour gets into power?" Even after black Wednesday, they still did not believe that that would ever happen, but I continued to warn them that it would and now they are faced with it.
  The package is okay—I give it a few marks out of ten. I hope that it gets through tonight and that we are able to make these minor changes and ensure that our wonderful parliamentary democracy continues—at least in this place, where we are all accountable to our constituents. Then, we can move on to that other place and make sure that it is made democratic as well.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: It is always difficult to follow the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—or the hon. Member for masochism, whichever he prefers. It will be even more difficult this evening, because I propose to be slightly more radical than he was.
  Before I do so, I join the Leader of the House in welcoming the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) to his new role, although later in my speech I shall dissent slightly from one of the points that he made. I am sure that he will bring to the Modernisation Committee an openness of mind and a feel for the way in which the House of Commons works that will be extremely helpful.
  I also pay tribute to the Leader of the House as Chair of the Modernisation Committee. Her patience is legendary, although on occasion she must have wished that we in the Committee had set a time limit on speeches, which we had not, and others might have shared that view. It has to be said that the Committee is moving painfully slowly, because it is the intention of all members of the Committee, particularly the Chair, to try to reach agreement by consensus. What is remarkable about the number of Divisions that took place on one of the reports is that it showed how exceptional it was that one of our members was unable to join that consensus; on every other occasion, we have been completely united.
  I want to discuss the motivation for this exercise, because it is easy to get so stuck on the details of reports that we forget the motivation. As it is now a full year since the Committee was set up, I want to return to the core issues and the rationale behind it. There are three core elements: the scrutiny of legislation; the accountability of the Executive, to which the hon. Member for Bolsover rightly referred, and the improvement of the way in which we represent our constituents. All the recommendations that we make to the House—the rather slim ones that we are discussing tonight, the more substantial ones that we discussed last summer and future proposals—have to be tested against those three propositions. If we are not making progress on those three broad points, we must ask ourselves whether the exercise is worth while.
  In response to the work that we have done so far, Members on both sides of the House have said to me, "It is going well. It is going in the right direction, but it is disappointing that you are not making more progress." The hon. Member for Bolsover would agree with me on that.
  564
  First, on scrutiny of legislation, modest improvements will result from the carry-over provisions, but we have not yet fully developed the options put before the House—and agreed by the House—in our first report. That set out the options that are already available to us to improve the scrutiny of legislation, but the Government have been unable, or have not seen fit, to take up some of the more imaginative ways in which we can tackle that problem.
  If the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire thinks that the way in which we have been dealing with the constitutional Bills—by taking every single sentence, clause, full stop and comma on the Floor of the House—is the envy of the world, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. Most Members of the House know that taking the whole Committee stage of such legislation on the Floor of the House is plain barmy. It has resulted in many of the important parts of that legislation not receiving the attention that they should have received and which was precisely one of the objectives that we stated in our first report.
  It is now critical that we examine and take advantage of the recent experience on the Scotland Bill, the Government of Wales Bill and the Human Rights Bill. We must recognise that the proper way to proceed on Bills of such complexity is to consider the principles on the Floor of the House, as we do with the Finance Bill and as we did with the Sunday Trading Act 1994 and, I believe, a local government Bill. Once all hon. Members have had a full opportunity—a much greater opportunity than they have had in the proceedings on those constitutional Bills—to assess the priorities and principles of the legislation, the scrutiny of the detail is much better undertaken in Committee.
  Even the modest proposals for carry-over will not extend the time allowed for legislation in future Sessions to the extent that we will be able to give Bills more time on the Floor of the House. Indeed, the past year has been exceptional in that the parliamentary year has been extended, and unless something odd occurs, that will not happen again in the near future. The House must examine—I hope that, through the usual channels, this will be arranged rapidly—our recent experience and reconsider the recommendations in the first report of the Modernisation Committee.
  On the accountability of the Executive, great strides have been made in trying to examine new ways in which we can operate in the House. When I first came to the House in 1974, Select Committees did not exist. Their advent introduced a new way of operating. It was a new experience for Members to sit together and interrogate and challenge representatives of the Executive. That still does not happen in this particular part of the building, but it happens upstairs, and we are getting better and better at it. Surely it is critical that we provide more, rather than fewer, opportunities for that to happen. We must find ways of debating the results of Select Committee inquiries.
  The hon. member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is not here, but if we were to apply the Mackinlay test, as defined yesterday at Prime Minister's questions, to what happens in Select Committees, we would find that most

  565
  hon. Members would pass with flying colours. However, the same Members in the Chamber at Prime Minister's questions all too often ask
  "fawning, obsequious, softball, well-rehearsed and planted questions".—[Official Report, 3 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 358.]
  That does not happen in Select Committees, where there is true accountability of the Executive.
  I hope that the implications of transferring more business out of the Chamber, and making sure that more work is done in that environment, will be examined with reference to the assessment of the parliamentary year, the parliamentary day and the parliamentary hours. Many Members on both sides of the House are disappointed that after 12 months, the Modernisation Committee has not reached even tentative conclusions on those issues. Once we take more business away from the Floor of the House, we can tackle the problem of our hours, days and years. We can achieve that by liberalising our attitudes and responses to the opportunities to call the Executive to account.
  It is true—I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to make this point later—that the Committee is beginning to have very imaginative ideas about that. As a member of the Committee, reflecting the views of many other hon. Members, I hope that we will now get a move on. There is a great deal of work to be done in this respect and I believe it to be extremely important.
  On representation of our constituents, I do not find that people come to my advice surgery saying that they are worried about the top hat or the garb worn by the Speaker, the Clerks or the Serjeant at Arms. Hon. Members may recall that on Monday, in a debate on electoral reform, Conservative Members repeatedly asked whether that subject was constantly mentioned in our mailbags or advice surgeries. The answer is no, but it is equally true that people do not come to our advice surgeries saying, "Whatever you do, maintain the first-past-the-post system." If that is to be the litmus test of what people are worried about, we should consider the fact that members of the public are fed up to the teeth with the confrontational image that they have of us.
  On Monday, an NOP poll demonstrated that 57 per cent. of the electorate strongly agree that:
  "Politicians spend too much time bickering and don't work together."
  A further 27 per cent. agree, less strongly. My maths is not very good, but that adds up to—
  Mr. Richard Allan: Eighty-four per cent.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to my more numerate hon. Friend. Eighty-four per cent. of the electorate agree with that proposition. That is a real test, rather than the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) wondering why people do not come to his surgery. Eight-four per cent. of the electorate believe that we are too confrontational. Clearly, we have to find ways to achieve more consensus in the House, and more transparency.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Frankly, that is the biggest load of rubbish that I have ever heard in my life. It is important that we stop talking too much arrant nonsense. It is difficult for many of our constituents these days to know
  566
  what is being discussed in the House of Commons. Those who complain most about the noise at Question Time, are those who listen avidly to it and who complained bitterly about the loss of Question Time on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
  Mr. Tyler: The hon. Lady is making my point for me. If the electorate concentrate only on the charade or cabaret show of that one half-hour in the week, like the American viewers of that extraordinary late-night programme that shows it, that is exactly the reaction that we will get. However, the hon. Lady says, and she is right, that the House of Commons should be more elector-friendly and more transparent. I agree, and many of the recommendations in our latest report on the conduct in the Chamber should address that.
  It is not only a matter of courtesy. Of course, it is more helpful if we are courteous to each other. However. the whole point of being in the House to hear people speak before or after us is that there is a better chance of a real debate. It is more likely that there will be a proper dialogue across the House. If one walks in, makes one's set prepared speech and then goes out to dinner, it is unlikely that one will hear how other hon. Members respond to that speech or how the Leader of the House or the Minister replies to the whole debate.
  It is the essence of a debate that one does not pop in and out of it—one is part of a continuum. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who has an excellent reputation for taking part in debates in that sense—being here, listening and taking part—is a prime example of a real parliamentarian. To my mind, the type of parliamentarian who pops in at Prime Minister's questions, makes a funny intervention and departs is not serving his or her constituents well.
  That is precisely why the report—which may appear to be rather peripheral—about the conduct of debate is extremely important. If we cannot debate issues in a way that develops a result—a continuum, a conclusion and, often, a consensus—we are not a debating chamber but a forum for a slanging match: a cockpit in which people throw alternative views at one another.
  On the timing of speeches—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members are looking at me askance—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman has already taken three minutes longer than my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young).
  Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman says that I have been too long. I also have served on the Committee for a year, and I hope that it may help the House if I explain why the Committee needs a kick up the backside to speed up its conclusions.
  Timing of speeches matters. I believe that it is important that we allow latitude for injury time. I make one plea, however, on behalf of all Back Benchers, to all three Front-Bench teams. It will not be enough to have a time limit on Back-Benchers' speeches if Front Benchers are not less self-indulgent. Recently—I know that you are well aware of the fact, Madam Speaker—there have been occasions, in a one-and-a-half-hour or three-hour debate, when time for Back-Bench speeches has been squeezed so mercilessly that a proper Back-Bench view has not been

  567
  expressed. Fortunately, tonight we started earlier than anticipated, so there will be plenty of time for Back-Bench views.
  This sequence of reports is helpful. The latest—published today—on electronic voting, although, on the face of it, no great step forward, is useful and expresses the views of the House.
  However, we make a ludicrous mistake if we allow ourselves to think that removing the top hat, or enabling Members to get through the Lobbies slightly quicker, is all that we need do to modernise this place. The electorate do not believe that, and we shall be answerable to them if we do not take this real opportunity to take the House of Commons into the 21st century.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I warmly welcome most of the recommendations in the reports, although they are slightly timid.
  I very much welcome the idea that non-controversial Bills may be carried over from one Session to the next. However, I warn the Leader of the House that there was a great abuse when some private Bills went on from Session to Session. If this is to happen, there must be agreement that the Bill is non-controversial, and at the start of its passage an announcement should be made that it is intended that the Bill should take six months to pass through the House and that it will be three months in one Session and three months in the next—especially so that people outside the House know the time scale envisaged. It should be planned, not accidental.
  Helen Jackson: I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument, because many hon. Members have asked members of the Modernisation Committee when we shall get round to timetabling our hours in the House more sensibly, and the answer has been, "When we have an opportunity to timetable and programme more of the legislation that we have a responsibility to pass, at its start." Does he agree that proposals such as those that he is making must be accompanied by a more structured programming and timetabling of all our work in the House?
  Mr. Bennett: I am reluctant to go too far down the line of structuring it. It is important that people outside the House know exactly when we aim to finish the legislative process, but it is also important that the Opposition should have flexibility to argue about how time is allocated within that span; taking that away would be to deny the Opposition a great deal.
  Better behaviour in the Chamber is important. I hope that, if the motion is carried tonight, you, Madam Speaker, will consider ways in which to bring that to the attention of a wide audience and to ensure that Members comply, so that they need not be reprimanded.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) urged that very short speeches be made from the Front Benches also. I am not entirely sympathetic to that view, especially when we are debating orders. When a Minister is dealing with an order in a short time, it can be far better for him or her to take half a dozen interventions than to say, "I have only 10 minutes, so I shall just gabble out
  568
  my notes," preventing any exchange of views across the Chamber. Although, on the whole, Ministers should try to make short speeches, we should not place too much pressure on them and give them an excuse not to answer to the House.
  I realise why motion No. 5 says,
  "the Speaker may disregard the time taken by interventions"
  when calculating the time for which a Member has spoken, but I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will err towards "shall" rather than "may" more often than not.
  To help Members, we resisted for a long time having the electronic clocks above us. When speeches are limited to 10 minutes, it might be easier if part of the clock counted down to give Members an idea of how long they had spoken. Often, when I believe I have been on my feet for three minutes or less, it comes as a terrible shock to see the two pips going on the clock—and the next minute the Chair cuts me off. I realise, however, that in bringing the electronic age into the House, we must move fairly slowly.
  I am grateful that the process of asking strangers to withdraw has been modified. I am also very pleased to see the hat go. I am aware of the force of the argument that it should be given to charity, but I believe that the best way for the House to send it off would be for us to hold a Division on one of these motions tonight and get my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to wear the hat to finish it off. That would be a really appropriate way for it to go. If my hon. Friend does not put it on, those outside who manipulate photographs will be tempted to produce covers for publications showing my hon. Friend wearing it. I therefore ask him: why not take up the challenge tonight? I have never known my hon. Friend to be a coward in any issue, so how about it?
  The hat has subjected the House to much ridicule, but the new procedure will be fairly difficult to operate. Many points of order during Divisions concern delay in the Lobbies—in which, on occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and I, and others, have been involved. Such matters need not be raised as a point of order. Action could be taken rapidly, given all the electrical devices that the Clerks can —have
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Cattle prods.
  Mr. Bennett: If my hon. Friend wants to get that remark on to the record, it must be an intervention—or at least the Member who has the Floor must repeat it—but no doubt her cattle prods are there, although someone in the Hansard box is now worrying who to attribute the remark to. I was not, in fact, after cattle prods; I was after a bit more vigour when it becomes obvious that hon. Members are delaying in the Lobbies.
  My amendment does not meet with favour with a huge number of hon. Members, but I must say, Madam Speaker, that you are one of the fortunate ones. You have chosen what to wear when you are in the Chair. Most others who have to wear special dress in the Chamber have not had the opportunity to choose what to wear.
  In my opinion, the Chair is distinguished by the person who occupies it, not by their mode of dress. Matters such as the Committee stage of the Finance Bill are sometimes dealt with on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has

  569
  taken the Chair when the House is in Committee; she did not need to wear anything special to be a very distinguished Chair.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I shall be extremely ungracious and disagree with my hon. Friend. Does he not realise that the really influential people in this place are the Clerks? They are the ones who run the House—whatever we like to think—under Madam Speaker's eagle eye. Our only chance of getting back at them is to force them to wear both gowns and wigs, particularly during the summer. I hope that my hon. Friend will not lightly abandon that useful practice.
  Mr. Bennett: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but I do not think that the Clerks need to wear wigs and gowns. Perhaps there was a time when less distinguished people arrived in that position, but the recruitment of Clerks has changed in recent years and the people who occupy those chairs now were chosen on merit and do not need to wear a wig to cover any lack of skill.
  As for the Serjeant at Arms, I have never seen the Serjeant's dress sword used to any advantage, but I have seen more than one Serjeant looking extremely ungallant as he avoided tripping over it. I wonder whether it is really useful. I hope that the Modernisation Committee might consider that we do not need fancy dress in order to distinguish people's roles, which can be best distinguished by where they sit and the way they behave rather than by the clothes they wear.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I, too, must declare an interest in the debate inasmuch as I am a member of the Modernisation Committee. As my signature is appended to the reports, I am committed to them.
  I must make an observation about Standing Orders. They are the basis upon which Madam Speaker governs the House, so any change to them is very serious and important. I shall address only one proposed change to the Standing Orders: short speeches. I am concerned about it—there is no point in my declaring otherwise. It is probably well known in the House that it was intended to reduce the duration of speeches to five minutes, but we compromised on eight minutes. I suggest that the House consider the matter carefully.
  I noticed that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is my colleague on the Modernisation Committee, began his speech at 27 minutes past the hour and finished at 41 minutes past the hour—he spoke for 14 minutes, taking one short intervention of less than a minute's duration. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman; I simply observe that I am not sure whether he was making the case for short speeches. Let us reflect on that point.
  It is important that we are able to express the passions that we feel as elected representatives, who are in this place on an equal franchise, about the great issues of the day. We can sometimes do that by simply shaking our fists at the Government Front Bench; we sometimes make subtle and argued speeches. Each hon. Member pursues his or her argument in a particular way. We are not all gifted with the ability to make a deft little speech, but we
  570
  can carefully construct and assemble an argument. Can we discharge that function honourably if we are limited to eight minutes on great occasions?
  In truth, we often afford too little time to the great speeches and occasions of the day. I was happy to note that the Second Readings of the Government of Wales and Scotland Bills lasted for two days. In the late 1940s, Second Readings lasted for two or three days when radical changes were being proposed. My point is that we compress a great deal and I wonder whether that serves the interests of Back Benchers. Do we have an adequate opportunity to try to unpick the Government's arguments and authority? It is a testing process. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North took 14 minutes—I do not think that he deliberately went out of his way to be verbose—to give a perfectly reasonable summary of the Committee's report. That is my concern about this proposal. I shall try to keep within my eight minutes.
  Half of the assemblies of the world have introduced short speeches, which have become a succession of soundbites, trivialisations and armies marching against each other. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) shakes her head: I accept that we have different views.
  Ms Beverley Hughes: I shook my head because I believe that there is another argument that the hon. Gentleman should, perhaps, accept—or at least consider. My experience of this place is not long, but I have long experience in politics and in academia. I have found that the quality of a speech is often in inverse proportion to its length. It may assist the quality of debate if hon. Members have to put their points succinctly and clearly. Short speeches may benefit the House in terms of the quality of speeches and of debate by enabling more hon. Members to express their views. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
  Mr. Shepherd: I accept that every hon. Member makes a speech in the way that he or she is best able. I reflect only upon the fact that this is a representative House: some people are naturally witty and some approach subjects sideways. Our intention is to try to influence argument and debate. We have all been tutored that the shorter and more condensed the speech, the better it is, but that is not always true.
  Mr. Tyler: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a matter of balance? If hon. Members are long winded—and some are—it inevitably means that other hon. Members will not have an opportunity even to express their views succinctly, as they will be excluded completely from the debate. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a matter of balance and that, in some circumstances, the Speaker should have the discretion to limit debate? That is all we ask.
  Mr. Shepherd: Of course I accept that it is a matter of balance; I thought that 10 minutes was a reasonable expression of that balance. That is why I am concerned about this change to Standing Orders—that is all. I can see that hon. Members accept that it is appropriate to truncate speeches and that they believe that the best speeches are those that are refined and reduced to eight minutes' duration. I simply state that we are elected—regardless of

  571
  our inadequacies—to represent our constituents, to express their views and to put our arguments to the best of our ability.
  I have watched the House narrow its focus more and more. In my career in Parliament, I have noticed that Privy Councillors usually rise to speak first in debates. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) spoke for 12 minutes in a very limited debate on the West Lothian question. Do we really expect him to compress his speech to eight minutes? Should a former Foreign Secretary be limited to speaking for only eight minutes on the great issues of the day? Under this rule, Privy Councillors will rush to speak first. We often seek the reflections and the wisdom of people who have experience in public life. They should not always speak first in debate, but should hear the range of arguments and perhaps respond at 8 pm—we do not all rush off to dinner.
  I recall when the former Prime Minister Lord Callaghan used to sit in this Chamber and I remember his speeches well. It was said that he took a rather avuncular approach to issues. He would say, "You propose this, but we should consider that," and he would list certain problems and then wish us well. If we had listened more closely to his experience, we would have been saved some grief.
  If Privy Councillors rush to speak first—and speak for an unlimited time—that will concentrate debate even more. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), a former Prime Minister, was caught unawares by the 10-minute rule and his speech was cut off. In our glad rush to try to modernise and curtail the procedures of this place, we may lose the very essence of this representative institution. We must try to express, in however humble a fashion and as appropriately as we can—we are not all PhDs or clever computer people—the views of a broad range of the British people. In the way in which we express our views, we try best to represent them. The curtailment of speeches is an extremely serious proposal.
  7.59 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I occasionally think that I was extremely lucky to be elected to the House when I was. I was not particularly fashionable and I was certainly not a PhD—I was one of those appalling people who was a housewife.
  I am devastated when I hear Members speak about the need to modernise, by which they mean to timetable and to reorganise the House of Commons. When I first came here, there were no Select Committees. Dick Crossman created them. It was so long ago that I can afford to say that because the Labour members of those Select Committees were so independent minded, did so much good work and expressed themselves so forcefully, there was a long debate in the Labour Cabinet about how they should be encouraged to be quiet.
  I was happy to take part in that debate. Many of us said that it would be disastrous if the Select Committees were curtailed in any way and they therefore continued for a considerable time. They were closed down and later reopened because the Members of those Parliaments understood that individual members of Select Committees and Members of the House have the right to try to hold the Executive to account and to ask awkward questions, even of their own Government.
  572
  This is rather an unfashionable view, but we fail disastrously in the House if we do not understand that we as individual Members have a responsibility not only to our constituents, but to a number of basic principles, one of which concerns the desire of the people of the United Kingdom to be governed by responsible and open government that is accountable at every level.
  I disagree with much in the Modernisation Committee's reports, but these are not the most difficult reports in the series. I caution my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I have grave reservations about carrying over Bills. I understand why it is being proposed. It has been argued that it will apply only to non-controversial Bills and will be done by agreement. All the arguments are eminently reasonable, but when I was in the European Parliament for four and a half years, it became clear to me that if a legislature does not have a cut-off point and does not know how to get rid of legislation that will never progress and is, and never will be, agreed, it gets into an extremely dangerous and unacceptable situation.
  I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that if a limited measure is proposed, I hope that in two or three years' time people will not say that it has been convenient for the Government and the realm should be extended. It is sometimes assumed that we shall have Labour Governments in perpetuity. That may be the case, but we should never alter the rules of the House on that assumption. That would be extremely dangerous.
  It is important to consider matters other than those that gain extensive coverage in the newspapers, such as wearing a top hat. I have worn the top hat. My ego must be very large; I never felt in any way diminished by it. If I want to raise a point of order during a Division it is because it is important and what I wear in those circumstances is not important to me. What is important is the effect that my raising the point of order has on the procedures of the House.
  We should consider seriously the implications of proposals such as shortening speeches and their impact on our procedure. Procedure is the means by which one controls any organisation. That is the lesson taught to anyone in politics; learn the standing orders and how the procedure works, and anyone who wants to wreck it has all that machinery at their disposal. Those who do not do their homework will never be able to control what happens in any organisation.
  We have heard tonight that if we had short speeches more people would be able to get in and more points would be made. More points might be made, but would more individual arguments be advanced that were based on a fairly sound evolution of ideas? There are 655 Members in this place and not all of them will get into every debate. I have sat through many debates as a Back Bencher, listening to many speeches and not being called, but I regarded that as the price that I had paid for being elected to a legislature that gives people the right to express their own opinions.
  I have sat through speeches of—dare I say it—old Labour Members. We had a miner who, for many years, made one speech a year at considerable length. Now, of course, he would not be selected, but if he had been he would not be allowed to go on for so long because the points that he made were not made in a structured, disciplined and organised way that we are told is essential

  573
  to the House of Commons these days. He was saying what he believed and he was saying it in the way that he best understood.
  Although I shall not vote against the recommendations tonight, I worry about the way that we are going. There are matters that the House of Commons should seriously debate. For example, we should examine the work in America of the general accounting office. It does a great deal of detailed work for the Senate and for Congress, makes it available to Members as legislation is going through, is independent of the Government and is responsible to the legislature. It enables individual Members to understand the full implications of the legislation that is being discussed.
  We have nothing like that; nor are we suggesting that we should have. Many of us rely on the good efforts of a superb Library, but if we had other sources answerable not to the Government but to the House of Commons, many Back Benchers would be much better informed and would be able to make more vital points.
  I was told recently that hon. Members who came in at the last election had entirely different views and wanted the whole place redone and everything changed, and that there were some hon. Members who were an overlap. I have been called many things in my time, but that was the first time I have been called an overlap. Of course, overlaps were of no importance.
  This little overlap thinks that this place is important—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and that the House of Commons is getting itself into a potentially dangerous situation. We are curtailing speeches, we are seeking to timetable every Bill and we are seeking to discipline the development of individual pieces of legislation. All that carries with it real dangers, although it is not fashionable to say so. It is true that when Lord Palmerston had nothing much to say he made a speech of four and a half hours. We do not do that these days.
  Modernisation is useful only if it enables our constituents to know what legislation we are considering, what implications and sanctions go with it and whether modernisation gives them the right at an early enough stage to object to any aspect of legislation that affects their lives. Those who think that that can be dealt with by timetabling show an appalling ignorance that will cost us all dear.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: In the spirit of the debate, I start by apologising for missing the first two or three minutes of the opening speech. I was caught by surprise that the business reached the Floor of the House so early.

  The recommendations in the two reports are sensible. I shall deal not with those with which I agree entirely, but with those where I think that the Committee might have gone further or should reconsider in future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that we should have nothing to do with the recommendations on carry-over. I think that those recommendations constitute one of the more important ways in which we can improve our proceedings. Let us look at the way in which legislation is currently dealt with. A Bill is given a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage and a Third Reading. The time-
  574
  consuming stage, certainly with major legislation, is the Committee stage, whether it takes place on the Floor of the House or in a Standing Committee. That is when the delays happen.
  We have to fit the Committee stage into a parliamentary year which—unless there is a general election—features the Queen's Speech in November, followed by five or six weeks of business before the Christmas recess. Virtually no Standing Committees get going in that period. All the Standing Committees must then finish by the end of June or the beginning of July if we are to complete our business before the end of the Session. Effectively, what we do is compress the work of our Standing Committees into, at the most, seven months of the year, and that causes problems—problems of timetabling, for instance. When all the Committee and Report stages are happening at once, representatives of minority parties—indeed, Members in general—may not be available. The same person may be expected to deal with two or three Standing Committees at the same time.
  I understand why some people want us to approach the proposals cautiously. I understand why they do not want things to go too far, and think that we should see how they develop in the context of non-controversial legislation. However, I also think that it is possible to exaggerate the amount that Oppositions are able to do. I have been told time and again that delay is the weapon that Oppositions have, and that, of course, is true: Oppositions depend on being able to delay and make themselves awkward. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to think of any legislation that has failed to be passed as a result of such delay.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I can give a classic example. The Chairman of the Liaison Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—who was present earlier—and Lord Barnett alone managed to stymie the reorganisation of the House of Lords, for extremely good reasons.
  Mr. Gerrard: I accept that it has happened from time to time, but I think that it is the exception rather than the rule. In any event, what is proposed would not affect legislation of that kind, which is plainly controversial.
  I am strongly in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny, but if we are to have special Standing Committees and the like, there must be no whipping. If I am told that it will cause a problem if I, as a member of such a Committee, start asking the Minister awkward questions, the value of pre-legislative scrutiny will disappear. If we graft pre-legislative scrutiny on to the present timetables, we may end up with some difficulties, but that will not necessarily mean that progress on Bills will take longer. Sensible scrutiny might allow us to rid ourselves of what often strikes me as clutter in Standing Committees. I do not know how many times I have heard Committee members say, "This is a probing amendment". What they mean is, "I do not know what this part of the legislation will do, and I want to find out". An hour or two—sometimes three hours—of debate then follows.
  Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that the Labour Opposition's stance on the Maastricht treaty was predicated on probing amendments, which are an important instrument. At that time, Opposition Members always said that theirs were probing

  575
  amendments, although in total they would have deleted nearly all the legislation. The current Prime Minister was expert at that when he was shadow Home Secretary.
  Mr. Gerrard: There is a difference between what are clearly intended to be wrecking amendments, and amendments tabled in Standing Committees by someone who genuinely does not understand the legislation and is trying to establish what it means. There must be better ways of doing that. It should be out of the way in the pre-legislation stage: at that stage, everyone ought to understand precisely what a Bill is about, how it works and why. If that could be done, it might then be possible to compress the time taken by Standing Committees, and to avoid some of what often strikes me as pointless debate.
  I was interested by what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said about conduct in the Chamber. I agreed with some of what he said about the time taken up by the Bills on Scotland and Wales and the way in which they were handled, but I was worried by his suggestion that we should move debate outside the Chamber. There are important roles for Select and Standing Committees, but I feel that we need more debate in the Chamber than we have now, rather than less.

  When people outside say that they do not like the confrontational nature of debate in the Chamber, they often mean that they do not like the noise, the disturbance and what strikes them as the bad behaviour that go on here, especially at Question Time. I do not think that those people object to hon. Members expressing political views strongly, even when those views contradict each other directly. That is confrontation, but it is important, and I believe that it is what people want to hear. They do not want to hear a soggy consensus; they want to hear Members of Parliament express views in which they personally believe on matters on which they feel strongly and wish to comment, regardless of whether the Front Bench agrees.
  Confrontation of that sort is very healthy. We should beware of saying that all we want is consensus. We want good, gentlemanly behaviour in debates, but that need not prevent people from disagreeing strongly with each other, and making it clear that they do. Short speeches should not necessarily prevent that.
  In any event, what is proposed is not compulsory. There is no suggestion that debates must be time limited; it is left to Madam Speaker to decide when that is appropriate, and also to decide the appropriate limit, which may not always be 10 minutes. At present, certain hon. Members seem to think that the rules should not apply to them. Some of us become rather sick of sitting on the Back Benches waiting to speak, and then finding that it is 7 pm and the 10-minute rule applies, and then, perhaps, still not being called to speak, although another Member has indulged himself by speaking for 40 minutes at the beginning of the debate. I do not care who that Member is; I feel that it is an abuse deliberately and knowingly to prevent others from expressing their views. The suggestion in regard to interventions is obviously sensible: at present, when speeches are time limited, the speaker has no incentive to give way to either a friendly or a hostile intervention.
  576
  The public ought to understand what goes on in the Chamber, and I therefore consider the proposed changes to the "I spy strangers" rule worth while. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that Back Benchers need such a mechanism to try to prevent business being passed, but I understand that what is proposed would not render such a mechanism unavailable.
  I hope that the Leader of the House and members of the Select Committee will continue to look at the procedures and perhaps some issues that have not yet been dealt with. We have had a report, which we are not debating tonight and perhaps will debate in due course, on voting procedures. One thing that seemed to be missing from the report was the question of voting arrangements for Members who are seriously ill.
  That may not seem to matter much in this Parliament, where the Government have a large majority, but we all know that there have been times when ambulances have been in New Palace yard. That may happen again if there is a Government with a small majority, dependent on a few votes. The procedure of having very sick people brought into New Palace yard does not do the House any good. The time to look at that issue is now, when it does not matter in terms of affecting the Government—not when it could make the difference between a Government staying in office and losing office.
  It is also tremendously important that the Modernisation Committee looks at the way in which private Members' Bills operate. At the moment, Bills with huge support can get nowhere and, at the same time, private Members' business that would be generally agreed disappears because time cannot be found for it. Therefore, I welcome what has been done so far in the Modernisation Committee. I hope that it will press on and start to look at some of the bigger issues that need to be addressed.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Richard Allan: I wish to speak briefly as Chairman of the Select Committee on Information in response to the recommendations in the fourth report, which will be passed on to us, but, first, I express support for some of the comments by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) in respect of pre-legislative Committees. I must also apologise for being late, having come from a Standing Committee myself. The group for which I feel sorry is Government Back Benchers, who may have a deep interest in a matter, but who, because of the time constraints on Standing Committees, have no ability to speak on that issue.
  I particularly praise Government Back Benchers on the Committee that has just finished considering the Data Protection Bill, who managed to make some important contributions—I see the Government Whip who was on that Committee, the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), smiling over there—and still completed the business according to the timetable. Pre-legislative Committees in particular would offer Government Back Benchers a chance, which they do not have, really to get stuck in.
  The recommendations on the annunciators came before the Information Committee at its last meeting, at which point, in an effort not to be seen as one that always proposes ultra-high-tech, very expensive solutions, it came up with a low-tech, cheaper solution. That was to

  577
  put around the Benches the volumes that Hansard produces linking Members to their constituencies, so that Members could simply link a Member to his or her constituency, having read their name from the annunciators.
  On further reading of the report, I understand that the recommendation is much stronger. It is essential that we put the constituency names up on the annunciators. Wishing to play our full part, we intend to move ahead with that. I can report that, today, I have been in discussion with a Committee Clerk about two particular areas. One is altering the current system—which is perhaps best described as a mid-tech, rather than a high or low-tech, solution—and seeing what changes we can make cheaply to that system.
  Our suggestion, which will go back to our Committee, is that we have a trial session in the Chamber when the House is not sitting, whereby the annunciator operators try various solutions that are currently possible, and Members come in and try them out for such things as legibility, which is a crucial issue, given that the annunciators are so high up. I do not think that English Heritage would like us to move the annunciators into the Chamber itself, so we shall consider having an experiment within the current system to see how Members feel about it.
  Looking further into the future, we are interested in having discussions as to how the annunciator system can be improved in general to make it a more high-tech solution and to get beyond the current limitations. Those limitations drove us to suggest the book alternative, in sheer frustration at the costs that were being presented to us for changing the current system to that required. I give the House notice of our full participation in the modernisation project, which is one that we, too, hold dear.
  8.24 pm
  Ms Beverley Hughes: I should like to comment on one or two of the contributions and points that have been made.
  We have heard much in the press—indeed, it has been rehearsed tonight, in part, by my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich and Crewe—that the thrust for some of the modernisation reforms has arisen from the arrival in the House of many new Members. The perception is that they have a different agenda as to how the House procedures should work.
  It is worth remembering that, before the Labour party came into government, Labour Members who were here identified—well before the arrival of new Labour Members—that it was important to include in our reforms the question of how far the House needed reforming. That commitment to the electorate in our manifesto arose from the experience of those Members who were here in opposition. Although new Members may endorse all or part of that agenda, it has arisen not from any particular agenda that we brought, but from the experience of Labour Members who have been in the House a long time in opposition.
  Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Lady also acknowledge that it was not one single party? Part of this proposal came out of the Maclennan discussions between our two parties, so it is a broadly based proposition.
  Ms Hughes: I am happy to acknowledge that.
  578
  It is worth rehearsing as well the reasons why Members at that time thought that reform was important. One of the important reasons was the understanding that the public perception of politics, of politicians and of what was going on in the House had fallen into disrepute. They thought that something needed to be done to reinforce public confidence and esteem in the parliamentary process, and that we needed to consider how far procedures as they were then and, to some extent, still are now, needed to come into the modern world and to address the agenda for the next century, rather than previous centuries. I am certainly not one of those who wants to jettison tradition for its own sake—I do not feel that at all—but I support the process of examining how far we need to make measured and necessary changes to bring the parliamentary process into the modern age.
  Again, the press has made much of the fact that that agenda might include such things as reform of working hours. That is important. I do not want to dissociate myself from those issues. As someone who has been a working parent for 20 years, juggling paid work, politics and parenting, I find that nothing irritates me more than being leashed to the voting Lobby until 11, 12 or later at night, when I could be doing more useful things.
  However, as important as that is, I fully endorse the view that that is not the primary objective of the modernisation process. Its primary objectives must be to enhance the quality of legislation and the quality and effectiveness of procedures, and to maximise Members' expertise and the effective use of their time. Indeed, some Members have raised other issues that are also important, such as the ability to scrutinise legislation more effectively and to hold the Executive to account.
  As a Back-Bench Labour Member, I fully support that. That is part of our role, but, although we are considering measures tonight that do not get to the heart of those important issues, what we are considering is a necessary prerequisite to get to that stage. To enhance our ability to scrutinise legislation and to hold the Executive to account, we need a cultural change in parts of this place—in this Chamber and in Standing Committees. I believe that Standing Committees have potential in that regard. It is far from being realised at present, certainly for some Government Back Benchers. However, although we are not there yet, what we are talking about tonight is, as I have said, an essential prerequisite for dealing with those further questions.
  I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich and Crewe, both for her expertise—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Perhaps we could call it Crewe and Nantwich?
  Ms Hughes: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon—it would indeed be enormously helpful if constituencies were shown on the annunciator. I thought that her constituency was Crewe and Nantwich, but was repeating what an experienced Member said earlier, obviously incorrectly.
  I have enormous respect for the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for her speech, and listened very seriously to the points that she made. I do not share her view on two points. First, I think that the quality of many speeches and debates will be improved if there is a focus, which is sometimes—when appropriate—provided by imposing a time limit.

  579
  Secondly, some hon. Members seem to have assumed that time limits will automatically result in whittled-down speeches. However, the report makes it clear that discretion will rest entirely with Madam Speaker, and that she will decide when time limits are necessary and what those time limits should be. I think that we can all have confidence that—in exercising her role in protecting hon. Members' right to participate in debates—she will allay those concerns. I therefore think that the amendment on short speeches would assist in improving the quality of our speeches and debates.
  I should like to raise only one other issue—as I am keeping my speech short, in line with the general content of my speech. I believe that discipline and structure—words about which other hon. Members have expressed concern in this debate—can provide benefits if part of a framework, which is what a debate timetable can be. Over time, the benefits of a disciplined and structured approach can also be realised in the parliamentary process.
  I hope that the Modernisation Committee will consider very soon how the parliamentary process, and hon. Members' involvement in it, can be enhanced in considering and extending the timetabling of parliamentary business—not to curtail or overly structure business, but to allow the creation of a framework for the parliamentary year that will enable both hon. Members and parties to make strategic decisions on the matters on which they want to concentrate their attention and activities, perhaps particularly when in opposition.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: It is important that change should be incremental. As I am both a Conservative and a conservative, I think that it is a pity that we are making changes so early in a Parliament. Usually, there is a reason for things being the way they are. As our Parliament has been going for centuries, traditions have developed that are built around the rights of individual Members. One should therefore be very careful about changing too quickly what has gone before, as there may be a very good reason for it—although that reason may not be obvious to a new hon. Member, such as myself.
  I am very pleased with the new format for the Order Paper. I must say that, when first elected, I was one of those who could not understand the Order Paper format. The key point is that change should be incremental.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned the confrontational atmosphere in the Chamber. I think that the House is sometimes at its best in such an atmosphere. In how many Chambers in the world is there real heat in debate? It is not so much what people say, but the expression on their face, what they are doing with their hands, or whether they are jumping from foot to foot.
  I think that our system is very good. When mistakes are made, and when people are called to account our system, it is second to none in the world.
  Our intervention system is also very good, and allows rather more spontaneous debates. On many occasions—particularly when Ministers are generous in giving way—it allows hon. Members to elicit more information and a fuller explanation of a clause or Bill, which is beneficial to all hon. Members, and sometimes saves not only speeches but time.
  580
  I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on speeches. Although limiting speeches seems to be a trend around the world, one of the few powers that we have as hon. Members is the ability to speak for our constituents and constituency. Although limits may not be so bad if there are 400 hon. Members of one party, many of whom can speak for eight or 10 minutes to make a point, we must have regard also to the hon. Members who belong to extremely small parties. At some point, they may want to have their say, and may need more than eight or 10 minutes to do so. The House may be 659 in number, but we must have regard to the ones and the twos, who have a perfect right to have their say and to make their representations. We should not think purely within the context of the major parties, because this is a Chamber for all.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made a very important point on the annunciator, which I find very difficult to see up in the rafters. Unless one clocks the clock in the Chamber or is kicked by someone on the shins, one does not know when to stop speaking. Earlier this week, my speech was cut off when I was in full flight. One feels an idiot when such things happen, and it is difficult for the occupant of the Chair. It is also undignified.
  We should save a lot of time if we could find a method of allowing hon. Members to see how long they have spoken, and of displaying both the name and the constituency of the hon. Member speaking. On many occasions, I have had to lunge across the Chamber to pick up "Dod" or "The Times Guide to the House of Commons" to try to find information on an hon. Member, which takes up a lot of time. Such a system would make debate swifter.
  Our voting system—going through the Lobbies—is a terribly important practice. Today, hon. Members have better office accommodation than we have ever had. However, we are consequently spread out over a larger parliamentary estate. The only time in the day when one may see colleagues, and perhaps have the opportunity to see and speak for a few minutes to the leader or senior members of one's party, is in the Lobby.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the various options all proposed maintaining the Lobby system, and that the Committee recognised the value of the Lobby system and was not proposing any change to it?
  Mr. Syms: I am not quite so sure about that. I think that some of the proposals could well have led to abolition of the Lobby system. I think that physically walking through the Lobby also imposes a very important discipline on hon. Members.
  I hope that any change is incremental. We must all remember that today's majority may be tomorrow's minority, and have regard to the rights of individual Back Benchers. I was very impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills—who, if there were to be a shop steward to protect the rights of hon. Members, would have a very good claim to the post.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I welcome the opportunity of being able to say a few words in this debate. It would be wrong for it to be dominated only by members of the Modernisation Committee, but, as our Committee Chairman, the Leader of the House, is a member of the Cabinet, it is important to have one speech on the reports from a Committee member who is also a Government Back Bencher. The House should realise that the Committee is not being cautious in its work. We have had to deal with many issues simply to lay a foundation for the future.
  As one or two hon. Members have said in the debate, the Committee Chairman has done an excellent job in trying to build consensus in laying that foundation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) said, the most important task for the Committee is not to make change for the sake of change, but to improve how the House works—not only for the benefit of hon. Members, but to ensure that we legislate better, and scrutinise legislation better. That objective has been foremost in the mind of the Committee Chairman, who has also kept it foremost in the thoughts of Committee members.
  On the Committee's third report, on carry-over legislation, I take a different view from that of some other hon. Members. I believe that, at a general election, we elect a Government to govern for five years. The Government should have not only a five-year programme but the ability to plan their legislation over that period. I accept that we should proceed cautiously to start with, but, in the long run, we should not be afraid to move forward. It is nonsense that, after the Queen's Speech in November, we have loads of Second Readings together, then loads of Bills coming back on Report together, with the House working all kinds of hours. Then we have slack periods and a crossover of legislation coming from and going to the House of Lords. It would be more sensible to have some Bills starting in November and others in December, January or other months.
  I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Perhaps no legislation should be before the House for more than one year. I am not saying that the process should drag on indefinitely. We should merely plan the year better. That would result in better legislation and better scrutiny. Once we have tested the water cautiously, I hope that we shall be a little bolder in the coming years.
  One or two Conservative Members who intervened earlier failed to recognise that the first part of the fourth report after the introduction refers to the role of the Speaker. The Committee recognised the importance of your role, Madam Speaker, and that of your three Deputies in interpreting the report and the way in which our Standing Orders operate. We have confidence in you on that. That is why it is the first major item in the report. You are occupying the Chair for this important debate because of the importance that you place on the report.
  I understand the argument that it is wrong to limit the length of speeches, but the Committee is not suggesting that the limit should necessarily be 10 minutes or eight minutes. It gives the power to consider the circumstances, to avoid people who have sat through a debate not having the opportunity to speak. It may be sensible sometimes to have 15-minute speeches. It is important to allow as
  582
  many Members as possible to contribute to a debate. They should not have to sit and listen to others and then fall off the end of the debate because others have chosen to go on for half an hour or 40 minutes. That is an abuse of our procedures.
  I would have gone even further and supported a six-minute limit for short debates. We had a one-and-a-half-hour debate on the beef on the bone order late at night recently. Even if we assume that one hour was available for Back Benchers—although there was less time than that—it would have been fairer for 10 people to have had six minutes rather than six people having 10 minutes. We should let as many people as possible express their views.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rightly referred to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Right hon?"] My hon. Friend. He should be right hon. He has been here long enough. Perhaps he might get it—it could go with the top hat.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has made me a Privy Councillor just when Privy Councillors are not going to have long speeches.
  Mr. Pike: Fate might do that to my hon. Friend at some stage. He made the valid point that sometimes Members of Parliament can use the procedures of the House to achieve things for their constituents and gave an example. I remember another time when several hon. Members, using the top hat, spying strangers and adopting other devices, held up the private Stansted airport rail link for two years until British Rail agreed to complete the Manchester airport rail link. That was right. I remember asking one former Minister—it might have been the shadow Leader of the House in another role—how many people travelled to Manchester airport by rail. He said none. That was true, because there was no rail link.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the way in which she has dealt with the issue of spying strangers. The Committee could not agree a way forward, but I congratulate her on coming up with a proposal that meets the requirement of the House, allowing us to do what we currently do, but in an up-to-date and sensible way.
  I welcome what the report says about wearing the top hat. It is right that points of order during a Division should be dealt with differently. I have worn the top hat many times and I thought that there was no problem with it until one of my constituents took a photograph of me wearing it from his television. If the hat had had "10s 6d" on the side, it would have taken me back to the only starring role that I had in a school play, many years ago, when I played the Mad Hatter. It looks silly, particularly to those outside the House who do not understand why we wear it. The proposals are sensible.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the report. I shall support the motions to change our Standing Orders.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to the debate, as a member of the Modernisation Committee. I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on one issue—if we are modernising something, we have to have a clear perception of what it

  583
  is for, so that the modernisation does not damage it. What is this place for? The primary role of the House is to hold the Government to account, to ensure that sensible laws are passed and to give strong representation to our constituents.
  There are many myths about the House, which those of us who have come here only recently can see have some holes in them. Once a Member has been here for a while, the mythology begins to take over from the reality. There is a myth that we are a self-governing institution, but we are constrained in many ways by what the Government allow us to do. Some of our considerations of the report were limited by what we were advised that the Government might permit us to do. Some of the co-operation that has been discussed is dependent on what the usual channels agree to. We must not be taken in by the myth that we are a self-governing institution with complete free will, made up entirely of sensible and reasonable people.
  Mr. Shepherd: I must intervene, because the hon. Gentleman is expressing a peculiar view of life that has become current. The Government are the Government because they have a majority of elected representatives in the House. When the Government say something, they are speaking for a majority of elected representatives. This House determines matters, based on the number of Back Benchers behind the Government Front Bench. That is the essence of the House. There is nothing romantic about it. It is practical, it is true, it is direct and it is the force of government in this country.
  Mr. Stunell: I was not saying that what goes on was a romance—I was saying that it was a myth. One of the jobs of the Modernisation Committee is to make the myth a reality. That is what the reforms that we have been trying to make over the past 12 months, which I hope that we shall pursue much more rigorously in future, are designed to achieve. One must ask whether, in the recent past, the House has been effective in holding Governments to account. Anecdote after anecdote—those of us outside the House at the time could only read them in newspapers—show that the Government were able to do as they pleased and were not held rigorously to account. I hear Opposition Members complaining during Question Time that they are not able effectively to hold the Government to account. We must accept that we do not have a perfect institution; we have an institution which needs to be modernised.
  Mr. Syms: It is possible in the Chamber to put the majority party on the rack, but the time of judgment is not in the Chamber; it is when people vote at an election. The previous Government had many difficult moments, and lost half their Members of Parliament. That is the Chamber holding the Government to account and the people making their final decision.
  Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman's point is, in one sense, fair. Ultimately, the Government are held to account, but surely accountability is not just sudden death at the end of five years when the electorate pounce—or, indeed, at the end of 18 years. Accountability is about ensuring that the Government's day-to-day and
  584
  week-to-week decisions are scrutinised—one hopes before they are fully implemented and the damage is done. Accountability in the form described by the hon. Gentleman would certainly require an election every five years, but would not require us to be in the House during the intervening period, as the Government could simply carry on and take their turn at the ballot box.
  I come to the issue of ensuring that we pass sensible laws. To some extent, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about consensus. Consensus is certainly important in some respects, but let us remember the two biggest failures of recent legislation. One might well be the poll tax, when strongly polarised debate produced bad legislation. The other might well be the Child Support Agency, when strong consensus produced bad legislation. The process of debate does not guarantee good legislation; it does not matter whether we are all friendly or all in opposition.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The Child Support Agency is a case in point. People in this place agreed with the principle of it, and, because it was not properly debated—indeed, had the proceedings been timetabled, the Bill would have gone through even faster—they had no idea of what the legislation contained until the regulations were printed. By then, it was far too late.
  Mr. Stunell: I thank the hon. Lady, who is a formidable near neighbour of mine, for her intervention, but, on this occasion, I think that she is mistaken. A timetable tries to ensure that, in the amount of time devoted to a Bill, opportunities are provided to debate its key principles. If we undertook pre-legislative inquiries—a proposal in the Committee's previous report, which the House approved—experts could point out what was feasible. We do not always pass sensible laws; even Governments recognise that. The Committee was informed that about 3,000 amendments a year are tabled to Government legislation by the Government because legislation is ill prepared and ill thought out and snags arise. We need a system in which we do not have to take down every building put in front of us and rebuild it.
  The Government are not held to account. About 26 Select Committee reports have held the Government to account, but they have never been debated properly by the House. The fact that everyone knows that they will not be debated means that they are not taken all that seriously, either by those who draw them up or by Ministers who may be the victims of them.
  We are not in a position to provide the strongest possible representation of our constituents. I shall give just one example why. Hon. Members acting on behalf of their constituents are constantly applying to you, Madam Speaker, for Adjournment debates. Your office told us that about one in eight requests are accepted, which means that, on many occasions, the Government are not held to account for their activities concerning a constituent or an issue. We need to go far beyond the contents of the Committee's reports, to ensure that we make time for the improvement of accountability and so that laws are properly dealt with. I think that there are 17 Law Commission reports waiting on a table somewhere for the House to find time to deal with them. On the whole, the stuff is not controversial, but it would improve the lives of our constituents.

  585
  The reports contain very modest stuff—points about short speeches, for goodness' sake. Speeches should be curtailed only when you, Madam Speaker, have more people on your list than you can reasonably accommodate. Apart from that, we should be hearing hon. Members from both sides of the House clearly expressing perhaps the views of their party and perhaps their personal convictions, but, above all, the views of the constituents whom they were sent here to represent. How frustrating it is for constituents to be left dumb when their views need to be expressed so clearly.
  We need to make space and adopt procedures to allow pre-legislative scrutiny. The Committee heard examples that threw doubt on the carry-over procedure. I am told that, on several occasions, the previous Government nearly got round to introducing a Bill on adoption, but could never quite do so because they could not find enough time in one Session to get the job done properly. Such legislation might be controversial, but it transcends party barriers, should be discussed thoroughly and is urgently needed in family law. We need to ensure that we carry out some sort of audit on Acts of Parliament after they have been implemented.
  We must remember what Parliament is for. It is for holding the Government to account, passing sensible laws and representing the people who sent us here. Those should be the foundations for modernisation. I do not think that, when considering those three key objectives of the House, any hon. Member could possibly say that we have gone nearly far enough or fast enough in improving the situation.
  8.57 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I begin with a reassurance for the House: although there is more than an hour of the debate left, I do not propose to take anything like as long as that—[Interruption.] Do not tempt me.
  We have had a good debate, and I should first reiterate what has been said in varying ways by many Members, about what the function of this place is, and therefore what the function of the Modernisation Committee is.

  We are all proud to be elected Members of Parliament, and, when we come here, we have a number of important functions to perform. It is important that we should take part in the debates on the great issues of the day and take a critical interest in the legislation that Governments place before us. None the less, above all—here I echo to some degree the sentiments of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)—it is important that the Executive should be held properly to account in this place.
  I speak with a background rather different from that of most right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber this evening. Like the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I have been here for 28 years, but only in the past year have I occasionally stood at a Dispatch Box to address the House. Over 18 years, I found myself at odds with my own Government from time to time.
  The poll tax has been mentioned, but neither my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), whom I am delighted to be supporting in the debate, nor I could be held responsible for that. We constantly criticised and frequently voted against the measure. I also found myself frequently isolated on the subject of Bosnia during the early years of the Balkan
  586
  conflict. I was also one of the few Tories who opposed the abolition of the Greater London council; I thought it wrong to deprive London of a directly elected authority.
  I give those three personal examples with hon. Members who have recently been elected to support the Government especially in mind. Without wishing to sow the seeds of dissension and rebellion, I must tell them that they should, to some degree, take as their text the admirable and robust words of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), whose spectre has haunted the debate, although he has not been present.
  Those who are elected in support of a Government have a prime duty to try to ensure that the Government whom they are pleased to support produce legislation that is well thought out, constructive and sensible, and that the Executive does not become overweening, over-powerful and arrogant. All of us in the Chamber have a duty in that regard, but it lies especially heavily on the shoulders of those who sit on the Government side.
  My test of the effectiveness of the Modernisation Committee is the extent to which it is making this place a more effective Chamber. I welcome the reports before us, as did my right hon. Friend in his admirable and succinct opening speech, and I pay my tribute to the Leader of the House.
  Being Leader of the House is a somewhat schizophrenic job, and we must all be sympathetic towards the right hon. Lady. Obviously, she is in charge of the Government's business and she has a partisan duty to ensure that the Government get that business. But she also has a wider responsibility—in many respects second only to yours, Madam Speaker—to the House in general.
  I believe that in the way in which the right hon. Lady has chaired the Committee, she has discharged that second duty with scrupulous efficiency. I served on it for the first few months of its existence and then moved to the Parliamentary Privilege Cornrnittee—a joint Committee between this House and the other place on which, again, I serve with the right hon. Lady. I do not want to embarrass her, or to divulge what that Committee is discussing, so I shall simply say that she is considering the issues there with the same impartiality that she sought to bring to her chairmanship of the Modernisation Committee when I served on that.
  However, having said all that, let me now look at what is being proposed and at some of the important points that have been made during the debate. It is crucial that we should all take to heart the comments by the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I often disagree with both of them, but the one thing that no one in the Chamber could begin to deny is that they are both first and foremost consummate parliamentarians, who believe in this place and seek to achieve what they believe in through this place. Their attendance here is also exemplary.
  If only others would take a leaf out of their book in that latter regard, the Chamber might be what it truly should be—the cockpit of the nation. It is important that the Modernisation Committee should have as its prime objective bringing the Chamber back to true life. I supported the Jopling reforms, but some of them have had a bad effect in that respect. Thursday nights are a prime example. There were Thursday nights, not so long ago, when the Chamber would have been full at 9 o'clock. Now it is almost empty, although it is fuller tonight than it has been for several Thursdays.

  587
  The Chamber needs to be well attended. It should be the very centre of our parliamentary life and existence. Of course, the Committees, both Standing and Select, are important, but the Chamber is far more important.
  The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) spoke about confrontation, an issue which my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) picked up. I do not think that people outside are necessarily disgusted by noise. I remember Norman Tebbit, or Lord Tebbit as he is now, saying that, if people looked at the Supreme Soviet—this was in the days before the end of the cold war—they would see an assembly that was sycophantic but that had no democracy. He contrasted it with the House of Commons at its most lively and rumbustious.
  The House is often at its best either when it is debating issues on their merits, without regard to party affiliation—as we are tonight and as we did on Tuesday when we talked about the voting system—or when a great issue of national importance has brought us here with conflicting passions. No one who was here on that Saturday morning the day after the Falklands had been invaded will ever forget that debate, which exercised great influence not only on the nation but throughout the world—the way in which it influenced history has now been fully accepted and documented.
  I should like the Chamber to be better attended, which is why I particularly welcome the Modernisation Committee's recommendation—a number of hon. Members have referred to it—that hon. Members should be encouraged and even disciplined to attend more regularly and to stay once they are here. It is discourteous in the extreme for hon. Members to turn up, deliver themselves of a few random thoughts and then to waltz away without returning for the winding-up speeches. If hon. Members take part in a debate, they should remain throughout the whole of the proceedings, save for taking a little modest refreshment, perhaps; they should listen to what others have to say about their contributions and perhaps to intervene—that is why I welcome the recommendation on injury time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who has been described as the man best qualified to be Parliament's shop steward, talked about the dangers of a too rigid application of timing. Those of us who were privileged enough to have listened to Michael Foot or Enoch Powell speaking in the Chamber would not have wanted many of their speeches time limited. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole rightly argued that to limit the time for minority parties, some of which have only one, two, three or four Members of Parliament, would be relatively unfair. Although it is right that the occupant of the Chair should have discretion and exercise it properly, we should not go too far down the road of limiting time.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was somewhat disparaging about those of us who believe that constitutional measures should be taken on the Floor of the House. I believe that those matters of supreme importance to our nation should be debated in the Chamber—the Modernisation Committee's recommendations on programming have been extremely helpful in that regard. We have not got the matter absolutely right, but we are moving in that direction, and the Leader of the House is to
  588
  be congratulated on her personal efforts to ensure that programming works more effectively than it did when it was first operated.
  Mr. Tyler: In the interest of clarity, may I clear up one point? I do not in any way disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says about programming consideration in Committee, which I believe has been very effective—I, too, pay tribute to the Leader of the House. Moreover, I am not suggesting—I do not think that anyone has suggested—that the whole Committee stage of such a measure should be dealt with by Standing Committee. I believe, however, that the Modernisation Committee's compromise suggestion for consideration of other Bills—that the main issue should be debated on the Floor of the House exactly as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but that the detail of the schedules and subsidiary clauses would be much better scrutinised by Standing Committee—is sensible.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am aware that that is the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but, with great respect, I do not agree with him. Constitutional matters should take up a large share of the time available on the Floor of the House, so that all hon. Members have the opportunity to debate them.
  We have heard a number of interesting speeches. It was fascinating that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) shared some of the aims and objectives of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, although she came to different conclusions.
  The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston talked about public perception. The thing that most damages this place in the eyes of the public is the acres of empty green leather they see when they turn on their television sets. If the Chamber could be fuller, more vigorous and more lively in its debates—and if those debates could be better attended throughout—the public perception would change dramatically, as people saw us about our task.
  A number of references were made to the carry-over provision. There is a case for carry-over, but I associate myself with those hon. Members—particularly the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—who said that it should take place only on the basis of agreement and not by accident. It should be properly agreed, properly programmed and properly pre-announced. That way, complicated Bills that deserve detailed scrutiny could be accommodated over two Sessions, rather than one. To try to railroad through controversial Bills—or suddenly to say, "Good gracious me. We do not have enough time. We will run the Bill over to the next Session"—would be an abuse of parliamentary procedure which we should not begin to contemplate. I am glad that the Committee did not do so.
  We have had a fascinating debate, and the Modernisation Committee is doing a great deal of good. However, I hope that it will heed the old Latin motto, festina lente, and make haste slowly. It is far better that the reforms that the Committee puts in place should be on the basis of proper detailed consideration. The Committee should truly help to make the Chamber a more lively place and the House a more effective instrument of legislation. Above all, the Committee should try to make the House a place where the Government—wherever they come from in the political spectrum—are held constantly to account and made properly and fully answerable for their every action.

  589
  Let me finish with this point. When I sat on the Government Benches, I once said that we must not take to ourselves powers that we would not wish others to exercise. It was a lesson which was not always heeded. I hope that Labour Members will realise that the vast majority that they enjoy at the moment at the will of the electorate—and because of some of the mistakes that we made—is not theirs as of permanent right. In working out how we should run this place in the future, that should be uppermost in their minds.
  9.11 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I wish to reply briefly to some of the points raised in what has been a good-humoured, informative and—for the House of Commons—enjoyable debate. I wish we could have more such enjoyable debates. I want to deal with each speech briefly, and I hope that I will be able to cover all the points.
  First, I thank the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for his positive comments on the report. He talked about his thoughts on dress for officials of the House of Commons and was somewhat radical in his proposals. On that basis, I will certainly welcome him to the Modernisation Committee in due course. I also welcome his comments about carry-over being a process of extending the runway for Bills. That is how we should see it—as a positive move, but one which applies only in certain circumstances and not universally.
  The right hon. Member also referred to the position of the referee in all this, and the importance of Madam Speaker's approach. We place a great deal of trust in Madam Speaker and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, that is why the Committee made particular mention of the role of the Chair and our confidence in it. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman is a supporter of Queens Park Rangers so, presumably, he has specific views on referees. If that is the case, my views on referees and Bolton Wanderers may come into our future debates.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) claims to speak for the masochist tendency, although some of my colleagues believe that he speaks for the sadist tendency. He made important points, and I was pleased to have his support. He does not always support proposed changes in the running of the House, but, if we have support ranging from his to that of the other hon. Members who have spoken, we are perhaps getting it right.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made a positive contribution to the Modernisation Committee, as all its members did. He said that some changes had come more slowly than he would have wished, and mentioned his desire to split constitutional Bills so that the principles can be dealt with on the Floor of the House and the detail upstairs, as happens with the Finance Bill. I agree that there is a case for that, but each Bill—constitutional or not—must be examined on its merits. I was glad that he acknowledged the progress that we have been able to make by programme motions on constitutional Bills. There was a little element of trade-off there, and we made progress on one front, if not on all at once.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the need to ensure that Select Committees work as well as possible, and that they are respected. The Government take Select
  590
  Committees extremely seriously. According to the latest figures that I have seen, appearances by Ministers before Select Committees are up about 20 per cent. on the figure achieved under the previous Government. I hope that that proves our good faith and seriousness.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked about carry-over. He hoped that the Government would always announce at an early stage their intention to carry over a Bill. I draw his attention to paragraph 102(b) of the Committee's first report on the legislative process, which states:
  "In drawing up detailed proposals the appropriate authorities should consider the need to ensure … the identification by the Government as early as possible of any Bill it wished to be subject to a carry-over procedure."
  We want to do that. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the need for change in the dress of people in the Chamber. Personally, I tend to agree. We could certainly make changes as far as wigs are concerned, although the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about getting back at the Clerks opened up a dimension I had not previously considered; I may review my opinion in that light.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) expressed his reservations forcefully in the Committee. Interventions have dealt with his points, and I hope that he sees that a wide spectrum of opinion disagrees with him. Many people believe that having a time limit will increase the rights of Members to participate in debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich has been an hon. Friend for many years. She was as open as we would expect her to be about her views on modernisation in general. To sum them up, she is agin it. She is quite open about that, and she is right to emphasise our individual responsibility for knowing the Standing Orders and the procedure. She was right to say that, over the past few years, fewer people have come to terms with the Standing Orders and the influence that they can have. I think that she is wrong to feel that the measures that we are suggesting are dangerous and that curtailing speeches is automatically dangerous. We are proposing sensible ideas which will help the quality of legislation.
  The packages proposed both in the previous reports and in the ones that we are considering today are intended to improve the quality of legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) made that point very well. He is not a member of the Committee, but he seemed to show as much knowledge of our reports and even our deliberations as those who are members. He made a considered and positive contribution. If he had been a fly on the wall during some of our discussions, he could not have argued more effectively. He was right to point out the way in which the parliamentary year is concentrated, with lots of Second Readings together and lots of Committee work together. Soon, we might have lots of Lords amendments to consider, which will make it difficult to plan June and July.
  Many hon. Members want better planning. No doubt in the next few weeks they will be asking me to plan ahead in a way that the parliamentary programme does not always make possible. My hon. Friend also made a valid point when referring to the earlier report, about the value

  591
  of pre-legislative scrutiny, which can save time later if problems are dealt with at the appropriate stage. He and others made points about private Members' Bills, which the Committee will want to consider as soon as is practical.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who chairs the Select Committee on Information, made points that will be very welcome indeed to members of the Modernisation Committee, who were slightly alarmed at the initial reaction of his Committee to our proposals. The Information Committee thought that there might be significant difficulties with what I hope are simple measures, such as getting the names of constituencies on the annunciators. I am glad that we are likely to be able to make more rapid progress than was at first thought and I congratulate him on making that clear to the House and encouraging us in that way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) reminded us of our manifesto commitments and said that it was not merely new Members who were pressing for change. It is important to remember that. We said that one of our purposes was to make Parliament more effective and more efficient. Some people who oppose modernisation think that if we make Parliament more efficient we are, by definition, making it less effective. I reject that approach. I think that the two can go together. I am glad that she was able to welcome so much of the report, although I can understand why she wanted us to go further and to consider the parliamentary timetable. As I said, that is one of the matters that we will be moving on to in the near future.
  The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said that he liked interventions. He had some reservations about the timing of speeches, but his positive suggestions about the clock, the countdown and names of constituencies being visible to those sitting in the Chamber were constructive. Perhaps we can consider the suggestions further. I should like to pick him up on one other point he made about electronic voting—the fact that it might destroy the Lobby system. Members of the Committee were keen to maintain the Aye and the No Lobbies, whichever method of recording the vote within the Lobby was used. In the survey, some people thought that electronic voting might be the end of the Lobbies; that was a factor.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley drew on his experience of many years in the House to talk about the need for longer-term programming than one parliamentary year. I have some sympathy with his desire to have a more paced Parliament rather than merely parliamentary Sessions. That has some attractions, as does his suggestion that we ought to have 12 months or possibly longer—a fixed period—in which to pass any piece of legislation. The Committee has not considered that, but it is an interesting suggestion.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) took issue with his colleague the hon. Member for North Cornwall. I resist the temptation to draw obvious conclusions. He rightly said that accountability was a day-to-day matter. I do not think that the hon. Member for Poole was suggesting anything else. When he talked about the consequences of a general election, I do not think that he thought that that absolved us of the
  592
  day-to-day responsibility to ensure that the Government are held to account. I do not think that the two are contradictory. There should be no problem.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove mentioned that poor legislation had been passed both when there was consensus and when there was confrontation. That gives me the opportunity to make what I hope will become an important comparison that will help prove that the suggested changes are worth while and improve the quality of legislation. He said that the Child Support Agency was an example of faulty legislation produced with consensus, as everyone here knows. As was pointed out, it would have been even worse had we had a timetable.
  My solution is the one that I mentioned nearly a year ago in our first debate on modernisation. If the CSA proposals had been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, I do not think that the legislation would have reached the statute book in that form. We might have had a CSA that worked from the beginning. We are learning from the mistakes of the past. The Government will publish next week the draft Bill on pension sharing. The Social Security Select Committee has already made arrangements to consider it. The measure is similar in that there is genuine agreement that something should be done about pension sharing, just as there was about doing something about absent parents. I think that by allowing pre-legislative scrutiny and taking account of that and of the views of outside bodies, we are more likely to get the legislation right in the end. I hope that the changes will be useful in that respect.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove went on to discuss demands for debates on the Floor on issues that get squeezed such as Select Committee reports, Law Commission Bills or Adjournment debates. We both know that the Committee is soon to discuss whether we can come up mechanisms to assist in that respect.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will remember that I raised the question of carrying over legislation and said that as long as it is clear that the procedure is used for non-contentious legislation, and is carefully set out in a way that will not allow any Government to use it to steamroller through even more contentious and difficult issues, it may be acceptable. She has not chosen to give that undertaking.
  Mrs. Taylor: I specifically gave that assurance right at the start. What is more, that assurance is in the third report. The conditions that will apply to the use of carry-over are absolutely clear and unequivocal. I do not think that the House of Lords would be willing to accept Bills that were carried over had we not abided by the assurances that I gave when I opened this debate.
  Mr. Shepherd: It is clear that the Opposition has the absolute right to prevent carry-over, which is why it has to be done by agreement. Opposition Members can stop-carry over; is that not so?
  Mrs. Taylor: To reiterate, the Bills that should be eligible for carry over will be, first, those that have not completed their passage through the House in which they originated; secondly, only those for which there is a specific ad hoc motion; and, thirdly, those whose

  593
  eligibility for carry-over has been agreed through the usual channels, which was one of the conditions I laid out at the beginning of the debate. That shows what sort of Bill we are dealing with in respect of carry-over.
  I thought that the deputy shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), was going to make my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover an even better offer than he had already received this evening. My hon. Friend has been offered the top hat and an opportunity to be made a member of the Privy Council, but when the hon. Gentleman pointed out that, after 28 years on the Back Benches, he had got on to the Front Bench, I thought that he was going to offer my hon. Friend a place on the Front Bench—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come over."]—our Front Bench, that is. We live in hope of that happening some day.
  The hon. Member for South Staffordshire spoke about the early days of the Modernisation Committee, when he was a valued member of it, before he had to leave to serve on another Committee of the House. He laid down some reasonable tests that he thought should be applied to any changes, which were well taken. I appreciate his comments about the way in which the Committee has gone about its business. He said that the real test was: would the Modernisation Committee changes make the House more effective? Only time will tell, but I think that the changes make a positive contribution. If more Members can speak in debates, that will be helpful, because people will feel that it is worth staying in the Chamber. If there is injury time for interventions, that will make our debates more lively, which will also be helpful.
  I am grateful for the support given to me by the hon. Gentleman when he was on the Modernisation Committee and by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), who is just leaving the Committee. It is on that basis that I welcome the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire.
  The hon. Member for South Staffordshire spoke about the public's perception of the House and the fact that empty green-leather Benches do not provide a good image. That is a problem, as is the image at Prime Minister's Question Time, but we have a responsibility to ensure that more people know the totality of the work of the House of Commons, because those images—first, when there are few, if any, hon. Members listening to a debate and, secondly, the hothouse of Prime Minister's Question Time—are the extremes, whereas the vast majority of a Member's time is spent somewhere in between. Much of a Member of Parliament's time is spent on Committees and one of the things that the Modernisation Committee is trying to do is to ensure that the different aspects of the work of a Member of Parliament are given proper weight and regard.
  The hon. Gentleman finished by advising us to make haste slowly. I do not think that we have been making haste rapidly—indeed, there is a sense that I have been too patient in my role as the Chair of the Committee. I have been extremely tolerant on many occasions, but it is important that we make changes that are acceptable to those on both sides of the House. That is what I have endeavoured to achieve in the Committee, but I realise that there is scope for more change. The report that we will publish shortly on the scrutiny of European legislation will be important; and the whole House will welcome the fact that the Committee is soon to consider the parliamentary year and related matters in terms of the
  594
  opportunities for debate. I hope that we can come up with even more constructive, and perhaps radical, suggestions that will also be acceptable to the House. For this evening, I commend the motions to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the Third and Fourth Reports from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on Carry-over of Public Bills and Conduct in the Chamber (HC 543 and 600).

  SHORT SPEECHES
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 47 (Short speeches) be amended, as follows:

  Line 1, after 'at', insert 'or before';

  Line 4, leave out 'for not more than ten minutes';

  Line 6, after 'debate', insert 'for no longer than any period she may specify (which shall not be less than eight minutes)';

  Line 11, leave out 'ten minutes' and insert 'that period';

  Line 12, at end, add—

  'Provided that, in calculating that period, the Speaker may disregard the time taken by interventions'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  SUSPENSION OF MEMBERS
  Ordered,
  That—

  (1) the following Standing Order (Suspension of salary of Members suspended) be made:

  `The salary of a Member suspended from the service of the House shall be withheld for the duration of his suspension.';

  (2) Standing Order No. 45 (Members suspended, &c., to withdraw from precincts) be amended, as follows:

  Line 3, leave out from 'House' to 'shall' in line 4;

  Line 5, leave out from 'House' to the end of line 8; and

  (3) paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 44 (Order in debate) be transferred to the end of Standing Order No. 45.—[[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  WITHDRAWAL OF STRANGERS FROM HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 163 (Withdrawal of strangers from House) be amended, as follows:

  Line 2, leave out from the word 'Member' to the word 'and' in line 5 and insert the words 'moves "That the House sit in private" the Speaker or the chairman shall forthwith put the question "That the House sit in private" `.

  Line 7, at the end insert the words 'but such a Motion may be made no more than once in any sitting'.

  Line 10, leave out the word 'strangers' and insert the words `those other than Members or officers'.

  Line 11, leave out the words 'that strangers do withdraw' and insert the words 'under paragraph (1) of this order.'.—[[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  PETITION

    Green Belt Development
    9.34 pm
    Mr. Oliver Heald: I am pleased to have the opportunity to present the petition of 1,000 of my constituents, led by Mrs. Brenda Ball, who are concerned about plans to build in the countryside, particularly in the neighbouring seat of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). Those plans will involve the building of 10,000 houses in the green belt. My constituents wanted to show solidarity with their near neighbours in expressing their concern.
    Although the wording of the petition does not say so, there is a deeply felt sense of outrage in the north of Hertfordshire at the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions not to intervene to save the green belt in our county. It says:
    The Petition of the residents of the North East Hertfordshire constituency declares that we are concerned about the decisions to sanction plans for new development throughout the countryside. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ensure that more homes are built in city areas, instead of the countryside or Green Belt, to breathe new life into our cities and to protect valuable countryside for future generations.
    And the Petitioners remain etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Hertfordshire Structure Plan
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
    9.36 pm
    Mr. Peter Lilley: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate proposals to alter Hertfordshire's structure plan so that it is possible to build 10,000 houses in the green belt in my constituency.
    Throughout my parliamentary career, I have been a passionate defender of the green belt. I raised the issue in my maiden speech. I have always believed that it is essential to defend the sanctity of the green belt to maintain the environment and character of my constituency. At public inquiries, I have opposed plans to build on green belt land in my constituency.
    I am pleased to say that in the past 15 years in which I have had the privilege to represent a Hertfordshire seat, there has been no significant incursion into the green belt in the area that I represent. Several proposals to do so have been successfully seen off, but not one acre has been lost.
    I have invariably had cross-party support in standing up for the green belt, and I have usually had the local authorities on my side, so I am appalled that Hertfordshire county council, through its structure plan, proposes to build 10,000 houses in the green belt on nearly 2,000 acres in my constituency. I was horrified when that plan was endorsed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
    I make it absolutely clear to the House that I am not talking simply about building on a green-field site. The plan involves building within the green belt itself; in short, on land that is most safeguarded against such developments. As far as I can discover, the proposal would be the largest incursion into the green belt in living memory, so it is not only a local, but a national, issue.
    Locally, the opposition to the plan is overwhelming, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) has said. In a single morning, 3,500 people signed the petition in the marketplace in Hitchin in my constituency. Many thousands more have done so since. The sheer volume of papers containing the names of people who have signed the petition is apparent to the House.
    The site involved is especially beautiful. Few people live in it. It is a purely rural area, but it is much cherished by people in the rest of the constituency. How deeply it is cherished was brought home to me by an especially poignant ceremony, in which I participated, on the borders of the area concerned. I was invited to unveil a new footpath map in the village of St. Ippollitts. The map, which is especially beautiful, illustrates the terrain, the flora and fauna of the area, as well as showing the footpaths covering the area between St. Ippollitts and Langley. Each footpath is maintained and cared for by a team of volunteers.
    Tragically, only two months after the map was unveiled, a large part of the area that it shows is to be bulldozed and covered with concrete. One of the most beautiful stretches of countryside will become a high-profile housing estate, and all the care and devotion that people have put into maintaining that area of countryside in its natural beauty are to be laid to waste.

    597
    This is a national, as well as a local, issue. Planning proceeds by precedent, so the decision to allow building on that scale in such a location will be potent ammunition for those wishing to develop in green belt areas elsewhere in the countryside. Green belt status will have been devalued by that dangerous decision and the appalling precedent that it sets.
    The legal basis for the green belt is spelt out clearly in planning policy guidance note 2, issued in 1995. It spells out five purposes for the green belt. The first is

    "to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas".
    The green belt round Stevenage has achieved precisely that, by ensuring that Stevenage had a clear-cut western boundary along the motorway, to the west of which was green belt land; but with this precedent to overrule that green belt protection, how can urban sprawl be contained elsewhere in the country around towns with even less defensible boundaries?
    The second purpose of green belts laid down in PPG2 is
    "to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another."
    In this case, the green belt has, above all, prevented Stevenage merging into Hitchin. In practice, the new settlement, although said to be west of Stevenage, is divided from Stevenage by a motorway, an industrial zone and a railway, so the inhabitants will naturally gravitate to Hitchin, and the tendency will be for that settlement to expand toward Hitchin and undermine the thin stretch of remaining green belt between itself and Hitchin. In any case, the precedent has been created that green belts elsewhere in the country cannot be relied on to separate two closely adjoining towns.
    The third purpose of green belts laid down in PPG2 is
    "to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment".
    That the green belt has done, for the best part of 50 years in this part of the country, but now a couple of thousand beautiful acres are being abandoned. With that precedent, why should any countryside elsewhere be sacrosanct as a result of green belt protection?
    The fourth purpose of green belts laid down in PPG2 is
    "to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns."
    Hitchin is an historic market town—a beautiful one. It has retained its character and setting precisely because the green belt has restricted its size and kept Stevenage at bay. But with this precedent, how can any historic town be kept safe by relying on the green belt?
    The fifth and final purpose laid down for green belts in PPG2 is
    "to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land."
    It is always easier, and often cheaper, to build on green-field sites than to recycle urban land. While the green belt protected the countryside, planners and developers had to focus on previously built-up land, and that often meant finding many small sites, and it meant that planners had to agree to changes, for example, from employment use to building use. Why should they bother, once this precedent has established, since the easy and profitable solution of building on green-belt land is available if one pushes hard enough? In short, this decision offends every single purpose for which green-belt status was established.
    I welcome the presence in the Chamber tonight, not only of my hon. Friends, but of the hon. Members for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) and for Hemel Hempstead
    598
    (Mr. McWalter), both of whom I had the privilege of defeating in previous elections. I am sure that they will reflect the concerns of their constituents about the damage that has been done to the sanctity of the green belt that has protected the character of their constituencies as faithfully as it protects the new boundaries of my constituency.

    Hon. Members can imagine my delight when, after building was proposed in the area, I persuaded my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to launch the Conservative countryside campaign on that very site west of Stevenage in my constituency on 2 February this year. I was even more pleased when it seemed that that campaign had persuaded the Government to do a U-turn on the issue of developing in the countryside and on green-belt sites. The Deputy Prime Minister signalled his intention to restore the 60 per cent. target for building in built-up areas upon which we had consulted and which we had included in our manifesto. He declared his determination to protect the countryside.
    I welcomed the Deputy Prime Minister's apparent change of heart, as did my hon. Friends. Unfortunately, it soon became clear that, although the rhetoric had changed, the substance of policy had not. West of Stevenage was the litmus test and, on that test, the Government resolutely refused to turn blue. The Deputy Prime Minister reaffirmed his consent for the biggest incursion into the green belt since the new towns were established.
    Several reasons have been given for sticking to that decision despite the Government's alleged change of policy. When I asked the Deputy Prime Minister how he could claim that the Government's policy had changed if he was not prepared to alter his position on that key decision regarding the biggest and worst incursion into the green belt since the war, he replied that it was a question of local democracy. He claimed that all the local authorities were in favour of the decision. That is simply incorrect. The decision affects land in North Hertfordshire district council area and, although the council is Labour controlled, it resolutely opposes the decision.
    It is true that Hertfordshire county council has led the proposal for building on the site, but I believe that that decision is a travesty of local democracy rather than a reflection of it. The county council is controlled by a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition. It has formed a joint party called the administration group, which has a majority of just one over the Conservatives. The group knew that it could not get a decision this unpopular through the full council without risking its defeat by one of its members siding with the Conservative opposition. So it took the decision in a planning committee which was packed with trustees, tightly whipped.
    The decision was taken by just 14 council members out of 77, and only 14 county councillors supported the final plan. When the Conservative opposition put down a motion in full council that the issue should be considered by the full council before it went ahead, the ruling Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition changed the standing orders so that it could throw out the motion, even though a majority of county councillors voted in favour of that decision being taken by the full council. It is a travesty of democracy and it is appalling that the Deputy Prime Minister should have cited local democracy as a reason to allow the green belt to be built on.

    599
    It is sad that no Liberal Democrat Members are present. They have claimed often enough to be supporters of the environment and to be a green party. Taking them at their word, I wrote to the Leader of the Liberal party asking him to urge his supporters on Hertfordshire county council to abandon their anti-democratic and anti-environmental support of the plan to build on the green belt. He has never replied. I have subsequently spoken to him and he said that he had no intention of replying and that it was beneath his dignity to involve himself in this, the most important decision affecting the future of the green belt and the whole country since the war. Far from being a matter for local democracy, it has been an abuse of local democracy by those running Hertfordshire county council.
    The Government's second line of defence was to argue that, although a couple of thousand acres of green belt land have been lost in the front line, they have designated an even larger area of countryside as green belt in the rear. That is fatuous. There is no defence at all if the green belt is mobile. It is meant to be rigid. It is effective only if it is rigid. If it simply moves back like a piece of elastic every time there is pressure on it, it is of no use in preventing the encroachment of urban areas on the countryside.
    The third justification is that the west of Stevenage development would be particularly sustainable in transport terms because it is near a railway and an existing town. On that basis, any town with a railway is not safe from expansion into the surrounding green belt. In any case, virtually every town in the west of Hertfordshire has good railways and very few people are far from those railway centres. In my constituency, it is possible to be a maximum of only six miles distant from a railway station.
    The fourth justification is that no alternative locations are available on which to build. The inquiry considered a few alternative large sites and it rather strangely turned down proposals for building a similar development on a non-green belt site elsewhere in the county. However, it gave no consideration at all to building on the largest area of recyclable land, the former Hatfield airfield which has recently been closed following the move of British Aerospace to the north.
    It is in any case nonsense to suppose that it is essential to find large sites in order to meet the target for building new homes in the county. The target for the 20-year period between 1991 and 2011 is set at 65,000 houses. Already, some six or seven years into the period, 44,000 houses have been built or allocated planning permission. Almost all of that has been achieved by finding many small sites, by urban regeneration and by a limited amount of peripheral development. A further 21,000 houses are required over the remaining period, which is almost twice as long as the part that has elapsed.
    The structure plan states:
    "There is a fair prospect of meeting the whole of that extra requirement in the same manner"
    as for the first 44,000 houses, by urban regeneration and limited peripheral development. It continues:
    "However, against the possibility of this not proving practicable, strategic provision is made on a contingency basis for up to 6,000 dwellings to be located on Green Field sites … of which 5,000 are at Stevenage (with a prospect of 5,000 more after 2011)."
    600
    On the council's own admission, the incursion into the green belt may not be necessary to meet the council's targets. It would be extraordinary if that beautiful stretch of countryside were sacrificed—which would create a damaging precedent for the country as a whole—and it all turned out to have been unnecessary.
    The final blow to the insistence of the Government and the county council that it was all necessary to meet the targets was dealt this week by Serplan itself. On 3 June, it issued a press release giving revised forecasts for the period between 1991 and 2016, stating:
    "The figures are less than the Government's household projections for the same period. That is because national research now shows that 40 to 50 per cent. of the projected extra single person households may not form without some sort of subsidy. The evidence suggests that even if the Government commits extra resources to giving people a home, 20 to 25 per cent. fewer single person households will form than previously projected."
    The whole basis of the original targets is now undermined by the planning body that does the forecasting on which the Government have relied.
    Earlier this year, I—along with many of my hon. Friends who represent Hertfordshire—went to see the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning. We were grateful to him for allowing us time to express our concerns, and our passionate opposition to what is proposed for the area west of Stevenage. He said that the Government had genuinely changed their policy—that they now wanted more development outside the south-east and less within it. He said that they were moving from "predict and provide" to a more flexible system, and that they would be reviewing previous predictions. All that was music to our ears; yet the Minister still insisted that the decision should not be revised or reconsidered in the light of the policy changes that he proposed.
    If the Government are raising the national average target for the amount of building on recycled land from 50 to 60 per cent., that must mean scaling down plans to build on green-field sites. If the Government are to reduce the amount of building on green-field sites, where will the reductions be made? Why are the Government not beginning by axing plans to build on the green belt—particularly this most offensive and largest plan? If they are genuinely keen for less building to take place on green-field sites and more on recycled land, where will the reduction take place, and why will it not be made in the area to which I refer?
    I have a further question. If more powers are being devolved to the regions and to Serplan, which now says that the requirement for houses in the south-east is less than the Government predicted, why are the regions not being given authority—indeed, encouraged—to reflect that decentralised planning decision in the way that the new planning structures were said to allow? If the Government are serious about their proposals to shift more housing development out of the south-east and up to the north, and to less populous parts of the country, why is that not yet being reflected in decisions such as that involving Hertfordshire county council? Above all, how can the Government say that the policy has changed if they will not alter the single most offensive planning decision that they have allowed: the decision to build 10,000 houses on green-belt land in my constituency?
    If the Government are prepared to reverse that decision, they will gain the respect and sympathy of people not just in Hertfordshire, but throughout the country who are

    601
    concerned at the damage that this decision will do to the sanctity of the green belt. If the Government are not, their credit will be zero among all those who care for the environment and believe that it can be satisfactorily maintained only if we uphold the sanctity of the green belt.
    9.59 pm
    Mr. Oliver Heald rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have permission of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) to speak in the debate?
    Mr. Heald: I certainly do.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: And that of the Minister?
    Mr. Heald: I have not mentioned it to the Minister. I certainly mentioned it to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) as that bit of extra time was available this evening.
    At a rally some six weeks ago, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) and I stood shoulder to shoulder on this issue, in support of the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden has made. My right hon. Friend has been fighting tigerishly to defend—[Interruption.] Tigerishly is the right word. He is fighting fiercely to protect—
    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.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
    Mr. Heald: My right hon. Friend has been fighting fiercely to protect our part of Hertfordshire. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead knows the area well, too. He was a North Hertfordshire district councillor in Letchworth. He knows how important it is to Letchworth that it has the agricultural belt around it and the green belt beside it. He knows, as I and my right hon. Friend do, that it is important in Hertfordshire that the green belt should not be a flexible thing that can be tossed aside and an area where developments can occur in huge numbers.
    There is no doubt about the demand. People could build as many houses as they liked in Hertfordshire and they would sell them. Buyers would pour over the borders from Bedfordshire, Essex and come up from London because Hertfordshire is a wonderful place in which to live, but, in doing so, they would destroy its character. That is why this proposal has been strongly opposed not just in Hitchin and Harpenden—although, my goodness, it has been opposed there—but in Letchworth, where people care about the environment, and in other places in my constituency.
    The county has a lot of green belt. It has protected itself through the green belt; I see Labour Members nodding. Not just I and the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, but the leader of North Hertfordshire district council, a Labour member, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, and the chairman of the council have said that this will not do.
    I bitterly regret the fact that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions was not prepared to budge. He let down not just Conservative
    602
    supporters of the green belt, but everyone in that part of Hertfordshire: Labour, Liberal and all those individual people—
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Nonsense.
    Mr. Heald: The Minister says, "Nonsense," and I noticed that he was laughing earlier. People in north Hertfordshire are not laughing. They think that this is an absolute disgrace and a decision which he should reverse. If he and Secretary of State mean what they say, they must act, not just give us words. It is time that this decision was reversed. The Minister should get on his feet and actually do something for the environment, rather than just talk, talk, talk, which is what Labour does.
    10.2 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond on this subject, as it enables me to outline the Government's policy as it relates to the new Hertfordshire structure plan and to remind the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)—and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who did not have the courtesy to inform me that he intended to speak—of the record of the previous Government, whom they supported. Their remarks indicate an astonishing degree of selective amnesia about the performance of that Government on decisions on the green belt. I shall be pleased to remind them about the Conservative Government's record.
    I shall start by outlining the procedures; it is right that the House should be aware of them. Structure plans were introduced by the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 and carried forward into section 32 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which requires county councils to prepare structure plans for their areas. Planning policy guidance for structure plans is set in PPG 12, entitled "Development Plans and Regional Planning Guidance", which was published in 1992. It requires structure plans to set out broad proposals for housing, employment, transportation and other strategic matters and their distribution between districts.
    Structure plans do not identify specific sites—that is the preserve of local plans—but they can identify strategic allocations for major development. When applied to housing, a strategic allocation is generally taken as being 1,000 or more dwellings.
    Structure plans must have regard to regional planning guidance, which is non-statutory advice published by the Secretary of State—in consultation with standing conferences formed by local authorities—to guide the regional distribution of development and housing. It is not part of the role of RPGs to specify the location of new development. Later in my speech, I shall deal with our proposed changes to the system for preparing regional planning guidance. Hertfordshire is guided by regional planning guidance for the south-east, which is in RPG 9.
    Structure plans are prepared and owned by county councils. The Secretary of State has a reserve power, under section 35(2) of the 1990 Act, to direct modifications to a structure plan. He exercises that power,

    603
    very sparingly, to ensure that plans do not depart from national or regional planning guidance without very strong justification. For structure plans, the power has been used only six times since 1993—to direct the modification of plans for Suffolk, Surrey, Berkshire, Kent, Bedfordshire and West Sussex. All except the last of those were made by the previous Administration, and the last four arose from the failure of the councils to propose adequate housing provision.
    As hon. Members will know, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister recently announced our new approach to planning for housing, "Planning for the Communities of the Future". I am well aware that several hon. Members are concerned about how Hertfordshire's plan squares with that and with policy for the green belt and reuse of brown-field sites. I know that hon. Members are concerned about protecting the green belt and the countryside; the Government are also concerned about it. We remain fully committed to their protection.
    Protection of the countryside has always been a planning priority. Green belt policy is guided by planning policy guidance note 2, "Green Belts", which was published in 1994. The PPG note makes it quite clear that—as has always been the case—green belt boundaries can be changed by the development plan only if "exceptional circumstances" exist.
    In recent years, both the current Government and the previous Administration have had to allow releases of green belt land for development. There is nothing new about that process. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning recently met the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and other hon. Members, told them that the previous Administration had allowed releases of green belt land for housing and said that we would provide some examples.
    The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden will undoubtedly be interested in those examples. They are as follows: 46 hectares in Birmingham, 158 hectares in Broxbourne, 137 hectares in Dartford and 260 hectares in Solihull. In case Conservative Members think that that is only some dim and distant recollection, I should remind them that, in the final year of the previous Conservatives Administration, they released, on appeal, 500 hectares of green belt land for development. In one of the three sites affected, they acted directly against the recommendation of the inspector, who recommended refusal.
    The suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and other Conservative Members that the previous Government's record on the green belt was somehow magnificent and that the current Government are acting improperly is erroneous. It is an extraordinary statement of hypocrisy on the right hon. Gentleman's part.
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out those decisions. He should therefore be able to confirm that the Government's single decision in Hertfordshire will have a greater effect than the effect of all those decisions he has listed put together.
    Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman has again missed the point. The fact is that—in that one case, in the last year of the previous Government—500 hectares were
    604
    affected. He will also have heard me mention 260 hectares in Solihull, 137 hectares in Dartford and 158 hectares in Broxbourne. Perhaps he cannot do his mathematics. Perhaps that is why has recently been transferred from his previous shadow job to his current one.
    Mr. Kerry Pollard: I am not sure that the House is aware that Broxbourne is in Hertfordshire. The previous Administration gave away a great swathe of green belt in that decision, but the Conservatives are now claiming to be the great friends of the green belt. That is hypocrisy.
    Mr. Raynsford: I agree with my hon. Friend.
    The important point is that land can be taken from the green belt only if opportunities for development in urban areas and beyond the green belt have been fully considered. Only if insufficient land is available from those sources can green belt alterations be countenanced.
    Mr. Heald: The Minister will know that the site that we are talking about is 2,000 acres. I do not know how many acres he thinks there are to the hectare, but on the mathematics that I employ my right hon. Friend's figure is right. The Minister is talking about tiny amounts in comparison with the huge scheme in Hertfordshire. How many acres does the Minister say there are to the hectare?
    Mr. Raynsford: The site that the hon. Gentleman is referring to is 800 hectares. That is smaller than the combined sites that I have described. If the hon. Gentleman wants, I can list other sites released by the previous Government on appeal. Let us consider some, because perhaps he would benefit from hearing them. In June 1994, 24 hectares were released for a corporate headquarters and residential accommodation in St. Helens. In March 1993, 167 hectares were released for a business park in Ashton-under-Lyne. In the same month, 30 hectares were released for industrial development in Cheadle. The recommendation of the inspector, who was trying to safeguard the green belt, was overruled. In May 1993, 56 hectares were released for a business park in Dartford.
    The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden is showing the House why he was transferred from being shadow Chancellor, because he cannot add up. If he adds up the developments that I have mentioned, he will realise that they amount to substantially more green belt than the site that he is talking about. I shall spare him the embarrassment of listing the many other examples of green belt sites that were released for development by the previous Government. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends clearly do not wish to be reminded of those uncomfortable facts.
    "Planning for the Communities of the Future" highlights the need to develop sustainable communities. Green belts may divert development into open countryside beyond them—land that may be of high environmental value. Development in such areas can promote unsustainable transport demands. In exceptional circumstances, releasing some green belt for development can enable more sustainable solutions to be realised, provided—I emphasise this point again—all the options have been fully considered.

    605
    The reuse of previously developed land is another important issue. The previous Administration's target, set out in the 1996 Green Paper "Household Growth: Where Shall We Live?" was that
    "by 2005, half of all new housing should be built on re-used sites."
    "Planning for the Communities of the Future" increases that target to 60 per cent. over the next 10 years. We expect regional planning guidance to set targets to achieve that. We have commissioned the Local Government Association and English Partnerships to set up a database of previously developed land. That will help councils and developers to identify land available for reuse and target it for redevelopment. The process carried out in Hertfordshire is similar to our approach and shows that it will work. "Planning for the Communities of the Future" also sets out our approach to planning for the housing provision implied by the 1992-based population projections up to 2016 and for future projections. We are determined to get away from predict and provide and give local councils and communities more ownership of the figures and the proposals to meet them. We have set out a new system for defining housing provision through revised arrangements for the preparation of regional planning guidance.
    In future, regional planning conferences will work with the Government offices for the regions, business, other regional stakeholders and the new regional development agencies to produce draft regional guidance, including proposals for future housing provision. That will be tested at a public examination and subject to environmental appraisal. Targets will be included to measure the success of the strategy and to trigger subsequent formal review of the guidance. That new approach will be used in preparation of a revision of RPG9, to be published in draft later this year, which will roll housing figures forward to 2016.
    In answer to the specific question asked by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, there will be an opportunity for a further appraisal of Hertfordshire household requirements in the context of the revised RPG9. That will be subject to the procedure I have described but based on forthcoming household projection figures. It is wrong at this stage to pre-empt that. He should not draw any conclusions from the Serplan figures, which were generalised for the south-east and, of course, have not had the benefit of any testing by an examination in public.
    In the meantime, it is important that there should be an orderly transition from the old arrangements to the new ones, so development plans in preparation must have regard to existing regional planning guidance. I remind the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden that existing regional planning guidance in respect of Hertfordshire—RPG9—was produced by the Government he supported.
    The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden is well aware of the lengthy process by which the Hertfordshire structure plan was prepared. If other hon. Members want details of it, we can supply them. The essence of the matter is that Hertfordshire county council initially sought to provide all new housing allocations on previously developed land. That was shown to be too ambitious and unachievable—not least because the area does not contain many of the older industrial sites that are
    606
    common in some parts of the country, which are the most obvious sites for such development. The county came very reluctantly to the conclusion that green-field releases were unavoidable. Hence, it proposed major development west of the A1M near Stevenage, and a smaller, but still significant, proposal at Hemel Hempstead. That was thoroughly tested at an examination in public before an independent panel, which endorsed the strategy.
    Early this year, it fell to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to consider whether he should direct any modifications to the plan. He concluded that he should not, because up-to-date information showed that the proportion of new housing on previously used land would be close to our new target of 60 per cent., that development west of the AIM near Stevenage and development near Hemel Hempstead offered the most sustainable solution, and that the use of green belt land had therefore been justified.
    The council subsequently asked my right hon. Friend to consider reducing the county's RPG9 dwelling total by an unspecified amount. The Deputy Prime Minister replied on 23 April, indicating that there is nothing in "Planning for the Communities of the Future" to justify changing the county's housing figure, for reasons that I have explained. Copies of the council's letter and my right hon. Friend's reply are available. The plan was therefore adopted by Hertfordshire county council on 30 April. Not too much significance should be attached to the description of the process that the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden gave. It is part of the standard procedure of delegation in county councils. Decisions on such matters are taken by their planning committees and delegated as a matter of course. That is what happened in Hertfordshire.
    The Hertfordshire structure plan was very thoroughly—one could say painfully—prepared and tested. The county council came only reluctantly to the view that development to the west of the A1M near Stevenage and at Hemel Hempstead was necessary. The council afforded extensive opportunities for the public to object to the plan and sought energetically and innovatively to, comply with regional planning guidance, green belt policy and sustainable development principles.
    I should emphasise three final points. First, the council considered that the creation of a sustainable community west of the A1M near Stevenage justified taking land from the green belt, and, on balance, we agreed. Secondly, Hertfordshire is set to meet our requirement for development on previously used land. The latest information shows that the proportion could reach 68 per cent. Thirdly, development in the county must be guided by the extant regional planning guidance. That is why my right hon. Friend declined to vary Hertfordshire's housing figure.
    I should stress that Hertfordshire also has proposals to increase the total area of green belt in the county by an amount substantially larger than the area that it proposes to take for development. The key purpose behind it all is to enhance the principles of sustainability by ensuring that development occurs where it is nearest to transport links and employment opportunities, thus reducing the need for travel and for people to depend on a motor car. That will reduce all the problems associated with indiscriminate development in rural areas that would have been the

    607
    inevitable consequence if it had not been decided to focus on a specific area where sustainable development was achievable.
    Mr. Heald: Does the Minister not appreciate that in the northern part of Hertfordshire, the countryside is protected in two ways? Part of it is protected as prime agricultural land and the other part is protected because it is green belt. It is the easiest thing in the world to say, "We'll have a bit of flexibility here and take a bit of land out of the green belt and allow development on it, but then we'll add a bit more agricultural land to the green belt." One could go on like that for ever and a day, but the fact is that we would end up with more concrete and more houses. The people of north Hertfordshire do not want that.
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman seems to ignore the fact that the area of green belt in the county has substantially increased and will increase further.
    Mr. Heald: What use is that?
    Mr. Raynsford: Therefore his logic is entirely wrong.
    Mr. Heald: What about the countryside?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has also ignored the way in which the county council has approached the issue, considering thoughtfully and carefully all the issues of sustainability—a concept with which he clearly has difficulty.
    Mr. Pollard: Is the Minister aware that in the south-west quadrant of Hertfordshire—the area that I represent—we have more or less wall-to-wall housing and are allowing development on hospital sites? Should not other parts of Hertfordshire—the areas that we are talking about tonight—bear their fair share of the increased demand for housing?
    Mr. Heald: We do not want to end up like you.
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend made a perfectly valid remark and that reply from the hon. Member for
    608
    North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) shows an insensitivity for the concerns of people who live in the same county as him of which he should be heartily ashamed.
    Mr. Heald: What the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) said is true. Some areas in the south-west of the county are very built up. We all appreciate that—but it does not mean that the answer is to make the north of the county so built up that it becomes just the same. That was my point; surely the Minister understands it.
    Mr. Raynsford: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is once again missing the point about sustainability—and he is showing a disregard for the interests of people in areas that have been subject to intensive development who want some safeguarding of green land, parks and open spaces in their areas to ensure that they, too, have access to the countryside.
    Concern for the countryside is not the unique privilege of one section of the community. It is shared widely by all sections of our community, by people who live in towns as well as people who live in the country. It is the Government's commitment to ensure that we have a policy that pursues the interests of the countryside and protects the countryside and green land for people in all areas, not just those who live in the country.
    I reaffirm to the House that the Government remain firmly committed to the protection of the countryside and of green belts. We are the first Government ever to consider land use and transport planning together and to take an integrated approach to sustainable development.
    We have said before and will say again that the creation of sustainable communities may, in exceptional circumstances, justify taking land from the green belt. We considered that that was the case with the present proposals for development west of Stevenage and Hemel Hempstead. It is our belief that, in those circumstances, and in view of the proposals to extend the green belt elsewhere by 4,600 hectares, it was not appropriate for my right hon. Friend to intervene in the adoption of the Hertfordshire structure plan.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Ten o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Investments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, for what reasons the format of investment holdings in the 1997 Annual report and Accounts has been changed from that in the 1996 edition in respect of information concerning overseas trusts. [44231]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The list of larger investments in the 1997 Annual Report and Accounts adopted a higher threshold (£6 million) than that in the 1996 Report (which applied a threshold of £3 million for UK equities and £1 million for overseas investments with overseas trusts listed as a separate category under the list of overseas investments). This focuses clearly on the largest holdings, which contribute the greater part of the fund's performance, and also reflects the overall increase in the Commissioners' investments since the threshold was last reviewed. No overseas investments over £6 million were held.

  In view of the Commissioners' decision to increase its overseas equities in 1997 and to outsource the management of the overseas portfolio to three separate

  £

  Company

  Date

  Market value

  Total proceeds

  i. Edinburgh Dragon Trust

  31 December 1996

  4,225,000.00

  31 December 1997

  0.00

  2,723,789.75

  ii. Fidelity Japanese Values

  31 December 1996

  1,299,375.00

  31 December 1997

  0.00

  768,459.75

  iii. Fleming Japanese Investment Trust

  31 December 1996

  6,514,324.00

  31 December 1997

  4,749,684.00

  iv. Fleming Select Japanese Fund

  31 December 1996

  3,354,565.00

  31 December 1997

  0.00

  2,721,183.92

  v. Fleming Select Pacific Fund

  31 December 1996

  2,775,689.00

  31 December 1997

  0.00

  1,881,573.14

  vi. Foreign and Colonial Pacific Investment Trust

  31 December 1996

  3,460,063.00

  31 December 1997

  2,370,688.00

  vii. Govett Oriental Investment Trust

  31 December 1996

  4,074,000.00

  31 December 1997

  0.00

  2,488,137.50

  viii. JF Fledgling Japan

  31 December 1996

  2,239,050.00

  31 December 1997

  1,228,200.00

  ix. Mercury European Privatisation Trust

  31 December 1996

  1,080,000.00

  31 December 1997

  1,914,000.00

  includes purchases

  x. Old Mutual South Africa Trust

  31 December 1996

  1,207,500.00

  31 December 1997

  1,361,500.00

  xi. Pacific Assets Trust

  31 December 1996

  2,552,000.00

  31 December 1997

  0.00

  1,235,024.75

  296
  external fund managers during 1997, with a consequent large increase in the number of individual overseas equity holdings, it was considered opportune to align the disclosure threshold for overseas holdings with that for UK equities.

  The overseas investment trusts held at 31 December 1996 represented the Commissioners' only exposure to the markets of the Far East. As a result of the appointment of external overseas equity managers during 1997, many of the overseas investment trust holdings were disposed of by the end of 1997.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will list in tabular form(a) the investment holdings in pounds at 31 December (1) 1996 and (2) 1997 and (b) the sums realised in pounds from the disposal of holdings between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 1997 in (i) Edinburgh Dragon Trust, (ii) Fidelity Japanese Values, (iii) Fleming Japanese Investment Trust, (iv) Fleming Select Japanese Fund, (v) Fleming Select Pacific Fund, (vi) Foreign and Colonial Pacific Investment Trust, (vii) Govett Oriental Investment Trust, (viii) JF Fledgeling Japan, (ix) Mercury European Privatisation Trust, (x) Old Mutual South Africa Trust, (xi) Pacific Assets Trust, (xii) Schroder Asia Pacific Fund, (xiii) Schroder Emerging Countries, (xiv) Schroder Japan Growth Fund, (xv) Schroder Pacific Growth Fund, (xvi) Schroder Tokyo Fund, (xvii) TR European Growth Trust and (xix) Templeton Emerging Markets. [44230]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The relevant information to the question is as follows. The information given provides market valuation at specific dates only, and does not indicate gains or losses.
  297

  £

  Company

  Date

  Market value

  Total proceeds

  xii. Schroder Asia Pacific Fund

  31 December 1996

  2,572,075.00

  31 December 1997

  11,382,975.00

  xiii. Schroder Emerging Countries

  31 December 1996

  1,625,000.00

  31 December 1997

  11,439,000.00

  xiv. Schroder Japan Growth Fund

  31 December 1996

  1,170,000.00

  31 December 1997

  11,040,000.00

  xv. Schroder Pacific Growth Fund

  31 December 1996

  4,968,164.00

  31 December 1997

  0.00

  2,904,068.53

  xvi. Schroder Tokyo Fund

  31 December 1996

  5,540,129.00

  31 December 1997

  0.00

  4,861,229.78

  xvii. TR European Growth "C" Conversion to Ordinary

  31 December 1996

  1,485,000.00

  31 December 1997

  0.00

  1,782,973.65

  xix. Templeton Emerging Markets

  31 December 1996

  1,869,146.00

  31 December 1997

  1,672,763.00

  1Indicates a transfer to an Overseas Fund Manager

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Dorchester Road Relief Road
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when a decision will be made on the financing of the Dorchester Road Relief Road in Weymouth. [43341]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The Dorchester Road Relief Road scheme was submitted by Dorset County Council for consideration as a PFI scheme for the February 1998 list of local authority PFI projects. Announcing decisions on the list, the Government made it clear that decisions on support for a number of local road schemes (including the Weymouth road scheme) had been deferred until the approach to the appraisal and prioritisation of road schemes had been clarified in the national Roads Review.

  Fire Safety
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will introduce measures to limit the generation of smoke from building products; [44025]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the timetable for implementing individual member state's new European Union standards relating to test methods used to determine the fire resistance of construction products; [44023]

  (3) if the test method in British Standard 476 Part 33 permits the evaluation of the generation of smoke from building products; and what assessment he has made of the suitability of this as a performance standard for regulatory purposes. [44024]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Building Regulations 1991 are intended to secure the health and safety in and around buildings, and paragraph B of Schedule 1 to the Regulations makes functional requirements to cover fire safety. Guidance on how these requirements may be met 298
  are given in Approved Document B, and, as far as materials used in construction are concerned, performance standards are set based on recognised test methods.

  With regard to the generation of smoke from building products, the only recognised method of test available that measures smoke production is BS 476: Part 33 which relates to a full scale room test for surface products. This test gives an indication of the toxic hazard by the measurement of certain toxic gases and also the hazard of reduced visibility can be estimated by the measurement of the production of light-obscuring smoke. Because of the size of this test, it is not considered practicable to introduce it as a performance standard for regulatory purposes.

  Approved Document B (Fire Safety) makes reference to a number of BS 476 parts that are considered to give acceptable methods of test and the key parameters usually considered in fire tests are the heat release rate and flame spread. These in themselves will also have an effect on smoke production. I therefore have no proposals at present to introduce the large-scale test given in BS 476 Part 33 as part of the performance standard for regulatory purpose. However, the use of a fire engineering approach is recognised in Approved Document B and the BS 476: Part 33 method of test could be used as part of the justification for a particular fire engineering solution.

  The Single Burning Item (SBI) test being developed in support of the Construction Products Directive, does also address smoke production and we will need to take account of this when revising Approved Document B in the light of any future harmonised European Standards.

  The European standards for resistance to fire have been passed to National Standards bodies (in the United Kingdom, the British Standards Institution) by CEN, the European Standards Organisation, for a formal vote, expected to be completed by the end of this month. If there is a positive vote, the test will be ratified and published towards the end of this year by the national standards bodies. Decisions have yet to be taken on the

  299
  period for which European and national standards will co-exist but a reasonable period will be allowed for industry to adjust before the latter are withdrawn.

  Environmental Standards (Prosecution)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many businesses have been prosecuted successfully since 1990 for violating environmental standards in(a) the West Midlands and (b) the United Kingdom. [43223]

  Angela Eagle
  This information is not held centrally. The Environment Agency took on responsibility for managing and regulating the water environment and controlling industrial pollution and wastes in England and Wales on 1 April 1996. Between then and 31 March 1998, it undertook 1,233 successful prosecutions, of which 229 were in its Midlands region. Local authorities and other bodies also have responsibility for enforcing some environmental controls.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in devising a regulatory framework for the carbon dioxide emissions trading regime outlined in the Kyoto agreement. [43303]

  Angela Eagle
  Negotiations began on 2 June, at the 8th session of the Subsidiary Bodies of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, on a framework for the international emissions trading regime outlined in the Kyoto Protocol, with a view to developing the necessary principles, modalities and guidelines at the Fourth Conference of the Parties to the Convention in November this year.

  Litter Offences
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many on-the-spot litter fines have been issued by Chelmsford Borough Council in each of the last three years; and how many warnings for litter offences were issued in each of the last three years. [44176]

  Angela Eagle
  Chelmsford Borough Council litter wardens warned 302 people for litter offences in 1995–96 and 347 people in 1996–97. Figures for warnings given in 1997–98 are not yet available. No fixed penalty fines have been issued by Chelmsford Borough Council over the last three years.

  Private Landlords
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which local authorities operate voluntary accreditation schemes for private landlords. [44302]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department does not collect information on this. However, we encourage local authorities, through the Housing Investment Programme guidance, to consider initiatives such as accreditation 300
  schemes for private landlords as part of their enabling role in securing an effective private rented sector in their areas. We are aware that a growing number of local authorities are operating such schemes.

  "Policy Guidance on Policy Appraisal and the Environment"
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what procedures have been put in place in the Government Office for the Eastern Region to ensure that Policy Guidance on Policy Appraisal and the Environment is implemented. [42660]

  Mr. Meacher
  The document "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" was sent last month to the Government Office for Eastern Region, as to all Government Offices for the Regions. They are currently establishing the mechanisms to ensure that these criteria are systematically applied in all their investment and programme evaluations.

PRIME MINISTER

  Technique LLC
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what information is held by Government departments on Technique LLC; [38551]

  (2) what was the nature of any relationship between Her Majesty's Government and Technique LLC in the period 1995 to 1998; [38549]

  (3) on what date Her Majesty's Government were informed of the commission payments made by Astra and related companies to Technique LLC; [38548]

  (4) on what date Her Majesty's Government were informed of commission payments made to Technique LLC in relation to contracts to supply goods by Astra. [38544]

  The Prime Minister
  Technique LLC has been the agent in Oman for several UK companies for a number of years. In view of this, HMG officials have had some contact with company staff, primarily through the British Embassy in Muscat. From information readily available within Government, I am not aware of any evidence that HMG was informed of any commission payments to Technique LLC by Astra. Any commission payment made by a non-state company such as Astra, or companies related to it, to a foreign company such as Technique LLC, would have been a matter solely for the companies concerned.

  Correspondence
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will instruct Ministers to sign their letters to hon. Members. [43421]

  The Prime Minister
  It is the responsibility of individual Ministers to determine how correspondence is dealt with in their departments. However, I am not aware of any Minister adopting a policy of deliberately not signing their correspondence.
  301

  Sierra Leone
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date he first became aware of the HM Customs and Excise investigation of allegations against Sandline. [43622]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 June 1998]: As has already been made public, I was briefed by the Cabinet Secretary on this matter on 30 April.

  Telephone Tapping
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) of 30 October 1997,Official Report, column 861, what action is taken in circumstances where a member of the public who is subject to telephone interception makes a telephone call to an hon. Member; and if he will make a statement. [43604]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 June 1998]: The Secretary of State may issue a warrant only if he is satisfied that it is necessary for one of the purposes in the Interception of Communications Act 1985; namely, in the interests of national security, for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime or for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. It is then for the responsible Service to decide how to respond to any communications lawfully intercepted under the warrant, having regard to the safeguards provided in section 6 of the Act.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many of the responses received to the Consultation on Legal Aid Reform were from(a) lawyers or lawyers' organisations, (b) members of the public or consumers' organisations and (c) hon. or right hon. Members; and if he will make a statement. [43291]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have now received 238 responses to the consultation paper Access to Justice with Conditional Fees; 145 from lawyers and lawyers' associations, 28 from members of the public or consumers' organisations and one from an hon. Member, although many hon. and right hon. Members have passed on responses which have been sent to them by constituents.

  Community Legal Service
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for pilots for the Community Legal Service; and if he will make a statement. [43292]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor has announced that proposals for a Community Legal Service will be finalised by the beginning of next year. A consultation paper will be issued in January 1999. Until the Lord Chancellor and I reach our final decisions based on the responses to that consultation paper, I cannot predict whether any pilot projects will be appropriate.

  Stephen Lawrence Case
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what amount of legal aid was given to those charged with the murder of Stephen Lawrence. [44177]

  Mr. Hoon
  The total amount of legal aid paid in respect of proceedings in the magistrates' court was £76,962. A further £129,007 was paid in respect of proceedings in the Crown Court.

  Court Payments
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to ensure that courts pay out within a reasonable time scale moneys they hold on behalf of parties. [42750]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Charter for Court Users states that court staff are expected to instruct the Court Funds Office (where moneys are held on interest-bearing accounts) within 10 working days of the court order, to arrange payments to the parties. Management information systems are in place to identify any work not dealt with within 5 working days. Once the requests are received, the Court Funds Office aims to process them within 5 working days.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Youth Clubs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received on the proportion of Lottery funding awarded to youth clubs. [43607]

  Mr. Banks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State receives many representation on Lottery funding, but he has received none specifically relating to youth clubs. However, over 1,300 awards worth in excess of £170 million have been made to projects which are specifically designed to benefit young people and youth groups.

  S4C
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the level of subsidy provided to S4C Welsh Television Channel, for the 1997–98 financial year. [44109]

  Mr. Fisher
  S4C is funded on a calendar year basis, under a statutory formula, and the level of funding from 1998 is linked to the Retail Prices Index (RPI). The grant in 1997 was £72.223 million; the grant for 1998 is £74.895 million.

  Elgin Marbles
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from the Government of Greece since 1 May 1997 requesting the return of the Elgin Marbles. [44332]

  Mr. Fisher
  There have been no formal representations from the Government of the Hellenic Republic requesting the return of the Elgin Marbles.
  303

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drivers (Mobile Telephones)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions of motorists for driving a motor vehicle while using a mobile telephone there were in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [43632]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is not available.

  There is no separate offence of driving a vehicle while using a mobile telephone, and any prosecution is likely to be driving without due care and attention, for which there were 66,858 prosecutions in England and Wales in 1996 (73,015 in 1995, 76,251 in 1994 and 79,415 in 1993). Figures for 1997 are not yet available.

  Trial area

  Total offenders sentenced

  Sentences completed

  Total sentences revoked

  Revoked through breach 1

  Revoked for other reasons

  Currently being monitored

  Berkshire

  96

  68

  14

  6

  1

  15

  Greater Manchester

  843

  542

  105

  36

  8

  192

  Norfolk

  354

  231

  31

  23

  8

  92

  Cambridgeshire2

  20

  2

  1

  1

  0

  17

  Middlesex

  29

  3

  3

  3

  0

  22

  Suffolk

  13

  1

  1

  1

  0

  11

  West Yorkshire

  22

  5

  1

  1

  0

  15

  Total

  1,377

  852

  156

  71

  17

  364

  1 Separate figures on the reasons for breaches were only collected in all trial areas from August 1997

  2 The trials in Cambridgeshire, Middlesex, Suffolk and West Yorkshire began in January 1998

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it is planned to extend curfew orders on a national basis; and which companies will be competing for the contract. [43878]

  Ms Quin
  Further to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), of 17 March 1998,Official Report, columns 559–60, four bidders have been short-listed for the electronic monitoring services contracts. They are General Security Services Corporation, Securicor Custodial Services, Premier Prisons Limited and Group 4 Prison and Court Services Limited. National roll-out of court-ordered curfews is unlikely to be before late 1999.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what categorisation his Department has made of sex offenders to indicate the estimated degree of risk each one poses to the public; and if he will make a statement. [43711]

  Mr. Michael
  Agencies are increasingly co-operating to pool the information they hold so that they can asses the risk presented by any individual sex offender and devise plans to monitor the offender's behaviour and reduce risk to the public. The Government are encouraging this multi-agency approach to both assessment and management in the community.
  304
  It is also possible for such drivers to be prosecuted or issued with a fixed penalty for not being in proper control of a vehicle (Regulation 104 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986), but such cases cannot be separately identified in the statistics collected centrally.

  Curfew Orders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many curfew orders backed by electronic tagging have been made by the courts in the pilot areas of(a) Norfolk and East Anglia, (b) Greater Manchester and (c) Reading and Berkshire since the trial commenced in July 1995; how many have been (i) completed satisfactorily and (ii) breached; and how many are still current. [43880]

  Ms Quin
  The following table shows the position in relation to curfew orders made in the seven pilot areas as of 26 May 1998.

  Sex offenders are subject to a risk assessment by the agency (or agencies) responsible for them on release from prison and/or whilst under supervision in the community. In the case of offenders subject to restrictions under the Mental Health Act, this assessment takes place before consent is given to their being granted leave of absence or transferred or discharged from hospital.

  Because most of these assessments are made on a case-by-case basis, there are no all-inclusive central statistics or categorisations of them.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to prevent sex offenders from being employed in occupations with access to children and to prevent children being abused by people who are in a position of trust over them. [44827]

  Mr. Michael
  There are a number of statutory safeguards already in place. Criminal record checks are available on people working in the statutory sector where they have substantial unsupervised access to children. They are also available on teachers in the private and voluntary sectors. The Police Act 1997 contains provisions which will widen access to criminal record checks when they are implemented. The Sex Offenders Act 1997 imposes a requirement on those convicted or cautioned for sex offences against children and other serious sex offences to notify the police of their name and address and any changes to these. This allows the police to monitor sex offenders in the community and to take action where appropriate to warn potential employers of
  305
  any risk they might present. The Government have made it clear that such information must not just sit on a computer or gather dust on a file and the police and probation services have responded positively and responsibly using this information for the protection of children and vulnerable adults, as intended. The Government are also introducing sex offender orders in the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] which will apply to sex offenders if their behaviour indicates a possible threat to the public. The courts will be able to make an order to impose prohibitions necessary to protect the community. There are also a number of other measures in place to prevent those considered unsuitable to work with children from gaining employment with them. The Department for Education and Employment maintains "List 99" which contains information about people whom the Secretary of State has barred from working in schools; the Department of Health operates a Consultancy Service Index which enables local authorities and private and voluntary childcare organisations in England and Wales to check on suitability of those they propose to employ; and many professional bodies have codes of conduct which set out members' responsibilities in this area and provide for disciplinary action to be taken when these codes are breached.

  We are concerned that these safeguards are not fully integrated and that there is a need for a more streamlined approached to ensure that there are no loopholes. For this reason, the Government are setting up an interdepartmental working group of officials to consider additional safeguards to prevent those who are unsuitable from working with children, including the possibility of a central register backed up by a new criminal offence to prevent those on the register applying for work with children. In looking at this subject, the group will draw upon the consultation exercise "Sex Offenders: A Ban on Working with Children"; and on recommendations made in the report of Sir William Utting's review of safeguards for children living away from home (particularly those recommendations dealing with choosing the right staff) and the Government's response to this review which is expected to be published by the Ministerial Task Force on the Children's Safeguards Review in the summer. The group will also consider whether further measures are necessary to protect 16 and 17 years olds who may be vulnerable to abuse by those in a position of trust, such as carers, teachers and leaders of organised residential activities. It is expected that the group will make its final recommendations to Ministers by the end of the year.

  Metropolitan Police Force (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women from ethnic minorities were serving in the Metropolitan Police Force on 1 May. [43657]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the closest date for which it is possible to provide these figures is 5 May, as figures are collated on the first Monday of each month. The numbers of ethnic minorities serving in the Metropolitan Police on 5 May were(a) 665 men and (b) 190 women. The current percentage of ethnic minority officers is 3.2 per cent.
  306
  During the 1996–97 financial year, 694 new officers were recruited, of whom 6.7 per cent. came from ethnic minority backgrounds. The following table shows how the percentage of ethnic minority officers has increased steadily from 1.98 per cent. in 1991–92.

  Financial year

  Ethnic minorities strength

  Percentage of force

  1991–92

  563

  1.98

  1992–93

  614

  2.2

  1993–94

  671

  2.4

  1994–95

  730

  2.6

  1995–96

  797

  2.9

  1996–97

  822

  3.0

  1997–98

  856

  3.2

  Note:

  Figures from Commissioner's annual reports

  Prison Suicides
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women committed suicide in prisons in England and Wales in each of the last three years. [43664]

  Ms Quin
  The term used by Prison Service to refer to an apparent suicide is "self-inflicted death". This is a broader definition and includes all those deaths where it is clear that the person has acted specifically to take his or her own life. It is not restricted to the official verdict from the Coroner's inquest, where verdicts of "suicide", "open" or "misadventure" may be recorded in cases where there was doubt about a person's intent to end their life.

  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Self-inflicted deaths in prisons in England and Wales 1995–97

  Year

  Women

  Men

  Total

  1995

  2

  57

  59

  1996

  2

  62

  64

  1997

  3

  67

  70

  UK Visa Applications (Nigeria)
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Nigerian nationals applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom as visitors; how many visitor visas were issued; and how many recipients of those visas returned to Nigeria before their visas expired in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997. [43336]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information on the number of Nigerian nationals applying for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom as visitors, and the number of recipients of such visas who return to Nigeria before their visas expire, is not collected centrally.

  The total number of entry clearance applications to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes made in Nigeria in 1994 to 1997, and the total numbers granted, initially or on appeal, are shown in the table. Visitor applications

  307
  are not separately identified, but they form the main part of applications for temporary purposes: also included are applications from students.

  Applications received in Nigeria for entry clearance to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, and applications granted, 1994 to 1997

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Applications received

  53,362

  41,580

  49,438

  49,471

  Applications granted

  36,089

  28,466

  38,680

  33,365

  Prison Service Property, Freckleton
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the prices received by the Prison Service for each of its properties sold in the Mede, Freckleton, this year to date and in each of the last five years, identifying the house concerned by number and indicating if it was bricked or unbricked. [43870]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service has sold only one property on the Mede estate within the last five years; the property concerned was 6, The Mede. The District Valuer placed a value of £38,000 on the property as at 6 April 1993. It was purchased under the discount sale scheme and the applicant was entitled to 59 per cent. discount; the purchase price therefore was £15,580.

  The property was of Cornish type construction or "unbricked".

  Road Traffic Offences
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what percentage of road accidents involving one or more(a) fatal, (b) serious and (c) slight injuries at least one driver or rider was convicted of a road traffic offence, in the latest year for which figures are available. [44000]

  Findings of guilt at all courts for selected offence groups, by age and sex of offender, England and Wales—1996

  Male

  Female

  All ages1

  17–24

  25–59

  60+

  All ages1

  17–24

  25–59

  60+

  Causing death or bodily harm

  348

  157

  169

  14

  22

  2

  20

  —

  Dangerous driving

  5,584

  2,801

  2,454

  42

  166

  63

  92

  6

  Driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs

  87,956

  22,018

  63,119

  2,373

  7,749

  1,565

  6,014

  147

  1 Includes offences committed by persons under 17

  The exact age of persons over 20 is not collected centrally for offences of careless driving, speed limit offences or offences of neglect of traffic directions, but

  Findings of guilt at all courts for selected offence groups, by age and sex of offender, England and Wales—1996

  Male

  Female

  All ages1

  Under 21

  21 and over

  All ages

  Under 21

  21 and over

  Careless driving

  48,790

  7,796

  40,994

  8,632

  992

  7,640

  Speed limit offences

  115,388

  6,854

  108,535

  14,651

  666

  13,985

  Neglect of traffic directions

  30,223

  2,549

  27,674

  5,083

  264

  4,819

  1 Includes offences committed by persons under 17

  308
  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is not available. The Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions collects statistics of road accidents, but its records do not show whether persons involved are subsequently convicted of a road traffic offence.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of convictions for road traffic offences heard in(a) magistrates courts and (b) Crown courts related to incidents involving one or more fatal, serious or slight injuries, in the latest year for which figures are available. [44001]

  Mr. Michael
  The available information relates to convictions for offences of causing death by dangerous or careless driving, by aggravated vehicle taking and causing bodily harm in England and Wales in 1996.

  Convictions for offences of causing death numbered ten at magistrates' courts and offences of causing bodily harm three. The total number of convictions for motoring offences at magistrates' courts was 1,476,991. The Crown Court figures were 329 and 28 respectively, and the total convictions for motoring offences 15,397.

  The information held centrally does not enable other offences involving injury to be identified.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female motorists aged (i) 17 to 24, (ii) 25 to 59 and (iii) 60 years and over were convicted in relation to motoring of (1) causing death or bodily harm, (2) dangerous driving, (3) alcohol or drug-related offences, (4) careless driving, (5) speed limit offences and (6) offences related to neglect of traffic directions, in the latest year for which figures are available. [43997]

  Mr. Michael
  The following table gives the information in relation to offences of causing death or bodily harm, dangerous driving and driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs. The figures relate to the number of offences for which persons of the relevant age and sex were convicted, not the number of persons involved.

  the following table gives the nearest information to that requested.
  309
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many random roadside checks on motorists were carried out by police; and how many of these motorists were driving while disqualified, in the latest year for which figures are available. [43996]

  Mr. Michael
  Information is not available on the number of random roadside checks carried out by the police on motorists. There were 42,508 convictions for driving while disqualified in England and Wales in 1996.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fines were issued for motoring offences; and of these how many(a) were paid without a reminder, (b) were paid after a reminder and (c) remained unpaid after 12 months in 1996. [43994]

  Mr. Michael
  1,032,897 fines were issued in England and Wales during 1996, but it is not known how many were paid or unpaid.

  Fines are collected from the courts by the Lord Chancellor's Department for passing to the Treasury, and it is not possible to distinguish the offences for which the fines were given.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions motorists were found guilty of a motoring offence for which they had(a) already received a written warning during the previous three years and (b) already been convicted in the previous three years, in the latest year for which figures are available; [43999]

  (2) on how many occasions motorists were issued with a written warning for a motoring offence for which they had already received a written warning during the latest year for which figures are available and the previous three years. [43998]

  Mr. Michael
  The information held centrally does not enable the previous records of motorists to be compared with the latest offence committed or dealt with. The Home Office Offenders' Index covers the criminal history of offenders, but this is limited to convictions for standard list offences and covers very few motoring offences.

  Alcohol (Young Persons)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he has taken to clarify the law on the use of children in test purchases of alcohol; [44032]

  (2) what steps he has taken to introduce legislation to prevent adults from buying alcohol on behalf of unsupervised children. [44033]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government's statement of 17 July 1997 on alcopops and alcohol misuse by those under age included commitments to legislate on both these subjects. We shall do so as soon as there is a suitable opportunity.
  310

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish on the same date, in the Welsh and English languages, the firearms and shotgun application forms and certificates that are currently under revision. [44097]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government's priority in revising the Firearms Rules is to implement the changes to firearms licensing provided for in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and as recommended by Lord Cullen in his report on the Dunblane tragedy. Because of the pressing need to introduce the new Rules, the prescribed firearms licensing forms will be published in English in the first instance but we have discussed with the Welsh Language Board our wish to produce these complex forms in Welsh as well as English. We will publish Welsh language versions of the forms as soon as possible.

  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the total numbers of prisoners who have been found in random tests to have taken(a) cocaine, (b) methadone, (c) amphetamines, (d) benzodiazepines, (e) barbiturates and (f) LSD, since the tests were introduced; what percentage of prisoners had taken the drugs in each case; and what changes have taken place in the proportions of these six categories of drugs. [44345]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Table A shows how many samples tested positive for each drug since all prisons began testing in April 1996, and the percentage of all samples tested that represents, calculated to one decimal place. It is not possible to say how many different prisoners tested positive because the data are anonymised when collated centrally.

  Tables B and C show the percentage of random samples positive for all drug types tested for in each month of the last two financial years. There has been no significant change in the percentages of samples testing positive for the drug types named in this question.

  Random mandatory drug test samples testing positive by drug type, 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1998

  Table A

  Drug type

  Number of tests positive

  Percentage of samples tested positive

  Cocaine

  311

  0.3

  Methadone

  211

  0.2

  Amphetamines

  298

  0.3

  Benzodiazepines

  1,664

  1.4

  Barbiturates

  45

  0

  LSD

  0

  0

  311

  Monthly percentage of random samples taken testing positive: April 1996—March 1997

  Table B

  Drug group

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Cannabis

  20.9

  19.7

  18.5

  19.3

  19.6

  19.7

  20.2

  20.4

  20.5

  20.8

  19.6

  19.2

  Opiates

  5.1

  5.1

  4.6

  6.0

  5.9

  6.0

  5.4

  5.6

  6.4

  5.3

  4.4

  4.6

  Cocaine

  0.2

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  0.2

  0.3

  0.2

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  Benzodiazepines

  1.5

  2.1

  1.9

  1.3

  1.3

  1.4

  1.2

  1.2

  1.1

  1.5

  1.2

  1.4

  Methadone

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  0.1

  0.4

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  Amphetamines

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.1

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.1

  0.2

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Barbiturates

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  LSD

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Monthly percentage of random samples taken testing positive: April 1997—March 1998

  Table C

  Drug group

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Cannabis

  20.3

  19.8

  17.8

  16.6

  15.4

  15.9

  15.8

  15.3

  16.7

  15.8

  13.8

  15.1

  Opiates

  4.3

  3.8

  3.8

  4.2

  3.7

  4.0

  4.2

  4.1

  4.6

  4.3

  4.3

  4.6

  Cocaine

  0.2

  0.4

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.4

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Benzodiazepines

  1.2

  1.1

  1.4

  1.3

  1.3

  0.8

  1.0

  1.6

  1.5

  1.4

  1.5

  1.3

  Methadone

  0.2

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  0.2

  0.1

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  Amphetamines

  0.3

  0.4

  0.3

  0.3

  0.2

  0.1

  0.2

  0.2

  0.1

  0.2

  0.3

  0.4

  Barbiturates

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  LSD

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Human Rights
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which body will monitor the United Kingdom's adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights. [44564]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A person claiming to be a victim of a violation of the Convention rights may petition the European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg. A case may then go from the Commission to the European Court of Human Rights, whose decision is binding. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court's judgment.

  The Human Rights Bill does not change this position, but it will additionally enable people in the United Kingdom to assert their Convention rights in domestic legal proceedings.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of the incorporation into United Kingdom law of the European Convention on Human Rights on individuals' privacy. [44565]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The United Kingdom is already under an international obligation, as a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, not to violate Article 8 of the Convention which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life.

  The Human Rights Bill will make it possible for this and the other Convention rights to be invoked in domestic proceedings in the United Kingdom. Decisions will be for the courts.
  312

DEFENCE

  Armed Service Personnel
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women are currently serving in each of the three armed services. [44117]

  Dr. Reid
  As at 1 April 1998, the number of women serving in the Armed Forces was:

  Officers

  Other ranks

  Total

  Naval Service

  453 (7.3%)

  2,809 (7.7%)

  3,262 (7.3%)

  Army

  1,172 (8.4%)

  6,260 (6.5%)

  7,432 (6.8%)

  Royal Air Force

  939 (9.4%)

  4,067 (9.1%)

  5,006 (9.0%)

  All Services

  2,564 (7.9%)

  13,136 (7.4%)

  15,700 (7.5%)

  National Data Centre
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the contract to run the United Kingdom National Data Centre was put out to tender; [44340]

  (2) the contract to run the United Kingdom National Data Centre was advertised; [44342]

  (3) if the United Kingdom National Data Centre has responsibility for monitoring data provided by the United Nations on nuclear testing. [44341]

  Mr. Spellar
  Invitations to tender for the contract to establish the UK National Data Centre were issued in June 1997, the project having been advertised in the MOD Contracts Bulletin on 15 January 1997. Tenders were received from the British Geological Survey, BGS, and a consortium comprising AWE, Serco and Assessment Services. The contract was subsequently awarded to the BGS and took effect in January 1998. When operational, the National Data Centre will be responsible for evaluating technical data supplied by the International Data Centre, IDC, which is being established in Vienna
  313
  under the provisions of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The technical data will be provided by the IDC from monitoring stations established throughout the world as part of the International Monitoring System, IMS.

  Procurement Contracts
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of defence manufacturing contracts in the United Kingdom in terms of the(a) number and (b) value of contracts were undertaken for (i) the United Kingdom Government, (ii) other EU states and (iii) states outside the EU in the years 1991–92 to 1997–98. [43412]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information is not available in the form requested, but:UK Defence Statistics 1997—Table 1.5 gives net expenditure for equipment procurement for production and repair and spares for 1997–98 of £7,173 million as an estimate of the value of manufacturing contracts placed by UK Government in total.
  Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996—Figure 8 shows that the proportion of equipment expenditure over the previous five years in the UK and on collaborative projects was 91 per cent. of the total equipment expenditure.
  UK Defence Statistics 1997—Table 1.13 shows exports of defence equipment (deliveries) for 1996 to NATO and other Western European countries at £1,055 million and to other countries at £2,347 million.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what EU rules and regulations govern the competitive tendering of defence procurement contracts by his Department; [43414]

  (2) what EU rules and regulations govern the competitive tendering of defence procurement contracts by member state Governments of the EU; [43413]

  (3) if defence procurement contracts in all EU member states are open to competitive tendering to manufacturing companies in other EU member states. [43415]

  Mr. Spellar
  Procurement contracts for Defence goods and services in all EU member states are open to competitive tendering by companies in other EU member states, in accordance with the four EC Directives:

  Supplies Directive: 93/36/EEC

  Works Directive: 93/37/EEC

  Services Directive: 92/50/EEC

  Compliance Directive: 89/665/EEC.

  The Directives have been implemented in UK law by Regulations made by the Treasury under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, as follows:

  The Public Supply Contracts Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/201)

  The Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991 (SI 1991/2680)

  The Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/3228).

  The fundamental principles of the Directives are that there should be an equal opportunity to bid for work without discrimination on grounds of nationality, that the award criteria should be stated clearly at the outset, and that there should be transparency in the award decision.

  There is an exemption under the Directive for those goods and services to which the provision of Article 223 of the Treaty of Rome apply.
  314

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 June 1998,Official Report, column 103, on awards of the Military Cross, how many United Kingdom forces were serving in Sierra Leone in the two weeks either side of the occasion in which a service man was awarded the Military Cross in 1997; and which units they served in. [44232]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 255–57, and to my subsequent letter of 1 June 1998, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Widow's Pension
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women were widowed aged under 45 years in each of the last three years; what percentage of these received(a) the widowed mother's allowance and (b) widow's pension and in each case at what cost; and if she will make a statement. [41630]

  Mr. Denham
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  The number of new widows under 45 years receiving Widowed Mother's Allowance and associated cost

  Year widowed

  Number

  Overall cost

  October 1994-September 1995

  4,640

  18

  October 1995-September 1996

  4,480

  19

  October 1996-September 1997

  3,920

  17

  Notes:

  1. The table is based on the Pension Strategy Computer System and only includes cases in Great Britain. The percentage figures are based on information from the Family Resources Survey 1995–96

  2. Women widowed aged under 45 since 1988 are not entitled to a Widows Pension

  3. Monetary amounts are rounded to the nearest £1 million and are in cash prices

  4. Percentages are rounded to the nearest one per cent.

  The percentage of all widows aged under 45 who received Widowed Mothers Allowance in 1994–95 was 62 per cent.

  The percentage of all widows aged under 45 who received Widowed Mothers Allowance in 1995–96 was 65 per cent.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assumptions about the rate of response to initial letters to lone parents underlay the budgeting for the Parent Plus pilots; and what has been the actual response rate to initial letters under the New Deal for lone parents. [40209]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Budgeting for the Parent Plus pilots was based on the assumption that 35 per cent. of lone parents sent a letter would attend an initial interview and, of those, 50 per cent. would agree to participate,
  315
  giving a take-up rate of 17.5 per cent. The same assumptions were made in the initial plans for the New Deal for Lone Parents.

  Lone parents have attended interviews in response to various contacts: directly in response to letters of invitation, and indirectly in response to publicity, and word of mouth. As of 24 April 1998, there were 25,805 contacts with lone parents, which includes 22,402 lone parents who had been sent letters. 5,508 lone parents have attended an interview in response to a letter or other publicity; and 4,901 have agreed to participate in the New Deal for Lone Parents, following an interview. This means that approximately 90 per cent. of those attending an interview have agreed to participate; and produces a take-up rate of 19 per cent., higher than the original assumption.

  A full independent evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents is being undertaken, to report in Autumn 1999. This will assess the overall effectiveness of the programme.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the average income of an unemployed lone mother with three dependent children in(a) London, (b) Birmingham, (c) Manchester, (d) Glasgow and (e) Edinburgh in each year between 1993–94 and 1998–99 broken down by benefit. [43915]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the tables.

  Data on the average incomes of unemployed lone mothers in each of the cities named in the question are not available.

  There may be unemployed lone mothers with income (from other sources, for example child maintenance) of a level which will affect their entitlement to Income Support or JSA, Free School Meals and Welfare Food. Child Benefit is payable in full irrespective of income.

  Social Security (SS) benefit entitlement—1993–94 to 1997–98 and (existing claimants only) 1998–99 for an unemployed lone mother with three dependent children

  £

  Year

  IS/JSA

  Child benefit

  Free school meals and welfare foods

  SS benefit entitlement

  1993–94

  78.55

  32.25

  10.49

  121.29

  1994–95

  82.30

  32.85

  10.84

  125.99

  1995–96

  83.65

  33.60

  11.40

  128.65

  1996–97

  85.95

  34.70

  10.76

  131.41

  1997–98

  88.35

  35.10

  10.90

  134.35

  from April 1998

  90.35

  35.70

  10.96

  137.01

  from November 1998

  95.35

  35.70

  10.96

  142.01

  Note:

  From 6 April 1998, new claimants receive different rates.
  316

  Social Security (SS) benefit entitlement—1998–99 for an unemployed lone mother with three dependent children

  £

  IS/JSA

  Child benefit

  Free school meals and welfare foods

  SS benefit entitlement

  from April 1998

  85.65

  35.70

  10.96

  132.31

  from July 1998

  91.30

  30.05

  10.96

  132.31

  from November 1998

  96.30

  30.05

  10.96

  137.31

  Notes:

  1. These tables show lone parents' Social Security benefit entitlements (excluding Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit)

  2. An unemployed lone mother's Social Security benefit entitlement (excluding Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit) is made up of (a) Income Support (IS) or, for some lone mothers, JSA; (b) Child Benefit (ChB); and (c) Free School Meals and Welfare Foods (FSM & WF). There is no regional variation in the rates of these benefits

  3. Lone mothers who are unemployed and in receipt of Income Support (IS) or JSA may receive help with their housing costs—hrough Housing Benefit (HB) or Income Support Mortgage Interest (ISMI)—and with their council tax—through Council Tax Benefit (CTB)

  4. Gross benefit entitlement figures for lone mothers (ie before housing costs) would show a variation by city, since rents and Council Tax (and therefore Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit) vary by city

  5. IS claimants are entitled to welfare foods (free milk tokens and vitamins) for any children they have under 5 years old and free school meals for children they have aged 5 and over. The value of free school meals is based on the January 1991 figure uprated by the RPI food component each year. The value of welfare foods is an estimate based on the average cost of a pint of milk

  6. The figures assume:

  (a) take up of full benefit entitlement, and

  (b) the family has no capital or disregarded income

  7. The figures shown assume one child to be under 5, another between 5 and 10 years old and the third between 11 and 15 years old

  8. The removal of the lone parent rate of Child Benefit, which is reflected in table 2, is subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary regulations

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people qualify for concessionary television licences under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Acts; and how many are currently claiming their entitlement. [43803]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  Concessionary television licences are not provided under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, but under the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) Regulations 1997 (made under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1947) which is the responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Under these Regulations, a concessionary television licence costing £5 is available to people living in residential homes and certain types of sheltered accommodation. There are currently 651,000 beneficiaries under this scheme. It is not known how many people qualify for the concession and fail to claim, but the number is likely to be low, since applications for the concession have to be submitted by housing managers, who are generally well aware of the existence of the concessionary scheme.
  317
  Registered blind people are also eligible for a reduction of £1.25 in the television licence fee. Approximately 34,400 people are currently claiming this reduction. At 31 March 1997, there were 158,590 registered blind people in England.

  The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (Section 2(1)(b)) places a duty upon local authorities to make arrangements to provide a disabled person with, or to assist that person in obtaining, wireless, television, library or similar recreational facilities, where the authority is satisfied that this is necessary in order to meet that person's needs. The number of persons receiving such provision is not known.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Ministerial Papers
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what instructions she has given on the information which she wishes to be drawn to her attention(a) in red boxes and (b) otherwise; and if she will indicate when and how these instructions have been modified. [42587]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: I expect information to be drawn to my attention by my Private Office, according to its urgency and importance. The only instructions I have given on handling such information are that I prefer to deal with papers as and when possible throughout the day, rather than having them put aside to go in red boxes if this is unnecessary. These instructions are unchanged.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade at what time and on what date she first saw a copy of the letter addressed to the Foreign Secretary from S J Berwin & Co. on behalf of Sandline International dated 24 April. [42130]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My Department provided advice to Ministers on this letter on Wednesday 6 May 1998, when I was overseas. Following my return I saw the text of the letter on Tuesday 12 May.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) on what dates since 1 May 1997 the Restricted Enforcement Unit has met; and on how many occasions the Unit has invited Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to commence an investigation into illegal arms exports in breach on UN Security Council resolutions; [42693]

  (2) if she will list the officials who attended the Cross-departmental Restricted Enforcement Unit on 18 February. [42695]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the statement by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the House during the debate on 18 May 1998, Official Report, columns 606–08, in which he announced the investigation by Sir Thomas Legg KCB QC into allegations about Government involvement with the supply of arms to Sierra Leone by UK citizens and firms, and said that the
  318
  Terms of Reference would be placed in the Library of the House. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary intends to publish the report of the investigation.

  Restricted Enforcement Unit
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which departments are represented on the Restricted Enforcement Unit. [42692]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]: The following Departments are represented at the Restricted Enforcement Unit:

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  The Department of Trade and Industry

  The Ministry of Defence

  HM Customs and Excise

  The Security Service

  The Secret Intelligence Service

  Government Communications Headquarters.

  Printing, Packaging and Graphics Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what fiscal steps her Department has taken to encourage entrepreneurial investment in the United Kingdom printing, packaging and graphic communications industry. [43693]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government have taken a number of steps to encourage long-term investment and enterprise in all our industries. These include measures to promote economic stability, cuts in corporation tax, increased first-year capital allowances for SMEs, and the reform of capital gains tax and the Enterprise Investment Scheme. The Government have also published a document, "Innovating for the Future: Investing in R&D" as the basis for a wide-ranging consultation to see how we can improve our record on investment in research and development. Furthermore, the Chancellor recently announced three new venture capital funds totalling £240 million to support small and medium businesses.

  Straw Burning
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to develop straw burning as an alternative form of energy in the United Kingdom. [43551]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: A 31 MW straw-powered project at Ely, Cambridgeshire, was contracted under the third non-fossil fuel obligation, NFFO-3, and is now at an advanced stage of development. I shall monitor the progress of this project in order to inform decisions resulting from my review of new and renewable energy policy on the prospects for straw as a fuel, and on the eligibility of this energy source in any future NFFO arrangements.

  County Courts
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has for the re-division of county courts between official receivers' officers; if she will list which courts are to be moved to which official receivers' offices; and when these changes will be implemented. [43848]
  319
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  This is an operational matter for the Inspector General and Chief Executive of the Insolvency Service. I have asked him to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 4 June 1998:
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths MP, Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, has asked me as Inspector General and Chief Executive of The Insolvency Service Executive Agency to reply to your question about the re-division of county courts between official receivers' offices.
  The Insolvency Service is implementing a new grading and pay system to come into effect on 1 August 1998. As part of that, it is looking at some adjustments to the case loads of some official receivers' offices, which will be achieved by the re-allocation of the work of some county courts between those offices. Consideration of those re-allocations has yet to be concluded, and I am therefore not yet in a position to provide a full list of the changes. I have however given an undertaking to supply the list to the Trade Union Side of the Agency National Whitley Committee by 2 July, and a copy will be made available to relevant staff: that timetable is expected to be met. The changes will take place over a period of time. The timing will be dependent on a number of factors, including current staffing levels in offices, but I do not see them involving any redundancies, compulsory transfers or office closures.

  Post Office Review
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many contacts she has had with private sector carriers in the context of the Post Office review. [43807]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I met several leading private sector carriers, and a representative organisation (AICES), during the first phase of the review last year. I am also aware of the evidence presented to the Trade and Industry Select Committee last Autumn by certain private sector carriers. Since the announcement of the second phase of the review, my officials have had contact with a number of carriers and have met some of them.

  Population Statistics
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the populations of South Yorkshire, Merseyside, Wales, Northern Ireland, NUTS II regions and Cornwall NUTS III region. [43627]

  Mrs. Roche
  The latest published regional population estimates for these NUTS areas are for 1995:

  Population

  South Yorkshire

  1,303,900

  Merseyside

  1,427,200

  Glwyd, Dyfed, Gwynedd, and Powys

  1,132,700

  Gwent, and Mid, South, and West Glamorgan

  1,784,100

  Northern Ireland

  1,649,000

  Cornwall

  482,700

  Note:

  The boundaries and names of the two Welsh NUTS level II areas are based on the former counties

  Source:

  Regional Trends

  Objective 1 Funding
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the populations of those regions currently receiving Objective 1 structural funds from the European Union. [43626]
  320
  Mrs. Roche
  The population in regions covered by current Objective 1 programmes in each EU Member State is:

  million

  Austria

  0.269

  Belgium

  1.279

  Germany

  16.447

  Greece

  10.209

  Spain

  23.269

  France

  2.546

  Ireland

  3.500

  Italy

  21.133

  Netherlands

  0.217

  Portugal

  9.868

  United Kingdom

  3.414

  Source:

  European Commission, Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund 1994–99 Regulations and Commentary

  ACPO Ltd.
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Directors of ACPO Ltd. are being considered for prosecution for non-compliance with the Companies Acts in respect of(a) their appointments as directors of ACPO Ltd. and (b) the contents of their Memorandum and Articles of Association. [44104]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  No. As far as Companies House is aware, the requirements of the Companies Act in respect of appointment of directors and Memorandum and Articles have now been met. In this situation Companies House would not consider prosecution. This is on the basis of advice applicable to such situations that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps Companies House have taken to ensure that the directors of ACPO Ltd. comply fully with the disclosure requirements of Companies Act Form 288a. [44103]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Companies House has no information which leads it to the view that the directors of ACPO Ltd. have not now complied fully with the disclosure requirements of Companies Act form 288a. Companies House accepts documents in good faith. If, however, it is brought to notice that information disclosed under section 288 of the Companies Act is in any way inaccurate or incomplete, the directors concerned would be asked to provide corrected information. Failure to do so could lead to consideration of prosecution.

  EZ Test
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what communication her Department has had with the UK distributors of the ecstasy kit, EZ Test. [44171]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  As far as I am aware, there have been no communications between this Department and the UK distributors of this product.
  321

  Agenda 2000
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact on rural communities of the Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals for reform of the structural funds. [42724]

  Mrs. Roche
  It will not be possible to make such an assessment until the Commission publishes its detailed financial plans for individual Member States. The Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals are complex; we will also need further details from the Commission on the new Structural Fund framework, the related rural development measures, and proposed rural Community Initiative before we are able to make an assessment. One of the Government's objectives is to see that there is a sensible balance between rural and urban areas, which will be helped if Member States have flexibility in administering the funds.

  Genetic Engineering
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Government have taken to act on the recommendation of the Review of the Inter-Relationships between the Science, Engineering and Technology Expenditure of Government Departments that they should review their mechanisms for interdepartmental co-ordination in respect of genetic modification. [44792]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government have recently completed a review of the role, membership, and operation of the Interdepartmental Group on Genetic Modification Technology (IGGMOT), the official level committee for the co-ordination of policy on genetic modification. Copies of the outcome of the review, which found that IGGMOT remains the best way to co-ordinate policy on genetic modification at official level across Government and should continue to exist with no change to its terms of reference, are available in the Library.

  Export Credits
  Helen Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the response to the ECGD's consultation paper, Finance for UK Capital Goods and Project Exports; and what action the Government propose. [44791]

  Mrs. Beckett
  ECGD has received an excellent response from the UK exporting and financial community to its Consultation Paper. The Minister for Trade will be leading discussions which ECGD will be having with banks and exporters to consider the various suggestions made. The focus will be on ways of enhancing exporter competitiveness and improving the cost-effectiveness of ECGD interest rate support. This work will inevitably take several months and extend beyond the scheduled 30 June expiry date of ECGD's current support facility, the Fixed Rate Export Finance scheme. Therefore, to ensure continuity of service to exporters and banks while this work is being undertaken, the Government have decided to extend the validity of the current scheme for six months until 31 December 1998.
  322

  International Market Council
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what topics were discussed at the EU Ministerial Council on the Internal Market on 18 May; and what matters were voted upon. [44790]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My noble Friend the Minister for European Trade and Competitiveness chaired the Internal Market Council in Brussels on 18 May 1998.

  The Council considered three elements of the Single Market Action Plan, which aim to improve the operation of the Single Market. Council adopted conclusions on standardisation, which open the way to making the production of European standards quicker and more efficient; the Presidency drew conclusions following a discussion on how to improve transposition and enforcement of the Single Market legislation; and the Commission presented the latest Single Market Scoreboard, which showed that Member States are improving their performance on the transposition of Single Market directives into their national laws: at 1 May 1998 over 80% of Single Market Directives had been adopted in all 15 Member States compared with only 65% in June 1997.

  The Council reached political agreement on a Regulation for a Commission intervention mechanism for the elimination of certain obstacles to the free movement of goods, and an associated Council Resolution which reaffirmed Member States' political commitment to preserving the free movement of goods. This includes notifying their economic operators, each other, and the Commission, of such obstacles and steps being taken to overcome them, and respecting tight deadlines imposed by the Commission in dealing with related infraction proceedings.

  The Council discussed a new Regulation on the labelling of genetically modified soya and maize, which aims to provide information to consumers. It reached political agreement on much of the substance of the company law Regulation, which forms part of the European Company Statute. It reached political agreement on three common positions. It agreed (by a qualified majority with Sweden and Portugal voting against and Ireland abstaining) on a Directive on mutual recognition of qualifications, which consolidates the existing legislation providing for certain professionals to work in Member States other than their own. It agreed common positions by unanimity on draft Directives on the legal protection of conditional access services, ie, that is, services where access is conditional upon prior authorisation and payment, such as pay-per-view TV; and on the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations, which consolidates existing health and safety legislation in this field, extending its scope slightly and promoting environmental protection.

  The Council adopted four other sets of formal conclusions. These were on the Single Market for pharmaceutical products, asking the Commission to develop proposals to tackle Single Market problems; on public procurement, taking forward Commission proposals for modernisation of the rules; on Commercial Communications, endorsing a new Commission-chaired committee furthering the Single Market in advertising services; and on the improvement of the EU preferential tariff regime for certain developing countries.
  323
  Council also discussed the draft Directive on chocolate; and the Commission reported on the progress of the negotiations of a draft Directive extending product liability to primary agricultural products.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Methadone Deaths
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of deaths in Northern Ireland from methadone in each of the last four years; and if she will make a statement. [44012]

  Mr. Worthington
  None.

  Smoking
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of teenage(a) boys and (b) girls in Northern Ireland was smoking tobacco (i) in 1988 and (ii) at the most recent date for which figures are available. [44014]

  Mr. Worthington
  The information is not available in the format requested. Available data are shown in the following table:

  Year

  Age

  % Smokers

  Boys

  1986

  11–15

  17

  1988

  16–19

  25

  1994

  11, 13 and 15

  12

  1996–97

  16–19

  23

  Girls

  1986

  11–15

  13

  1988

  16–19

  20

  1994

  11, 13 and 15

  14

  1996–97

  16–19

  23

  Occupational Health
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to make occupational health services available to staff working in primary care in the National Health Service. [43600]

  Mr. Worthington
  Primary care staff who are employed by HSS Trusts receive an appropriate occupational health service as defined in guidance issued by the Department of Health and Social Services. General medical and dental practitioners and their staff are not covered by such arrangements but any general practice may contract with a HSS Trust for the provision of an occupational health service.

WALES

  Smoking
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of teenage(a) boys and (b) girls in Wales was smoking tobacco (i) in 1988 and (ii) at the most recent date for which figures are available. [44017]
  324
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Details of the percentage of teenagers (11–16 year old) who regularly (weekly) smoke tobacco in 1998 and 1996, the most recent date for which figures are available, are set out as follows:

  Percentage

  Yesr

  Boys

  Girls

  1988

  8.00

  11.30

  1996

  11.90

  16.20

  Source:

  Health Promotion Authority for Wales

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the estimated gross cost of anti-smoking campaigns in Wales aimed at children and young people has been since 1988; and what assessment he has made of the impact of the campaigns on teenage(a) boys and (b) girls. [44016]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The main body in Wales responsible for undertaking anti-smoking campaigns is the Health Promotion Authority for Wales (HPAW), whose role is to work with others to promote good health in Wales.

  The cost of anti-smoking campaigns since 1990–91 undertaken by HPAW aimed at children and young people is set out in the table. Detailed information is not available prior to 1990–91.

  £000

  Year

  Expenditure

  1990–91

  86

  1991–92

  350

  1992–93

  343

  1993–94

  345

  1994–95

  281

  1995–96

  240

  1996–97

  369

  1997–98

  219

  1998–99

  (estimated) 227

  Source:

  Health Promotion Authority for Wales

  The information relates to initiatives directed solely at smoking. Smoking cessation advice also features strongly in other general health promotion initiatives funded by HPAW.

  Research by HPAW indicates that there has been some success in delaying the age at which young people begin to experiment with tobacco.

  Dairies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria the Welsh Office uses to decide which individual dairies in Wales receive grant aid; to what extent such grant aid relates to(a) the provision of new jobs and (b) the securing of existing jobs; and what consideration is given to the possible distortion of competition by such grants. [44052]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Assistance to dairies is available through a number of Welsh Office grant schemes such as Regional Selective Assistance, Processing and Marketing Grant and the Marketing Development Scheme.
  325
  The criteria used depend on the grant scheme in question. I have arranged for copies of the literature relating to the schemes to be sent to the right hon. Gentleman.

  Creating and safeguarding jobs is an important factor in deciding which grant applications to support but the Marketing Development Scheme and the Processing and Marketing Grant are specifically geared to improving the marketing and processing infrastructure of companies. Such projects will not necessarily lead to job creation but will assist in the expansion of business. However, for grants such as Regional Selective Assistance, the level of employment generated or retained is a crucial factor and due weight is given to this element when assessing applications.

  Applications for grant aid are considered from any eligible business and all applications are considered on their individual merits.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money was provided by her Department to President Kabbah's Government in exile. [42691]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development provided £50,000 to support the basic services of President Kabbah's Government in exile. This was in addition to £250,000 for a workshop and seminar in the United Kingdom to plan for the restoration of Government and for communications equipment.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is currently providing in Sierra Leone. [41751]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development is currently supporting the work of NGOs in the provision of emergency seeds and tools, community healthcare, and reconstruction in Sierra Leone. We are also funding two Sierra Leoneans in key advisory posts.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support and advice, other than financial assistance, was rendered to President Kabbah of Sierra Leone between 25 May 1997 and 10 March 1998 by her Department. [42690]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development assisted President Kabbah's planning for a return to government by supporting basic services in exile, providing communications equipment, and through a workshop and seminar in the United Kingdom in October 1997.

  North Korea
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the current humanitarian situation in North Korea. [43712]

  Clare Short
  The report of the UK-led European Union Technical Mission to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and discussions at the United Nations 326
  Development Programme (UNDP) Round Table on DPRK in May indicate that nutrition has improved and the immediate emergency has abated. However there are selective humanitarian needs, especially in health, and the population remains at risk from possible future disasters. My Department is discussing with relevant authorities in DPRK, UN agencies and partners in the European Union how targeted support can help to promote sustainable recovery and reduce future vulnerability. I will place a copy of the report on this mission in the Library.

  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what revision of her current policies towards North Korea will result from the recent visit to that country by officials from her Department leading an EU team. [43713]

  Clare Short
  I have considered the report of the UK-led Technical Mission and the conclusions of the United Nations Development Programme Round Table on Agricultural Recovery and Environmental Protection (AREP). The emphasis for future assistance to North Korea is to support a transition from food aid dependency to food security and rehabilitation of the rural sector within the context of promoting peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. We will support a common European Union approach to target assistance to help poor households, reduce vulnerability to future disasters, promote confidence and trust between North Korea and the outside world and gain greater access for international agencies to implement their humanitarian activities more effectively. We support the implementation of the European Commission's 1998 programme. In addition we will consider proposals for support from NGOs and UN agencies, within the above framework. I will place a copy of the report on this mission in the Library.

TREASURY

  Brewing Industry (Duty Changes)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment his Department has made of the duty lost to the Inland Revenue as predicted by the model used by Oxford Economic Forecasts to assess changes in duty on the brewing industry; [42969]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the impact of reducing duty on the (a) brewing industry, (b) gross domestic product, (c) the retail prices index, (d) the total duty collected and (e) levels of employment. [44119]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There would be no tax lost to the Inland Revenue. Moreover, we do not believe that any cut in duty on beer would provide a sustainable benefit to the economy.

  Staff Car Mileage Allowance
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total real terms value of(a) staff car mileage claims paid and (b) staff rail fares paid; and what was the total amount of staff car mileage for which reimbursement was made and the percentage change year on year, for each year since 1989–90. [44083]
  327
  Mrs. Liddell
  The real terms value of Treasury staff travel is:

  Staff car mileage costs £000

  Staff UK rail/air fares £000

  Staff car mileage

  1995–96

  8

  153

  n/a

  1996–97

  6

  135

  n/a

  1997–98

  6

  89

  7,841

  Figures for years prior to 1995 are in summary form and a breakdown at the level required could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Israeli Exports
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current status of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise investigation into the origin of certain Israeli exports to the United Kingdom; and if he will publish the results. [43863]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The outcome of investigations co-ordinated by the European Commission into the origin of orange juice exported from Israel is being analysed by the Member States. In line with normal procedure, the detailed results are notified to the individual importers, who are liable under Community law for any customs duty liability. They are not published generally. Investigations by HM Customs and Excise into the origin of other products have so far revealed duty liabilities in excess of £100,000.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised from each of the taxes payable on each category of tobacco product in the last year for which figures are available. [44006]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The table shows receipts in 1997 and 1997–98:

  Duty receipts

  £million

  Year

  Cigarette

  Cigar

  Hand rolling tobacco

  Other smoking and chewing tobacco

  1VAT

  1997

  8,035

  139

  166

  50

  1,915

  1997–98

  8,009

  140

  158

  48

  n/a

  1 Value added tax has been estimated using non-seasonally adjusted figures for consumers' expenditure at current prices on tobacco (from ONS publication Consumer Trends-Quarter 4 1997, Table 4.1). It is not possible to calculate the VAT for 1997–98 because the ONS estimate for consumers' expenditure on tobacco in Quarter 1 1998 is not yet available.

  EU Debt
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the statistics produced by the International Monetary Fund for the purposes of measuring the ratio of debt to Gross Domestic Product are on the same basis for each EU country. [43871]
  328
  Mrs. Liddell
  The International Monetary Fund published the ratio of government debt to GDP for EU countries in their May 1998 World Economic Outlook. The outturn data were from national sources and the IMF noted they were not in all cases based on the same definition.

  Housing (VAT)
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue would be lost by reducing the rate of VAT on refurbishment and conversions of existing dwellings from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. [43860]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cost of reducing VAT on all house repair and maintenance to 5 per cent. is estimated to be £1.1 billion. From the source data, it is not possible to separate refurbishment from repairs and maintenance.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue would be generated by introducing value-added tax on(a) new construction and (b) new housing at a rate of 5 per cent. [43859]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The additional revenue yield from introducing VAT at 5 per cent. on the construction of new dwellings is estimated to be £550 million. There is no official estimate of the expected yield from introducing VAT on the construction of other new buildings currently qualifying for zero-rating.

  Duty Free
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will draw up plans to support the ferry industry and the ports of Ramsgate and Dover if duty-free sales are abolished in the European Union. [43795]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Responsibility for the transport industry lies with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. However, the impact on the ferry industry and on the ports of Ramsgate and Dover of the abolition of duty free will depend on the nature of the successor regimes which are being discussed at official level in Brussels.

  Mail
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the liability to customs checks is of(a) mail sent by national postal administrations to the United Kingdom and (b) mail carried by express couriers to the United Kingdom. [43800]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The liability to customs checks for anti-smuggling purposes is the same for mail sent by a National Postal Administration and that carried by express couriers. Provision for such checks is contained in the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Checks on both types of traffic are also undertaken for fiscal and regulatory purposes under the Community Customs Code, which is European legislation. However, some differences apply to the treatment of postal packets, which is subject to national provisions under the Post Office Act 1953 and the Postal Packets (C&E) (Amendment) Regulation 1992.

  Lloyd's of London
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 7 April 1998,
  329
  Official Report, column 151, regarding discussions between officials of the British Embassy in Washington and the United States authorities concerning Lloyd's of London, who initiated those discussions; what matters were discussed; who was present on each occasion; what requests were made to the United States authorities by the British representatives present; and what requests were made to the British representatives present by the United States authorities. [44339]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The discussions were initiated by the British Embassy and concerned the case of Richards et al v Lloyd's of London then before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Only one such meeting took place at which a First Secretary from the Embassy met four Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) attorneys. The Embassy asked the SEC to recognise that any intervention by them in the Richards case should take account both of the British Government's interest in protecting policyholders by insurers continuing to meet their insurance obligations and the regulatory role of Lloyd's in protecting the interests of policyholders. The SEC made no requests to the British Government.

  Monetary Policy Committee
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the remit of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. [44793]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  In accordance with Section 12 of the Bank of England Act 1998, I have written to the Governor re-stating the Monetary Policy Committee's remit and how it will be held accountable for meeting the remit.

  My letter has been laid before Parliament today and a copy has been sent to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee. Copies are also being deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how banking regulations and supervision of participant members of the euro will be brought into line; and who is responsible for ensuring this occurs. [44457]

  Financial year

  Council stock as at 31 March (thousands)

  Stock owned by other publicly financed bodies1,4 as at 31 March (thousands)

  Estimated total stock2 as at 31 December (thousands)

  Council stock as percent of all stock (col 2/col 4) (%)

  Stock owned by other publicly financed bodies as percent of all stock (col 3/col 4) (%)

  1978–79

  901

  144

  1,964

  45.9

  7.3

  1979–80

  904

  147

  1,982

  45.6

  7.4

  1980–81

  902

  146

  1,997

  45.2

  7.3

  1981–82

  896

  145

  1,970

  45.5

  7.4

  1982–83

  886

  143

  1,983

  44.7

  7.2

  1983–84

  871

  139

  1,998

  43.6

  7

  1984–85

  862

  135

  2,015

  42.8

  6.7

  1985–86

  853

  132

  2,032

  42

  6.5

  1986–87

  842

  128

  2,050

  41.1

  6.2

  1987–88

  824

  124

  2,067

  39.9

  6

  1988–89

  795

  114

  2,084

  38.1

  5.5

  1989–90

  764

  105

  2,104

  36.3

  5.0

  1990–91

  738

  100

  2,124

  34.7

  4.7

  1991–92

  711

  94

  2.160

  32.9

  4.4

  1992–93

  675

  90

  2.175

  31

  4.1

  330
  Mrs. Liddell
  The supervision of European Union credit institutions is already subject to a series of harmonising Directives, which impose minimum standards in a wide range of areas and help facilitate the Single Market. The Commission is responsible for ensuring that they remain up to date, and take account of developments in financial markets. The advent of Stage 3 of EMU does not change this responsibility.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibility to protect bank deposits in circumstances when banks lend transnationally under Economic and Monetary Union. [44448]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Deposits in UK banks, along with those in banks of other EU members, are covered by arrangements drawn up under the Deposit Guarantee Directive, which sets out minimum standards that apply throughout the Union. Stage 3 of Economic and Monetary Union has no effect on those arrangements.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who will supervise and regulate transnational banks under Stage 3 of Economic and Monetary Union. [44458]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The European Banking Directives, which harmonise standards of supervision of credit institutions within the EU, are based on the principle of Home State supervision. Although they may operate or offer services anywhere in the Union, credit institutions are required to have their registered office and head office in the same Member State, and the supervisory authorities there are responsible for its supervision throughout the EU. Stage 3 of Economic and Monetary Union will not change these arrangements.

SCOTLAND

  Housing
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of homes in Scotland were (i) council owned and (ii) owned by publicly financed bodies in each year since 1978–79.[43393]

  Mr. Macdonald
  (holding answer 2 June 1998]: The information available is set out in the table.
  331

  Financial year

  Council stock as at 31 March (thousands)

  Stock owned by other publicly financed bodies1,4 as at 31 March (thousands)

  Estimated total stock2 as at 31 December (thousands)

  Council stock as percent of all stock (col 2/col 4) (%)

  Stock owned by other publicly financed bodies as percent of all stock (col 3/col 4) (%)

  1993–94

  649

  82

  2.193

  29.6

  3.7

  1994–95

  596

  73

  2.210

  27.0

  3.3

  1995–96

  632

  43

  2.229

  28.4

  1.9

  1996–97

  622

  29

  2.246

  27.7

  1.3

  1997–983

  613

  19

  5—

  5—

  5—

  1 Figures for the years up to and including 1988–89 are for the Scottish Special Housing Association (SSHA) and New Towns. From 1989–90 to 1995–96, figures are for stock owned by Scottish Homes and New Towns. For 1996–97, figures are for Scottish Homes stock only—New Town stock was transferred to councils, Scottish Homes and Housing Associations during the course of 1995–96 and 1996–97

  2 Estimates from December 1991 onwards are based on the 1991 Population Census. Estimates for earlier years are based on the 1981 Census and are not strictly comparable

  3 The council stock figure for 1997–98 is as at September 1997

  4 Housing associations, although not public bodies, receive public subsidy from Scottish Homes. At 31 March 1997, the latest date for which information is available, housing associations owned around 105,000 dwellings, 4.7 per cent. of the total estimated housing stock at December 1996

  5 Not yet available

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce a full system of licensing for houses in multiple occupation. [44654]

  Mr. Macdonald
  We are committed to protecting the rights of tenants, and those in shared accommodation are no exception. We have issued a consultation paper today proposing the introduction of a full system of licensing for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), in line with our Manifesto commitment.

  We value the contribution of the private rented sector, and HMOs play their part by accommodating a wide range of households including mobile workers and other single people. However, while many HMO landlords are providing perfectly acceptable accommodation, there is concern about both the physical condition and management of some HMOs.

  Licensing would allow authorities to refuse a licence where an applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold an HMO licence. This will provide a powerful mechanism for preventing exploitation of tenants. For example, licences could be refused for those with relevant criminal convictions. Depending on the circumstances of the particular case, this could include Housing Benefit fraud.

  Licensing would also enable local authorities to take a co-ordinated approach to regulating HMOs across departments. This should be a benefit for landlords.

  We therefore propose to make it mandatory for all local authorities in Scotland to introduce HMO licensing. Councils were given discretionary powers to licence in 1991, but so far only seven have used them.

  A consultation paper setting out our proposals has been sent today to a wide range of bodies with an interest in HMOs, with a request for comments by 30 October 1998. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the House Libraries.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the criteria under which the New Housing Partnership schemes were assessed. [44044]

  Mr. Dewar
  The criteria were set out in a letter issued by the Scottish Office Development Department to Chief Executives of local authorities on 5 December 1997 332
  inviting local authorities to submit bids and also in a summary report issued on 5 May 1998 explaining how the bids were assessed. Copies of both documents have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Unemployment
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the percentage change in the number of registered unemployed amongst 18 to 25-year-olds in(a) Dundee, (b) Perth and Kinross and (c) Angus in (i) January, (ii) February, (iii) March and (iv) April in each year since 1986. [43409]

  Mr. Dewar
  A full analysis of the claimant count statistics by age (and duration) is available quarterly for the months of January, April, July and October. An analysis excluding clerical claims (which currently represent about 1 per cent. of all claims) is available monthly. Information is not readily available for those aged 18 to 25. Information for those aged 18 to 24 is available through the Nomis database in the House of Commons Library. Library staff are ready to assist in accessing the information.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the percentage change in the number of registered unemployed in(a) Dundee, (b) Perth and Kinross and (c) Angus in (i) January, (ii) February, (iii) March and (iv) April in each year since 1986. [43410]

  Mr. Dewar
  Information is available through the Norris database in the House of Commons Library. Library staff are ready to assist in accessing the information.

  Moray College
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what representations he has had from BARMAC Fabrication Yard concerning the training in welding and fabrication at Moray College; [43416]

  (2) what representations he has had from trade union representatives at Moray College concerning the plans to discontinue the welding and fabrication course. [43417]
  333
  Mr. Dewar
  I have received no such representations from either source.

  Each further education college in Scotland has a Board of Management which is responsible for ensuring the provision of suitable and efficient further education. I understand that Moray College decided not to offer welding provision in 1997–98 in view of the small number of students who had presented for enrolment. After reviewing the demands and costs, the College has since decided to withdraw welding provision.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings has he had with the principal or members of the Board of Directors of Moray College concerning its involvement in the University of the Highlands and Islands project. [43418]

  Mr. Dewar
  My Ministerial colleagues and I have not had any such meetings but officials of the Scottish Office have twice met the Principal and members of the Board of Management concerning Moray College's involvement in the University of the Highlands and Islands Project.

  Housing Rents
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what weekly rental levels he proposes for the rented housing elements of each of the successful New Housing Partnership bids. [44042]

  Mr. Dewar
  It is for each New Housing Partnership landlord to determine appropriate, affordable rental levels for the rented housing element of successful New Housing Partnership bids. I would expect these levels to be in line with existing rental levels for comparable types of housing in the local area.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what weekly rental levels he proposes for the rented housing elements of the New Housing Partnership bid from Glasgow City Council. [44043]

  Mr. Dewar
  The rental levels of the rented housing elements of the New Housing Partnership bids in Glasgow are a matter for each New Housing Partnership landlord to determine. However, I would expect these to be in line with rents for comparable types of housing in the city.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information in a systematic form is held in respect of each of the New Housing Partnership in relation to(a) rental levels for all the rented housing elements of the New Housing Partnership bids, (b) tenancy agreements for all the rented housing elements of the New Housing Partnership bids and (c) allocation priorities of non-local authority housing providers for the rented housing elements of the New Housing Partnership bids; and if he will make such information available. [44045]

  Mr. Dewar
  Matters relating to rental levels, tenancy agreements and allocation arrangements will be settled locally as New Housing Partnerships are developed. The Scottish Office will be commissioning research to assess the impact of partnership projects, and this will include information on the characteristics of each project. The results of the research will be published.
  334

HEALTH

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the consultation papers published since 1 May 1997 giving the date of publication, closing date for submissions and the number of respondents. [42244]

  Ms Jowell
  Copies of a table containing the information requested have been placed in the Library.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the provision of wheelchairs to those who become long-term or permanently disabled; [43159]

  (2) if he will list for each health authority the average waiting time for provision of a wheelchair to those who become long-term or permanently disabled. [43158]

  Mr. Boateng
  Wheelchairs are provided free on loan by the National Health Service to anyone who has a clinical need for one due to limited mobility. People who require a wheelchair are usually referred by their general practitioner or other local health care professional to their local wheelchair service centre for assessment of their needs.

  Information on the provision of wheelchairs specifically to those who become long-term or permanently disabled and any waiting time is not collected centrally. However, information on the total provision of wheelchairs is reported to the NHS Executive by providers and health authorities. The number of wheelchairs issued by providers covers all wheelchairs supplied through consultant clinics and through physiotherapy departments. The figures for England are in the table.

  Year

  Number of wheelchairs issued by providers

  1994–95

  203,160

  1995–96

  200,073

  1996–97

  195,606

  Note:

  1996–97 figures include estimates for Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton NHS Trust who failed to submit a return

  Copies of the information that health authorities report on wheelchairs have been placed in the Library.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the office responsible for the performance of wheelchair services in(a) each health authority, (b) each NHS region, (c) the NHS Executive and (d) central Government. [43208]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The information requested for health authorities is not held centrally. All communications with the National Health Service are conducted through the chief executives concerned. Responsibility for wheelchair policy in the NHS Executive rests with the Continuing Health Services branch of the Health Services Directorate. Performance is measured through the regional offices of the NHS Executive.
  335
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the budget for the voucher scheme for manual wheelchairs is ring-fenced. [43569]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: Additional funding has been made available to health authorities specifically to meet the cost of the introduction of the National Health Service wheelchair voucher scheme since it began in 1996. The additional funding has been allocated in phased amounts each year as services have built up over time.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures have been taken to monitor spending on(a) indoor/outdoor powered wheelchair funding schemes and (b) the voucher funding schemes for manual wheelchairs. [43568]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: Spending on the indoor/outdoor powered wheelchair funding schemes and the voucher funding scheme for manual wheelchairs is monitored centrally through the routine quarterly return process.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to extend the voucher scheme for manual wheelchairs to the provision of indoor outdoor powered wheelchairs. [43567]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: When the voucher scheme was introduced, guidance made it clear that it was not intended that vouchers should be issued for powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs in the short term. Any decision to extend the scheme will be reviewed locally once the scheme for manually operated chairs has been fully established.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions Ministers and officials have had with user organisations on their concerns about performance management of the wheelchair service; [43216]

  (2) what action he has taken to address the concerns of user organisations about the management performance of the separate funding schemes for indoor and outdoor powered wheelchairs and vouchers. [43215]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State held a meeting with representatives of the Limbless Association on 2 December 1997 at which they expressed their concerns about the wheelchair service. I will shortly be holding a meeting with representatives of the users consortium emPOWER at which they are expected to raise similar concerns. Officials regularly exchange information and views with representatives of user organisations.

  Progress on implementation of the wheelchair initiatives is performance managed through National Health Service Executive regional offices. Regional directors of performance management have been reminded of the importance of ensuring implementation of these changes for service users.

  An evaluation study of the operation of the powered indoor/outdoor wheelchair and voucher schemes will be conducted later in the year. We have set up a steering group, whose membership includes representatives of user organisations, to oversee the evaluation.
  336
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations were held with user groups in advance of communication of the Health Service Circular, Wheelchair Voucher Scheme: funding in 1997–98 and 1998–99 (HSC 1998/004). [43867]

  Mr. Boateng
  The circular authorised health authorities to use surplus funds from the National Health Service wheelchair voucher scheme for powered indoor/outdoor and other wheelchair provision. It was a short-term initiative which ensured that available funds were kept within wheelchair services in 1997–98. It did not affect the funding available for the NHS wheelchair voucher scheme and powered indoor/outdoor wheelchair provision in subsequent years and did not involve any change in policy towards the two schemes.

  No consultations with user groups were therefore held in advance of the issue of the circular.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to implement the recommendations of the Department of Health-funded paper, "National Prosthetic and Wheelchair Services Report 1993–96", with particular reference to those for(a) a mechanism to provide a national focus on wheelchair services and (b) an auditing procedure by which wheelchair services can measure their effectiveness. [43370]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department funded the national prosthetic and wheelchair services project to give continued support to wheelchair services for a three-year period following their devolution to the National Health Service. A number of professional groups (including a Wheelchair Managers Committee) continue to provide a national focus, and the Department supports this work. For example, the Department is funding work on a national training framework for wheelchair services.

  The audit of service effectiveness is a matter for individual health authorities and their providers. Standards were recommended in the national prosthetic and wheelchair services project. These may form the basis for local audit.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to(a) monitor and (b) address disparities between health authorities in the provision of (i) indoor/outdoor powered wheelchairs and (ii) vouchers by wheelchair services. [43441]

  Mr. Boateng
  Health authorities routinely report to the National Health Service Executive on the provision of indoor/outdoor wheelchairs and vouchers for wheelchair services as part of the quarterly monitoring process. Regional directors of performance have recently been reminded of the importance of ensuring that the wheelchair voucher scheme is implemented. An evaluation study of the operation of the powered indoor/outdoor wheelchair and voucher schemes will be conducted later in the year.

  Drug Treatment Services
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sums the Government have allocated to drug treatment services specialising in(a) alcohol and (b) illegal drugs in each of the last five years. [43670]
  337
  Ms Jowell
  The Department has given £555,000 in 1998/99, £1,055,000 in 1997/98, £1,055,000 in 1996/97, £555,000 in 1995/96 and £968,000 in 1994/95 to Alcohol Concern to run a grants programme specifically for alcohol treatment services.

  The Department provides a cash contribution to health authorities to purchase drug services under a special allocation. In each of the last five years, the special allocation for drug services was £41.3 million in 1998/99, £37.19 million in 1997/98, £33.39 million in 1996/97, £26.75 million in 1995/96 and £25.50 million in 1994/95.

  The Department also administers the specific grant for making payments to voluntary organisations providing services for drug and alcohol misusers, which will distribute £2.5 million in 1998/99, and has previously distributed £2.5 million in 1997/98, 1996/97 and 1995/96, and £2.4 million in 1994/95.

  Paediatric Cardiac Services
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will order an immediate public inquiry into the paediatric cardiac surgery services at the United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust. [44293]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have made clear our commitment to holding an inquiry into the paediatric cardiac surgery services at the United Bristol Healthcare National Health Service Trust prior to 1996. The exact form, timing and scope of the inquiry and the membership of the inquiry team are currently under consideration. A final decision will be made after the General Medical Council have completed their proceedings later this month.

  Nurses
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had about protecting the use of the title, nurse; and if he will make a statement. [44207]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 21 May 1998,Official Report, column 503.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Attorney-General what progress is being made in associating the work of the Crown Prosecution Service more closely with local police forces and magistrates courts. [42755]

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the progress of his plans to reorganise the Crown Prosecution Service. [42758]

  The Attorney-General
  I announced in May last year the decision to divide the CPS into 42 areas coterminous with police areas. The report of the Review of the Crown Prosecution Service which I published on Monday endorses that decision and makes detailed proposals as to how that should be effected, and they are being considered. A first major step will be the selection of the 42 chief crown prosecutors and the new DPP will proceed with that once in post.
  338
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions initiated by the Crown Prosecution Service in 1996 and 1997 were discontinued subsequently; and if he will make a statement. [42756]

  The Attorney-General
  In 1996, proceedings were discontinued in respect of 153,274 defendants, or 12 per cent. of completed cases. In 1997, proceedings were discontinued in respect of 161,461 defendants, or 12.2 per cent. of completed cases.

  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the use of information technology in the Crown Prosecution Service. [42759]

  The Attorney-General
  The CPS is using information technology to increase the speed and efficiency of its internal communications, facilitate its case tracking and performance management and, through a Private/Public Partnerships Initiative, is examining a possible solution for its future IT needs in close collaboration with CJS partners.

  Company Collapses (Phoenix Operations)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General what is his Department's policy in relation to the prosecution of individuals who mount phoenix operations following the collapse of companies in which they have been previously involved. [42757]

  The Attorney-General
  A so called "Phoenix Operation" does not, in itself, constitute a criminal offence. However, where there is evidence that a "Phoenix Operation" may have involved an offence or offences—for example there has been fraudulent trading—then the prosecuting authorities adopt the same policy as with other suspected offences, namely, to assess whether there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction; and if so, to assess whether it is in the public interest that there should be a prosecution.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Set-aside
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on reform of the set-aside scheme. [42735]

  Mr. Morley
  In the current discussions on CAP reform, the Government have said that they would like to see compulsory set-aside abolished and the rules on voluntary set-aside made more flexible.

  Egg Production
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the EU Commission's proposals on egg production. [42736]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have received a number of representations and my officials have met industry representatives, at their request, to hear their views on the proposals.
  339

  County Council Small Holdings
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on county council small holdings. [42737]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government recognise the important role of county council smallholdings as a first rung on the farming ladder. I congratulate those local authorities which pursue policies to develop their estates, but emphasise that such decisions are properly taken at local level.

  Unpasteurised Milk
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's proposals for unpasteurised milk products. [42738]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have no proposals relating to unpasteurised milk products.

  Gang Masters
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures his Department is taking to control the activities of gang masters in the horticulture and agriculture industries. [42739]

  Mr. Morley
  We have a number of measures in hand and will be making a detailed announcement shortly.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implementation of his policy in respect of the Food Standards Agency. [42740]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are making excellent progress with fulfilling our manifesto commitment to establish a Food Standards Agency. More than 1,000 responses were received to our consultation on the White Paper "The Food Standards Agency: A Force for Change" and a summary has been placed in the Library. It is our intention to publish a draft Bill before the Summer Recess for further consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny by this House.

  Beef Export Ban
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in lifting the EU ban on exports of British beef; [42741]

  Ms Ward
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress towards lifting the ban on British beef. [42745]

  Mr. Rooker
  We expect the Commission to set a date next week for the resumption of exports from Northern Ireland under the Export Certified Herds Scheme.

  Following constructive discussions with Commission officials the Commission are now preparing their proposal for a Date Based Export Scheme, which would permit the
  340
  export of beef and beef products from animals born after 1 August 1996. 1 hope that the proposal will be discussed in the Standing Veterinary Committee in June.

  Consumer Information
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals his Department has to improve the information on food made available to consumers. [42742]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Food Labelling Regulations 1996 will be amended on 1 July this year to introduce new EC requirements for quantitative ingredient declarations. They will also require starch and modified starch used as ingredients of foods to indicate their specific vegetable origin if they are likely to contain gluten. These changes will become compulsory with effect from 14 February 2000. The UK has taken the lead in the EC on guidelines' to explain the new rules on quantitative ingredient declarations so that consumers are given consistent and uniform information on food labels.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to promote organic farming, with particular reference to less-favoured areas. [42743]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister on 2 April 1998,Official Report, columns 655–56.

  Whaling
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the role of the consultative forum on whaling. [42744]

  Mr. Morley
  We have had very positive and supportive feedback about the first meeting of the Consultative Forum held in April. We look forward to building on this encouraging beginning.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the latest meeting of the International Whaling Commission. [42748]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) on 2 June 1998,Official Report, columns 199–201.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the change in farm income levels since 1 May 1997. [42746]

  Mr. Morley
  Government statistics published in "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom" show that, in 1997 as a whole, farm incomes fell by an average of 37 per cent. in real terms. The fall in total income from farming in 1997 is largely due to lower prices received by farmers for all major commodities. The relative strength of sterling compared with 1996 has been a major factor underlying the fall in prices.
  341

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning milk quotas and the current levels of income of dairy farmers. [42747]

  Mr. Rooker
  I receive regular representations on a range of milk quota issues and on current levels of farm income, including that of dairy farmers, from farming organisations and individual milk producers. Milk quota still has a considerable positive value which demonstrates that the market believes that there is still sufficient profitability to justify this expenditure. The incomes of dairy farmers in 1998–99 are expected to be lower than in 1997–98, mainly as a result of lower milk prices.

  Sea Levels (South-East)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to his oral answer of 22 January 1998,Official Report, column 1132, on sea levels in the Thames Estuary and River Medway, what progress the Environment Agency has made in respect of its surveys into projected sea level rises. [42749]

  Mr. Morley
  I regret that my reply of 22 January 1998,Official Report, column 1132, may have been misleading. The Environment Agency undertakes surveys of areas at risk of flooding and as preliminary studies for proposed defences. The interpretation of such surveys and studies take into account Ministry guidance on sea level rise. However the Agency is not carrying out surveys relating solely to projected sea level rise.

  International Horticultural Event, China
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his recent visit to China; and what United Kingdom participation there will be in the 1998 International Horticultural Event in Kunming, Yunnan. [42349]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  During April, I led a UK agricultural trade mission to China and our participation in the agricultural trade exposition AGRO EXPO China '98. I also had bilateral meetings with senior representatives of the Chinese government including Vice Premier Li Lanqing and Minister of Agriculture Chen Yaobang and representatives from the Hong Kong administration. I was highly impressed by the wide range of UK technical expertise on the mission and understand that new commercial business was agreed during the visit.

  The Government hope that the International Horticultural Exposition due to be held in Kunming in 1999 will include a United Kingdom exhibit. A proposal for an exhibit is currently the subject of discussion between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) in how many cases reports of bullying, intimidation and threats by staff or employees of abattoirs against veterinarians and Meat Hygiene Service staff have been referred to officers of the 342
  Crown Prosecution Service with a view to prosecution; and in how many cases prosecutions have taken place in the last year; [43379]

  (2) how many incidents of intimidation, threats and bullying by owners or employees of abattoirs of Meat Hygiene Service staff and veterinarians have been referred to the police in the last year. [43378]

  Mr. Rooker
  Cases of intimidation against Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) staff are referred to the Investigations Branch of MAFF Legal for investigation with a view to prosecution for obstruction or assault under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995. Two successful prosecutions have been taken for obstruction.

  The first successful prosecution for assault has been taken. I referred to this case when winding up the Common Agricultural Policy debate on 21 May 1998, Official Report, column 1174.

  One case of alleged assault against a former MHS employee has been referred to the police by MAFF Investigation Officers. This case is now being investigated with a view to consideration of prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service in the criminal courts.

  Other allegations of intimidation are currently under consideration by MAFF Investigation Officers.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to close down abattoirs where Meat Hygiene Service staff or veterinarians have been subject to intimidation, bullying, or threats from abattoir owners or employees. [43377]

  Mr. Rooker
  Any form of intimidation of Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) staff, and in particular that which prevents staff from carrying out their duties to protect public health, is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated. All available measures are used against those responsible, and, in all possible cases, the MHS refers incidents for investigation with a view to prosecution. Obstruction of MHS staff in the performance of their duties is an offence under section 33 (1) of the Food Safety Act 1990. Serious cases of assault are referred to the police.

  In accordance with EU rules, current GB meat hygiene legislation provides for the mandatory licensing (by the GB Agriculture Departments) of all abattoirs, cutting plants and cold stores producing meat which is intended for sale for human consumption. Although this legislation provides powers for Ministers to revoke such licences in certain specified circumstances, notably in respect of hygiene failures, these circumstances do not include intimidation, bullying or threats to MHS staff from the owners or operators of licensed premises or from their employees.

  Nevertheless, the assault of MHS staff in the course of carrying out their duties at licensed premises would probably amount to the hampering of adequate health inspection for the purposes of the GB meat hygiene legislation. In such circumstances MHS staff have powers to serve a notice on the operator of the premises prohibiting the use of the part or parts of the premises concerned until such time as it is clear that the safety of MHS staff is secured. The effect of such

  343
  action could result in the stopping of some or all of the production of the premises involved. Because the Government will not tolerate assaults on MHS staff, I have instructed the MHS to remind the industry of the powers available, and that where the MHS exercises those powers, it will do so with the full support of Ministers.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many incidents of intimidation, threats and bullying against representatives of the Meat Hygiene Service veterinarians by employees or owners of abattoirs have occurred in the last year; [43375]

  (2) if he will establish an inquiry into the scale of bullying, threats and intimidation by abattoir owners or staff against Meat Hygiene Service staff or veterinarians. [43380]

  Mr. Rooker
  No information is available on the number of instances of intimidation, threats and bullying against Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) staff which have occurred in the last year.

  However, to get a better understanding of the true extent of instances of intimidation of its staff, the Meat Hygiene Service, together with UNISON, has sent out a Violence/Intimidation at Work Questionnaire to all its operational staff. The survey sought information on the number of instances of threats, verbal abuse and harassment as well as physical attack or injury that MHS staff had been subject to since 1 April 1995.

  The questionnaire was sent to the 1,500 operational staff of the MHS. The provisional results of the survey indicate that staff have reported 403 instances of some form of intimidation and violence since 1 April 1995, the date the Agency was launched. This comprises 273 instances relating to verbal threat or abuse and 130 to more serious instances of injury to MHS staff, physical threat with a weapon, racial and sexual harassment and damage to personal property.

  The results of the survey will inform future policy on the issue of intimidation/violence in the workplace.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from staff of the Meat Hygiene Service and veterinarians concerning bullying by owners and staff of abattoirs. [43381]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) Chief Executive has expressed his concern to me about these unacceptable instances of intimidation and threats against MHS staff. The MHS takes the health and safety and welfare of its staff very seriously and will take any and all necessary action to prevent intimidation in the workplace.

  At my request, the MHS keeps me fully aware of all instances of intimidation, abuse and assault against MHS staff by abattoir owners and staff.

  As my hon. Friend will note from other answers I have given him today, we are taking the issue seriously and support and encourage the MHS to take a robust line on behalf of MHS staff carrying out their vital duties on behalf of the public.
  344

  Tobacco
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was paid by the EU to subsidise the growing of tobacco in the last year for which figures are available. [44034]

  Mr. Rooker
  In 1997 the EU spent 998 million ecu (£725 million)1 on subsidies under the EU tobacco regime. None of this was spent in the United Kingdom.
  1 1997 exchange rate used: £1 = 1.3758 ecu

  Flood and Coastal Defences
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to remove coast protection functions from coastal local authorities. [43939]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on 6 April 1998,Official Report, column 85.

  Bees
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a compensation scheme for professional bee keepers whose hives have been subject to attack from the varroa mite. [44089]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government take the threat to beekeeping from varroa very seriously and this year are spending around £1.5 million on a range of measures to tackle this problem. The emphasis is on training and education to help bee keepers become more self-reliant. We consider this to be the best use of the available resources.

  Drift Nets
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the annual number of non-target species that would avoid death through trapping if an EU ban on drift nets were introduced. [43221]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 June 1998]: Observers on the UK drift net boats in 1995 recorded 46 dolphin casualties over 9 fishing trips. This implies that 165 dolphins were killed by the UK fleet in that season. A number of other species including sharks are also caught.

  France, Ireland and Italy also have active drift net fleets.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made on phasing out the use of those drift nets which are dangerous to dolphins. [42726]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  Preparations have been made for a decision at the Fisheries Council on 8 June.

  Milk Producers (Italy)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much the Italian Government have failed to collect by way of super-levy from over-quota milk producers in each of the last five years; when the Commission initiated infraction proceedings;
  345
  how much they are for and over what period; and how many Commission officials are currently employed in enforcing milk quotas. [43166]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 3 June 1998]: In 1995–96 of a total superlevy bill of 316 billion lire, 42 billion lire was paid by the Italian Authorities and the remainder was withheld by the Commission from FEOGA payments to Italy; in 1996–97 the total superlevy bill of 155 billion lire was withheld from FEOGA payments. No superlevy was payable by Italy with respect to the previous three years. The Commission initiated infraction proceedings against Italy on 12 January 1998 for their failure to definitively close the periods 1995–96 and 1996–97 by obliging purchasers to pay over superlevy due to the competent authority. The number of Commission officials dealing with enforcement fluctuates according to the requirements at a given time.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions on which he and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), have met President Kabbah of Sierra Leone since 1 May 1997; and if he will publish the minutes of such meetings. [42094]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: Officials from the High Commission had numerous meetings with President Kabbah in Conakry. Officials also met him when he visited the UK in October 1997.

  My hon. Friend the Minister of State met President Kabbah on 20 October, when he addressed the seminar "Restoring Sierra Leone to Democracy"; on 25 October, with the Under-Secretary of State for International Development; and on 31 March 1998, when he visited Sierra Leone as a member of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group mission.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met him informally during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Edinburgh in October 1997. I met the Foreign Minister of Sierra Leone in the margins of the UN General Assembly meeting in September 1997.

  It is not normal practice to release the records of discussion with foreign governments, but all relevant documents will be available to Sir Thomas Legg for his investigation.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the application of Security Council Resolution 1132 to the Nigerian-led military observers group of the Economic Community of West African States at the time it was seeking to restore democracy in Sierra Leone. [42560]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: Operative paragraph 6 of Security Council Resolution 1132 provides that the Security Council
  "Decides that all States shall prevent the sale or supply to Sierra Leone, by their nationals or from their flag vessels or aircraft, of petroleum and petroleum products and arms and related material of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territory".
  346
  No exceptions were made to the embargo.

  Now that the conditions set out in SCR 1132 for the lifting of the embargo have been met United Nations Security Council Members have agreed that a new resolution is required. This should lift the arms embargo on the Sierra Leone Government and ECOMOG but maintain it on non-governmental forces. Urgent discussions on the precise terms of the resolution are underway in New York.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the role of his Department was in drafting United Nations Security Resolution 1132; what representations his Department made to ensure clarity of definition in determining the target of the embargo; and when the possibility of misinterpretation was first brought to his attention. [42712]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 20 May 1998]: The UK took a leading role in negotiating the text of Resolution 1132, in September and October 1997. We were satisfied that there were no exceptions to the arms embargo. Differences in interpretation did not emerge until May 1998.

  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 21 May 1998,Official Report, column 525, on what dates the telegram of 6 February was copied to (a) his private office and (b) the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd); and if it was drawn to (i) his and (ii) the Minister of State's attention. [43976]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: From 6 February onwards, a number of telegrams referring to the ECOMOG intervention in Sierra Leone were received within the FCO. These telegrams were seen in my Private Office and the Private Office of the Minister of State, and, as is standard practice, the key ones were drawn to my, and his, attention. None made any reference to Sandline.

  Visas
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the African countries in which there are no local facilities for applicants for United Kingdom visas to be interviewed, indicating in each case the country to which applicants must travel for interview. [43690]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Those African countries in which there are no local facilities for applicants for United Kingdom visas to be interviewed are listed. Applicants for visit visas may apply at any designated British diplomatic or consular Post offering a full entry clearance service. Applicants for other categories of visa should apply at the designated Post as stipulated.

  Country

  Designated Country/(Post)

  Rwanda1

  Kenya (Nairobi) or Tanzania (Dar Es Salam)

  Algeria2

  Tunisia (Tunis) or France (Paris)

  Libya3

  Malta (Valletta)

  Benin

  Nigeria (Lagos)

  Burkina Faso

  Cote d'Ivoire (Abidjan)

  Burundi

  Most accessible Post

  Cape Verde

  Senegal (Dakar)

  347

  Country

  Designated Country/(Post)

  Central Africa Republic

  Cameroon (Yaounde)

  Chad

  Nigeria (Lagos or Abuja)

  Congo

  Democratic Republic of Congo (Kinshasa)

  Djibouti

  Ethiopia (Addis Ababa)

  Equatorial Guinea

  Cameroon (Yaounde) or most accessible Post

  Eritrea

  Ethiopia (Addis Ababa)

  Equatorial Guinea

  Cameroon (Yaounde) or most accessible Post

  Eritrea

  Ethiopia (Addis Ababa)

  Gabon

  Cameroon (Yaounde) or most accessible Post

  Guinea

  Senegal (Dakar)

  Guinea-Bassau

  Senegal (Dakar)

  Liberia

  Cote d'Ivoire (Abidjan)

  Mali

  Senegal (Dakar)

  Mauritania

  Morocco (Casablanca)

  Niger

  Cote d'Ivoire (Abidjan)

  Sao Tome and Principe

  Angola (Luanda)

  Togo

  Ghana (Accra)

  Somalia

  Kenya (Nairobi) or Ethiopia (Addis Ababa)

  Sierra Leone4

  Senegal (Dakar), The Gambia (Banjul), Cote d'Ivoire (Abidjan)

  1 Rwanda is designated to offer a limited visa service to members of the Diplomatic and Consular Corps (including international Organisations) there and officials of the host country

  2 Algeria is designated to offer a limited visa service to diplomats, government officials and representatives of major companies travelling on official business

  3 Libya is designated to offer a limited service to Libyan diplomats and officials, travelling on official business only; certain business applications sponsored by UK companies, urgent medical cases and compassionate family applications, including family reunion cases where the applicant can demonstrate that it is not possible to leave Libya in order to apply in a third country

  4 Sierra Leone has been temporarily closed

  Israel
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement during the United Kingdom presidency of the EU on the European Union's position on the export by Israel to Europe of goods originating in Jerusalem. [43834]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The Commission issued a Communication to the Council on 13 May on the implementation of the EC/Israel agreement, including the export to the EU of goods originating in Jerusalem. The UK Presidency is discussing the issues raised in the communication at technical level with other member states and the Commission. The Commission is also in consultation with Israeli officials, and will report back to the Council in due course. The EU position on the status of Jerusalem remains unchanged.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made during the United Kingdom presidency of the EU to the Governments of(a) France and (b) Belgium concerning domestic ratification of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. [43832]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: Parliamentary ratification procedures are a matter for individual member states. The United Kingdom has not
  348
  made any representations to the French or Belgian governments on this issue, though our officials remain in close contact on the progress of the ratification procedure.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to review the operation of the EU-Israel association agreement during the United Kingdom presidency of the EU. [43828]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The EU/Israel Association Agreement has not been ratified by all EU member states, and is therefore not yet in force. Its trade provisions are in operation under a separate EC/Israel Interim Agreement. The EU is now studying questions raised by the Commission in its Communication of 13 May about the implementations of the Interim Agreement.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made during the UK presidency of the EU to the European Commission concerning Israeli implementation of the EU-Israel association agreement. [43829]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The EU/Israel Association Agreement is not yet in force. As EU Presidency, the UK is in close contact with the Commission and other member states about the implementation of the EC/Israel Interim Agreement, on which the Commission issued a Communication on 13 May.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made during the United Kingdom presidency of the EU to Israel concerning the EU-Israel Association Agreement. [43830]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The EU/Israel Association Agreement is not yet in force, pending ratification by individual Member States. The United Kingdom has therefore made no formal representation to the Israeli government on this issue. We remain in close contact with Israel on the implementation of the EC/Israel Interim Agreement.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with other EU Governments during the United Kingdom presidency concerning the EU-Israel Association Agreement; and if he will make a statement. [43831]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The EU/Israel Association Agreement is not yet in force. As Presidency of the EU, the UK holds regular discussions with EU governments on the EC/Israel Interim Agreement, including on the Commission Communication on implementation of that agreement.

  Dependent Territories
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each visit made to the Turks and Caicos Islands by(a) Ministers and (b) officials of his Department since 1990. [43425]
  349
  Mr. Fatchett
  Records are unavailable for the period dating back to 1990. However, since 1992 there have been six Ministerial visits to the TCI:

  Date

  July 1992

  Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd, PUSS, FCO

  September 1993

  Mr. Anthony Nelson, Economic Secretary to the Treasury

  October 1994

  Mr. Tony Baldry, PUSS, FCO

  April 95

  Sir Derek Spencer, Solicitor-General

  April 1996

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor, FCO Minister

  May 1997

  Lord Hardie, Lord Advocate

  Since 1994 there have been at least eight visits by officials from the relevant political Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There have also been numerous visits by officials from the Dependent Territories Regional Secretariat in Bridgetown and from DFID/ODA.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much grant support was given to the Turks and Caicos Islands in each year since 1994–95. [43426]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The figures, including Good Government Fund disbursements, are as follows:

  1994–95: £4.618 million

  1995–96: £3.045 million

  1996–97: £4.1 10 million.

  Figures for 1997–98 are not yet available.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom continues to impose an arms embargo on Afghanistan in line with the EU' s Common Position of 17 December 1996. [44655]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We remain committed to the EU arms embargo against Afghanistan.

  Following discussions with this Department and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved a licence for the export of mine-clearance suits for use by the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Assistance to Afghanistan in its demining operations. The grant of this licence is for humanitarian purposes, and is consistent with the purpose of the embargo.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions in addition to the overall criteria governing arms exports announced on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26–29, apply to sales to Taiwan. [44656]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We restrict the export to Taiwan of licensable defence-related equipment. Applications for export licences to supply defence-related equipment and technology are considered case by case. All decisions are made in the light of the criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 July 1998,Official Report, columns 26–29. In scrutinising applications for Taiwan, we also give particular weight to the implications for regional stability.
  350

  Regional and Minority Languages
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom will sign the Council of Europe Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. [44657]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have given thorough consideration to the merits of the United Kingdom becoming a signatory to the Charter, which entered into force on 1 March 1998. We have concluded that it would be appropriate to do so. Part II of the Charter sets out general principles of recognition and support for indigenous minority languages and removal of discrimination against them. We readily subscribe to these principles. We also intend to specify the Welsh Language in Wales and, when the necessary procedural arrangements are in place, the Gaelic language in Scotland under the provisions of Part III which require adherence to a number of specific measures taken to promote the use of these languages in public life. It is also intended to specify the Irish language in Northern Ireland at an early date. Part II of the Charter will apply to the Scots language. We will be considering which, if any, other languages should be bound by the general principles in Part II and might be specified under Part III in due course.

  European Union Council
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for June; and if he will list the major European Union events for the next six months. [44658]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The following Councils are scheduled:

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  June 98

  3–4

  Luxembourg

  Education and Social Affairs Council

  5

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN Council

  8

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  8–9

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  15–16

  Cardiff

  European Council

  16–17

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  17

  Luxembourg

  Joint Environment and Transport Council

  18

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  22

  Luxembourg

  Research Council

  22–23

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  29–30

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  3–4 June 1998: Joint Education and Social Affairs Council

  Adoption of the Agenda.

  A points—Draft Directive extending the Burden of Proof Directive to the UK—Draft Regulation amending 1408/71 (various amendments 1997).

  Preparation of the Cardiff European Council: Debate.

  Commission proposals for draft decisions for the new generation of education, training and youth programmes: Presentation by the Commission and debate.

  Draft decision on European Pathways including Apprenticeship.

  Presidency information on a pilot project on European Teacher Mobility.

  Draft Directive on the Transferability of Supplementary Pension Rights of migrant workers.

  351

  Draft Regulation amending Regulation 1408/71 and 574/72 on social security rights of migrant workers.

  Draft Directive amending the Directive safeguarding the rights of workers in the event of the transfer of undertakings.

  Draft Directive on employee involvement in the European Company Statute: Political agreement.

  Communication on the future of the Social Dialogue: Commission presentation.

  Social Policy Action programme: Commission presentation.

  5 June 1998: ECOFIN Council (provisional agenda)

  Commission and EIB report on the loan guarantee system for lending to third countries.

  Council draft of Broad Economic Policy Guidelines.

  Preparation of Cardiff European Council.

  Preparation of Stage 3 of EMU.

  Adoption of ECB legislation under Article 106(6): Collection of statistical information by the ECB—minimum reserves of financial institutions at the ECB—Powers of the ECB to impose sanctions on institutions failing to comply with monetary regulations.

  Appointment of ECB auditors.

  Rules and composition of Economic and Financial Committee.

  8 June 1998: Fisheries Council

  Post-Amsterdam enforcement proposal: debate, (possible) adoption.

  Commission report on the follow-up to the 1997 Bergan Inter-Ministerial meeting: Council conclusions.

  Commission progress report on the 2002 Review: Progress report.

  Proposal for revision of Structural Funds: Adoption (possible item).

  Revision of basic Marketing Regulation (3759/1992): Policy debate.

  Proposal on rules for mesh size combinations: Policy debate.

  8–9 June 1998: General Affairs Council (provisional agenda)

  Korea: Council Decision on Conclusion of EU/Korea framework Agreement (possible A point).

  China: Council conclusions (possible A point).

  Additional Protocols concerning the IAEA "93+2" Programme (possible A point).

  Schengen.

  Agenda 2000.

  Preparations for Cardiff European Council: Procedural.

  Enlargement.

  Lome.

  Mediterranean Policy (possible item).

  South Africa.

  Western Balkans.

  Middle East Peace Process.

  Great Lakes.

  EU/Mercosur and EU/Chile (possible item).

  Renegotiation of Industrial GSP Regulation.

  15–16 June 1998: European Council

  Not yet available.

  16–17 June 1998: Environment Council

  Proposal for a Council Directive relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air: Common position, cooperation procedure Art. 189c.

  Proposal for a Council Directive relating to a reduction of the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive 93/12/EEC: Common position, cooperation procedure Art. 189c.

  352

  Amended proposal for a Council Directive establishing a framework for a Community action in the field of water policy: Orientation debate, cooperation procedure Art. 189c.

  Proposal for a Council recommendation relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos: Common position, cooperation procedure Art. 189c.

  Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 90/220 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms: Orientation debate.

  Proposal for a Council Directive on emissions from heavy goods vehicles: Orientation debate.

  Community strategy on climate change: Council conclusions.

  Community strategy on biological diversity: Council conclusions (possible item).

  Carbon dioxide emissions from cars: Council conclusions (possible item).

  17 June 1998: Joint Transport and the Environment Council

  Transport and Environment: Orientation debate and Council conclusions.

  18 June 1998: Transport Council (provisional agenda)

  EASA: Adoption.

  Air traffic management: Adoption.

  EU/US aviation: Debate.

  Denied Boarding Compensation: Agreement of Conclusions.

  Hush-kits: Debate, political agreement.

  Computer reservation systems: Common position.

  NOx: Agreement of conclusions.

  Random checks: Debate, political agreement.

  Dangerous goods safety adviser training: Debate, political agreement.

  Railways: Progress report.

  Transport safety: Debate.

  Ferry Operators: Debate, political agreement. Manning conditions: Debate.

  Ports green paper: Report by Commission.

  22 June 1998: Research Council

  Fifth EC Framework Programme—specific programmes: Thematic programmes—International cooperation—Innovation and participation of SMEs—Improving human research potential and the socio-economic knowledge base: (possible) agreement.

  Fifth EURATOM Framework Programme—EURATOM part of specific programmes: (possible) Agreement.

  JRC programmes: (possible) Agreement.

  Rules of participation and dissemination of results (Article 130j decisions): (possible) Common position (EC)/decision (EURATOM).

  22–23 June 1998: Agriculture Council

  Not yet available.

  29–30 June: General Affairs Council (provisional agenda)

  Enlargement.

  Follow-up to Cardiff European Council.

  Lomé.

  Transatlantic Relations.

  Western Balkans.

  Middle East Peace Process.

  Iran.

  Pakistan (possible item).

  European Calendar: June—November 1998

  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.

  353

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  June 1998

  2

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  3–4

  Palermo

  Ad-hoc meeting of Euro-Mediterranean Foreign Ministers

  3–4

  Luxembourg

  Education and Social Affairs Council

  4

  Luxembourg

  Euro X

  5

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN Council

  8

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  8–9

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  8–9

  Glasgow

  Regional Policy/Spatial Planning Ministers' (Informal)

  15–16

  Cardiff

  European Council

  15–19

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  16–17

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  17

  Luxembourg

  Joint Environment and Transport Council

  18

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  19

  Glasgow

  Energy and Environment Conference

  22

  Luxembourg

  Research Council

  22–23

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  25

  Brussels

  Presidency Biotechnology Round Table

  29

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  July 1998

  1–2

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  6

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  6–7

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  8–10

  Innsbruck

  Employment/Social Affairs/Women (Informal)

  13

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  13–14

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  17

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  17–19

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council (Informal)

  20–21

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  23

  Luxembourg

  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

  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

  1–2

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  2–3

  Luxembourg

  Industry/Research and Technology Council (Informal)

  5

  Luxembourg

  Work and Social Affairs Council

  5–6

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  6

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  12

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN Council

  13

  Luxembourg

  Research Council

  13

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  16–17

  Vienna

  European Council

  19–20

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  22

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  354

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  23–24

  Luxembourg

  Education Council (Informal)

  26

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  26–27

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  28–29

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  29–30

  Luxembourg

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  November 1998

  9

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  9

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  9–10

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  12

  Brussels

  Health Council

  16

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  17

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  20

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  23

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  23–24

  Brussels Brussels

  Agriculture Council Telecommunications Council

  25

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  26

  Brussels

  Youth Council

  30

  Brussels

  Development Council

  30–1 December 1998

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the outcome of the General Affairs Council in Brussels on 25 May. [44659]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The General Affairs Council met in Brussels on 25 May. The Council adopted the A Points, and noted the European Parliament Resolutions of 29–30 April and 2 May listed in document 8115/98. A copy will be placed in the House Library as soon as it becomes available.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary provided a Presidency progress report on Agenda 2000 negotiations. Foreign Ministers set out their positions on a wide range of issues. The GAC agreed the proposed outline of the structure for a draft report to Cardiff. Foreign Ministers also agreed that COREPER should report back to the next GAC on how to respond to the latest letter from EP President Gil-Robles about European Parliament involvement.

  The Council reached agreement on the text of the EU Code of Conduct for arms exports, which will be formally adopted at a future Council meeting. The Code aims to set high common standards for arms exports from all EU Member States. It develops the EU Common Criteria agreed in 1991 and 1992 and includes a mechanism under which a Member State will have to consult a Partner which has denied a licence for a particular export, before granting an essentially identical licence.

  The Council took note of the reports of the EU/US and EU/Canada Summits. It agreed that the EU/US Summit, which made substantial progress towards resolving the problems of US sanctions legislation and endorsed the Transatlantic Economic Partnership, represented an important step.

  The Council agreed a Declaration condemning the Indian nuclear tests and setting out the steps India has to take to rejoin the mainstream of international efforts on non-proliferation.
  355
  The Council underlined EU support for Indonesia, called on President Habibie to continue political reform, welcomed the release of two political prisoners and called on the Indonesian authorities to cooperate constructively with the efforts under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General on East Timor.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary briefed partners on his visit to Ankara on 19 May, and reported Turkey's decision not to attend the Association Council which had been planned for 25 May.

  The Council discussed preparations for the ad hoc meeting of Euro-Mediterranean Foreign Ministers in Palermo on 3–4 June. This should give renewed impetus to the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and prepare the ground for the third Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference in Stuttgart in April 1999. The Council endorsed the Presidency's handling, and reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring that the meeting is a success.

  The Council took note of developments in the Middle East Peace Process in the light of on-going US efforts. The French Foreign Minister briefed colleagues on the Franco-Egyptian "Call for Peace".

  The Council heard a report from Mr. Felipe Gonzalez, the EU and OSCE Special Representative from the FRY. It noted with concern recent developments in the FRY affecting the freedom of the media. It welcomed the opening of a dialogue between Belgrade and the leadership of the Kosovar Albanian community, while expressing grave concern about the escalating violence in the province. It underlined the need for the parliamentary elections in Montenegro on 31 May to be free and fair and for their results to be respected by all.

  The Council agreed to consider on 29 June whether Croatia should continue to benefit from Autonomous Trade Measures in the light of that country's performance on refugee returns and other important issues such as democratisation and independent media.

  The Council endorsed the principle of financial support for Azerbaijan (beyond that provided under TACIS), as proposed by the Commission, subject to technical examination by Financial Counsellors.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary drew attention to the EU/Russia Summit (15 May) and reported on the outcome of the G8 Birmingham Summit.

  East Timor
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date the EU Troika visit to East Timor is expected to take place. [44343]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We still hope that the visit, to which Indonesia has agreed, will take place during the UK Presidency.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the visits by(a) ministers and (b) officials of his Department to East Timor (i) undertaken since 1 May 1998 and (ii) planned for the next six months. [44301]
  356
  Mr. Fatchett
  No Ministers or officials have visited East Timor since 1 May 1998. The only visit so far planned for the next six months is one by the British Ambassador in Jakarta as part of an EU Troika Mission. The date is not yet settled.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have ratified the Ottawa convention on land mines. [44209]

  Mr. Fatchett
  By 31 May, the following had ratified the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel land mines:

  Belize

  Canada

  Croatia

  Djibouti

  The Holy See Ireland

  Hungary

  Mauritius

  Niue (a Protectorate of New Zealand)

  San Marino Switzerland

  Trinidad and Tobago

  and Turkmenistan.

  St. Helenians
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many St. Helenians were working on Ascension in the last 10 years for which figures are available. [44061]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The total numbers of St. Helenians working on Ascension Island in the last 10 years are as follows:

  year

  1989

  549

  1990

  569

  1991

  530

  1992

  620

  1993

  599

  1994

  612

  1995

  579

  1996

  563

  1997

  587

  1998

  576

  Entry Clearance Officers
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the complement of extra entry clearance officers provided to deal with the increased volume of summer entry clearance work for(a) Islamabad, (b) New Delhi, (c) Moscow, (d) Peking, (e) Lagos, (f) Bogota and (g) Colombo; how

  357
  many of these have already gone to each post; when the others are expected to travel to each post; and when they will be recalled from each post. [44229]

  Additional entry clearance officers deployed to deal with increased volume of summer entry clearance work

  Post

  Total number of ECOs

  Number already at post

  Dates others expected to travel

  Dates of expected departure from post

  Islamabad

  5

  2

  3 early June

  2 early September

  3 late September

  New Delhi

  8

  6

  1 early July

  2 early/ mid June

  1 end July

  2 early August

  1 late August

  2 early/late September

  Moscow

  8

  7

  —

  1 already returned

  2 early June

  1 late June

  2 end July

  2 late August

  Peking

  3

  1

  2 early July

  2 end August

  1 end September

  Lagos

  4

  1

  2 early July

  2 end August

  1 early August

  2 end September

  Bogota

  1

  1

  —

  1 end July

  Colombo

  No additional Entry Clearance Officers

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Derringham School
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received opposing the proposed closure of Derringham School in Hull. [43151]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Proposals to close Derringham School were first submitted on 8 December 1997. The Secretary of State received 19 letters and a petition containing 2,975 signatures opposing the closure. The proposals were then withdrawn and new proposals were submitted on 9 March 1998. The Department has received two letters opposing the new proposals; the formal objection period ended on 9 May and the LEA has until 9 June to send copies of further objections, plus the LEA's own comments, to the Secretary of State. All relevant representations will be taken into account by the Secretary of State in reaching a final decision.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of TECs in(a) raising skill levels and (b) fostering enterprise. [43111]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government introduced a package of measures in September to raise TEC performance to the level of the best, which includes sharing good practice. As announced in The Learning Age, we have also set up a Training Standards Council to supervise a Training Inspectorate to drive up the standards of training funded through TECs.
  358
  Mr. Fatchett
  The information requested is contained in the following table:

  In addition, on 13 May, the Secretary of State announced a review of the future role, purpose and funding framework for TECs in delivering the Government's education, skills and enterprise objectives. The review will consider how we will give a clear focus to the role of TECs, and will develop proposals for improving efficiency and effectiveness. The review will lead to the publication of new Strategic Guidance in the Autumn which will set out the future role of TECs and the Government's expectations of them.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the surplus achieved by Staffordshire TEC on trading accounts in(a)1995–96 and (b)1996–97. [43113]

  Dr. Howells
  The surplus in 1995–96 was £385,000 and in 1996–97 was £1,548,000.

  Medical Retirement
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many teacher ill health retirement cases have been(a) approved and (b) turned down since April 1997 in each local education authority area; [43117]

  (2) how many (a) heads and (b) deputy heads have (i) sought ill health retirement and (ii) had their applications for ill health retirement rejected since April 1997 in each local education authority. [43118]

  Dr. Howells
  The table shows the number of teachers in each local education authority who were awarded ill-health retirement in financial year 1997–98. The table
  359
  covers the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special education sectors in England. Information is not held by LEA of the number of applications which are

  Ill-health retirees whose last known service was in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary or special sector— England 1997–98 provisional

  Last known grade on or before 31 March 1997

  Last known LEA

  Headteachers

  Deputy Headteachers

  Classroom Teachers

  Total

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  *

  0

  6

  7

  Greenwich

  *

  0

  9

  11

  Hackney

  *

  0

  5

  7

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  *

  5

  14

  21

  Islington

  0

  0

  16

  16

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  *

  *

  Lambeth

  *

  0

  10

  11

  Lewisham

  0

  0

  7

  7

  Southwark

  0

  *

  8

  9

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  *

  11

  13

  Wandsworth

  *

  5

  5

  13

  City of Westminster

  0

  *

  5

  6

  Barking and Dagenham

  *

  *

  8

  10

  Barnet

  *

  0

  14

  15

  Bexley

  *

  *

  6

  10

  Brent

  0

  0

  9

  9

  Bromley

  0

  *

  6

  8

  Croydon

  *

  0

  10

  11

  Ealing

  0

  0

  9

  9

  Enfield

  0

  0

  9

  9

  Haringey

  *

  0

  *

  7

  Harrow

  *

  0

  5

  7

  Havering

  *

  0

  13

  14

  Hillingdon

  *

  0

  6

  7

  Hounslow

  *

  *

  5

  7

  Kingston upon Thames

  *

  *

  7

  9

  Merton

  *

  *

  6

  8

  Newham

  0

  *

  11

  12

  Redbridge

  *

  *

  *

  6

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  6

  6

  Sutton

  0

  *

  6

  7

  Waltham Forest

  *

  *

  9

  13

  Birmingham

  8

  7

  64

  79

  Coventry

  *

  0

  18

  19

  Dudley

  *

  *

  12

  17

  Sand well

  *

  0

  15

  17

  Solihull

  *

  0

  12

  14

  Walsall

  *

  0

  17

  20

  Wolverhampton

  *

  0

  23

  25

  Knowlsey

  *

  *

  11

  13

  Liverpool

  7

  *

  29

  38

  St. Helens

  *

  *

  12

  14

  Sefton

  *

  *

  24

  31

  Wirral

  *

  0

  21

  23

  Bolton

  5

  *

  26

  33

  Bury

  *

  0

  7

  8

  Manchester

  6

  0

  27

  33

  Oldham

  *

  *

  20

  25

  Rochdale

  *

  *

  13

  15

  Salford

  *

  *

  13

  19

  Stockport

  *

  *

  18

  23

  Tameside

  *

  0

  11

  13

  Trafford

  *

  0

  14

  16

  Wigan

  *

  *

  21

  23

  Barnsley

  *

  *

  11

  19

  Doncaster

  *

  0

  13

  14

  Rotherham

  *

  *

  14

  17

  Sheffield

  5

  *

  25

  34

  Bradford

  *

  *

  29

  36

  Calderdale

  *

  *

  13

  16

  Kirklees

  *

  0

  33

  37

  Leeds

  8

  *

  50

  62

  360
  rejected. The rejected rate is approximately 30 per cent. of all applications received.
  361

  Ill-health retirees whose last known service was in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary or special sector— England 1997–98 provisional

  Last known grade on or before 31 March 1997

  Last known LEA

  Headteachers

  Deputy Headteachers

  Classroom Teachers

  Total

  Wakefield

  *

  *

  13

  16

  Gateshead

  *

  *

  13

  15

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  *

  0

  14

  16

  North Tyneside

  0

  *

  7

  8

  South Tyneside

  *

  *

  18

  20

  Sunderland

  *

  *

  23

  29

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  *

  *

  5

  8

  City of Bristol

  *

  *

  21

  24

  North Somerset

  *

  *

  10

  13

  South Gloucestershire

  *

  *

  8

  10

  Hartlepool

  *

  *

  *

  7

  Middlesbrough

  *

  0

  7

  10

  Redcar and Cleveland

  *

  *

  16

  19

  Stockton-on-Tees

  0

  *

  20

  21

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  *

  *

  14

  16

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  *

  *

  12

  15

  North East Lincolnshire

  *

  *

  10

  14

  North Lincolnshire

  *

  *

  12

  15

  North Yorkshire

  9

  *

  20

  31

  York

  *

  0

  9

  11

  Bedfordshire

  *

  0

  9

  12

  Luton

  0

  0

  8

  8

  Buckinghamshire

  *

  *

  11

  14

  Milton Keynes

  *

  0

  *

  *

  Derbyshire

  6

  *

  20

  30

  City of Derby

  *

  *

  8

  10

  Dorset

  *

  *

  14

  17

  Poole

  *

  0

  *

  *

  Bournemouth

  0

  *

  *

  5

  Durham

  0

  *

  35

  37

  Darlington

  0

  0

  5

  5

  East Sussex

  *

  *

  18

  21

  Brighton and Hove

  *

  *

  7

  10

  Hampshire

  *

  *

  40

  47

  Portsmouth

  0

  0

  10

  10

  Southampton

  0

  0

  *

  *

  Leicestershire

  *

  *

  16

  19

  Leicester City

  *

  0

  10

  11

  Rutland

  0

  0

  *

  *

  Staffordshire

  *

  *

  31

  36

  Sotke on Trent

  *

  *

  22

  25

  Wiltshire

  *

  *

  11

  17

  Swindon

  *

  0

  *

  *

  Berkshire

  6

  *

  30

  37

  Cambridgeshire

  *

  *

  27

  35

  Cheshire

  *

  5

  34

  43

  Cornwall

  7

  *

  32

  40

  Cumbria

  9

  *

  25

  35

  Devon

  9

  *

  70

  82

  Essex

  8

  8

  52

  68

  Gloucestershire

  *

  *

  21

  27

  Hereford and Worcester

  *

  *

  25

  31

  Hertfordshire

  *

  5

  45

  52

  Isle of Wight

  *

  *

  7

  10

  Kent

  14

  *

  72

  90

  Lancashire

  9

  10

  104

  123

  Lincolnshire

  6

  *

  29

  36

  Norfolk

  6

  5

  43

  54

  Northampton shire

  *

  *

  28

  32

  Northumberland

  *

  *

  18

  26

  Nottinghamshire

  *

  *

  54

  62

  Oxfordshire

  *

  *

  23

  29

  Shropshire

  9

  *

  19

  29

  Somerset

  5

  *

  24

  32

  Suffolk

  *

  6

  24

  34

  Surrey

  *

  *

  31

  37

  362 363

  Ill-health retirees whose last known service was in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary or special sector— England 1997–98 provisional

  Last known grade on or before 31 March 1997

  Last known LEA Warwickshire

  Headteachers

  Deputy Headteachers

  Classroom Teachers

  Total

  Warwickshire

  *

  *

  20

  27

  West Sussex

  *

  *

  44

  49

  Not known

  27

  16

  163

  206

  Total

  349

  227

  2,477

  3,053

  Notes:

  1. Includes all retirees whether or not retiring directly from teaching service.

  2. The LEA shown is the last known before retirement.

  3. To avoid disclosure of sensitive information on individuals, numbers less than 5 are shown as asterisks.

  4. Not known category includes teachers whose last known LEA no longer exists due to local government re-organisation.

  Source:

  DfEE Database of Teacher Records and Pensioner statistics database.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students undertook teacher training courses in each year since 1979. [43676]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table shows the number of new entrants to initial teacher training for the years 1981–82 to 1997–98. Information for 1979–80 and 1980–81 is not available.

  Recruitment to initial teacher training (ITT) courses1 in England and Wales, 1981–82 to 1997–98

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  2Total

  1981–82

  6,171

  12,512

  18,683

  1982–83

  6,435

  10,493

  16,928

  1983–84

  7,422

  8,796

  16,218

  1984–85

  8,257

  8,450

  16,707

  1985–86

  8,794

  7,931

  16,725

  1986–87

  8,964

  7,925

  16,889

  1987–88

  10,104

  9,076

  19,180

  1988–89

  11,373

  8,810

  20,183

  1989–90

  12,814

  8,943

  21,757

  1990–91

  14,331

  9,464

  23,795

  1991–92

  16,263

  12,529

  28,792

  1992–93

  18,364

  13,616

  31,980

  1993–94

  17,486

  14,556

  32,042

  1994–95

  15,087

  16,407

  31,494

  1995–96

  14,932

  16,086

  31,018

  1996–97

  13,817

  16,842

  30,659

  1997–983

  13,020

  16,912

  29,932

  1 Includes School Centred ITT and Open University

  2 Where figures have been rounded, there may be discrepancies between the sum of the constituent items and the totals shown

  3 Data for 1997–98 are provisional

  Sources:

  England:

  1981–82 to 1993–94: DFE ITT Annual Recruitment Survey

  1994–95: Higher Education Funding Council for England's (HEFCE) Early Statistics Survey

  1995–96 to 1997–98: TTA ITT recruitment survey

  Wales:

  1981–82 to 1993–94: DFE ITT Annual Recruitment Survey

  1994–95 to 1997–98: Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW) Early Statistics Survey
  364

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what proportion of(a) three year olds and (b) four year olds currently have nursery places in (i) Barnsley and (ii) Doncaster. [43360]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  1,264 three year olds, 1,732 four year olds and 49 per cent. of children under 5 were in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in the Barnsley Local Education Authority area in January 1997.

  2,364 three year olds, 1,200 four year olds and 44 per cent. of children under 5 were in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in the Doncaster Local Education Authority area in January 1997.

  Training
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department has taken to encourage the establishment of a stable training infrastructure for the United Kingdom printing, packaging and graphic communications industry. [43444]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department is establishing a network of National Training Organisations (NTOs), employer led bodies with the key responsibility for developing education and training arrangements in their sectors. The independent NTO Recognition Panel has recently considered a bid from the Printing and Graphics Industry. The Secretary of State will be considering advice from the Panel and making a decision shortly on whether to grant NTO status.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action his Department is taking to enable severely disabled people to participate in Welfare to Work. [43374]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Severely disabled people, including those in receipt of Severe Disablement Allowance, are part of the client group for the New Deal for Disabled People. They will be invited to meet a Personal Adviser to explore ways to overcome the particular barriers to work they may face. The Government are consulting
  365
  widely to ensure that appropriate help and support are in place to enable severely disabled people to benefit from the programme.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what contact his Department has had with the Department of Health concerning interdepartmental co-operation to enable severely-disabled people to participate in Welfare to Work. [43371]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department for Education and Employment has close contact with the Department of Health on a range of issues. The Department of Health were represented on the inter-departmental working group which set the policy framework for the New Deal for Disabled People. They continue to contribute to the development of the New Deal for Disabled People.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what procedures exist to monitor the receipt, processing and outcome of applications for financial assistance to purchase wheelchairs through Access to Work; [43934]

  (2) how much financial assistance was given to purchase wheelchairs through Access to Work (a) in total and (b) broken down by Employment Service district in each of the last five years; [43936]

  (3) how many applications have been (a) received and (b) accepted for financial assistance to purchase wheelchairs through Access to Work (i) in total and (ii) broken down by Employment Service district in each of the last five years; [43935]

  (4) what proportion of the financial assistance to purchase wheelchairs through Access to Work during the past five years has been spent on (a) indoor/outdoor powered wheelchairs and (b) manual wheelchairs; [43937]

  (5) what was the average cost of (a) all wheelchairs, (b) manual wheelchairs and (c) indoor/outdoor powered wheelchairs obtained through Access to Work in each of the last five years. [43938]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply.

  Letter from Peter Collis to Mr. John Healey, dated 2 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked Leigh Lewis, the Chief Executive of the Employment Service, to reply to your questions about applications for Access to Work, and the financial assistance given towards the purchase of wheelchairs through the programme during the last five years. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis. I am replying in his absence.
  I must start by saying that we do not monitor separately the number of applications for wheelchairs or their cost. We do, of course, note details of equipment provided in individual case files but the Employment Service does not analyse information to the level of detail you requested. However, we can supply the following related information.
  The Employment Service does monitor regularly the receipt, processing and outcomes of all applications for Access to Work. In addition, the Placing, Assessment and Counselling Teams have standards to meet when dealing with applications. For all
  366
  applications for the 12 months ending in March, 93% of applicants had a decision on help within the standard of 12 working days, and 83% received at least initial help within 60 working days.
  The Employment Service analyses cost information by broad categories. Wheelchairs come within the Special Aids and Equipment category but their cost cannot be separately identified. Expenditure on Special Aids and Equipment is not broken down below regional level and is available only for the last four years. This is since the introduction of Access to Work in June 1994. Table 1 below offers a regional breakdown.
  Table 2 sets out the total number of people benefiting nationally over the past five years under Access to Work (and the previous Special Schemes), which include people given help with wheelchairs. We do not identify applications for wheelchairs separately but we have details, for the past two years, of the number of people making applications for Special Aids and Equipment. Again, we have a regional, but not a district, breakdown.
  I am sorry I have not been able to answer your questions more fully. However, if you would like to discuss this further, you may care to contact Tom Gawn from the Disability Services Division, with policy responsibility for Access to Work. He can be contacted at Rockingham House, 123 West Street, Sheffield, S1 4ER or on 0114 259 6960.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Table 1: Cost of special aids and equipment by region: 1994–95 to 1997–98

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  East Midlands

  1.1

  1.1

  0.6

  0.4

  London and South East

  3.2

  4.2

  2.0

  2.0

  North West

  1.2

  1.3

  0.7

  0.8

  Northern

  0.6

  0.7

  0.3

  0.3

  Scotland

  0.8

  1.0

  0.3

  0.5

  South West

  0.9

  1.2

  0.6

  0.6

  Wales

  0.5

  0.5

  0.2

  0.3

  West Midlands

  1.2

  1.2

  0.5

  0.7

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  1.2

  1.2

  0.4

  0.6

  Total (rounded)

  10.7

  12.5

  5.5

  6.2

  Table 2: Number of people helped through Access to Work 1993–94 to 1997–98; number of people receiving special aids and equipment (SAE) by region: 1996–97 and 1997–98

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  East Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  389

  447

  London and South East

  —

  —

  —

  1,443

  2,421

  North West

  —

  —

  —

  759

  1,098

  Northern

  —

  —

  —

  252

  498

  Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  350

  429

  South West

  —

  —

  —

  450

  611

  Wales

  —

  —

  —

  235

  298

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  551

  828

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  —

  —

  —

  618

  753

  Total SAE

  —

  —

  —

  5,047

  7,383

  All applications

  8,172

  10,394

  13,577

  10,119

  12,825

  Learning Support Assistants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to introduce a national training framework for learning-support assistants. [43884]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Green Paper, "Excellence for all children: meeting special educational needs", sought views on the action we might take to improve the training of learning support assistants, including the option of a
  367
  national training framework. In the light of the responses to the Green Paper, we expect to publish proposals on this and other issues shortly after the Summer recess.

  School Exclusions (Warrington)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children at(a) primary and (b) secondary level in Warrington, North constituency were excluded from school in each of the past five years. [44208]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on the number of pupils permanently excluded from schools in the Warrington, North constituency is shown in the table. Information on permanent exclusions was not collected prior to 1994/95. The Department does not currently collect information on fixed period exclusions:

  Permanent exclusions from maintained schools
  in the Warrington North constituency

  Type of school

  1994/95

  1995/96

  Primary

  3

  4

  Secondary

  17

  12

  Special—

  0

  0

  Total

  20

  16

  Exclusions data for 1996/97 are currently being collated and will be published later this year.

  Job Vacancies (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many job vacancies were notified to the Chelmsford jobcentre in each of the last six months. [44175]
  368
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Simon Burns, dated 4 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question in which you asked for information about the number of job vacancies notified to Chelmsford Jobcentre in each of the last six months. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Employment Service.
  Vacancies notified to the Jobcentre were as follows:

  November 1997: 782

  December 1997: 584

  January 1998: 248

  February 1998: 591

  March 1998: 549

  April 1998: 483

  I hope this is helpful.

  Autism
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children of school age in West Sussex are currently statemented on account of problems relating to autism. [43283]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The national figures which the Department collects on the number of children with special educational needs are not disaggregated by type of special need; it is for West Sussex—as for other individual local education authorities—to identify children with autism and other types of special educational needs in their areas and to make appropriate provision. West Sussex LEA estimates that approximately 150 children with autism, including Asperger's Syndrome, currently have statements in the county. There may be other children with autistic spectrum disorders whose statements relate primarily to other types of special education needs.

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

Medical Drugs: Public Scrutiny
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to take any steps to reduce the secrecy around the trials, licensing and marketing of medical drugs.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the Government's White Paper Your Right to Know was published last December. That sets our proposals to allow closer public scrutiny and to remove unnecessary secrecy. We hope to publish a draft Bill later this year. The Bill will cover information about medicines. In addition, the Medicines Control Agency is examining its current policies in advance of legislation. Its review is taking into account the White Paper on the NHS. The Government will consider, in the light of that review, and our other proposals on assessing medicines, what further action we can take to make more information available.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that promising and comprehensive reply. Is she aware that the time is now right to abolish the secrecy surrounding the trials and licensing of drugs? That can be done, as in the US, without jeopardising commercial viability, by changing the existing regulations. The Medicines Act 1968 gives the Secretary of State powers to change the regulations and to end the secrecy without waiting for a special Bill. Will my noble friend bear that in mind and consider making those representations to the Secretary of State?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that suggestion. As I understand the White Paper on freedom of information, it says that the Government intend, where appropriate and consistent with EU law, to repeal or amend the statutory bars that exist in British law to freedom of information and bring them into line with the harm-and-public-interest tests which are already outlined in the White Paper. The section of the Medicines Act to which my noble friend referred is specifically identified as one of those provisions in the freedom of information White Paper.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I welcome the principle of greater transparency in relation to medicines and greater access by patients to relevant information. Under the freedom of information Bill, how will the
464
Government ensure that information which is genuinely commercial-in-confidence is protected from compulsory disclosure?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Earl rightly raises the question of commercial-in-confidence information. He will be aware that there are specific recommendations within the White Paper which may cover that, although we have to wait until the details of the legislation are produced to see exactly how that will be addressed. Interestingly, given the atmosphere, which has changed since the publication of the White Paper, some of the international pharmaceutical companies have now agreed to ensure that their clinical trials are in the public domain in association with the Cochrane Collaboration based at Oxford which is interested in spreading the details of the meta-analysis of those trials.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will any of those reviews cover veterinary medicines? I am thinking particularly of sheep dips.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said in reply to the original Question, as I understand it, the freedom of information White Paper allows for disclosure of information about medicines in general, and that would presumably include veterinary medicines.

Pregnant Women: Maternity Rights at Work
3.10 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the protection available to pregnant women against dismissal as a result of pregnancy or for taking time off for ante-natal classes.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, the current legislation gives comprehensive protection to women dismissed for any reason relating to pregnancy or childbirth. However, we recognise that difficulties may arise because of the uncertainty over the status of the employment contract during extended maternity leave. The Fairness at Work White Paper, published on 21st May, proposes that legislation should provide for the contract of employment to continue during the whole period of maternity leave.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I note that while he said that the legislation provides comprehensive protection, he did not say that it provides effective protection. Is he aware that NACAB and many other bodies report a constant stream of dismissals for pregnancy and of people returning from maternity leave being told things such as that the only work available is on the night shift, which one

465
might be tempted to regard as constructive dismissal? Has he any proposals for making the law more effective than it is at present?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for his continuing interest in this important issue. If we have laws on the statute book, it is of course important that they are enforced and are capable of being enforced properly. That is something which we are examining with care and which we have forecast in the White Paper. Ultimately of course it is for the complainant to take the matter to the appropriate tribunal or court. If she does not do so there is nothing very much that one can do about that. Part of the job is to keep people properly informed of their rights. That is something that we have done and will continue to do.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, welcome though the proposals in the White Paper Fairness at Work are, is the Minister aware that there is still the important question of ensuring that the measures are enforced? Is the noble Lord aware that, for example, at present the Equal Opportunities Commission receives something like 15 complaints a month about women being dismissed once they have announced their pregnancy? It is not simply a question of ensuring that rights are known but also that responsibilities are known and recognised by employers. Will he take steps to ensure that the new measures are sufficiently publicised?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, my noble friend is right. But it remains for the complainant to take the appropriate action. It is not a matter that is punishable criminally. The Government have a duty to extend knowledge as far as concerns employers and employees about what is happening. A DTI booklet, Maternity Rights, provides plain English guidance on the rights available. In addition, other departments provide guidance on the legislation. The Department of Social Security produces information as regards babies and benefits. The Health and Safety Executive provides useful information in that regard. The Government are using their best endeavours to make sure that the rights of people are known and understood on both sides.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the more rights and protection given to pregnant women, and the more costs put on employers, the more difficult it will be for those people to gain jobs because employers will avoid employing them?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I could not disagree more fundamentally with the noble Lord. In order to achieve a workforce that is co-operative, helpful and involved in a company, a management also has duties to ensure that it behaves in a civilised way. Both the previous government and this Government have taken that point on board. We feel that there is a case for real improvement in this regard.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it appears that many employers are
466
ignorant of the fact that they will receive reimbursement for the cost of paying a woman maternity pay while she is on maternity leave? Could that be made more widely known? Perhaps then employers would be less inclined to ignore the law.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not think that there is overwhelming evidence of an exodus from responsibility on the part of employers. There are serious situations which have to be addressed. I take note strongly of what my noble friend properly suggests.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is wrong and disgraceful for an employer not to fulfil his duty as regards a woman having a child? In fulfilling one of women's most lovely functions, is it not unfair that women should be penalised and unable to continue a career, as is right for any woman to be able to do?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord has addressed all the relevant points in that fairly brief intervention. The task of the Government, and part of the role of the White Paper Fairness at Work, is to use their best endeavours to seek to promote a family friendly culture at work. Sometimes it does not exist, and we have to rectify that position.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned the booklet Maternity Rights. It is extremely clear for the recipient, as is the package for employers. Problems in arrangements may be considerable for employers, but does the Minister agree that the information cannot be faulted? It is extremely clear.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, clearly where people do not take advantage of rights that are available to them it gives rise to a prima facie assumption that something is going wrong in the information available. It is important therefore for us to look at the situation, as my noble friend suggests. I am sure the noble Baroness agrees that that is the appropriate role for the Government.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to a case that is well known to the department. A shopkeeper's wife became ill. He advertised for someone to undertake the work that his wife had done in the shop. A lady responded on the telephone to the advertisement. During the course of the telephone call she let the shopkeeper know that she was pregnant. In a civilised way the gentleman in the shop said that the work involved quite heavy lifting and he did not think that it would be suitable for her. Not even having gone further with the application, the lady successfully sued for discrimination. Is that a fair burden on an employer?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to a hard case of which she has knowledge and I do not. I shall not therefore comment on the specific circumstances. She seems to make the assumption that the whole of the legislation is impaired because of a single case or a minority of cases.

467
I think that one will always have difficult situations in relation to the enforcement of the law, whether civil or criminal. I shall look into the case if the noble Baroness will let me have the details. I do not have them. They are not in this voluminous and very useful document that I have before me.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, the Minister wrote to me on this subject a year ago, but perhaps he forgets that he signed the letter. I queried the fact that a £2,000 fine should fall on this small shopkeeper and asked whether somebody should be responsible for the costs of the pregnancy of a third party with whom he has had no biological association. That seemed to me to be wrong. Does the Minister recall my letter?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I recall every single letter I have ever signed.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, what I sometimes forget is the detail.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister is undoubtedly correct that it is the responsibility of the woman to make a complaint. However, does he agree that between the firm and a woman who has recently given birth, lost her job and lost statutory maternity pay there is a real inequality of power? Will he give attention to the doctrine of a level playing field? Will he remind employers that if they take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, they will lose a large proportion of the workforce in this generation and an even larger one in the next.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thought that I had dealt with that question. Yes, of course, there is an inequality of power, but this is not the only area in which that occurs. I welcome the fact that we have concentrated on this important issue. No doubt the noble Earl will continue to raise these matters. I do not wish to encourage him too much—he needs little encouragement—but it has been a useful exercise.

Airports: Medical Arrangements
3.21 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the existing arrangements at international airports in Great Britain for treating passengers who arrive suffering from ill-health as a consequence of long-distance flights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, medical arrangements at British airports for treating long-haul passengers are a matter for the individual airport managements. I understand that they have arrangements
468
in place for summoning ambulances to meet aircraft where that is necessary and for assisting passengers who need medical help elsewhere on the airport.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. Is the noble Baroness aware that following a long journey I suffered a DVT—for the curious, that is a deep vein thrombosis—following which I received a letter from Dr. Dale Egerton? He informed me that when his wife left a flight from Cape Town seriously ill he was told that at Heathrow:
"they had no medical facilities or medical room for a basic examination".
Will the Minister comment on the situation? Will she reassure the House that it is not general and that there is inter-departmental collaboration, in particular between the Department of Health and her department?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there are a number of issues of common concern between the Department of Health and my department which we discuss. I became aware of the deep vein thrombosis which my noble friend unfortunately suffered after his journey during our recent debate. I have drawn to the attention of the chairman of the CAA and the secretary-general of the British Air Transport Association the issues which he related in particular in relation to the need for information to be given to passengers about the potential risks of thrombosis after long flights.
As regards on-site facilities at airports, I am surprised to hear of his correspondent's experience because at Heathrow, Gatwick, Glasgow, Manchester and Birmingham airports there are medical facilities which offer nurse-based treatment. Airport staff should be fully briefed to direct passengers to those as necessary. If my noble friend has further information about what happened on this occasion I should be happy to bring it to the attention of the BAA.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, has my noble friend seen the disturbing recent reports of an increasing number of people arriving at British airports suffering ill health due to very poor in-flight air quality? Have the Government undertaken any research into that problem? If not, will they do so?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am aware that there is concern about this issue. I am advised that it is unlikely that the spread of infectious diseases on aircraft is caused by the recycling of cabin air by air-conditioning systems. Those systems on modern aircraft have high efficiency particulate air filters which filter out bacteria and almost all viruses. I know that it is a matter of concern, and the consistent and satisfactory performance of the air-conditioning system should be ensured by correct maintenance procedures. The conduct of those maintenance procedures is audited by the Civil Aviation Authority.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that for most people, of any age, before undertaking a long flight it is a sensible precaution to take an aspirin?

469
That is particularly relevant to the noble Lord's problem. Will she make that advice more widely known?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, rather than give any medical advice myself, it would be sensible to draw the attention of the House and the public to the fact that the Aerospace Medical Association has produced medical guidelines for air travel which addresses deep vein thrombosis. Most airlines give advice to passengers, particularly those who are at risk of DVT, as to the precautionary measures they could take both before flying and in flight.
Lord Winston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, sadly, the medical arrangements for emergencies on aircraft are sometimes woefully inadequate, even with carriers which originate from Great Britain? Is she further aware that on one occasion on mid-Atlantic flight I was called as a doctor to attend a collapsed individual with chest pain? The individual being 79, it seemed unlikely that it was a case of contraception or emergency fertility treatment. However, there was no equipment whatever to deal with the patient. Is there a case for having basic provisions such as drip sets and blood pressure equipment on aircraft which are registered in Britain?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am sure that there is such a case, although I know of examples of improvisation in flight where the treatment has been extremely successful without what might be called conventional equipment. I am thinking of the coat hanger and the mineral bottle. Obviously, my noble friend raises an important point which I shall be happy to pass on to carriers and to the CAA.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the useful request made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, would be better addressed to the International Civil Aviation Organisation rather than the CAA as that would ensure that all planes throughout the world carry such equipment?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord has great experience in aviation matters and I will take his advice on this. I am sure that the advice could well be promulgated at a national, European and international level.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister take note of the fact that British Airways was kind enough to write to me following our recent debate? I was delighted to learn of the range of issues which are drawn to the attention of the travelling public once they are on board the plane. Does the Minister agree that the problem is in preparation for the flight and in having medical facilities available at the end of the flight? If the Minister can consider the matter seriously in collaboration with all those concerned this initiative may well produce a good outcome.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as in all health matters, education is important. Information provided to
470
passengers before they travel as well as in flight is something which we should encourage. I believe that emergency procedures are in place at most airports for dealing with in-flight emergencies. Those work well. At Heathrow Airport, for example, there is a dedicated ambulance ready to take passengers off when a pilot signals that that service is required. I understand that BAA is reviewing its facilities at airports and I am sure that it will be interested in any suggestions to improve them.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is that any doctor travelling on a flight ought to carry a little Ambu bag containing a mask which is put over the patient's face, and you can, thereby, conduct mouth-to-mouth resuscitation with impunity? It means that if someone has a large moustache you do not get mixed up with it in the process.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am not sure that it would be prudent for me to try to intervene in what I suspect may be a professional debate between the two Benches.

Sorbonne Agreement and Student Mobility
3.30 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What significance the agreement, signed by them with the French, German and Italian governments at the Sorbonne on 25th May, will have for British higher education.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the main implication of the agreement signed at the Sorbonne on 25th May is that European higher education institutions in the other three countries can be expected to offer a structure of qualifications similar to the undergraduate and postgraduate degrees offered by higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. That should enable British universities, if they wish, to develop closer links with their European counterparts and should also enhance mobility for students.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. I should also like to congratulate her on the honorary degree which I understand from French, German and Italian press reports she was awarded. Can the noble Baroness explain why the agreement was given so much more publicity in the other three countries than it was in Britain? Further, as the agreement, which the Minister kindly sent me yesterday, refers to,
"facilitating student mobility … [and] endeavouring to create a European area of higher education",
can she tell the House what the DfEE intends to do to facilitate such expanded student mobility, given the fact

471
that, on many figures, the number of British students going to study abroad is currently declining rather than expanding?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have no idea why the newspapers in France, Italy and Germany gave the agreement more coverage. I suppose that it was understandable in France which is celebrating the 800th of the anniversary of the founding of the Sorbonne. I believe that there was much interest among the French public in the event.
As to the noble Lord's second question, I can tell him that the Government do want to see more mobility among university students and university staff, together with more opportunities for students from the UK to study in Europe. One measure we have taken is to exempt students on ERASMUS programmes from the tuition fee as part of our aim of narrowing the gap between the number of students coming to the UK and the number of students from the UK going to Europe on those programmes. Of course, it is also for individual universities to promote co-operation of this kind. I know that the noble Lord has been involved in such schemes at the London School of Economics.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that some French press reports suggest a rather more ambitious programme—namely, the harmonisation of higher education between the four countries to promote mobility, which is in itself a good thing—but say that the autonomy of British universities makes such co-operation difficult to attain? Can the Minister assure the House that there is no question of intervening in the autonomy of our universities in order to fulfil the terms of this agreement?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is always dangerous to believe what one reads in newspaper reports which appear in any country, including France. There is absolutely no intention of harmonising programmes or of trying to develop some kind of common curriculum. Indeed, that would be totally inappropriate. The autonomy of British universities is in no way threatened by the agreement. The agreement is simply about broad structures based on a system of undergraduate degrees, followed by masters degrees and then research degrees. That system does not exist in all of the countries concerned but it is available in the UK. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that what we see here is European universities becoming more like British universities and that that is to be welcomed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that students coming from abroad under the scheme would be excused the fees? If so, does that mean that students from English universities going to Scottish universities might be excused the fees, instead of being discriminated against as this Government seem determined to do?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords. As I believe the noble Lord is perfectly well aware, the decision to charge English students who decide that they wish to
472
take a four-year course in Scotland stands. I am sure that the noble Lord is also well aware that an amendment passed in this House has been overturned in the other place—or, indeed, will be—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Blackstone: It is well known, my Lords. The Government have made clear their intention. It is only right to ensure that students taking four-year degrees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are treated in the same way as students from England taking four-year degrees in Scotland. As the noble Lord knows, it is also the case that encouragement is being given to Scottish universities to take students from England with two or three A-levels on to the second year of degrees, and many are already doing so.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many university activities are affected by what happens in schools and that, although British universities benefit immensely from the arrival of students under the ERASMUS scheme, British students might take more advantage of the scheme in return if language teaching in our schools were to begin earlier?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have long been an advocate of teaching European languages as early as possible in our system. Indeed, more and more primary schools are trying to undertake a little European language teaching for children aged 9, 10 and 11; in some cases, for even younger children. However, it is important to ensure that we have well-qualified language teachers to undertake the work. If it were done by people not properly qualified, it might put off more pupils than it would encourage.

Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Statute Law Repeals Bill [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
When the last Statute Law (Repeals) Bill was before your Lordships' House in 1995, I said, for the Opposition, that my party was committed to the reduction of the statute book and the simplification of legislation. I am now pleased to bring forward this Bill, which will make further progress in the modernisation of the statute book.
The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission have a statutory duty to promote the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary laws. Over the past 29 years the two commissions have presented to Parliament 16 reports on statute law revision, with draft Bills

473
attached. The 15 previous reports have led to the repeal of more than 4,000 enactments, including about 1,800 whole Acts. The present Bill proposes the repeal of 180 whole Acts or orders and the removal of redundant provisions from about 200 others.
The repeals in this Bill are set out in Schedule 1. They are in 10 parts. These range from the administration of justice, ecclesiastical law and education to obsolete enactments concerning inclosures and the slave trade. The Law Commissions' continuing work in rationalising local authority legislation bears fruit in this Bill in Part V of the Schedule. This contains repeals of legislation affecting Hereford and Worcester. Over 70 Scottish local Acts, set out in Part VII, are also repealed.
Although these provisions no longer have a place in today's statute book, there is of course much historical interest in some of them. The oldest group of statutes to be repealed are the Ecclesiastical Leases Acts of 1571 to 1575, which were passed to prevent the continuing dilapidation of ecclesiastical property that had occurred during the reformation. I might also mention an Act of 1662 to repair Bengeworth bridge in the county of Worcester—a reminder of the damage and disruption caused during the Civil War.
Your Lordships will wish to know that there has been full consultation with interested bodies on all the proposed repeals. I am sure that your Lordships would wish to join me in paying tribute to the two Law Commissions for their thorough and painstaking efforts in this important work of modernising the statute book. I should also thank those who have been consulted by the commissions, for their contribution, and in particular those who have been involved in the work on local Acts. If your Lordships are content to give this Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the usual way. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition I join the noble and learned Lord in congratulating those of your Lordships who serve on the joint committee. Its work is hardly the stuff of newspaper headlines; and yet it is a necessary burden for both Houses to bear. The work that your Lordships do is greatly appreciated.
Looking through the list one finds some remarkable relics of our past; for example the Incitement to Mutiny Act 1797. The Government of India Act 1935 is redolent of a great imperial responsibility, and—I trust the noble and learned Lord will agree—not undertaken in vain.
I was pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord say that he supported the principle of simplification in the drafting of Bills. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that the Opposition also support that principle. I think it was Viscount Falkland, writing over 300 years ago, who stated famously that if it is not necessary to do something, it is necessary not to do it. Some adaption of that phrase might well be an appropriate instruction to the parliamentary draftsmen; namely, if it is not necessary to say something, it is necessary not to say it.
474
However, if there is an even bigger problem than that of an Act of Parliament saying too much, it is the problem of an Act of Parliament saying too little. Here Her Majesty's loyal Opposition must own up to their own failings. Consider, for example, the Environment Act passed in 1995. We have now waited nearly three years to see Part IIA of that Act become effective in law because the necessary statutory guidance that will give that Act meaning has not yet emerged from the Civil Service.
During this parliamentary Session we have already been presented with a number of Acts which are but bundles of bare bones and which will not acquire meaning until the appropriate statutory guidance is issued. This is no way to legislate in a representative democracy. I trust the noble and learned Lord, in contemplating the opening remarks that he made to your Lordships this afternoon, will also bear that problem in mind.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

School Standards and Framework Bill
3.44 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister and the Chief Whip most profusely for finding another day to discuss this important Bill. I know that is appreciated greatly by noble Lords on all sides of the House, particularly those with amendments to be dealt with, as we are aware that today we must finish by 11 o'clock.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 42 [Annual parents' meetings]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 34, line 24, at end insert (": and
(c) the aims and values of the school, and the ways in which the school intends to promote the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of its pupils.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 156 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 157, 236 and 239. I preface my remarks by saying how grateful I am that I can discuss these amendments at this stage of the afternoon and not at two o'clock in the morning.
These amendments are similar to those which I tabled to the 1996 Bill, which fell at the time of the general election. When I moved the amendments on that occasion they received considerable support from all parts of the Chamber. These are modest but important amendments. I have tabled them because I believe that this area of the school curriculum should not be

475
neglected. I make two general points. First, I am the first to say that schools cannot do everything as regards moral and social education. We should recognise that and not pretend otherwise. Secondly, in legislation, we should support good parents where we can as they are struggling to bring up their children in a difficult world and at a difficult time. They face all kinds of problems that did not exist even 30 years ago. I refer to drugs, drink and sex. Thirty years ago those problems were certainly not prevalent on today's scale. We should do all we can to encourage co-operation between schools, homes and the wider community.
I regard these amendments as complementary to those which the Minister has tabled to Clause 59. I also regard those amendments as extremely important. They have been tabled in response to my successful amendment to the Human Rights Bill. I attach great importance to the amendments, as I believe does the Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for tabling the government amendments. When we discussed this issue earlier in the year it received the support of the Chamber. We are grateful that the Government have tabled amendments with regard to Church schools and employment matters which meet our concerns.
What do these amendments seek to achieve? Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 require governing bodies to include a statement about the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils in the annual report to parents and to provide an opportunity to discuss that at the annual parents' meeting. Amendment No. 156 would add a new paragraph to Clause 42 dealing specifically with annual parents' meetings to ensure that the aims and values of a school would be discussed at the meeting. Schools' compliance with the terms of Amendment No. 156 would be monitored by the parents themselves. Amendment No. 157 seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 42 to ensure that governors have to publish a statement on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of school pupils setting out targets and means of assessment.
Amendments Nos. 236 and 239 to Clause 103 require the home-school agreement to include specific reference to spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils and require the consent of parents to the home-school agreement.
Amendment No. 239 seeks to add another paragraph to Clause 103. Parents will have to accept the content of the home-school agreement before it is adopted, and then give their consent annually at the annual parents' meeting. I realise that that may sound like a difficult procedure. However, I suggest that the consent of the parent body required by this amendment could be obtained at the annual parents' meeting through a show of hands. That currently happens in some schools as a means of gaining parental consent for the school's sex education policy. The future monitoring of parents' consent could be achieved by keeping a minute of the vote taken. I make that practical point because the question of monitoring has been raised.
Existing legislation requires that the curriculum for a school should promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils in a school.
However, there is no requirement in existing legislation for schools to report to parents on the way in which that is done and the way in which schools promote those principles or develop those policies in consultation with parents and the wider community. That is what these amendments set out to do.
There is widespread public and professional concern in regard to the spiritual and moral development of young people. One has only to open a newspaper to see columns about bullying in schools as an example of the kind of problems that are faced. I am sure that all of us who take an interest in these matters have read the reports of the speech by Professor Michael Barber to the Secondary Heads Association suggesting that moral education might be based on global citizenship. That is one of the serious issues to be addressed if the matter is being considered at all. It needs to be thought through very carefully before all this is put in front of young people.
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has sought to address some of the difficulties that schools face by seeking a broad consensus on values in schools and by producing material to help schools develop the whole school policies for the promotion of moral and spiritual development. However, it is important that these issues should not be sidelined in a school. It is equally important within the context of academic development, which we all acknowledge to be of prime importance, that spiritual and moral development should continue as well.
In its draft guidance issued in November 1997, the QCA stated:
"The promotion of pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development provides the 'why' as opposed to the 'what' and the 'how' of education. It is an essential ingredient of schools' success".
That emphasises the importance of including this issue in the home-school agreement and the need for a whole school policy. Personal and social education and citizenship form a part of the whole school policy, but treated on a basis of single themes, or even as subjects, cannot replace a whole school approach to the spiritual and moral development which should lie at the heart of a school.
I think that all of us recognise that one of the reasons why church schools are often so effective is that their aims and values are known, and parents make an active choice to opt for what they are saying. We need to make sure that parents who can choose a mainstream school should also have the opportunity of opting for something very positive in the school's curriculum. I return to the point that I made at the beginning of my remarks. It is very important that this Bill should help to support good parents in what they try to do at home, by linking what is done in the school with what is done in the home and the wider community. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I support the amendment. Spiritual development is the first aim set out in the Education Act 1944 and repeated in the 1988 education Act. I am grateful to the noble Baroness,

477
Lady Young, for bringing forward these amendments. Perhaps I may also make reference to Clause 59, since the noble Baroness has already referred to it. In case she is not present when we come to debate that clause, perhaps I may pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her commitment and tenacity in moving and carrying her amendment, which has resulted in changes to Clause 59. I agree that they are of great significance. I am enormously grateful to the noble Baroness for the part she has played in enabling these points to be considered.
As the noble Baroness said, spiritual development, along with moral, social and cultural development, is not confined to schools but is a part of family and community life. Equally, these are not separate aspects of education to be placed in compartments. They are a dimension of all education. I have argued many times in this Chamber that the spiritual dimension to education is vital to an understanding of education, and to the whole notion of learning. Without some recognition of the inner life associated with being a whole person, no genuine learning takes place.
Schools have had some difficulty in understanding just what is meant by spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. However, Ofsted inspects schools on these aspects of education. It is my impression that schools are increasingly developing a language and understanding—an articulation—of the meaning of those dimensions of education which I believe to be very important in school life. Therefore, anything that can be done to strengthen that aspect of education in schools is significant and important.
I support these amendments for the reasons already indicated by the noble Baroness; namely, that they draw parents into the ethos of the school. They require a school to report to parents; and one amendment requires the consent of parents in the home-school agreement to the school's understanding of spiritual development as well as other aspects of education.
It is generally accepted that Church schools are successful in both academic and other terms. It is arguable that part of their success is due to their ability to bring together governors, heads, staff, parents, youngsters and members of the community within a shared value scheme and a shared understanding of what is meant by education to support a particular school. Indeed, I had a conversation with the Secretary of State in which we debated this matter. That was certainly his view. I long for that sense of involvement which is significant in many church schools also to be the mark of all county schools, as indeed it is already in some. These amendments play an important part in reinforcing that understanding of shared values in relation to which the work done by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is important. The Values Forum has done significant work in that area.
The amendments are, as the noble Baroness said, modest. They do not make any difference to the emphasis of the Bill. However, they underline certain
478
important dimensions in education. I therefore believe that we shall see a positive response to this important aspect of education at this time.
Lord Ashbourne: I support these amendments so cogently moved by the noble Baroness. I very much agree with the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon.
There is widespread public and professional concern about the spiritual and moral development of young people. Schools more than ever have a key role to play in raising standards. Professor Michael Barber's speech to the Secondary Heads Association highlighted the importance of the moral agenda in education.
Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 are practical amendments. There is not likely to be any particular difficulty in schools meeting those requirements. The point of the amendments is to bring greater clarity and explicitness to this key issue for parents and schools themselves at the time each party commits to its responsibilities. Moreover, the requirements set out in the amendment will be monitored by parents themselves. Greater openness will promote participation by parents. Where schools fail to discharge their responsibilities, that will be apparent to parents, who can be expected to take up specific matters with head teachers and governors. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
4 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I wonder if the noble Baroness, Lady Young, can explain what is meant by the word "spiritual". I believe that no one would disagree with the words,
"moral, social and cultural development of … pupils".
That is something which I am sure we all very much support, and indeed would support the kind of push—if I may use that word—behind the two amendments before us. But, if the word "spiritual" is used in what I might call the religious sense, I would have to repeat, as I have said on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House and in another place, that a number of us do not have any religious belief at all. There are some 50 Members of this House and another place who declare themselves in that sense. There are other meanings of the word "spirit", in terms of a rugby or a cricket team, for example, and that is something I go along with. However, where there is this exception—if I may use that word—it should be clarified.
Some Members of the Committee may say that there is provision in the education Acts for a child not to attend classes where religious education is taught if the child or its parents so wish. Those of us who have been engaged in the day-to-day working of education all know that that usually means standing in a corridor outside a classroom, which is not a satisfactory situation in which to place a child. It is important that we have clarification on this matter, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to say a little more about it.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I share one common experience with the noble Lord, Lord Dormand: we

479
were both educated in County Durham. I think I can begin to answer his question, although my noble friend may want to do so in greater detail.
If Members of the Committee will pardon anecdotal evidence, I spent six or seven years in the 1940s at school in a Durham mining village. Many of my teachers were, as the noble Lord described, not practising Christians. They had been Methodists; they were socialists. However, they combined a real sense of spiritual values. That was associated with religion; in some cases religion that they had left. There was no doubt about the moral depth of the school. It imparted a feeling that there was depth to life. It was in part attached to an agreed religious syllabus. The teachers drew out of the syllabus moral and ethical points.
I agree with my noble friend that this matter is of enormous importance. Schools form a morality. That is particularly important in our present society, which is very fragmented. We are the end generation of massive industrialisation. Communities such as those in which the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, and I were brought up have been broken up, are now dispersed and have vanished forever. This amendment is possibly one of the most important of the amendments to the Bill.
We could argue about what we mean, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, knows as well as I do the situation which used to exist and which can still exist. Teachers are by nature bound to morality because that is the nature of their profession.
I should like this amendment to go on the face of the Bill. Pretty well everything else goes on the face of the Bill. The Government almost tell head teachers when to wash their faces. I shall be protesting about some of this later on. Most of us in this Committee, educated in various ways, having decided our destiny, be it religious or non-religious, know that in our schools we experienced something which has guided us in later life. I can only say in the vaguest way that it is depth of life and care for values. One might become a socialist. My schoolmasters tried very hard to make me one, but they failed in that. Many Members of the Committee would say that their schools did all this, and certainly the schools of County Durham did so. The amendments would provide that teachers should have regard to this as a most important facet of their profession. I therefore commend the amendments to the House.
Lord Northbourne: These amendments raise in my mind three questions, which I should like to ask the Minister. Is it the Government's policy to support and encourage schools to prepare statements on spiritual, cultural, moral and social values? Is it the Government's policy, in doing so, to make use of the agreed values, which have been prepared and are now being tested in schools, which were developed by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority? Do the Government believe that parents have an important role to play in developing a school's moral values? If the answer to those three questions is yes, I think the amendments probably should be accepted.
Lord Milverton: I rise to support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Young. My noble friend
480
made an important point about parents feeling that they have some support from schools in giving spiritual education to their children, which parents do by example. It was not the Church alone, of which I am a minister, that gave me my spiritual feeling; that was something which happened from birth, before I became fully involved in the Church. Some might say that I had a privileged upbringing. I am very grateful for what I sense about spiritual dimensions, sensing the dignity, worth and sacredness of the human being. To me, that is what spirituality is. Spirituality brings in morality and ethics and gives greater depth to them. We should not feel ashamed of emphasising the word "spiritual".
I said that some might say that I was privileged. I do not know whether that is true. For instance, most people started school at the normal school age. Because of my father's position in the Colonial Service, I did not attend any school until I was 10 or 11. That was in Jamaica, where my father was governor. Prior to that I had tutors. I therefore do not think it is true that I speak from a privileged position. I had to work very hard for my education, in Canada as well as in England. In Canada, although the education system is run in the same way as in England—I went to a school called Ridley in Ontario Province—the schools are called public schools rather than private schools, and they really are public. Many parents make a tremendous effort. Children from all kinds of homes go to those schools.
In that way I am not as privileged as some may think. But throughout my life, even as a choir boy in Jamaica, I got my sense of spirituality from more than just being a member of the C of E and feeling a call to the priesthood while at school. It is important therefore that we encourage those who find it difficult to comprehend spirituality at least to begin to have an understanding of it. It is important especially for those parents who are desperately trying to uphold something which they are often told is "silly billy". It is important to help those parents and get schools to do the same.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, put his finger on the problem that exists in most schools today. However, there was an encouraging response from the right reverend Prelate who told us that schools in the Church of England's experience are increasingly trying to discuss and articulate between themselves what they mean in these areas; what they are trying to do; and how they are approaching the whole matter.
Our past experiences may be interesting and significant, but for today it is important that staff, governors and parents agree and are clear about their school's intentions in these areas, what they are trying to do about them and how they want to progress. It is important that governors and staff, having agreed those matters, discuss with parents what the school is trying to do. They need feedback and the support of parents for what they are doing.
I do not believe that our experiences from the past necessarily help. We live in a different world today and the way young people see these things has changed. The approach must therefore be different—and different in every school. My noble friend Lady Young put the point

481
extremely well and reminded us that one can learn from Church schools something about how they turn ethos into practice. A good Church school can teach any school a great deal in these matters, even if the definitions and the process are different.
The amendments are important. The Minister helped with other amendments to which we shall come later. That will carry the matter further. She is making sure that head teachers are people interested in these matters who will be capable of giving the right leadership in the school. But there must be something for schools to follow. If that could be on the face of the Bill, it would be extremely helpful. Schools need support; they are trying hard. There is a great hunger among young people and their parents for help in these matters. It is not easy. If an amendment of this kind can help, we should accept it.
Lord Desai: Like my noble friend Lord Dormand I am an atheist and therefore should not speak too much about religion, but I am glad that the C of E, having lost money in real estate, is now interested in sex and making money. That is always welcome.
As to Amendment No. 157, I do not understand how one can set targets for cultural, social or moral development. I spent my life measuring things and making indices. The other day in Committee we had great difficulty defining "value added", and that is near enough a numerical concept. Given the difficulty and given six months, I could do it. But how does anyone set targets in moral development? How does anyone assess and monitor targets of moral development? I should have thought that if one can measure moral attitude it is not moral. I shall not say anything about whether we should or should not have spirituality but we certainly should not have targets. They are a difficult notion to accomplish in this vague and mushy area.
Lord Dearing: As one who was once a member of the School Curriculum Assessment Authority and had some statutory responsibility for offering guidance to schools in these matters, perhaps I can offer a comment. I warmly support Amendment No. 156 and the purpose of Amendment No. 157. We struggled with a definition of "spiritual". I recall using phrases like "to go beyond", and making it much broader than spiritual values based on religion. We wanted to incorporate a sense of wonder; a sense of awe; beauty; respect for one's fellow human beings; and appreciation of courage, both physical and moral. I remember Margaret Thatcher once describing courage as the ultimate virtue.
Those are the kinds of thing we had in mind. However, when it comes to setting targets and making assessments of such delicate, fragile, magic things, it is extremely difficult. I have a feeling of great compassion for a body of school governors in a primary school with children aged between five and nine trying to define targets and assess them for such delicate but wonderful things. One can describe one's objective as a process of gaining knowledge, but in terms of the development
482
of those things it is difficult. Nevertheless, I commend warmly the intention behind the amendments and hope that the Government will make a positive response.
Baroness Maddock: I am pleased to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who articulated extremely well much of what I feel. For many this is a difficult area. If one is convinced of one's religion, it is much easier. I appreciated the manner in which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, explained what they wanted to see. I did not feel uncomfortable. But many people outside this Chamber may feel that we are trying to indoctrinate people with a specific religion. I know that that is not the intention. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, explained, we should be helping young people in schools. I think of it in terms of helping people to be good citizens. If one is a good citizen, one is mindful of the community and of all the people who live in it. In my lifetime of being involved in schools, I have noticed going out of the curriculum not only the spiritual area, but also how our whole society operates, how we make laws and how they fit into the moral framework of our lives. Certainly in the latter days when I was involved in schools, politicians often thought that political indoctrination was involved. That is why it is such a difficult area. We have moved around it over a number of years. I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing.
I want to make one further point regarding how we discuss these matters in schools and persuade parents to become interested in them. I was chairman of the governors in a first school and sat through annual meetings. Every year we tried to thinks of ways to persuade more people to attend the annual meeting. I am pleased to say that the figures went up each year, but it was not easy. Also, it is not always the most appropriate forum in which to raise big issues. I think particularly of the problem of drugs in schools. In some areas local authorities have a good drugs unit which can provide interesting speakers and information for parents.
It seems to me that sometimes, by choosing an issue that perhaps has had some relevance in the community, we are able to persuade parents to discuss these matters in a better way. I am not saying that we should not attempt to discuss these issues at an annual meeting, but by putting that in the Bill, we could fool ourselves into thinking that that shall make all the parents come along to discuss these issues.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: It is not for the first time that I rise in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I supported her on her earlier attempts to pass this amendment through the House, and I continue to do so.
There is some confusion over the word "definition". There are two kinds of definition: one is a lexical definition in which you define words in terms of other words; and the other is an ostensive definition from the Latin word ostendere, in which you show a daffodil to a child and say, "That is a daffodil", and that is how the child learns the language.

483
If the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, requires a definition of "spirituality", I can give him an ostensive one. If you wish to be a better person than you are, or you feel ashamed of something which you have done, or admire beautiful music, or admire courage and courageous action in other people, or admire the way in which they attend to the sick and the invalid, and so on, that is a spiritual exercise. That is the only definition that one can give.
I remember that Xenophon or one of his contemporaries asked a Persian educationist, "What do you teach children?". The answer was, "We teach them to ride hard, shoot straight and speak the truth". One can add that that was the beginning of wedding the spiritual side to the material side of education. If we try to divorce them for the sake of some kind of intellectualist doctrine, I do not believe that we shall make a success of the society in which we hope to live and raise our children.
Therefore, I support the noble Baroness in what she has done and if she chooses to divide the Committee on the issue I shall walk into the Lobby behind her.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to support my noble friend, but may I also wish the noble Earl a very warm and happy birthday?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Blatch: Once again we have listened to the wise counsel of the noble Earl and it is something from which we always benefit. In my maiden speech in this House I used the phrase that an educational experience is nothing more than a clinical and arid experience if it does not involve a spiritual dimension. It seems to me that the spiritual dimension is very important.
For those who are afraid of doctrination or indoctrination, religious education in schools has never been, and should not be, about trying to make little Christians. It is concerned with raising spiritual awareness. At the end of the day, educationally, it is about understanding our spiritual heritage. I wish, most warmly, to support my noble friend.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I, too, should like to give my warm support to these amendments, if only briefly.
Like the noble Lords, Lord Dormand of Easington and Lord Pilkington, I was educated in a council school in Durham County and later attended a grammar school almost equi-distant between the two that they attended, and we regularly beat them at cricket and football.
Leaving that aside, perhaps I may say how much I support the principle underlying these particular points that have been so well articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who defined what he meant by spirituality in a way in which, I believe, I could not challenge.
I was brought up in a powerful Christian household, a Methodist household. I have to confess that when I went to medical school, and was educated in science, I developed an increasing scepticism about some of the religious tenets that I had been taught in my childhood.
484
It was only in latter years that I began to recognise, as the Bard said, that, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." It was that which brought me back to an understanding of what I believe is the true meaning of spirituality. More than anything else in this country, we need a mechanism in schools, in collaboration with parents, by which we can offer a spiritual, moral and social understanding of the important issues which are all too often neglected in current-day education, but which we all, in this Chamber, learnt in our youth.
Perhaps I may add one point, which I believe is relevant, arising out of my experience in a totally different field; namely, the field of medical education? When I was chairman of the Education Committee of the General Medical Council we struggled with the problem of trying to define, in our recommendations on education, the various tenets that should be looked at in detail relating to knowledge, skills and attitudes.
I would disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, on this point. In trying to educate people in such qualities as compassion, humanity, understanding, kindness and all the other values which are so fundamental to our society, I believe that we came up with recommendations which helped us to indicate how these qualities should be transmitted to students and how they could be assessed. I do not believe that the target setting or the assessment is as difficult as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, suggested. I warmly support these amendments.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: I should also like to support the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Some fears have been surfacing in this debate, and I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was right to point out that when people have quoted the example of Church of England schools, the Church has not been trying to make little Christians of everybody. That is the task of home and of church. I believe that the task of schools in a spiritual dimension is to give the pupils the opportunity to make up their own minds. We should all like to say that people should make up their own minds, but unless you have some information on which to make up your mind, you are unlikely to get very far.
I believe also that there was a misunderstanding in what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said about setting targets. I do not contemplate that a school should be expected to set the targets of the spiritual understanding which they expect each pupil to achieve. It would be perfectly reasonable and possible for a school to speak about the kind of experiences that they have allowed children to have, as they face some of the issues that human beings have to face, as schools already do. That could offer a strong report to show the power that some spiritual values have in motivating people in service to other people and facing some of those human issues.
I hope that some of those fears may be put away and that something of immense value in our history may become part of that which we hope for from our schools.
The Earl of Sandwich: I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington for inspiring many fine sentiments. Whether he intended that or not

485
in this debate I do not know. I shall not add to the high-flown words, but in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I think she is right in saying that the Church of England orthodoxy is long behind us when talking about moral and spiritual education.
I should like to add one dimension; that is, the international side. Many young people are responding to the experience that voluntary organisations and churches are bringing back from overseas, and some of that is material education, which can be measured. I agree completely with previous speakers in response to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that this can be measured. Inspectors have measured it and have said that schools come up to expectations. Therefore, I believe that that is an important aspect.
Lord Stallard: I rise briefly to support the noble Baroness and her amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, seemed to assume that because one espouses socialism that means that one is anti-Christian. I should hate people to go away from here thinking that all the Christians are on that side and all the atheists are on this side. That is not true.
If the noble Lord studies social history he will see that most of the early socialists were Christians and upheld the Christian faith. I know for a fact that Keir Hardie was a lay preacher in the place where I was born. I had great respect for his Christian views as well as his socialism. I am very sad that he was not converted because he would have found, I am sure, as much satisfaction as I have over a long period in having both socialist principles and Christian morals and spiritual values.
I can only speak from previous experience of a recent Bill in this House, the Education Bill, when we talked about a conscience clause, and so on. I had literally hundreds of letters—perhaps more than that—from people pleading for that to be carried and pleading for support from politicians of all kinds for the values that parents thought were being attacked, mainly through television advertising, through politically correct school teachers, and so on. I know from 30 years' experience as a school governor in different schools in a London borough that there is a feeling of support for such a provision among parents who admire the ethos of the Church schools with which they have been involved or with which they would like to be involved. I hope that the noble Baroness's amendment will be carried. But if it goes to a Division, I shall certainly support her.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: We are not debating whether these matters should be taught in a school framework. The Minister will know and those who are familiar with the legislation will know that schools are obliged to observe spiritual, moral, social and cultural matters. That is on the face of the 1988 Act. When we first drafted the Act we had just "mental and physical education". That was really what education was all about. In fact, it was very close to the definition given by Xenophon. But we added to the Act spiritual, moral, cultural and social matters because obviously education
486
is much wider than physical and mental education. What we wanted to do was to remind schools and teachers that what was important was not just physical and mental education but also the need to awaken a spiritual awareness, which may or may not come from a religious belief. In fact, religious education is defined quite separately in the basic legislation. We also wanted to remind them that there is a wider awareness—social and cultural, which has hardly been touched on this afternoon, and spiritual and moral.
The spiritual development of a child goes rather wider than just being aware of good neighbourliness. Good neighbourliness can be taught in many different ways. For example, it can be taught in citizenship lessons. What we meant by spiritual was touched on by my noble friend Lord Pilkington when he said that it added to the depth of life. If one can strike the flint in the child and get the spark from the flint and raise the imaginative concept that is really behind spirituality, that is an enormous enhancement.
What the first amendment does—I support the first amendment rather more keenly than the other ones—is to require the governors to report to the parents on these matters, so there will have to be debate and discussion. It cannot just be brushed aside casually with the words, "Well, we do that, don't we?". I very much support the first amendment and I hope that the Government will support it as well.
Baroness Blackstone: These amendments take a threefold approach to confirming the significance within the curriculum of pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development, an annual statement by the governing body, the annual parents' meeting and the home-school agreement. Before I go further in discussing the amendments, I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and to the right reverend Prelate for what they have said about the government amendments that come later to Clause 59.
Many of your Lordships have spoken in favour of at least some of these amendments so I fear that I shall disappoint many of those who have spoken in support of them, not I think because of any difference in principle about the value of what lies behind them or their intent but more because of a difference in terms of the approach that is entailed. They do add weight but also, if I may say so, quite a lot of significant detail to the existing statutory requirement. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, is right. The 1988 Act included clauses on this matter. More recently, Section 351 of the 1996 Act provides that the governing body and head of every school shall exercise their functions with a view to securing that the curriculum,
"promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society, and … prepares pupils at the school for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".
Perhaps it would be a little foolhardy for me to get into debating the meaning of all these terms, but I simply want to say that the Government attach great importance—when I say "great importance" I really mean "great importance"—to pupils' spiritual, moral,

487
social and cultural development. As the right reverend Prelate said earlier, Ofsted inspectors have looked at these aspects of education when inspecting schools. Their evidence shows that schools experience a particular difficulty with pupils' spiritual and cultural development in terms of how to interpret that and how to implement it. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said that inspectors had found a way of measuring it. I am unaware of how they have done this. Perhaps I am not adequately informed, but that is the first I had heard that they had been able to measure it in the sense that I understand the term "measurement".
Shortly after taking office the Government approved a Qualifications and Curriculum Authority pilot of the draft guidance that it had prepared on the whole school approach to spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. That guidance is now being piloted in 150 schools. The pilot is very important from the point of view of informing the national curriculum review which is being undertaken by the QCA; specifically, the focus that that review gives to preparation for adult life. The QCA's recently published advice on the scope of the review notes:
"There is a strong case for recognising the central place of citizenship, personal, social and health education and spiritual, moral, social and cultural development in the education of all young people by introducing more explicit provision within the statutory framework".
However, it concludes that it will not be possible to decide the best way forward until we have considered the recommendations of a range of advisory groups covering areas such as PSHE, if I may use the acronym, creative and cultural education, and sustainable development education, which I know is an interest of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has agreed this advice and the QCA will provide him with further recommendations in September. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that it will be rather easier for me to give a definitive government response to his first two questions then.
As part of its review, the QCA will also be developing a statement of the core values and aims which should underpin the school curriculum and identifying aims and priorities for each key stage. We would expect the spiritual, moral, social and cultural aspects of children's education to be reflected in that work. So this area is very firmly on the Government's agenda, with the possibility of more explicit statutory provision in due course. However, at this stage, the Government feel, given the work that is going on in this area, that it would be premature to put such amendments into law. Moreover, significant as this issue is, the approach taken in the amendments is rather prescriptive and detailed. They would put extra pressure on schools. I am sure many Members of the Committee would agree that we want to avoid the danger of threatening to overburden the vehicles which carry them.
Perhaps I may deal with each of the amendments in turn. With regard to Amendment No. 156, we do not want to be unduly prescriptive about the items for discussion at annual parents' meetings. That could possibly divert governing bodies from their main
488
purpose, which is to provide parents with an opportunity to discuss the annual report and the conduct of the school generally. Many governing bodies will see the promotion of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of the pupils as part of their conduct of the school and will want to discuss it. Nothing will prevent them from doing so. They will be free to do that and I hope that they will.
I turn to Amendment No. 157. Similarly, we see no need for the governors to publish a curriculum statement akin to that which they are required to produce on sex education, but with much greater specificity as to content. Indeed, the Bill actually removes the existing requirement for the governors to produce a general statement on the secular curriculum because we judge that to be unnecessary.
I also have some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and my noble friend Lord Desai had to say about targets in this amendment. If what is meant by "targets" is broadly expressed good intent, all well and good, but the normal use of that word in educational law and in all the guidance that is given to schools these days, is much more precise than that. It is about being able to measure a particular objective and set a goal for schools to achieve. Perhaps the disagreement here is simply a matter of definition.
I turn to Amendment No. 236. Clause 103 defines a home-school agreement as a statement specifying the school's aims and values and the responsibilities which the school intends to discharge in connection with the education of pupils who are of compulsory age. I believe that this definition covers the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. We have made it clear that home-school agreements should include expectations regarding the ethos of the school and we shall reinforce this in our guidance to schools. However, we do not want to be too prescriptive about the content. Schools and parents should be free to determine the detail of their agreements.
The Bill really requires that a home-school agreement should specify the school's aims and values and that the instrument of government for a school with a religious character should include a statement of the school's ethos. Governing bodies are already required to publish in the school's annual prospectus a statement on the ethos and values of the school which underpin the spiritual, moral, cultural and social development of the pupils through the curriculum and any other activities that the school may provide.
We are currently consulting on proposals to give governing bodies more freedom to determine the content of prospectuses that propose to retain the requirement for a statement on ethos and values. So parents who want to discuss the school's aims and values at the annual meeting can do so in the context of the prospectus, the instrument of government or the home-school agreement.
I know that what I have said may be disappointing to some of those who have participated in this debate, but in the light of what has been said I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that the Government are very

489
committed to this area. It is waiting for further QCA advice. In the light of what has been said, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may raise with her the point I made about the importance of parents being involved in, and contributing to, the implementation of the values policy. These amendments would facilitate parents becoming involved and they will encourage them to do so. From what the noble Baroness said it did not appear that the Government see that as an important issue.
Baroness Blackstone: I am very sorry that I forgot about that. I agree that all parents must be given the opportunity to express their views on the home-school agreement. That is why we require the governing body to consult all parents at the school before adopting or reviving a home-school agreement or any parental declaration. I hope that schools will involve parents very substantially in drawing up the agreement. Our guidance on home-school agreements will include many examples of good practice in this area. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord.
The Earl of Sandwich: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question about inspections since she mentioned my name. I am aware of a particular case in which a school from the west country made a visit to Brixton. The children were exposed to the culture of the Caribbean for the first time. That occurred shortly before an inspection. As I understand it, it was recorded. Whether one can call that a mathematical measurement, I am not certain. Perhaps the noble Baroness can help.
Baroness Blackstone: I know that Ofsted inspectors are looking at many aspects of this part of the curriculum and they may well record good practice of that sort. I understood the noble Earl's use of the word "measurement" to be something rather more precise. I understand what he is saying.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Young: I thank all those who have taken part in this debate. I am extremely grateful for the extensive support that I have had from all parts of the House. Perhaps I may begin by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. We agree so regularly on these matters. I believe that those of us who are Christians are not confined to any one party or part of the House. We share common values and that is what we are talking about in particular.
Today I would not wish to emphasise particularly that we are talking about some kind of Church of England education. I believe that these are very modest amendments. I am very interested in the support that I have received from all parts of the House. I believe that frequently the danger for young people today is that this area of the curriculum is neglected. I was very disturbed to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in replying to the debate, say that this matter would go to the annual meeting with parents and that she did not
490
want to divert governing bodies from their main purpose. It is that kind of attitude which causes anxiety about this issue. Of course, we care about the academic side of the school and sport, music and other subjects. But there is something very fundamental about the spiritual, moral and cultural side of a child's development.
I would love to answer the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, and explain what I mean by spiritual, but I shall not take up the time of the Committee to do so. The point has been made by my noble friend Lord Pilkington. I was very interested in the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. When one visits schools and meets young people one is very conscious of the numbers who devote a lot of time to charitable work. They devote a lot of time to work overseas, particularly in their "gap" year between school and university. They also help in their own communities. That is some measure of the kinds of things that we are talking about. When I was a child I was taught the values of truth, beauty and goodness. We all know what they are. Those are the kinds of things that we are looking for and which we share.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I thought that my question was a very simple and innocent one. It has given rise to quite an interesting debate, not least about the benefits of education in County Durham. All I can say is that I spent more than 70 years in a mining village in County Durham and look what it did for me! It is different from the effect that it has had on the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington.
My main point was to try to define the position. I say this not just to the noble Baroness but to other speakers. There is a need for good citizenship. No one would disagree with that. Those who do not have religious beliefs would not disagree with that. We are saying that there is a different way of achieving the objective and that the views held by people such as myself could also achieve that end. However, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for at least attempting to give me more information on the matter.
Baroness Young: I shall give the noble Lord a lot more information on another occasion. I do not think that the Committee wants to hear it now. However, I note what the noble Lord says.
On the whole question of the spiritual and moral side of education, the words of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, were most helpful. I am also grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Carnegy who pointed out that many of the experiences of the past have not necessarily been helpful but that we can learn from the strengths of Church schools. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, whose knowledge of education is infinitely greater than mine, and for that of the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
I am grateful for the trouble the Minister took in replying to the debate. I recognise that the Government attach importance to this area of the school curriculum.

491
I know what has been done—at any rate, what has been published—by the QCA and following Ofsted inspections.
However, I am concerned about the Minister's reply on two counts. First, I have an uncomfortable feeling that the noble Baroness was not talking about what I and those who support my amendments have been talking about. The noble Baroness suggested that citizenship could be a substitute for spiritual and moral values. I am not against citizenship. Of course, being a good citizen is in itself a good thing, but I am talking about something infinitely greater and deeper than that.
My second concern about the Minister's reply relates to the point I made at the beginning and to the Government's suggestion that spiritual and moral values are not central to a school. Anyone who visits a school can tell its ethos, almost on walking through the front door. Perhaps I may give one small illustration. Where I stay in London I go first thing in the morning to buy a newspaper from a small shop run by an Indian family. Invariably when I am in the shop, it contains a number of pupils, obviously from the local comprehensive. I regret to say that they are usually buying sweets and soft drinks, which I strongly suspect comprise their breakfast. Nevertheless, those large boys are nearly always in the shop. They are universally polite. It is extraordinarily impressive that if they bump into you, as teenagers can so easily do in a confined space, they invariably apologise. They hold open the door for the customers. That school has got those children to do something remarkable—and the outsider immediately judges the school on that. Its young people are very thoughtful. They have no idea who I am, so I am certain that they behave in that way to everyone. That school has given those children something, a moral education—and it shows. However, it is more than that. It is something of value and we all know how important it is.
Although I had not intended to divide the Committee on this amendment, in view of the support that I have received, I now seek the opinion of the Committee.
4.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 156) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 104.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Brentford, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Annaly, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Ashbourne, L.

Butterworth, L.

Attlee, E.

Byford, B.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Cadman, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Caithness, E.

Beloff, L.

Calverley, L.

Birdwood, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Blatch, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Carnock, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Chesham, L.

492

Coleridge, L.

Mersey, V.

Colwyn, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Milverton, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Crathorne, L.

Monson, L.

Cross, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V.

Northbourne, L.

Dearing, L.

Northesk, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Norton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Fitt, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Foley, L

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Fookes, B.

Rawlings, B.

Gainford, L.

Reading, M.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Halsbury, E.

Rix, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Romney, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hemphill, L.

Sandwich, E.

Higgins, L.

Seccombe, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Holderness, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Slim, V.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stallard, L.

Kimball, L.

Stockton, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Kintore, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Swansea, L

Lauderdale, E.

Swinfen, L.

Layton, L.

Teviot, L.

Liverpool, E.

Thurlow, L.

Long, V.

Vivian, L.

Longford, E.

Waddington, L.

Lucas, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Warnock, B.

Luke, L.

Weatherill, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Westbury, L.

McConnell, L.

Wharton, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wilcox, B.

Marlesford, L.

Wise, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Young, B. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dubs, L.

Addington, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ezra, L.

Annan, L.

Falkland, V.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gallacher, L.

Borrie, L.

Gilbert, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Burlison, L.

Glasgow, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carlisle, E.

Grenfell, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hardie, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Haskel, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hayman, B.

Craigavoa, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

David, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hoyle, L.

Desai, L.

Hughes, L.

Dholakia, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Diamond, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Dixon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Donoughue, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

493

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Puttnam, L.

Judd, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Rea, L.

Leigh, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Richard, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Lockwood, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Russell, E.

McCarthy, L.

Shepherd, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Shore of Stepney, L.

Simon, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mishcon, L.

Taverne, L.

Molloy, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Monkswell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Nicol, B.

Whitty, L.

Orme, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Winston, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 156A:
Page 34, line 27, leave out first ("special school").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 157:
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—

STATEMENT ON SPIRITUAL, MORAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF PUPILS
(" . The governing body of every maintained school shall publish, once in each school year, a statement on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of its pupils which shall—

(a) describe how the school intends to promote such development;

(b) describe what targets the school has set for this development;

(c) describe what means of assessment will be used to monitor this development; and

(d) report upon the achievement or otherwise of those targets.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]
Clause 44 [Maintained schools to have budget shares]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 158A:
Page 36, line 21, after ("is") insert ("calculated to reflect—

(a) the number of children in the school;

(b) the general education needs of those children; and

(c) any special costs associated with the area where the school is based,

and which is").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 158A. As the Committee begins to discuss the finance clauses of the Bill it will be of assistance if the noble Baroness is able to answer the straight question: under the new proposals of what is the 100 per cent. a delegation?
Baroness Blackstone: It is a 100 per cent. delegation of the budget for schools that is not designated as the core budget of the local education authorities. That was defined and set out in the document published on Friday.
Baroness Blatch: Schools can be forgiven for the feeling of euphoria around the country. Thanks to the Minister making it available, I have had the opportunity to read in detail the fair funding paper. The news release of the Department for Education made reference to "Byers outlines plans for new 100 per cent. delegation". The expression "100 per cent. delegation" appeared in all newspapers and throughout the press release. I looked very hard at what that meant. I shall return to that in some detail when speaking to these amendments.
In moving Amendment No. 158A I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 158B, 158D, 158H and 164A. The first amendment is fundamental and I do not believe is contentious among any party. The principle is that funding for schools should reflect the numbers of children in those schools and their educational needs. Amendment No. 158B is about restricting hold-back. My amendment reflects precisely what was in the Labour Party's general election policy document which stated that no local education authority should withhold more than £50 per pupil centrally from the school's budget. Therefore, I have codified that in an amendment.
Amendment No. 158D refers to the present aggregated schools budget system, and Amendment No. 158H refers to the individual school's budget, which is the new terminology. It does not take a genius to see that there are two different figures there. I shall not move Amendment No. 158D. I prefer to consider Amendment No. 158H, my first amendment having been overtaken by the publication of the paper and my second look at the percentage of delegation to schools by local education authorities which gave rise to Mr. Byers' comment in the first place. He found that the amount of money delegated to schools varied greatly from 85 per cent. in one authority, which was the basic amount, to 96.3 per cent. in another authority. cent. The variation is considerable.
If one takes a 95 per cent. delegation, only 79 of the 131 local education authorities have to delegate between 0 and 5 per cent. more. A further 52 per cent. of the authorities have to delegate between 5 and 10 per cent. more. One is considering relatively modest sums of money that need to pass down to the schools. Those sums are modest in terms of the amounts held by the local education authorities but very significant when they are translated into money for schools. For example, if a local authority delegated at the level recommended in the amendment, it would give £214 more for each child in each school. The figures go down to zero in the case of the best authorities. They are already giving over

495
the 95 per cent limit. For many authorities it means a good deal more for each child in the school. I have taken the figure recommended by the Labour Party.
Amendment No. 164A seeks to remove the terms on which service and facilities are provided by the authority for schools maintained by them. That gives enormous scope to circumscribe the money that schools do not get as opposed to the money that they do get. For the sake of the record, I should like to put some flesh on the bones of the press release of the Department for Education and Employment and put into perspective the expectations of schools and those who have welcomed this statement as to what must be top-sliced from the money that eventually finds its way to the schools.
We start of course with non-school expenditure. As everyone will be aware, that includes education for children under five, adult and community education, life-long learning programmes, student awards, youth service, which can sometimes be dealt with nationally, and revenue funding of capital expenditure which is related to those services. That is one block of money that comes off schools' money.
The second block that comes off is what is called—it is an awful word that I do not like—ongoing school-related commitments. That includes servicing and repayment of school-related capital debts, early retirement and redundancy costs that flow from decision taking before April 1999, expenditure on recruitment and retention schemes and arrangements for personal salary protection instituted by the LEA before 1st April 1999. That is another block that comes off the sum of money before it reaches the schools.
Then we arrive at the local schools' budget. That is interesting. It will include strategic management, access, LEA support for school improvement and special education expenditure. That is a factor with which no one would wish to take issue. Let us look at that category in more detail. It covers some aspects of expenditure that LEAs do not have now. It covers preparation for the LEA's educational development plans, including negotiation of targets with schools, which will be a time-consuming business, monitoring and challenging schools' educational performance, implementation of the programme set out in the approved education development plans which of course includes support for schools causing concern, support to turn around failing schools, schools with serious weaknesses, and any other non-delegated activity. Of course it includes some local authority level activities—advising, inspection, and monitoring duties—and, I have not yet mentioned, organisational committees, adjudicators, accommodation for organisational committees and all the trappings for that which will have to be paid for. That is another block that will come off the money for schools. As the document says, all LEAs will continue to need funding for those roles.
We then move on to yet more money. We come to the heading "Strategic Management" I mentioned earlier. That is to pay for the LEA education chief officer, all the staff, its corporate planning for the service, administration of the authority, audit and monitoring functions, the statutory financial functions of
496
a local authority and the revenue budget for the LMS schemes, all the preparation and administration of grants, the closure and reporting of accounts, the financial monitoring, the personnel management for staff funded by that expenditure, expenditure on legal services relating to the statutory responsibilities for the local authority, and, of course, cross-service statutory plans—there are many of them—children's service plans, inter-agency work, education business partnerships, asset management plans, and so on. One has to consider also grants funding and matched expenditure for cross-service programmes—for example, the single regeneration budget, in which much is involved—information technology systems, and of course the Standing Advisory Committee for Religious Education which will have its work cut out after the previous amendment. So it goes on.
We come to the sub-heading, "Access." I have not yet finished the items of expenditure that will have to come off the money before we get down to what is called 100 per cent. delegation. That includes preparation for the local authority's asset management plan and monitoring of the LEA's school performance against the plan, the management and implementation of the LEA's capital programme, the planning and supply of school places, including preparation of the school organisational plan, the admissions and appeals duties, and the powers of the LEA. I have mentioned the school organisation committees. There is home-to-school transport which has to be paid for, the provision and administration of clothing grants, boarding grants, educational maintenance allowance, and the welfare service and school attendance functions. There is much more.
Will the LEAs be funded to meet their obligations under the national minimum wage? There will be a cost for local authorities. The Minister knows that. It would be helpful to know if those costs will be met. Will local authorities be reimbursed for the costs that they will have to meet under the national insurance changes for all staff earning over £23,000? I did some research on a number of secondary schools, in particular. It would seem that there is an average of about 2 per cent. on salary bills because the national insurance changes for salaries below £23,000 come nowhere near offsetting the costs above £23,000.
Music is a fairly confusing passage in the Bill. It is to be top-sliced, again from the money that would find itself going to schools. What is the proposition in the paper? Is it that music will be paid nationally, because the money will be top-sliced by the department? Will it be fed back to local authorities on the basis of the provision at the time that the Bill is enacted? In other words, there will be a freeze of musical provision across local authorities at this time for three years to fund that level of provision. So school by school, where music education takes place and moneys are received from their LEAs today, they will continue to receive money at that level.
What about schools like the Oratory, for example, which is on a rising curve of expenditure on music because it has introduced a prep school department? Will it be expected to find that money or will that money

497
be funded? At the end of the three-year period, with the move from guaranteed funding, there is to be a bidding system. Does that mean a free-for-all bidding system or is there any intention of continuing to build on what is there and perhaps move on and expand further?
There are many more, but the final area of expenditure to which I wish to refer is that of the reorganisations that will flow from the demise of any grammar school that is unfortunate enough to lose the ballot that will be triggered by a petition. We all know that the paper insists that if a ballot is successful the local authority must produce reorganisation plans to remove selective education from those schools. Trafford LEA has already expressed some anxiety about that, because it knows that its capital moneys will be pre-empted because there will be a cost.
The land and buildings of many of the grammar schools are owned by trusts. Some establishments will be too small, catering only for single-stream ability, to become comprehensive or non-selective schools. There will have to be some physical reorganisation in those authorities. For authorities with a large number of grammar schools, the cost and expenditure will be considerable.
It is important that we hear from which pool the money will come. All the other heads of expenditure that I have mentioned will come from the overall budget for local authorities. The statement made in the fair funding paper uses Tory rhetoric, and uses it well. The spin doctors in this Government deserve an Oscar. They are past masters at producing the warm glow. They have done it this time. There were letters of congratulation, and favourable comment in the newspapers, although one newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, sussed it out, and did so rather quickly. I congratulate it. It saw immediately that no one had said 100 per cent. of what, and no one had itemised or categorised all the heads of expenditure that would have to be top-sliced or removed or deducted from the sums of money.
When one gets down to the basic information, one finds that there will be more costs centrally for local authorities. It is therefore likely that at the very best the delegation will be at about the level that it is at the moment, but, in practice, it could be worse.
I support this aspect very strongly. Much was made of LEAs being encouraged to produce as much money as possible to local authorities so that local authorities can decide whether or not they buy back services. However, there are a couple of stings in the tail. A school and governors may have proven beyond doubt that they can manage their funding extremely efficiently. The grant-maintained schools are praised somewhat in the document. In those LEAs—we all know where they are—where perhaps 80 per cent. vote to leave their money with the local authority on the ground of economy of scales and the persuasive information received from those authorities, the schools will lose the ability to control their budgets.
I shall later press the Minister very hard to accept one of my amendments. An ex-grant-maintained school, a new foundation school or a school which will become a
498
foundation school has produced the evidence that it can manage its funding. Irrespective of how many schools in the authority decide that they would like the LEA to continue to provide services, if the department believe that the school is capable of doing so, the school should be free to control its budget. It should be free to purchase from wherever it wishes, whether from the local authority or elsewhere. That is important.
Returning to the point relating to the figure of 100 per cent., I believe that the headline and the genius of the spin doctors is a confidence trick. My authority gives schools an opportunity to purchase their services back from the local education authority. Quite a number of enlightened authorities do that already. It is not New Labour policy or new old Labour policy. It is existing Conservative policy. I support the fact that the Government agree that it is a good way to manage and that more schools should be encouraged to do that. However, at the end of the day, the figure of 100 per cent. comes very close to the current 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of money delegated down to schools.
Finally, it is important to know the timescale. We know that the Fair Funding consultation document will not return to the department with responses until, I believe, 30th July. Then there are to be regulations. Then there are to be LEA indicative budgets. At some point schools will need to know precisely what order of additional funds they will receive. There is now a high expectation that schools will receive a great deal more money in the next financial year. If that is so, indicative budgets will be important to local education authorities. They will then be able to pass statistical information to the schools. It will be important to hear whether we shall know by the autumn of this year. Schools will then have some idea before Christmas exactly what their budgets will be.
We hear from the Chancellor now almost on a daily basis that limits will not change; it is the priorities within the policy areas that will change. If that is so, some redundancies will occur in the coming year. If LEAs and schools are to face that prospect, the sooner they know the better. The notices they have to give materially impact upon the costs that have to be found by the LEAs.
The schools have had what amounts almost to a confidence trick played on them. It is deeply depressing. I hope that what the noble Baroness says proves me entirely wrong. I can then join her in lauding the news that was passed down to schools earlier this week. I beg to move.
Baroness Lockwood: The noble Baroness has made rather hard weather of this issue. We are debating the Bill. The document published about a week ago elaborates on some of the clauses. The noble Baroness went through not only the various categories stated in the consultation paper, Fair Funding, but also the additional pages which elaborate those various categories.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Everything I have said is entirely pertinent.

499
This is the scheme that will be in place for schools for the next financial year. The clauses in the Bill are the legislative basis for the money that will go to schools in the next financial year.
Baroness Lockwood: I do not dispute that. I agree with the noble Baroness. All I say is that she makes heavy weather of the issue. We are not debating what newspapers say. We are debating the Bill. To help us we now have this consultation paper. I did not hear the noble Baroness discuss the merits of items for which local authorities will be responsible. I merely heard the noble Baroness list all the subjects under those categories. Only a few days ago the noble Baroness and her colleagues argued that we should not have an adjudicator, and that local authorities should be responsible.
In many ways the noble Baroness argues against herself. It is clear that local authorities have important responsibilities. Those are outlined in the document. I am sure my noble friend will reply to some of the factual questions put by the noble Baroness. However, I believe that the document is helpful and valuable to us in our discussions.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I sympathise with everyone involved in this area, whether in LEAs—where I spent a great deal of my life—the Department For Education and Employment, or even sitting on these Opposition Benches. This subject puts one between a rock and a hard place.
The Bill is immensely detailed. There are many opportunities for differences in practice between different education authorities and different schools. The announcement in the consultation paper last week was made in such terms—I read it in the Financial Times—that I believed that everyone would be on a par with a grant-maintained school. That was an initial reaction. It may have been misleadingly reported in the press. But that reaction would have been common across the general broad perspective of the public. We know that that was not the detailed intention. Anyone with his head half screwed on who thought about it for five minutes would have realised that. But the general public, who are not intimately involved in these matters of detail, may not have seen the actual picture.
When the Minister replies—I sympathise with her in her difficulty—perhaps she will give a pledge which might simplify the situation. Perhaps she will state that, while allowing for variations across the country, no school in future will have less of its budget under its control than it had in the past. If we have that assurance people will be able to relax somewhat, and the concerns of many will be diminished.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: I wish to speak to all the amendments in the group except Amendment No. 158C in the name of my noble friend Lady David. I can see why it is in the group, but it involves slightly different issues. Reserving the right to return to the matter, all I shall say today is that I support what she says about school
500
libraries. All the other amendments are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who, not surprisingly, did not speak to my noble friend's amendment.
Perhaps I may begin with two or three matters of principle. The document is called Fair Funding and the Government's intention is that there should be fair funding. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was a member of a government who did not believe in fair funding. When I sat in exactly the place she is sitting now, I spent a great deal of time pointing out that extra money was being found for those schools which already had more and that the Government showed not the slightest interest in those schools which needed extra funding. They invented a peculiar formula to the effect that it was "extra" money and therefore not available to be allocated to the schools which needed it.
First and foremost, the Government are to be congratulated on believing in fair funding. I take it that the Conservative Opposition have come round to the idea of fair funding. The Liberal Democrats have always held views similar to ours. Fair funding is important and I am delighted that the Government are to treat schools fairly rather than singling out some for special treatment. That is germane to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who might like to reflect on the matter before this section of our deliberations is over.
Secondly, as a matter of principle, those of us on this side have always been supporters of delegation and the local management of schools. We have argued that on many occasions. I certainly did so when I was responsible for education on the Opposition Front Bench. My noble friend Lady Blackstone can speak for herself, but my recollection is that she took exactly the same view. I know that when I was number two to my noble friend Lady David she took the same view. Therefore, no one has any lessons to teach us about the values of delegation and local management or any lessons to teach Labour authorities about it.
The Government's position is that core functions should remain with local education authorities but, in principle, everything else should be delegated. Perhaps my noble friend will confirm that that is the case.
The reason we favour delegation and local management is that it is a way of operating efficiently and gearing the schools to the needs about which they know; that is, the education of their children. That is common ground between us all. I am not sure whether I used the word "openness", but I like the fact that the new document is an attempt to make the funding formula transparent and to move us away from the mysticism of funding.
I turn to the specific amendments. I shall do my best to keep a straight face and take them seriously. Amendment No. 158A suggests that however we fund we must take account of,
"the number of children in the school; … the general education needs of those children; … and any special costs associated with the area where the school is based".
I decided to turn that on its head. Could anyone believe a funding formula which said, "No, the one thing you cannot take account of is the number of children in the

501
school. Of course, you must not look at the general education needs of those children and you must not look at any special costs"? In other words, the amendment is preposterous. Of course, any formula will take precisely those aspects into account in addition to others. I am totally at a loss as to quite what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have in mind, other than to say that we should always do what is right. I agree with them entirely. So we do not need that amendment.
I am also struck by the provision for £50 per pupil in Amendment No. 158B. The amendment refers to educational expenditure. My noble friend Lady Blackstone knows a great deal more about the matter than I do because she has been briefed and I have not—
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps the noble Lord—
Lord Peston: Is the noble Baroness sure that she wants to intervene?
Baroness Blatch: I am open-minded and will listen to what the noble Lord has to say. I intervene to say that he should not be perplexed about the £50. It is taken from the Labour Party policy document published during the election. Indeed, Mr. Byers thought that no local education authority should hold back more than £50 per pupil.
Lord Peston: I feared that the noble Baroness wanted to say that, which is why I asked her whether she was sure she wanted to intervene. My honourable friend Mr. Byers did not say that. As I understand it—and I am sure that my noble friend Lady Blackstone will remind us—he was referring to administrative expenditure rather than to educational expenditure. The two are not the same. He was saying that there should be a limit on how much should be restricted to administration. He certainly did not mean that that would be the sum which would be retained by the local authority in general. I say "certainly", but as I am a person who always speaks with caution, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will be able to confirm that. I believe that Amendment No. 158B is peculiar.
I have a final query. The Government's policy is that we are supposed to view as a partnership the LEAs' delegation of schools. That is the Government's philosophy and I strongly support it. Amendment No. 164A implies that there will not be a partnership; there will be a struggle between the two in which schools must be protected from what we might call the appalling behaviour of the local education authorities. There is nothing in the Bill, which I hope will become an Act, that gives the local authority such powers. Therefore, Amendment No. 164A is based on a misunderstanding of what we envisage is developing. However, I rely on my noble friend the Minister to expatiate on that in due course.
It is good that we are making a step forward in the direction of fairness. It will go hand in hand with delegation, which we strongly support, and the sooner
502
we can get this part of the Bill over and done with the better because there are one or two interesting amendments to come.
Baroness David: Although my Amendment No. 158C is in the group, it is slightly different from the others and I have chosen to speak to it separately. As soon as I tabled the amendment Fair Funding came out, but I am pleased to welcome the consultation paper as an innovative way of meeting the difficult problems left by the previous government. The desire to create competition between the schools by differentially funding them was wrong. It would be better for the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to admit that past funding policies were wrong—the policies she advocated as Minister for Education—and learn from the Government's courageous attempts to ensure that the education of all children is fairly funded and not left to accident and the school they attend.
It would be a miracle if the Government got everything right in the consultation paper. That is the function of consultation. We look forward to seeing the Conservative Party's response.
My Amendment No. 158C looks at the special case of the school library service. It is a pleasure to note that paragraph 44 of the DfEE consultation paper addresses the need to provide centrally a school library service. The Government should be congratulated on giving at long last the right place for schools library services. It is an invaluable service. If used and funded properly, it can be of enormous help to teachers and pupils. Sadly, it has declined in recent years. Out of 121 authorities, only 47 operate with delegated funding. Since the advent of LMS five services have completely closed. We do not want that decline to continue.
The consultation will tease out the nature of "significant majority" voting and it might have been better if the Government had not included a draft letter for head teachers to send to their LEA. I am sure that all head teachers know how to write letters. What sort of message are the Government trying to convey when the Chief Education Officer is called "Jeeves"? Is the Permanent Secretary a "Wooster"? Can my noble friend the Minister please state whether the Bill will have to be amended to take account of significant majority voting? Will this be a decision made by the head teacher or by the governing body? How can it be done to minimise bureaucracy? Will there be separate arrangements for primary and secondary schools? In a typical LEA only 20 per cent. of the schools will be secondary. Will primary schools be able to outvote secondary schools?
Further, will money for library services still be notionally delegated to schools if significant majority voting takes place? That is to say, will the service be based on an entitlement to schools rather than on the resources that end up in the school's budget? Will a school a long way from an urban centre be disadvantaged compared with a school situated next

503
door to the school library service office? These are important matters that need to be resolved. I very much look forward to hearing my noble friend's response.
Baroness Byford: I should like to follow the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady David. My contribution is merely a question for the Minister. Under the new arrangements that were announced last weekend, my understanding is that schools will be able to decide what they do and how they do it. In other words, they will have the freedom to decide whether they use the school library service, whether they use other libraries, buy in books, or whatever. I should like to have clarification in that respect from the Minister when she responds, because I am still a little unclear as to what their role will be in this new concept.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I should point out to the Committee that I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 158A, 158B, 158C, 158H and 164A. I believe that Amendment No. 158D will not be moved. Between them, these amendments touch on most of the fundamental issues of school funding policy. These issues are of course explored in the consultation paper Fair Funding, which we issued last week. It may be helpful, therefore, if I begin with a few general observations before I move on to the more specific questions that have been raised.
I should like, first, to stress that this is a consultation paper and that we want to hear the views of LEAs and all schools which will be affected by its proposals. It is most important that we should take them seriously. I should say also that Fair Funding which was issued last week, will, I believe, be followed up with a similar consultation document to be issued by the Secretary of State for Wales next week. It is likely that the two papers will be very similar but, obviously, the latter will take account of circumstances which will be a little different in Wales. The consultation period in Wales will run until early August and my right honourable friend will announce his decisions after that time.
Of course I sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said about the complexity of many of the matters that we are debating today. Indeed, I am grateful also for his sympathy because they are indeed complex. The expression "100 per cent. delegation" is simply designed to point up a contrast with the present LMS rule. As my noble friend Lord Peston said, the present rule is very complicated and requires each LEA to ensure that its aggregated schools budget—that is to say, the total amount delegated to the schools—amounts to at least 85 per cent. of something called the potential schools budget, or PSB. At any rate, that is the position in England: in Wales I understand that LEAs are required to delegate 90 per cent. of the PSB.
I doubt if it would be helpful to take up the Committee's time with a detailed, blow-by-blow exposition of which central budgets fall within the PSB and which fall outside it. What matters is the effect of the rule. What it means in practice is that LEAs are able to retain central budgets not only for the essential core functions which they have to carry out in order to do
504
their own job as LEAs, but also for a range of purposes which relate, in one way or the other, to the operation of the schools rather than the operation of the LEA. That is what we wish to change.
In doing so, the schools and the LEAs have to keep on the right side of the 85 per cent. line. But this still leaves a good deal of leeway. I am afraid that it leads to a situation in which some LEAs, although not all, are holding large central budgets for services which schools could, in principle, obtain from other sources and for which funding has been delegated by many other LEAs. What the "100 per cent. delegation" model seeks to do is to get rid of what one might call this twilight zone, and replace it by a rule requiring full delegation of funding for all services and activities which fall beyond the core responsibilities of the LEA.
I fear that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was just a mite too sceptical about the Government's intentions in that respect. I certainly dispute with her that there has been a confidence trick. I believe that the proof will be in the pudding. We shall demonstrate next year, when they are given their new budgets, that schools will in fact have—and I address this to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—rather more control over their expenditure than has been the case than in the past.
As many noble Lords will know, our consultation paper envisages that LEAs will need to retain four main blocks of expenditure so that they can function properly as LEAs. Of course, it is vital that they should be able to do so. Indeed, to suggest that that kind of expenditure should be removed from them—and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, does not intend that that should happen—would be patently absurd and would damage our education service right across the country.
Those core areas relate to what the paper describes as "strategic management", which means the management of the LEA itself as distinct from administrative and management services provided by the LEA for its schools. I hope that I have made that distinction clear. They also relate to "access" which means, essentially, the various functions of the LEA which are bound up in one way or another with ensuring that school places are available and that pupils can and do attend. Again, that is an absolutely central function which has to be carried out by the LEA. Further, they relate to "school improvement", which we envisage as meaning the cost of preparing and implementing the programmes set out in LEAs' EDPs. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, drew attention to that, but EDPs are the key mechanism that the Government wish to use to ensure that standards are raised in all of our schools. Finally, they relate to "special educational expenditure", which in this context should be understood to include expenditure on behaviour support. Again, I believe that Members of the Committee will agree that that must, for the most part, be provided centrally by the local authority.
I am sure that Members of the Committee will appreciate that this is the start of a process which will lead, in the end, to the making of regulations under Clause 45. These regulations will be debated in this Chamber and will, among other things, define the kinds of expenditure which LEAs may retain centrally. I refer

505
here to subsection (3)(a) of Clause 45. While I understand the concerns behind some of the amendments which have been tabled, it would be unfortunate if this Chamber were to try to start writing the regulations at this stage by taking detailed decisions as to what should be in and what should be out of them, especially when we are at the beginning of what should be a very important consultation process. I am sure that we shall receive a great many responses that both the Government and other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate will wish to consider carefully.
The other main issue on which a general comment may be helpful is whether quantitative limits should be imposed on the funding which LEAs are authorised to hold back. I should stress that a good deal of this funding is likely to relate to items which are not subject to any upper limit now. Moreover, some of these items—school transport is a very obvious example—would be very difficult to restrict fairly.
Nevertheless Clause 45(3)(b) enables us to introduce these limits. We do not believe that that is a power to be used indiscriminately. In our view if it is to be used, it is best used on a selective basis, in terms of the kinds of expenditure to be subject to limit. Nor is it a power to be used hastily. However, the consultation paper makes it clear—here I refer in particular to paragraph 69—that we shall be prepared to invoke this power if experience shows that there is a need for restraint which cannot be achieved in any other way.
I now turn to the amendments. Amendment No. 158A is not in fact concerned with delegation, but with an equally important issue; namely, the methods used by LEAs in calculating individual schools' budgets. This again will be a matter for the regulations under Clause 46. As the consultation paper makes clear, the Secretary of State is likely to adopt an evolutionary approach in making these regulations. Up to now LEAs have been allowed a fair amount of freedom to decide the detailed make-up of their funding formulae, so long as they comply with certain basic principles. They have had to distribute a certain proportion of the available funding on the basis of pupil numbers, and have been expected to distribute the rest on the basis of objectively-measurable criteria.
That leaves a good deal of local discretion which we want to preserve. The consultation paper states plainly that,
"The Government believes that there is no one right way to allocate resources from LEA-level to individual schools. Different arrangements will be right for different parts of the country".
The paper also makes clear that pupil numbers can be expected to continue to play a prominent part. That is common sense.
Against this background, I turn to Amendment No. 158A. It is, I suppose, rather difficult to visualise a formula which does not seek in one way or another to take account of the factors which the amendment lists. But on closer inspection, the list looks more problematical. For example, it refers to "general educational needs". Is this intended to imply that LEAs
506
should not take account of special educational needs? I suspect not, but the amendment might perhaps be understood in that way. It could be confusing. Formulations of this kind in primary legislation have a habit of meaning more than anyone suspected at the time of their enactment.
As the Bill stands, these matters would be dealt with entirely through regulations under Clause 46, and I hope that on further reflection the noble Baroness may agree that this is the wisest course, not least bearing in mind that the first regulations to be made under Clause 46 will require the approval of this Chamber following debate, when we shall have a chance to consider this matter in more detail. I hope that she will therefore see fit to withdraw her amendment.
Amendments Nos. 158B and 158H are concerned with the balance between funding held centrally by the LEA and funding delegated to schools, although they approach the matter in different ways. For our part, and as some Members of the Committee may have gathered from what has already been said, we want to break with the previous practice of regulating this balance by the use of overall percentage limits. This is not because we believe in delegation any less than the previous government, but because we want to bring it about in a different way: by establishing a budgetary framework in which funding follows function.
Amendment No. 158B is rather reminiscent of a proposal which we ourselves made when in opposition. As my noble friend Lord Peston has already said, it sought to restrict LEAs' central expenditure on management and administration to £50 per pupil. It was in no way intended to be a total hold back. This has now been overtaken by the proposals in Fair Funding. As currently recorded in LEAs' LMS financial statement, management and administration is a mix of core administration, which the LEA must undertake if it is to operate at all—I assume that the chief education officer has to be paid—and administrative and management support for schools. The first step, then, is to try to disentangle the strands and get the support services delegated, rather than impose a limit on the whole, and that is what we shall do. Once that has been done, the question may arise as to whether a limit should be imposed on those categories of administrative expenditure which are left with the LEA. But that, we think, must await the availability of much firmer evidence of LEAs' expenditure, based on satisfactory definitions.
Having said that, I note that the £50 limit envisaged by this amendment would apply to educational expenditure. If that is really intended, I ought to point out that LEAs currently retain more than this for SEN purposes alone. Construed literally, the amendment would make it impossible for LEAs to do their job. I am sure that is not what noble Lords opposite want. We see much greater difficulty with the idea of imposing a limit on LEAs' central expenditure as a whole, as envisaged by Amendment No. 158H. Many of the items which will quite properly be left with LEAs under the 100 per cent. model would be difficult to restrict fairly, as I have already indicated.

507
It follows that Amendment No. 158H, which seeks to raise the figure to 95 per cent. is even more unrealistic. In this connection I note that the previous government's 1996 proposals would have required LEAs to delegate 95 per cent. of the much smaller potential schools budget. However, the individual schools budget corresponds not to the potential schools budget but to the general schools budget.
I repeat that we are committed to delegation, in spite of what I thought was undue scepticism on the part of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We will be ready to make appropriate use of the powers in Clause 45 to bring this about. But this should be dealt with through the regulations, prepared after consultation and reviewable in the light of experience. The amendments before us would force us from the outset to make what we are convinced would be an inappropriate use of the powers. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will agree on reflection to withdraw the amendments and leave these matters to secondary legislation.
I believe the noble Baroness asked some questions about national insurance. That is not a matter of delegation but of central and local government negotiations about what the overall funding of local authorities should be in the light of changes that may have been made in an earlier budget. The noble Baroness also asked about reorganisation and about selective schools becoming non-selective. Over the past 30 years there have been many such reorganisations. The extra costs involved are always covered by local education authorities.
I turn now to Amendment No. 164A, which seeks to remove an item from the list of topics in subsection (2) of Clause 47. This subsection is concerned with the content of schemes which will govern the financial relationship between LEAs and the schools which they will maintain. Clause 47 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the topics which schemes must cover, and subsection (2) provides a non-exhaustive list of some of the main topics likely to be prescribed.
The item which the amendment seeks to delete is the,
"terms on which services and facilities are provided by the authority for schools maintained by them".
I think this amendment is based on a misreading of the provision. Paragraph (e) is entirely neutral. It carries no implication whatsoever as to the nature or scale of the services to be provided. The purpose of prescribing this item in the regulations is simply to ensure that, if the LEA is in the business of selling services to its schools, that is done in accordance with the LEA's scheme. I agree with my noble friend Lord Peston that partnership is a key theme.
The reason for bringing these matters within the scope of the scheme is precisely to protect schools. Schemes will require the Secretary of State's approval, and they must be drawn up with due regard to his guidance. As I hope our consultation paper makes clear, we shall make it our business to ensure that LEAs cannot impose onerous requirements on schools—for example, by insisting on excessively lengthy service agreements, or agreements which require schools to buy a lot of
508
services which they do not want in order to get the service which they do want. I am sure the noble Baroness would agree that that is not in the spirit of delegation and we shall certainly want to prevent that happening. I hope that LEAs would not in any case want to go down that road. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will see that as a desirable objective. In the light of my explanation, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw this amendment too.
I now turn to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady David. The Government understand, and are very sympathetic to, the concerns which have led my noble friend to table this amendment. However, we have some difficulties with it. First, and more generally, it tries to pre-judge a matter which really ought to be left to the regulations to be made under Clause 45. The clause itself would look strange if it were amended to single out this one service. The Bill will not have to be amended on majority voting; and there will be separate votes for primary and secondary schools.
It is worth noting that at least 40 LEAs showed their planned expenditure on library and museum services—I am sorry to say, as somebody who has long supported both types of service—as zero in their 1997–98 LMS budget statements. Either those LEAs have no central library service of the kind which my noble friend has in mind; or the funding has been delegated and the LEA provides the service on a buy-back or subscription basis. Even if it could be said that the range of learning materials in schools leaves something to be desired in some of those LEAs, I think it might be difficult to show that was true of all of them. I suspect that in some cases the schools will have very good library provision.
It is therefore difficult to accept the notion of requiring all LEAs to hold back funds centrally to support a school library service, if that is what my noble friend has in mind. But we readily acknowledge the important role played by centrally organised library services in many LEAs, and we are all too aware of fears that some of those services might be put at risk if funding were fully delegated to schools. The suggestion, as I understand it, is that the service's viability could be disproportionately affected if even a small number of schools ceased to subscribe to it. We are sympathetic to that worry.
Therefore, in Fair Funding we suggest that LEAs should be allowed to retain central funding for school library services where a sufficient majority of schools have voted for this. We have not arrived at any final conclusion in regard to the proportion; again, it is a matter upon which we wish to consult. The figure of 80 per cent. has been suggested; however, that does not have to be final. This is a consultation proposal, not a decision. But I hope my noble friend will be able to accept it as an important indication of our concern for the future of school library services, and that on that basis she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
6 p.m.
Baroness David: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, replies to the whole group of amendments, I should like to thank my noble friend for what she has

509
said. She obviously appreciates the good that the school library service can do. However, I must ask her whether she is not afraid that if these services are not kept with the LEA providing the money for them, they will decline further. They have declined. Would my noble friend not be very upset if that decline continued?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes; this is a decline that began some years ago under our predecessors, and which we certainly want to stem. We are examining the matter and shall be determined in the action that we take following the consultation, when we know the views of the schools and local authorities, to ensure that there is a good library service in those LEAs which wish to retain one and where the schools are in favour of it.
Lord Lucas: The noble Baroness's reply raises a number of questions, and this might be a good point at which to raise them, rather than troubling the Committee with them later. The noble Baroness talked about waiting to see how the pattern of local authority expenditure develops in relation to the items which it is allowed to retain under non-school expenditure and the local schools budget. Will the figures in the categories set out on page 9 of the consultation paper be published and available to us in this House as part of the local authorities' budgeting procedure and reports to the DfEE? Shall we know at a fairly early stage what levels are proposed for strategic management expenditure and other items set out in the document, or are they to remain private between the Government and local authorities? What level of information shall we receive as to how the pattern of expenditure is developing?
How will the figures that are to be provided be audited? There is a mention of that in the consultation paper; however, I believe it refers only to auditing the local schools budget, whereas an enormously important aspect in understanding and controlling expenditure is to make sure that the local authority is putting into the general schools budget all the expenditure that it should be. There has certainly been much avoidance of LMS by shoving off schools expenditure under other general headings within the local authority, and money which should belong in schools budgets has been spent in a way which does not appear in the schools budgets. It would therefore be nice to know that that level, too, was audited, so that we have genuinely comparable figures.
The question of music was raised by my noble friend Lady Blatch. This area causes me concern, too. How, for instance, under this proposal, will the specialist music course at Pimlico School be funded? The school looks after a number of London boroughs and provides a specialist course to which children travel from 10, 15 and 20 miles away. How will that sort of course be funded under the proposed arrangements?
To return to a matter that has puzzled me for a long time, what is different about school transport? The idea that a school is not capable of paying a bus company for a bus seems enormously strange. There is a structure of school transport which could be immediately delegated. The schools could merely buy back what is there, and there would be no difference in total cost or
510
expenditure. The system might then develop in a way that was much more cost-effective and which made use of a school's ability to do things in ways that are more innovative and improve its use of money in the same way as happens in other parts of the school budget. What is it about school transport that makes that impossible?
Baroness Blackstone: I shall try to answer all of those questions. Regarding strategic management expenditure, it is right that we should try to provide as much information to Parliament as we possibly can. There will be enormous variations in what that will amount to according to different authorities. However, we can certainly try to provide as much detail as possible on the overall amounts that are likely to be spent in this area. I shall come back to the noble Lord on the likely timing for that. As yet, it is not fixed.
On the question of auditing, local authority financial statements are already audited by the Audit Commission. That will continue. LEAs are under fairly strict auditing arrangements, so there can be no question of schools being audited but LEAs not.
The noble Lord asked about school transport. I think the answer to his question is a commonsense one. There may well be children living in villages quite a long way from the nearest secondary schools but the children may go to a variety of different schools. For each school separately to provide transport to pick up children from 10 different villages, who may be going to three or four different secondary schools in a town which serves a big rural area, would not make much sense. I think the answer to the question is that, for the most part, school transport can be provided more cheaply and effectively if it is provided collectively.
Lord Peston: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. As someone who has moved back to a rural area, I have become very sensitive to rural issues. It seems to me that school transport is different from other matters for economy-of-scale purposes. From my observation of what happens in practice, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right. A local authority does not usually use its own transport; it buys it from the private sector. It therefore meets the objective, anyway. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to returns to scale. Certainly, it was referred to. I believe that this is a straight returns-to-scale phenomenon. I must say to the noble Lord that, although I no longer have children of school age, I am at least as sensitive to the needs of school transport as anyone could be.
Lord Lucas: I cannot see the difficulty in schools co-operating with each other to provide transport. We are in an age of co-operation. Much co-operation is encouraged by the Bill. For the rural areas that I know, the picture that the noble Baroness paints is completely wrong. School transport from the local area around Winchester goes to one school; it does not go to the others. The local authority will not provide transport to any other than the designated school. As far as I know, that pattern is common throughout the country. I am not aware of any local authority which provides rural

511
transport to all the secondary schools in a town so that parents have a free choice. I should be delighted if the noble Baroness could inform me of local authorities where that is the practice; I do not know of any.
Baroness Blackstone: I think perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, misunderstood what I said, or perhaps I did not make it clear enough. The local authority provides transport across the authority for all the schools. It may not take individual children from particular villages to different schools in the town to which they are going. It is a matter of economy of scale. Maybe the noble Lord is right; maybe in the longer term this is something that could be delegated to schools. We should not be ideological about a matter of this kind. It is a matter of what makes good, practical common sense. If, on consultation, we find that those who have to make decisions about these matters share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and can demonstrate that it would be cheaper, more efficient, more effective and more sensible from the point of view of the consumers—in other words, the parents and the pupils—and of the schools, in relation to how they make their arrangements, to provide transport in that way, I see no particular reason why that should not be considered. However, I suspect that the arguments will fall in the other direction.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: The argument of economy of scale applies to almost all these bits of funding which are being delegated. The local authority has always said that it can buy school books more cheaply and that is why it should do so and distribute them to the schools. Much of the success of LMS has been in proving that many of the arguments about economies of scale do not apply in practice because an individual school can use the money much more effectively, even if it has to pay a little more for the lesser quantity that it uses. This is a side issue. I shall not continue to burden the Committee with it.
Lord Tope: I wished to hear the Minister before intervening briefly. The Minister has demonstrated what those of us who have some experience of these matters know already: that this is an enormously complex subject and not well-attuned to simplistic slogans about how much delegation there is. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was right to ask at the beginning: a 100 per cent. or 90 per cent. of what? This is a difficult issue. There was a little bit of, "Who thought of this first?" and "Who is keenest on delegation?" It was suggested first that it was old Labour, then that it was new Labour, then that it was really the Conservatives. I need to put on record that it was actually the Liberal Democrats who thought of it first, and, indeed, as I am certain the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will remember, introduced it first, not far distant from her area.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that the noble Lord will give way. If the noble Lord is claiming that the Liberals introduced this in Cambridgeshire in the early 1980s, I ask him to go back and examine the books. I was the
512
leader of the authority; I and my Conservative colleagues introduced it, and we were the first in the country to do so.
Lord Tope: I readily accept that I asked for that. I shall not pursue the matter now. We have already been down enough byways, rural or otherwise, tonight. I simply wanted to put the matter on record.
Let us accept that all of us favour the greatest possible delegation. It is what it means and what effect it has that is all-important. The Minister was right on this occasion to say that we must await the results of the consultation, which has only just begun. It is consultation we sought when the Bill was in the other place, and I am pleased that it is taking place. We need to await the results. LEAs, schools and others will have useful and important points to make. It is too early, and probably not necessary, to be too prescriptive on the face of the Bill. In fact, I believe it would be positively dangerous to do that. I shall return to that point.
It is said that schools were delighted to know that there would be greater delegation next year. I am sure that, on the whole, that is true. I am sure that schools are delighted to know that they will have more money next year; it would be remarkable if they were not. But it remains to be seen how much money they will have when they have to buy back services. Whether from the LEA or anywhere else, they are going to buy back services. In my experience, most schools, head teachers and governors know enough about the complexities of the matter not to think that a great bonanza has suddenly been unlocked simply through greater delegation. It has not been, and will not be.
Not all schools welcome delegation. I believe I have mentioned before in this Chamber that I am a governor of a junior school with about 300 pupils. Of course, the principle of delegation is welcomed, but the extra administrative burden and buying back services, whether from the LEA or anywhere else, make my fellow governors wonder whether it is worth their time and worry. While a larger secondary school, with perhaps a larger and more experienced governing body, might take it in its stride, and indeed welcome it, that is not necessarily the case with smaller schools, which are usually primary schools. Let us not be too carried away with the rhetoric that all of this is good and that anyone who has reservations about it must necessarily be wrong. That is not the case.
I worry about the Government being over-prescriptive. What is most important is that the balance and the relationship between the schools and the LEA should be right and agreed mutually between them. I readily accept that that is not the case now in all LEAs. If schools generally feel that they are happy to have less delegation, I believe that that should be a matter between the schools and the LEA. Our role as legislators is to ensure that neither party—more usually the schools—is in any way disadvantaged in reaching that agreement. As to whether it is right for government to prescribe that it should be 90 per cent., £50 per pupil, or any other figure, that suggestion makes good headlines but bad practice on the ground.

513
I want to say a few words on the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, dealt with Amendment No. 158A extremely well, if a little unkindly. He turned it on its head and asked how one could have a formula that did not include those matters. I wondered about that and thought: why only this? Why is there no reference, for example, to special needs, to English as an additional language and to any number of other factors? Indeed, any number of other factors may be in a formula. The danger of putting some obviously right things on the face of the Bill is that one then wonders about the things that are equally right, but are not on the face of the Bill. For that reason alone I feel not only that the amendment is unnecessary, but also that if it were to be on the face of the Bill, it could be dangerous.
I want to say a few words also about the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in relation to school library services. That is something which I am sure we all strongly value. We all view with concern the decline in school library services in most areas—some much more than others—for understandable reasons. I do not want to provoke the noble Baroness, Lady Batch, again, but school budgets have been under pressure in recent years—I make that as neutral a statement as I can—for all sorts of reasons. LEAs and schools must look at what they spend and where they have to make unwelcome cuts, and I am afraid that the school library service has too often been a victim of that.
The Minister illustrated the difficulty of those matters when she acknowledged that in some of the 40 LEAs to which we were referring it may be a matter that is being dealt with and shown in a different way. The point that that illustrates, which I come across time and again, is the importance of comparing like with like. One of the dangers of just looking at statistics produced in a column for every LEA in the country is that behind those figures are a lot of stories which do not reveal the whole picture. That may attract one's attention and require one to look behind the figures, but we need to do that to make sure that we are comparing like with like; that one LEA is including in those figures the same factors as another LEA. That is often not the case. The illustration involving the library service is just one aspect of that. It happens, for example, with youth services and all sorts of other factors.
The Minister is right to approach this matter with considerable caution. I am pleased that the consultation is taking place. There is a general feeling in all parties and among government and LEAs in favour of greater delegation. I do not believe that that is an issue any more; what is an issue is what is delegated and how it is delegated. In that regard we are right to proceed cautiously with proper and full consultation and to be no more prescriptive than we need to be.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to all those who have spoken because it was important to try to elicit information. My starting point was 100 per cent. because that focused everybody's mind on the fact that all money for LEAs will be given to schools and they will purchase back. As the noble Baroness and other
514
noble Lords said—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, just repeated it—it is not as straightforward as it seems and the consultation paper makes that clear.
The merits of what local authorities should be responsible for needs reviewing constantly. One needs to ask whether what they are doing is important; whether it could be done in another way and whether the schools themselves could be doing it. That is all part of the delegation budgetary debate. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith will know—his comments showed great understanding—of the debate that goes on within local authorities.
When we devised the early financial delegation system, our starting point was whether we had to do everything as a local education authority. I can remember so often when we were adjusting budgets at central level that schools would say, "If you would give us the money, we could make the policy decisions rather than making one policy decision at central level which pleased some schools and not others". The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is right when he says that that is no longer an issue and I am pleased about that.
The truth is that there are additional expenditure items for local authorities to take on board. There are so many in the Bill that I do not intend to go through all of them. The ones we have discussed so far include the management of the class pledge—an interesting report came out today which will add a little more fuel to that debate. But the organisation committees and the adjudicator will have to be funded by education authorities. Even if the matter was delegated to schools it would not make any difference. It is a cost that would have to be paid and therefore there would not be much choice on the part of individual schools.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to the special treatment of grant-maintained schools. That has been almost a fetish for the Labour Party. It is unfortunate because grant-maintained schools were not specially treated. They volunteered to become grant-maintained schools. They received a sum of money from central funds which was commensurate with the extra responsibilities that they had. It was not just a financial delegation; it was the responsibilities that went with it, including being completely responsible for curricula matters and curricula development. They were accountable to parents, governors and external inspectors without any intervention from the local education authority. The delegation we are discussing does not go that far. The LEA interventional powers are back in the Bill and will relate to the grant-maintained schools as they become foundation schools. Grant-maintained schools received those funds.
I want to ask the noble Baroness a question which will be important in the context of this debate. Grant-maintained schools as they exist at the moment receive as a delegated sum of money from their local authorities 100 per cent. of their share of central moneys. They stand completely outside of the LEA. Some work well with the LEAs and the purchasing, but some do not.
Is the new system intended to bring all other schools up to that level of delegation? In other words, can we expect under the new system that grant-maintained

515
schools—as they are now and when they become foundation schools—will be funded at least at the level at which they are presently funded, possibly even greater if there is more money for education, and that all other schools that are not receiving those delegated funds, where they opt for them, will be brought up to the level of grant-maintained schools?
That is an important point. For grant-maintained schools there is an issue of phasing. The noble Baroness talked about phasing this in; that it will not all happen in one fell swoop because it is an extremely big exercise, and I accept that. But does that mean that grant-maintained schools will lose the degree of autonomy they presently have in terms of financial autonomy? Will they go down to the level of whatever the phased level is, and then move back up to a level of delegation as the system is phased in? Or will grant-maintained schools keep their level of financial delegation while the phasing in applies to the community schools and what will be new community schools into foundation schools? That is an important point.
A point I did not make, but which I feel I should make for the record—there are a number of points in the paper with which I agree—relates to insurance. It was dealt with extremely well in the paper. It is a big issue for local authorities and schools. Under a delegated system I am sure that the schools will have much to contribute in the course of the consultation period, which will be helpful. I agree also that there has been a real attempt at transparency. I feel that it will be a more transparent system and I welcome that also. Like the noble Baroness and her colleagues, we have all been concerned about those local authorities which appear to be able to salt away money which ought to go to schools without our being able to find it.
The confusion will arise as people read the words on the page. They will be reassured by the document, as they have been already, but until the local schools budget is known, until schools have some notion about what it is and what it contains, and certainly until figures are put upon it, nobody will be in a position to know what the 100 per cent. will be measured against. It is only when they know what the 100 per cent. will be measured against that they will be able to make a judgment as to whether it is a good or a bad thing.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, put his finger on another point, which is that what matters is the cash that will go into the schools at the end of the day. Will the level of funding that goes into schools be at least commensurate with the present level of funding, or will it be greater? All the expectations are that it will be much greater because that is what the rhetoric has been from the Government.
The noble Baroness referred to national insurance. That is not a matter of delegation, but a matter for the schools. They have to pay it, even without the level of delegation which the Government are talking about. At the moment, schools pay the salaries of their teachers and if national insurance is an extra cost to them, that cost has to be met. This is definitely a matter for delegation. If it is not, then schools will have to meet it
516
out of their internal funds. Every pound they spend on making up the deficit of national insurance costs will be money that will come out of the classroom.
The noble Baroness did not go far enough on grammar schools. My understanding is that within a relatively short time of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, the grammar school provisions will be brought into play. Once a petition has taken place, and a ballot has been successful, so that a school loses its selective educational system, then the local authority has to move straight in and produce a reorganisation plan. The capital costs of that plan, and the revenue costs that flow from it, will pre-empt all its capital budget, whether or not it is a priority for that local authority.
My understanding is that Trafford is concerned about this. It is the one authority that appears to have looked at this issue. Just one ballot will take the grammar schools out of the LEA. The resulting reorganisational costs to that authority will be extensive indeed. As the Bill progresses through this House we shall want to come back with more detailed questions about that.
The noble Baroness did not refer to the Oratory School special music provision, and I would be grateful for a letter about that, and the way in which that fits in to the proposals in the paper.
The national minimum wage was also not mentioned. That will be a cost on local education authorities. One thinks of school cleaning and school catering. There will be costs there. Who will meet them? Are they part of the system? Will that be additional? Does that come within the present limits? We simply do not know.
I was worried about lines 39 and 40 on page 38 of the Bill because that gives more scope for setting the kind of conditions that inhibit the freedom that I believe the Government genuinely want and which we, too, would want.
As to transport, there are some good examples of individual schools and groups of schools arranging good deals on transport. I am not always convinced, having come from local government, that local government necessarily drives the hardest bargain. There is no greater incentive for driving a hard bargain than when you are dealing with your own money. Local authorities are dealing with someone else's money and when a school is driving a bargain it is dealing with its own money.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about statistics, I think that will be a difficulty as time moves on, where one local authority is delegating money for libraries and another is not. I agree with the noble Baroness that it will be possible, over time, to look at library services or music services in an authority, however they are paid for, whether that is through delegated moneys or paid for centrally, and make a judgment about the quality of those services, and the amount of money going into them. The source of money will be known; it will be there and it will be transparent. That is an issue. The statistics will be difficult to start with but, over time, I think it will work.
We have not had enough information about the timetable. I am concerned that this consultation paper may not be finished until July. If so, when are we likely

517
to see the regulations that will flow from it and that will underpin the LEA's allocation system? More importantly, when are we likely to see the LEA schemes which will follow that? When will the schools have some idea of when the system will operate in their authorities? When will they know the sums of money that will be available?
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I meant to answer those important questions earlier. If I intervene straightaway it might be helpful.
The Government hope to be able to reach decisions after the end of consultation in the early autumn—around late September—and that regulations will be made in late October or early November, and that the schools will get their indicative budgets in early January. I hope that is helpful.
Baroness Blatch: That is helpful. It will be very important for LEAs to know that as they have to have their budgets set in concrete by, March or April. It is at that time that people will have a real understanding of the position.
The purpose was to solicit information, and we have had quite a lot. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that. We need a good deal more. I accept all the chastening remarks that were made about my first amendment.
It is important to note that some local authorities weight pupils by age, some start by counting them, and only a small percentage of the budget is based on numbers; and sometimes other authorities base a very large percentage of the budget on numbers. It is a question of the weighting given to all these factors. The amendment refers to the education needs of children, and subsumed within that are all the education needs that have to be met, including special education.
I finish where I started. When we know what the 100 per cent. is 100 per cent. of; when we know the local school's budget and we have some understanding of the individual school's budget, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness were to come back on one important question which I raised on grant-maintained schools. They enjoy 100 per cent. delegation of central funds now. Will the other schools be phased to come up to that level or will grant-maintained schools, as they become foundation schools, go down to whatever the phased level is at any given time and then be phased up to what is deemed to be the 100 per cent. funding level as the system beds in?
Baroness Blackstone: The Government's intention is that grant-maintained schools should stay broadly at the same levels of funding as they are at present. I hope that answers the noble Baroness's question.
Baroness Blatch: It does, but it means that they will have more central funding and, therefore, more of the central services which they purchase themselves for quite a long time until all the other schools come into play.
There is another important question which flows from that. If there is a ballot in a local authority, and 80 per cent. of the schools vote to have central services rather than
518
individual purchasing, does that mean that the authority will go over to providing services centrally and that any grant-maintained school that may be in the 20 per cent. that opted for individual purchasing will lose that control?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, it obviously would mean that, because the majority of schools, 80 per cent., voted in favour of doing something in a particular way. We would expect a minority of schools to accept that that was the view of the majority of schools. That seems to be the only sensible democratic way of proceeding.
Baroness Blatch: I find that deeply unfortunate. If 20 per cent. of schools—and in many counties that is a lot of schools—have opted to be individually responsible for their own finances and the management of their own schools, but are forced to hand the money back to the local authority, on the one hand, that seems to fly in the face of individual local financial management. On the other hand, if 80 per cent. of schools in an LEA opt for central services, that is the economical, viable figure; then what is the problem about the other 20 per cent.? The LEA has its viable figure. It has 80 per cent. of schools opting for the LEA to provide services. What is the threat from the other 20 per cent.? What stands in the way of that? We shall press the noble Baroness further on that.
I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 158B not moved.]
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Determination of LEA's general schools budget and aggregated schools budget.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 158E:
Page 37, line 2, leave out (""general") and insert (""local").
The noble Baroness said: This is a tease. This amendment tries to do the Government's job for them. The Government have now rendered these clauses invalid. At some point they have to change. They have to be brought into line with the proposals. We have a conundrum. We have a consultation paper which was issued this week. It is out for consultation and it is not due back until the end of July. I believe that the Government expect this Bill to have Royal Assent by then. Almost as the ink is dry on the Royal Assent, this Bill will be inaccurate.
I have to express some serious disappointment. We have rafts of technical amendments to the changes being made to this Bill. We had some before us on Monday and we have some again today. To incorporate the technical changes the counsel and officials must be extremely busy rewriting this Bill as we go along. We know that these clauses will change and we know what the nomenclature will be. My attempt may be feeble; I do not know. When the question was asked whether the clauses would be rendered redundant if the new system was eventually adopted, the department said that the changes were only ones of nomenclature and that nothing else would change. I could have said "Amen" to that, because the system of delegation is well established and will continue.
To come back again to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, the schools which became grant-maintained schools did so voluntarily. All of the other schools had the opportunity if they had wanted to but they did not take it. Under this system the grant-maintained schools will be foundation schools or will have a chance to be foundation schools and/or voluntary-aided schools. The other schools continue to have an option. They can opt to stay with the LEA for everything or they can opt to become self-governing. So nothing changes—only nomenclature. This is my attempt to change the nomenclature. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for doing the Government's work for them. Tabling these amendments, which seek to bring the terminology of the Bill into line with the terminology used in our consultation paper, is most helpful, but I invite her to withdraw them. However, that is simply so that we can check the Bill for any other instances of the old terminology which will need to be changed. Having done that, we will ourselves bring forward appropriate amendments along these lines at Report.
I should stress that the change in nomenclature does not in itself affect the definition of either of the concepts which are being renamed. The local schools budget will be what Clause 45(1) currently says a general schools budget will be. The individual schools budget will be what Clause 45(2) says the aggregate schools budget will be.
Perhaps I may add a word about the reasons for the changes. "Aggregated schools budget" is really a rather mystifying term and the new label "individual schools budget" characterises it much more clearly. I suspect that the noble Baroness agrees with that. It is the quantum or total amount which is available to be distributed to the individual schools as their institutional budgets. As to "local schools budget", that simply brings out that this is the local education authority's schools budget. Although "general schools budget" is understood by those who are initiated in all this, I am not sure that it conveys very much to others. We will be bringing forward amendments at Report stage to put all this on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: On the basis of that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 158F to 158J not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 37, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) The classes or descriptions of expenditure referred to in subsection (3) above shall in particular include those that relate to—

(a) the local education authority's duties towards children with special educational needs;

(b) services provided by the local education authority to reduce exclusions; and

(c) services provided by the local education authority to increase the inclusion of children with special educational needs in mainstream schools.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 164 and 165. I say at the outset that these are probing amendments.
The purpose of Amendment No. 159 is to ensure that local education authorities are able to hold back from the general schools budget sufficient expenditure to enable them to meet their duties towards children with special educational needs, to provide services to reduce exclusions and to provide services to increase inclusion. The purpose of Amendment No. 164 is to ensure that local education authorities can build into their schemes for delegation the requirement that schools provide information back to them on particular aspects of their expenditure. The purpose of Amendment No. 165 is to ensure that the amount of money delegated to schools to meet special educational needs is made clear and to ensure that the local education authority publishes an expected level of expenditure on SEN. I should like to take the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for kindly writing me a helpful letter after the Second Reading debate.
The Government's consultation paper, Fair funding: Improving delegation to schools, has only just come out and I have given it only very swift perusal. However, it is important to ask for some assurances about what is proposed in that paper. I should say that I am briefed on these amendments by the Special Educational Consortium. As this is only a consultation paper, it is quite obvious that there could be changes before regulations and guidance are produced.
I think there is little doubt that the proposals will make much more transparent a number of areas where LEA expenditure has not previously been so accessible to scrutiny. That is to be welcomed. There will, I understand, be clear blocks of expenditure within the local schools budget, one of which would be for special educational expenditure. Within this, it appears that LEAs will be able to fund special educational needs support services and services concerned with the monitoring of schools arrangements for SEN provision, as well as funding,
"to promote inter-school co-operation in relation to SEN, or inclusive of pupils with SEN".
However, it is less clear how preventive work at earlier stages of the code of practice might be funded, as all funding for stages 1 and 2 will be delegated to schools, as will "general" funding for stage 3, "general" being funding for costs other than the support services and "large and unpredictable pupil-specific costs", which could include stage 3. It would be excellent to have some clarification from the Government, particularly on preventive work at the earlier stages which is emphasised in the Green Paper.
With regard to Amendment No. 164, it does not appear that an arrangement for schools to report back on different aspects of their expenditure would be built into the new arrangements. Clearly, we would want LEAs to be able to require schools to report on their expenditure on special educational needs. It may be argued by the Government that a combination of the schools' SEN policy requirement and monitoring by the LEA could achieve this. The latter is proposed as a function for which LEAs can retain funding. But in

521
respect of the former—schools' SEN policies—these are notoriously weak, according to Ofsted in what it says about the allocation of resources, and this would therefore make for a weak link in the chain. Again, it would be helpful to have some clarification from the Minister. What information might local education authorities be able to require from schools?
With regard to Amendment No. 165, in the consultation paper there appear to be arrangements that will meet these concerns. Paragraph 5 in the appendix on special educational needs says:
"Without wishing to depart from the principle that a school's delegated budget is an unhypothecated amount, the Government considers it important that each school should be clear what levels and kinds of special need it is expected to meet from its delegated budget, and how much of its budget is notionally attributable to SEN. This is not always the case at present. The intention is that LEAs' schemes, and the revised reporting statement described in paragraphs 83–88, will ensure that LEAs provide each school with details of the way in which its notional SEN budget has been calculated".
In theory, such information could be available now, but it is difficult for schools to pull it out of the morass of figures in the statement that they receive from the LEA. It would be helpful to know what specific arrangements are proposed that might make it more clear. Would a separate letter be issued to schools? Would it state how much of its budget is notionally attributable to SEN? The concern is that if this information is embedded in other figures it will continue to be unclear. I have tried to précis my speech. I am still not very good at it. I was not good at it at school, but I hope that it is one of the subjects that will continue to be taught at school both for verbal and written work. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: As I have put my name to this amendment, I give it my wholehearted support. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has already covered the matter very thoroughly. As he said, Amendment No. 159 ensures that LEAs can retain enough money centrally to provide preventive SEN services. It is very important to hold back enough money to deal with helping in areas outside the school's competence to judge what is needed. The Special Educational Consortium says that it is aware that nearly all initiatives that are concerned with helping children with, for example, behavioural difficulties, are funded from outside.
It is interesting that on the chart of the Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education, two of the LEAs which are highest on its list of those providing an inclusive mainstream education for children with special educational needs, are Newham and Cornwall. They are at the bottom of the league of the delegators. It is very necessary to have support from the LEA. Newham is very successful because as its numbers of pupils included in the mainstream have increased, so, interestingly, its number of excluded pupils has decreased.
As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said as regards Amendments Nos. 164 and 165, it is essential to be very clear what is delegated for SEN and just how it is being
522
spent. Ofsted's report remarks on the confusion and lack of information. My noble friend Lord Rix also has his name to these amendments. He has asked me to give his apologies as he has had to go to an important meeting. As he has sat and spoken alone from these Benches far into the night just lately, and I have not been here at all, I am sure that the Minister will agree that he need send no apology. When speaking in earlier debates he spoke about the anxiety that if money is delegated to help pupils with special needs, it might be bundled into one large parcel and be spent on other things.
In moving this amendment we hope that local authorities and schools will have clear strategies on how money for pupils with special needs will be allocated. I hope that the Minister believes that these amendments are indeed sensible and will be able to respond positively to them.
Lord Addington: I support these amendments. Amendment No. 159 is effectively the substantive amendment. I read them as being about ringfencing for a vulnerable area. As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, has said, if one has a central body of money it will always be fought over. There is the experience of Parliament and the Treasury when everyone tries to get a certain amount of money and the money is pulled in various directions. That is a much bigger example of what happens when everyone is competing for money.
The provision for special educational needs is often seen as a Cinderella service. It often depends on having teachers of sufficient power and personality within a school or local education authority as to how the funds are allocated. This type of ringfencing will mean that it will be seen where the money goes.
As the noble Baroness also mentioned, if one deals with educational problems it is very likely that one will reduce the number of exclusions because social problems often arise from educational problems. There may be someone in the classroom who is not coping well with the situation because he has an education problem. If it is not dealt with or it is dealt with very late, one has a pattern of established behaviour which is necessary for basic survival in the classroom among the children themselves. That means that the particular child will try to disrupt the classroom to avoid having to face up to the work level. That is a pattern which is accepted by virtually everyone who has anything to do with work in this field. If this kind of amendment or approach is adopted, it will be one step further towards making sure that the correct resources are spent on what was intended in the first place.
Lord Whitty: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that I was momentarily out of the Chamber when he began his speech. That was partly due to the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, speeded up dramatically in dealing with the last batch of amendments compared with earlier ones. It was also partly due to the fact that I bumped into the noble Lord, Lord Rix. He conveyed his own apologies, but I agree with the noble Baroness that that was completely unnecessary. We know of his deep interest in this area and I am sure that he would have wished to be here to move this amendment.

523
As the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Swinfen, have said, much of this matter is to do with transparency so it is clear what are the levels of funding on special education and where they fall. We thought at some length about the place of SEN in the new funding framework. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, the consultation document has a quite substantial appendix which deals specifically with this point. The final arrangements will depend to a large extent on the feedback to the proposals. In the meantime I hope that I can give some reassurance on the points raised by noble Lords as regards the objective and the way we believe SEN expenditure should be covered in the new situation.
The regulations to be made under Clause 45 will specify categories of expenditure which can and must be retained centrally by LEAs as opposed to being delegated to schools and place limits on other conditions concerning the amounts so retained. That will be dealt with by regulation, but this amendment seeks to ensure that certain SEN-related categories of expenditure are identified explicitly in primary legislation as being candidates for retention. Amendment No. 159 deals also with exclusions which we shall debate later in connection with another group of amendments.
Our whole approach to this matter under Clauses 45 to 51 is to construct in primary legislation a framework within which regulations, and not primary legislation, will be used to set out the detailed requirements. The Government's intention on this is clear as set out in the consultation paper and particularly in the appendix. As regards SEN, it is based on the view that responsibility for pupils with special needs is shared between schools and LEAs. Therefore, it is absolutely clear that the LEAs need to retain a significant amount of the funding centrally. Responses to the consultation paper will inform what are to be the final details of our approach, but it is clear that some of the expenditure on SEN will be delegated and some will be retained centrally. Putting that in regulations, of course, is a significant improvement on the present situation whereby the control of items retained centrally by LEAs is dealt with entirely by administrative action.
Under these new proposals schools will have responsibility and funding to meet most of the needs of most pupils with SEN. That is consistent with the SEN code of practice which refers to stages one to three being school-based. As the noble Lord said, the funding of stages one and two will be largely delegated and the funding of stage three will be partly delegated under these proposals.
It is also clear that the intention of Section 317 of the Education Act 1996 requires schools to use their best endeavours to secure that a SEN provision is made. However, we recognise that there will be circumstances when a school needs extra funds beyond what it can be expected to find from its budget to meet the needs of a particular child with special educational needs. The LMS consultation paper envisages that funding may be held back to meet specific or unpredictable needs and it allows LEAs to retain funds for support services for SEN. That will ensure that LEAs are able to meet
524
schools' reasonable requests for support. Local education authorities can therefore hold back funds. There are measures to promote inter-school co-operation in relation to SEN, to promote the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs into mainstream schools and to provide for behaviour support.
I hope that what I am saying, and what is said in the consultation paper, will demonstrate that the Government are fully aware of the need for LEAs to retain some funding centrally for SEN and related purposes. Our approach to the drafting of regulations, as set out in the consultation document, will be informed by the feedback to that document.
Amendment No. 164 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. I believe that that point also is covered by the Government's approach. There are already requirements on schools to do that. Although some have taken the view that the existing regulations are inadequate, the proposals in the consultation Green Paper should improve the situation.
We agree that schools need to know what is provided in their budget for SEN purposes. The regulations we shall be making under Clause 51, to which we shall come later, will specify the form of budgetary statements to be published by LEAs. They will be able to include a requirement that the funding formula used in relation to SEN should be fully spelt out in schemes for financing schools. In other words, schools will have made clear to them how much of their budget is for SEN purposes. Paragraph 5, the final paragraph of the appendix to which reference has been made, accepts that degree of hypothecation in the budget regime. So I believe that we have met that point.
Although we do not accept that this should be spelt out in primary legislation, I hope that what I have said, and what is said in the consultation document, indicates that the objective which lies behind the amendment is shared by the Government. The final form of the provision will be based very largely on the strategy set out in the consultation document and on the feedback to it. I believe that the regulations will meet most of the concerns expressed in this debate. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I said at the beginning that this was a probing amendment to ascertain the Government's position and to seek reassurance. The noble Lord has, on the whole, given me the reassurance that I sought. However, if I may, I shall reserve my position because once my advisers and I have read and studied the noble Lord's response it may be necessary for me to return to the matter to seek further reassurances and make certain that we are on the right lines. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 160 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 161 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
On Question, Whether Clause 45 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas: Many of the matters that I wanted to raise on the Question of clause stand part have already been covered. If the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, can tell me that the information for which I asked earlier as to what data will be provided, and when, on the breakdown of the budgets of individual LEAs, and what work will be done by the Audit Commission or anyone else to ensure that the figures provided are consistent and comparable, I shall be delighted to withdraw any opposition to this clause standing part of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord can provide me with such information by way of a letter before Report stage.
Lord Whitty: Perhaps the noble Lord and I can have a word about exactly what information he will require before Report stage. I shall be happy to assist him.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Determination of a school's budget share]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 161A:
Page 37, line 24, at end insert—
("( Every maintained school shall have the right to receive and have control over its full share of the individual schools budget.").
The noble Baroness said: This is an amendment about which I feel extremely strongly, particularly given the reply of the noble Baroness a moment ago about grant-maintained schools which wish to continue to manage their own affairs but which will lose that right if they happen to be in an authority where most schools vote not to become self-managing. It is not inconceivable that that will continue to be the case. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, rightly said earlier that even when schools were completely free to opt to become grant maintained, many considered that option positively and then quite positively decided that they wished to remain within the bosom of the LEA. It is also conceivable that the economy of scale argument will be used persuasively by LEAs.
I return to the example of the Oratory School which is in an authority where 80 per cent. of the schools could easily vote to stay with the LEA. The Oratory School has proven beyond any doubt that it is able to manage its own affairs, but it may not be allowed to do so. That could happen in any other authority.
Grant-maintained schools have now become accustomed to running their own affairs. What will happen to schools in the foundation school category which, over time, build up expertise and are successful at, and philosophically enjoy, managing their own affairs? Eighty per cent. of schools in an authority may create a block of economically viable schools for which the LEA is to run the services. But are they then to deny the other 20 per cent. their right to be self-managing for no better reason than saying, "If the LEA controls 80 per cent., it might as well control 100 per cent.?"
The amendment is now crucial. My understanding is that grant-maintained schools have enjoyed self-governing status. I believe that one of the reasons they have gone along with what the Government have been saying about foundation schools—I think that they are wrong; I do not think that they should have been quite so trusting—is that they believed that at least they would continue to be self-governing, but under the foundation school system. There is now a proposition that if 80 per cent. of schools decide that they would like to remain with the LEA, all schools would have to be subject to central provision from the LEA. I know that that is still a proposition and that the paper is out for consultation, but I think that it is now a point of principle that we must establish the right of every maintained school to continue to determine its own affairs. I am not speaking only about grant-maintained schools. I use grant-maintained schools as an example simply because they have visibly proven their worth at running and managing their own affairs. Any school in the maintained sector which opts to have a delegated budget and makes a success of it should continue to enjoy the right to run its own affairs.
If that cannot be guaranteed by the Government, we must question many of the things that have been said to the grant-maintained sector. The Government have said, "Don't worry; under the foundation school system you will continue to enjoy delegated functions and the system of self-governing at which you have been so successful." However, we now know that the Government are also saying, "That is subject to the other schools in your authority not opting for self-governing status".
The current system is voluntary. Any school in the land may opt to become grant maintained. By the next stage of the Bill I shall have done the arithmetic, but in many local authorities 80 per cent. of schools are still with the LEA. If they have already chosen positively not to have a full delegated budget, it is conceivable that they will continue to do that. They may wish to continue to stay with the LEA because they are completely satisfied with the LEA's provision. That will continue because nothing in the Bill forces schools down the road of self-regulation. That is why I believe that grant-maintained schools are at much more risk than has hitherto been judged to be the case.
I hope that tonight the Government will respond positively and give every school the right to receive, and to have full control over, its full share of the budget. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: This amendment appears to be directed at the question of how under the new system LEAs conduct their relationship with all schools. I believe that it is a fairly broad brush amendment. I am not clear from the comments of the noble Baroness whether it is intended to be quite as broad brush as it appears. The noble Baroness dealt primarily with the situation of existing grant-maintained schools. Clearly, there is a serious difference of strategy and opinion here. The whole point of the new funding arrangements is that we wish to bring the current grant-maintained schools back into the overall umbrella of local education authorities

527
while delegating budgets to all schools in a new relationship with LEAs with maximum funding ability in relation to all schools.
As to the 80 per cent. ballot, we are consulting. It is not intended to be an indiscriminate, across-the-board provision. We shall consider very carefully which services of the local authority are to be covered by it. We want all schools to be in a different relationship with the local education authority with the delegated financial arrangements that flow from that.
Baroness Blatch: The Government are not delegating money to all schools but making it available to them. Schools can opt for self-government or pass the money back to the local authority to continue to run the schools. Unless the noble Lord is putting forward a new policy on the hoof, nothing in this Bill does anything other than allow money to be devolved down to schools, with a good deal of encouraging rhetoric from the Government. The Government would like to see greater delegation to schools, as would I and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and his noble friends. The noble Lord is wrong in what he said. If, when the requisite number of schools vote to have their services provided by the LEA—the percentage may be 70, 80, 90 or some other figure—a school that is presently self-governing will lose control over its central finances.
Lord Skidelsky: I support my noble friend. Why should schools in an LEA wanting to remain self-managed be compelled to surrender that right because 70 or 80 per cent. want them to do so? The noble Baroness the Minister says that this is democratic. That appears to be the basis of the argument. I do not believe that democracies have any right to compel minorities to surrender liberties unless the exercise of those liberties injures the interests of those minorities. If 80 per cent. of people vote to pay taxes clearly the majority has the right to compel the minority because the 20 per cent. cannot be excluded from the benefits that are provided by the taxes. That is a very clear philosophical argument as to why the majority should prevail. What is the argument in this case? If 80 per cent. agree, why should 20 per cent. be brought into the system? I do not believe that that is democratic; rather, it is illiberal.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: To revert to the point raised by the noble Baroness, we are delegating budgets to all schools. We seek to introduce a regime that will apply broadly to all schools. In many situations former grant-maintained schools may wish to continue to provide internally services that would still be provided centrally by the local authority. Some schools will wish to buy into them and others will not. The 80 per cent. simply refers to the fact that in a very limited number of cases it will not be sensible for particular services to be provided unless 100 per cent. of the schools do so. We are talking about limited services, not local authorities controlling everything that grant-maintained schools previously controlled. If the vast majority of schools wish to buy back into a limited service in certain
528
circumstances it will be sensible for all schools to do so. But we do not envisage that to be a broad-ranging power across services or areas.
Lord Skidelsky: Can the noble Lord give an example of the services he has in mind which have to be provided either to all schools or none at all?
Lord Whitty: We have had a lengthy debate about transport. It could be that there was a transport system run by a local authority and it was judged that that could not be provided centrally unless all schools bought into it. That is a hypothetical example, and there may well be others. If the noble Lord wishes, I shall ask for advice on what other services may be considered in these circumstances. I envisage that in certain small education authorities library services may be part of it. There may be a number of services that are not viable unless all schools buy into them. I believe that it is only in those circumstances that the 80 per cent. provision is intended to apply. However, we are still consulting on the whole area.
However, the general proposition—that is what I believed was addressed by this amendment until the noble Baroness spoke about the 80 per cent.—is that there will be delegated budgets for all schools, both ex-GM schools and ex-local authority schools, and control over those budgets by the local education authority will be as limited as possible. However, the amendment as drafted appears to be designed to deny LEAs the basic right to put in place safeguards over the deployment of those budgets or to do away with the right of LEAs to suspend delegation for mismanagement in certain circumstances under Clause 50 and Schedule 15. If the amendment is as wide ranging a prohibition as that, the Government certainly cannot accept it. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that and on reflection withdraw her amendment. She may wish to consider alternative wording at a later stage. If the noble Baroness intends to achieve a more limited objective we are prepared to look further at that and consider the possibility of a more modest amendment at a later stage. The amendment as drafted appears to impose a very drastic limitation on the powers of LEAs.
I appreciate that there is some anxiety in parts of the former GM sector as to the balance between local authority control and their own delegated powers in future. We do not want the return of GM schools to the local authority sector to involve the re-imposition of unnecessary controls. But in the new circumstances there must be a degree of accountability, just as there was a degree of accountability for the management of the budgets of GM schools under the rules and procedures of the Funding Agency for Schools.
Inevitably, there will need to be changes in the way in which accountability operates. Because of the statutory responsibilities of local authority chief finance officers under the Local Government Act, LEAs will require a degree of flexibility to decide on such matters as accounting and audit requirements. We intend that they should be reasonable and clear to the schools when operating delegated budgets. We are considering how the best features of the package used in the GM sector—

529
the rainbow pack system—can be transferred not only to ex-GM schools but across the board to local education authority schemes.
I believe that that provides some reassurance that local education authorities do not intend to be heavy handed in their exercise of what ultimately must be their accountability for the schools budget. Our aim is a light touch regime supported by no more restrictions than are properly necessary. We must safeguard propriety and accountability. We must ensure that LEAs are not exposed to unfair risks on their own resources and assets.
Action or inaction by a governing body could leave an LEA with a liability to pick up. LEAs are entitled to protection from that. We want to confine all this to cases where LEAs are genuinely at risk. That is the philosophy behind this proposal. We cannot accept the amendment as drafted because it appears to remove even that light-touch control that we envisage for LEAs under the new regime.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Before the noble Lord sits down, he returned briefly to the subject of transport. Perhaps I may make a point that I should have made earlier. I speak here on behalf of my Roman Catholic colleagues. Many Roman Catholic schools have a considerable number of pupils requiring transport. Were there any thought of transferring that aspect of the budget from LEAs to schools, it would raise huge problems for some of those schools. If there is the slightest thought that that might be a possibility, the Catholic Education Service should be consulted.
Lord Whitty: I take that point. Part of the consultation will no doubt yield the concerns of the Roman Catholic schools about that prospect.
Baroness Blatch: I am deeply depressed by the noble Lord's answer on that. I say to the right reverend Prelate that I do not wish to cut across that issue, because my understanding is that at the moment the Government presume in favour of schools' transport money remaining with the local authority. I am talking about those funds that the Government themselves envisage transferring to the budgets of schools. They are then giving schools the option to purchase from wherever, including local authorities.
The noble Lord gave some examples. I have read the words on the page. There will be some services about which the local authority will say, "If we are only left with a rump of schools to provide for, we regard it as uneconomic to provide the service". Therefore they may take a vote in the primary and/or secondary sector to get an economically viable unit. If they achieve their 80 per cent., they will have an opportunity to take back that service. The answer I received to my first question from the noble Baroness was that that would mean that 100 per cent. of the schools would have to do it.
The noble Lord has not said that the subjects for delegation will be limited to prescribed areas. That is new. It is not in the paper. The paragraph preceding the paragraph that mentions the 80 per cent. merely says
530
that some LEAs have argued that without a minimum level of buy-in from schools—it is claimed that this level is sometimes at a high percentage for economic reasons—they cannot afford to run any service for any school. While the Government do not wish to preside over any control by the majority, they also wish to avoid the actions of a minority, preventing those schools from having what they want. In other words if most schools—that is, 80 per cent. is the suggestion—want a particular service from the LEA, the view is that all schools shall have it.
I did not mean by my amendment that schools which fail in self-management should continue to have full control over their budgets. There are measures in the Bill which override that anyway. There are provisions in the Bill which allow special measures to be taken where a school fails in its self-management duties. I wish that to remain because, whether or not they have delegation, that is important.
The Minister is now saying—this is important for the schools which are listening to the debate or which will be reading it—that a grant-maintained school and/or a foundation school, or even a community school, in the future, may opt for self-management. In other words, it opts to keep all its central funds to purchase services. If there is a vote on any particular service—the noble Lord mentioned two, but, as I say, there is no definition—in a primary and/or a secondary sector and 80 per cent., or whatever the required percentage is, votes to have the service provided by the LEA, those schools will lose that degree of delegation. If that is what he is saying, there will be deep consternation about that outside this Chamber. I ask the noble Lord to answer me on that point.
Lord Whitty: I thought that I had said earlier that the areas to which the 80 per cent. suggestion would apply would be limited and not indiscriminate. It would not be down to individual local authorities to decide which areas could be subject to that. The Government could prescribe which areas would be subject to the voting procedure. The LEA would not be able to decide for itself.
There is some misunderstanding here. When we started, the presumption seemed to be that we were talking about buying back into all centrally-provided local authority services, and that the 80 per cent. provision would relate to that. In fact, we do not envisage a large number of services being subject to that provision. We are still consulting as to whether we need the provision at all. It does not affect the vast bulk of the new financing arrangements.
The noble Baroness is starting fears in former GM schools, and possibly elsewhere, that they will be overridden in areas to which it would be extremely unlikely that this would apply. If the noble Baroness wishes to consider the amendment as it stands—it is a broader amendment—she will no doubt come back to it. There will be other parts of the Bill to which the voting procedure would be more appropriately applied. It is not our intention to override the minority of schools in the

531
vast majority of cases. When we say "delegation", we mean delegation. When we say a light hand from the LEA, we mean that.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord totally misinterprets me. He has done it every time he has returned to the Dispatch Box on this point. I am not talking about the whole package of delegation. There will be services within delegation for which the local authority may take a view that it needs 80 per cent. of the schools or it cannot cope. I give another example. The schools in a local authority, especially a relatively small local authority, may decide that they want to have payroll services from the local authority. The local authority may say, "Of course we will provide payroll services, but unless we get a certain percentage of schools in this area to agree it, we cannot provide them".
That then becomes an issue for this majority voting. The noble Lord is making policy on the hoof. He is now suggesting that it applies to one or two subjects only. Is it one or two? Which are they? These are only down here as examples. I have given another example. There may be many more examples of where a percentage of schools wants a service from the local authority. There may be some schools—I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is right—that will want the local authority to continue to provide all their services. They do now, and they may want that to continue in the future.
In future, local authorities will have to turn round and say to them, "We need an economically viable number of schools". That will trigger a ballot in the primary or the secondary sector. If the noble Lord is saying that we are going to discount certain elements of delegation, fine, let us have what they are. They are not in the consultation document. The noble Lord has not given me a straight answer. Is the noble Lord saying that if a school enjoys a level of delegation, and a vote takes place on any aspect of delegation, and the vote reaches the required percentage—whatever that may be—all schools will lose their right to have control over that particular service?
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness referred earlier to paragraph 59 of the consultation paper, where all this is set out. It describes that the Government would welcome views on that issue, in particular the 80 per cent.—as we are calling it—formula in relation to particular services. We do not prescribe the services there. The noble Baroness is correct. We do not prescribe them for the very good reason that we are consulting as to whether schools and LEAs think that this provision should apply to certain services.
However, at the end of that consultation, such services will become subject to majority voting only if the Government prescribe them. We will not prescribe them unless the result of the consultation is that there is widespread support for some services to be treated in that manner. I cannot go further than that in describing the services to which it would apply, except by example.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I know that it is a consultation paper. I have said it endlessly over the course of the afternoon. I know that the consultation does not finish until towards the end of July. If the Bill is passed, it will have had Royal Assent by then. Under the proposals, I wish to encode on the face of the Bill the right of a school which has enjoyed self government not to have that right of self government taken away from it. I do not know what the Government have to fear. The local authority may require 60 per cent., 70 per cent. or 80 per cent., and receives that percentage. The local authority has its viable number. What is the problem in allowing the other 40 per cent., 30 per cent. or 20 per cent. to be self governing?
The Government have nothing to lose. Those schools which opt for self control have it; and those schools which opt for self government have it. Those self governing schools which have enjoyed their freedom for so long will come into a sector where all the promises made to them in the back room will seem empty.
The noble Lord puts much store on the "light touch authorities". "Light touch authorities" is an exhortation. There is no breach for being medium or heavy touch other than promising legislation in the future. I know that the Government, rightly, have an antipathy to local authorities' packaging; I agree with them. If a local authority genuinely believes it needs an economically viable number, and puts to the vote any one single service, or a selection of services, the schools lose their autonomy. I am fighting for the right of the schools to keep their autonomy.
Lord Whitty: I do not think that the noble Baroness's amendment achieves the objective she states. There is a clear non-meeting of minds on this. The noble Baroness does not want to wait until the end of the consultation period. She does not accept that even in the most acute circumstances the substantial democratic majority of schools in the area should decide the issue. She does not accept the central provision of the changes. We are not concerned simply with those schools which were GM schools. We want a regime which applies to all schools. The Opposition have never accepted that. That is reflected in the contributions from the noble Baroness to the debate on the amendment.
In addition, the noble Baroness is hoping that we shall take a decision which will pre-empt the outcome of consultation. I do not think the amendment achieves what the noble Baroness intends. It could have a damaging effect on the new framework which I do not think she intends. Nevertheless at the end of the day it is clear that the Opposition have not accepted that the new framework will attempt to treat all schools equally. Schools will come from different backgrounds. They will take clearly different decisions as to how they will conduct their budgets, the degree of delegation and the buying back of services that they want.

533
That level playing field does not seem to be accepted by the Opposition. That is a central problem on the Bill. However, the amendment does not do what the noble Baroness wishes. Perhaps she will see fit to withdraw it.
Baroness Blatch: I shall not withdraw the amendment at this moment. The noble Lord continues to misinterpret me. I am becoming quite cross about that. The noble Lord said that we do not agree that schools should be treated equally. We do agree with that. We agree that all schools which presently do not enjoy self government should have the opportunity to become self governing. We agree with delegation; we agree with further delegation; we agree with the further development of delegation. We have had arguments about what is meant by 100 per cent. delegation. That is history. We shall wait to see what happens in practice.
The noble Lord says that I do not accept the democratic majority. I accept the democratic majority. I argued for accepting the democratic majority. If 80 per cent., 70 per cent. or 60 per cent. (whatever is the required percentage of people) vote, and it is economically viable for the local authority to provide one or more services for that unit, I accept that and believe it to be right. What I do not accept is that that majority should drag the other 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. with them. If it is an economically viable unit for the local authority, why does one need the others? It is pure administrative tidiness. What is wrong with having your cake and eating it? What is wrong with allowing the schools which want an LEA service to get it from the local authority, and those which want self government to have it? I simply fight for the right of a school which enjoys self government, and has proved itself able and skilled in managing its own affairs, not to be dragged into a situation which it does not want.
I remind the noble Lord that in the grant-maintained schools the parents voted for self government. The 80 per cent. of other schools would take that facility away. It seems absurd. The noble Lord continues to misinterpret me. The democratic majority can have its way. I fight now for a minority. I refer to allowing community and foundation schools to enjoy the same delegation, and the same level of financial management which has been enjoyed until now by grant-maintained schools. I accept what the noble Baroness says: that there will be no diminution in the level of delegation for grant-maintained schools; and that all other schools will be brought up to the level of GM delegation. I accept that and think it right. I accept the transparency. I accept much of what is written in the paper, although I have argued about the mechanics of delivery. I find it extraordinary that the Government set their face against an individual school having the right to control its own budget.
My amendment is not flawed. It achieves the right for an individual school to have control over its own budget. If the Government are prepared to accept that, I shall
534
bring forward an amendment to ensure that if any school fails, it shall be subject to the special measures that are set out in the Bill, which we support.
Lord Whitty: I do not think that we should carry on this ding-dong much longer. Clearly the noble Baroness has misunderstood me. She claims that I have misunderstood her.
In the vast majority of cases, we are proposing that schools will be able to do exactly as she proposes and decide whether or not they buy back into local authority services. However, the noble Baroness keeps going back to special treatment for GM schools, which we do not accept. Paragraph 59 relates to a very limited area of schools. It in no sense destroys the principle of delegation. It in no sense destroys the principle that we are giving delegated powers to all schools, whatever their previous capacity. The noble Baroness is making a mountain out of a molehill on an area which will be limited in effect even if the consultation process yields a positive result. Therefore it would be extremely misleading for her to take through such a draconian measure and one which she admits would require substantial amendment in order to meet the problems I have outlined.
Baroness Blatch: I shall test the opinion of the Committee. My amendment is modest. It simply asks that each school shall be given the right to control its budget once it has been given to it. I rise to protect the minority when an economically viable number of schools have voted to have LEA services. I seek to protect the position of those schools. The end of the consultation process will be too late. If the Government hedge now because they cannot go along with the amendment, I am deeply suspicious that they do not intend to agree with the amendment after 30th July. Therefore I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
7.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 161A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 61.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Baker of Dorking, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Blatch, B.

Northesk, E.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rennell, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Skidelsky, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Vivian, L.

Jopling, L.

Young, B.

Lucas, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Berkeley, L.

Addington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Borrie, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

535

Carlisle, E.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Chandos, V.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

David, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Desai, L.

McNair, L.

Dixon, L.

Maddock, B.

Dubs, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Molloy, L.

Ezra, L.

Monkswell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gallacher, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gilbert, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Grenfell, L.

Simon, V.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hardie, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Tope, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Haskel, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Whitty, L.

Hoyle, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Haskel: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Energy Policy
7.48 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made in the formulation of an energy policy.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have waited until this late hour to take part in the debate. However, it is earlier than it would have been had we tried to debate it on the previous occasion that was scheduled when we gave up at about midnight.
The purpose of the Question is to ask the Government when they propose to introduce a co-ordinated energy policy. It is a matter on which they spoke many times when in opposition. They are in the process of carrying through a number of important reviews. The issue is whether there should be a general policy within which current and future reviews will be carried out rather than wait until various aspects of energy policy are dealt with and then try to bring them together. That issue is implicit in my Question.
The studies which are under way or have been completed include the utilities regulation report, which touches on this subject. The inquiry into energy sourcing and power stations is reported to be near completion. There is the climate change programme, the inquiry into
536
the electricity pool, and the review of renewables policy. There may be others to which the noble Lord will wish to refer.
I should have thought that by now the elements of an overall energy policy are becoming clear and that there should be no further delay in introducing one. In my opinion, there would be four dimensions in such a policy; the competitive dimension, the social dimension, the security dimension and the environmental dimension. The skill will be in reconciling those various aspects because they will not necessarily be compatible.
We start with competition, which is acknowledged to be the basis of energy policy at present. Indeed, we in Britain have led the way. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who, I am glad to see, will be taking part in the debate, was very much involved in that process. The policies now being applied here in energy are being taken up progressively within the European Union with the recently announced electricity and gas directives.
However, competition cannot solve all the problems in the energy sector, as indeed the recently published document on the regulation of the utilities made clear. For example, there is the case of the networks—whether it be wires or pipes—which must be subject to regulation because they are operated by monopolies. But there is also the social factor to be considered. That came out clearly in the report on regulation.
I was disturbed to read in an article in the Financial Times of 28th February that the opening up of the electricity and gas markets has led to a degree of mis-selling and to the misleading of potential consumers; indeed, some quite serious cases were mentioned. That sort of mis-selling, which, unfortunately, we have had in the pension sector and in other financial sectors, now seems to be spreading. Therefore, some regulation in that respect will be required.
However, the social aspect of energy policy goes deeper than that, especially as regards people who are disadvantaged. They have to be specially cared for. It is a sad fact that there are still many homes in this country inhabited by people on low incomes, especially the elderly, which are inadequately heated because they were built a long time ago and their owners do not have the necessary resources for improvement.
The home energy efficiency scheme, which was set up to cater for that social need, has gone a long way towards doing so. Unfortunately, its resources were cut by 30 per cent. by the previous government and it is now a question of whether the present Government, who opposed that cut, will restore it. In addition, there is the approach that my noble friend Lady Maddock introduced with the Home Energy Conservation Act, which has stimulated local authorities to do much to improve energy efficiency particularly for the benefit of those on low incomes.
In turn, that leads me to the question of security of supply. While there is no shortage of energy at the present time and prices are relatively low, nevertheless, those of us who have been in the energy business all know that the situation can change very rapidly. It is an important element of energy policy that there should be

537
some degree of security. That is where the present review affecting the coal industry comes into the picture. I hope that the Government will propose a solution which will enable coal not only, in the short term, to face up to the present difficulties but also, in the longer term, to continue to be a major source of supply in this country so as to provide an element of security.
However, if that is to be done it is important that there should be further developments in the application of clean-coal technology. Unless coal can be used in ways which are acceptable from the environmental point of view, it will not be possible to see a long-term role for coal. That leads me to the environmental aspect to which I referred—namely, the fourth aspect of the problem—which will need very positive action on the part of the Government.
We have a market situation which is not in the least encouraging people to save energy. If it is considered that the climate change problem is a serious one, then positive action must be taken. Let us hope that that will emerge from the review currently being undertaken. There will be need not only for legislation; resources will also be required. The issue of a levy on gas and electricity must be seriously considered. There was a gas levy at one time which raised substantial resources for energy efficiency schemes. But it was discontinued. I hope very much that it will be looked at again; otherwise, the necessary resources will not be available to carry out the sort of improvements that are required. Such levies can be relatively small and will not seriously affect electricity and gas bills.
Further, there needs to be a degree of local action in such matters. This is where my noble friend's Act comes into the picture. I am involved in an initiative which is trying, on a local level, to achieve the sort of energy savings which the Government have in mind nationally. It is based in Nottingham. We have formed the Nottingham Energy Partnership, which I am glad to say the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will be publicly launching before long. It aims to activate all users—that is, domestic, commercial, industrial and transport—towards achieving energy savings.
I feel that the time has come for the Government to put together various strands of policy. They are becoming very clear and the issues are pretty obvious. As I said at the beginning, the skill will be in bringing them together to make a coherent whole.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for initiating this debate. Indeed, as we all know, he brings experience and knowledge to these matters in a very high degree. I do not wish—and the rules of the House will not allow me to do so—to speak at great length. Some of the points that I make may have been made before. Nevertheless, I believe that they are of such significance as to merit reiteration.
The major points that I should like to make are as follows, and my noble friend will probably be as aware of them as I am. The cost of producing coal in the UK
538
is one-third of the cost of producing it in Germany and one-quarter of the cost of producing it in France and Spain. The costs of producing coal in Britain fell by 18 per cent. during the past two or three years. That was the result of investment approaching £1 billion. Our achievement has been well and harshly bought. Therefore, it would be foolish for that investment to be wiped out.
The industry provides 50,000 jobs in Britain and, most importantly, sustains a major export-earning capacity and a capacity to export earnings which the world may well need very much in the next century. Moreover, we have the largest coal reserves in Europe and have already locked away far too much. In a previous debate, I referred to a colliery in my constituency which the noble Lord knows well; namely, Silverwood colliery. It was one of the 30 collieries which Mr. Heseltine saved—indeed, one of the collieries with "a long future". The neighbouring colliery of Kilnhurst had been closed and its reserves were added to those of Silverwood. Nevertheless, Silverwood was still closed. The closure of such collieries—and there have been many of them—creates enormous economic, environmental and social problems. Therefore, for us to embark upon a policy of inflicting mass local unemployment to no long-term national good would not be very sensible.
The costs of production are interesting, but the cost of electricity burnt by the various fuels is also very significant. For example, the price of UK deep-mined coal has fallen by half in real terms in recent years. The price of electricity has fallen by 20 per cent. The comparison is important. The price of coal has halved and the price of electricity has fallen by one-fifth. I cannot understand the reaction of the stock market which appears to anticipate an announcement by Her Majesty's Government which may be helpful to coal. I believe it would be helpful to the electricity consumer too.
We must bear in mind that the cost of electricity from coal-fired stations is 1.5p per kilowatt hour. The cost of nuclear power is double that. The cost of electricity from the older gas-fired stations is 3.2p per kilowatt hour—a great deal more expensive than that from the coal-fired stations. The newer gas-fired stations produce cheaper electricity, but even so it is 50 per cent. higher than the cost of coal-fired generation. Should we therefore seek to burn gas with feckless abandon, particularly when we should understand that gas reserves, proved and potential, are by no means sufficient to give great confidence that the supply of gas at reasonable prices will last for the lifetime of the gas-fired stations?
We must understand also that there are already pressures to treat with derision the Monopoly and Merger Commission's identified need for 10.5 gigawatt gas capacity—that is 17 per cent. of our total energy requirements—by the year 2001. We already have 12 gigawatt gas capacity at present. I know that the emission problem is serious. However, the United Kingdom ought to understand that it is already more than fulfilling the second sulphur protocol. To go further may well be unwise and could add £200 million to the cost of electricity and would ignore the evidence of the

539
CBI which called for the removal of distortions which favour a particular energy source and prevent the establishment of the level playing field which is all that the coal industry has asked for for a long time.
We must understand that we need to burn coal cleanly. If we opt out of the coal industry that will not necessarily help the environmental cause. If we stop producing coal, India, China and other countries with vast reserves will continue to mine it and burn it. They will not have the advantage which we could gain of a return to clean coal technology, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was eager to sustain during his time at the National Coal Board.
Not long ago I attended a meeting where I was told there would be no coal in future and that we would have to rely on gas, nuclear and renewables. Renewables have a major role to play. Only this week a Question was asked in the House about coppicing. A field close to my home which was coppiced had previously sustained overwintering sheep.
I shall finish shortly as I know my noble friend would not wish me to trespass upon the patience of the House. Nuclear energy has a role to play but we need to ensure that in future the nuclear industry will not seek markets and seek public support on the basis of grossly inaccurate financial calculations and a rather dismissive attitude to the environmental problems which are associated with that industry. Coal can be burnt and it is in the nation's interest to do so. It is in the world's interest that it should be burnt cleanly.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the previous time I addressed your Lordships on matters relating to energy was on 20th October 1992. It was a time of great concern for the British coal industry.
I took the opportunity of that debate to set out the then Government's energy objectives. I should like to quote today what I said then.
"It is the Government's energy policy to achieve, through promoting competition and developing competitive markets: secure energy supplies at the lowest possible prices; diversity of supply and in decision making; meeting the customer's needs with maximum efficiency; and maximising the economic exploitation of the UK's energy resources, while at the same time meeting the growing requirements of environmental policy".—[Official Report, 20/10/92: cols. 669 and 670.]
I think that this was the right policy then, and I think it is the right policy now.
I declare an interest in energy matters as I am a Director of the Enron Corporation of Houston—the largest natural gas company in the world—which has significant operations across the globe, including in the UK and the rest of Europe.
As I said, I stand by the statement I made on behalf of the then government back in October 1992. However, things have clearly moved on since then and this short debate—for which we are much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—is therefore most opportune.
At the time of the 1992 debate, the big question was what size the coal industry would become in a competitive environment. It was inevitably going to be
540
smaller, but in my judgment there would always be a market for coal-fired generation. Six years on, we face the same question. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Government as they seek to answer it. However, if they try to tackle the problem by non-competitive, interventionist means, they will do great damage, not just to the energy industries, but to the wider credibility of the Government on economic matters. It is simply not necessary to do so.
It is in my judgment possible to help the coal industry substantially and to do so by using the market rather than restricting competition, as is rumoured. The key to the problem is the mothballed fossil fuel generators. The effect of their being mothballed is to restrict competition. They should therefore be brought back into use, but only as free-standing competitive forces and not as part of the portfolio of the major generators who dominate the pool. As free-standing generators—operating at their written down value—these stations would be able to generate electricity efficiently and at comparable prices with electricity generated from gas.
The effect of these stations re-entering the market would be that we would use significantly more coal for a number of years, increase competition in the pool and reduce the use of gas—because only the most economical gas projects would go ahead. The alternative to this—artificially to restrict the development of a competitive market by continuing the moratorium on gas-fired generation—would be to keep electricity prices artificially high; to protect the existing dominance of a few players in the market and to reduce competition accordingly; to destroy many construction industry jobs and a great deal of inward investment; and certainly to damage seriously the confidence of overseas investors in the United Kingdom.
Why do it? It is simply not necessary because there are many ways in which the output of the mothballed generators can be sold competitively into the marketplace. I therefore urge the Government not to take a massive, anti-competitive step in the wrong direction, and one which would, in any case, not deliver the result they want.
I have heard it said that there is only one show in town. That is simply not so. There are several solutions, all of which would use more coal and at the same time protect the consumer from unnecessary price rises.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing this debate. I believe that a national energy policy is an imperative at this time. As the noble Lord said, the different elements are all there. It is a matter of pulling them together and producing a reasoned, balanced policy. I hope that that will not be a party political matter because the policy should cover several decades and be periodically updated.
I listened with care to the noble Lord's coverage of the elements in the national policy. I approve of them. The noble Lord explained them well. I shall not cover that ground and waste time.

541
I listened with interest to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, in relation to coal. I agree with most of what he said. We must not forget coal. It will be needed before the end of the next century. We must continue with research into burning coal cleanly. As the noble Lord said, that could be of help not only to this country but to the world; it is an important factor in reducing emissions throughout the world.
I am sure that this policy, when it is put together, will take account of the undertaking at the recent Kyoto conference to reduce CO2 emissions by 20 per cent. over the next 11 or 12 years. That is the subject of my remarks. I wish to suggest ways in which a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions can be made relatively quickly. I believe that such measures must be incorporated into national policy when it is formulated.
Thirty per cent. of all energy used in the UK is in the domestic field; 23 per cent. is used by industry, offices, public buildings, schools, hospitals and so on. A high proportion goes in heating. Here I must declare an interest. The company of which I am chairman manufactures insulation for buildings, offers insulation products designed to solve particular problems, and promotes building systems which have low energy costs.
Generally speaking, the heating of buildings in the UK is very energy wasteful. Building regulations have included a Part L which sets a requirement for insulation and has done so for 40 or 50 years. However, the standards set in the past were the lowest in Europe. That is partly because energy was cheap and seemingly inexhaustible, and partly because as a nation we were slow to appreciate comfort conditions in the home. Not long ago, if you felt cold, you put on an extra jersey. But we are now catching up. We are trying to heat old homes which were not designed to be heated and wasting perhaps 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the energy in attempting to warm up the countryside.
The current building regulations are, in theory, almost up to European standards. Unfortunately, new houses built to that standard use at least 25 per cent. more energy than the theoretical energy cost. That has been going on for many years without ringing any alarm bells. I believe that it will be relatively easy to reduce the energy requirement for new homes by 25 per cent. initially, and later by 50 per cent., and that, combined with a resolute programme to raise the standard of insulation in our existing housing stock, will substantially reduce CO2 emissions.
Three factors account for most of the additional energy requirement. The first is air leakage. There is no standard for air tightness in the regulations. Most houses are like sieves. Secondly, the regulations do not take proper account of the effect of cold bridging, which reduces the effect of insulation. Thirdly, poor construction standards are widespread in the building industry. Those defects can be verified at any time by tests for air tightness and infra-red photography.
To indicate the scale of the energy losses, I quote from figures recorded for houses constructed in the West Midlands for the same housing association. Four houses
542
were built to a system developed by my company and were compared with three new brick and block houses built close by with similar floor areas, all with all-electric heating, hot water and ventilation systems. The national energy ratings were similar. The running costs were monitored by Midland Electricity. The average total energy cost in 1995 for the four system-built houses was £37 per month; for the brick and block houses, it was £69 per month. The annual savings were £384 per house, or 46 per cent. I emphasise that the houses were built to the same energy rating and should have had similar heating costs. It is most likely that the reasons for the difference in cost were air leakage and cold bridging.
My view is that revised Part L building regulations should be put into operation quickly to meet the problems I have mentioned. That will reduce carbon emissions by dwellings built to such standard by a minimum of 25 per cent. In addition, the new regulations should become effective on the date announced. At present, housing developers rush through planning approvals under existing regulations whenever new regulations are threatened, and there is a delay of one or possibly two years before new regulations become effective.
But that is only a start in terms of what can be achieved. Houses are being built today by people who are interested in energy saving, with an energy requirement that is down to 50 per cent. less than the theoretical figure for current regulations. It is being shown that such houses can be built at little increase in cost. I sincerely hope the Government will appreciate what is achievable and will propose a radical upward step change for homes and public buildings, perhaps giving three or four years' notice in order to allow the construction industry time to develop building methods to meet future demand.
I have gone into this matter in some detail and there is no time for me to go further. However, I hope that the policy will include a proper reform of the building regulations.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, energy policy impacts highly on the environment, as has already been stated. Climate change is undoubtedly happening. The estimated cost of climate-induced severe weather events in 1996 was 50 billion dollars' worth of damage. We set targets in 1992 for the industrialised world which we have failed to reach; we have exceeded them by 10 per cent. and that percentage is rising by 1 per cent. a year. We have now set more stringent targets at Kyoto, and the UK Government have a commitment to an even higher target than the protocol for CO2 emissions. Therefore the challenge must be to cut drastically the use of fossil fuels.
I wish to examine two areas: first, energy use and, secondly, energy sources. Many speakers have referred to the potential for demand management in energy efficiency. The Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme and the Energy Savings Trust, between them, have estimated potential CO2 reductions in the

543
industry and services sectors of 30 per cent. and in the household sector of 25 per cent., with the potential for reductions being even greater if we embrace leading-edge technologies. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister tonight as to what action the Government intend to take in a range of areas to promote energy efficiency and demand management, including a regulation for energy efficiency standards, advice to households and industry and energy services packages being promoted by the regulatory system to produce warm homes for fuel-poor people. Energy efficiency capital funding schemes such as the Energy Savings Trust and Neighbourhood Energy Action can give assistance to fuel-poor families possibly funded through energy generation efforts. The need for the Government to promote research and development into energy efficient technologies continues. I hope that we shall see Sir Colin Marshall pressing forward very quickly with his initiative on industrial energy, and that we shall see either a tax or tradeable permits, but certainly something by way of economic instrument very soon.
I now turn to energy sources. We have seen the dash for gas, which helped with CO2 reduction and a reduction in other pollutants. However, there must be a question about long-term sustainability. Nuclear power is unviable on economic and long-term safety grounds.
Several speakers have referred to cleaner coal technologies. Those technologies do help in relation to sulphur and Nox, but they do not contribute much in terms of CO2 reduction. In particular, open-cast mining is damaging in terms of its impact on biodiversity and habitats. I welcome the proposed tightening of the minerals planning guidance for open-cast mining.
We must take a major step forward in our use of renewables. We are currently at a pathetic 2 per cent. of energy generation from renewable sources. The Government have set a target of 10 per cent. by 2010, which, in terms of the available technology, is quite modest. I welcome the extension of the non-fossil fuel obligation, but we need more. I welcome the fact that companies of the size of Shell and BP are now entering into areas such as off-shore wind, biomass and solar energy, but we need more. We are behind in the renewables development race. There are huge world markets out there, particularly in off-shore wind technology, for example, where the US and the Germans are the biggest players. The Dutch, the Danes and the Swedes are rapidly catching up, but we are nowhere as yet. In solar energy the Japanese are developing a massive world market.
One note of caution has to be sounded on the issue of renewables with regard to the potential environmental damage that some of those technologies can create. A sensible environmental assessment and a careful siting of many of these technologies can remove these environmental downsides. I look forward to the outcome of the government review on energy sources for power generation.
Perhaps I may mention again some of the wider economic issues surrounding the question of energy policy and its impact on the wider economy. We are in
544
a transitional position in which we are no longer able to be dependent on some of the old technologies because of their overwhelming environmentally damaging impact. We need to manage that transition. We need to see jobs in fossil fuel industries decrease and jobs in sustainable energy technology industries increase. I believe that the support to the coal industry must be transitional because of coal's environmental impact. Energy for Sustainable Development has calculated that, in the face of the 20 per cent. CO2 reduction target, there would be room for a modest coal market—perhaps 13 per cent. or so of our energy output as opposed to over 40 per cent. which it currently represents. If we have to make major reductions beyond 20 per cent. in CO2 emissions, which I believe we shall have to do rapidly after 2010, there will probably not be a place for coal, with its carbon dioxide emissions. We need to see proper support for the coal industry in a transitional mode, but we cannot see coal continue if we are to deal with climate change, which is probably one of the most overwhelming threats the world has ever faced.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, I wish to speak briefly in the gap. When he introduced the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned four aspects, on which the debate has concentrated: the element of competition; the social requirements of an energy policy; the security requirements of a diverse supply of energy; and the environmental requirements, to which a number of noble Lords have referred in the course of the debate.
I wish to raise a fifth aspect: the importance of Europe, and in particular of eastern Europe. Eastern Europe already provides a huge supply of energy into western Europe. The energy tends to be very cheap; and it tends to be a very dirty source of energy. The purpose of my intervention is to ask a question of my noble friend the Minister, although I know that it will probably be impossible to answer. How is this very dominant supply of energy from eastern Europe to be incorporated into a UK energy policy and a western European energy policy? It seems to me that the cheapness and dirtiness of this energy will be a very dominant factor in the way we form our own national energy policy.
8.24 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, it is clear that all noble Lords who have stayed behind tonight care deeply about the issue of a proper energy policy for this country. The debate has ranged over the importance of the coal industry, what has happened to it and how we can deal with it in the future; the environment; energy efficiency; and renewables. We have now had thrown into the pot the European dimension. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I concentrate on the area I know most about; namely, energy efficiency and conservation in our homes, which I believe is an important topic in this debate.
My noble friend indicated when he introduced the debate that I had had the opportunity to take a piece of legislation through the other House. I chose the Home Energy Conservation Bill. I did so partly because of my

545
life experiences, of which I was particularly reminded when I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Cooke. I lived for three years in the late 1960s and early 1970s in Sweden, when I had the experience of living in a properly insulated home. I have never since lived in such a well insulated home. But I partly chose the subject of home energy conservation because I believed that, if we were to have a proper, comprehensive energy policy which could target our sources effectively and produce warm homes, we needed to know the scale of the problem. That was the point behind the Home Energy Conservation Act.
The Act provided for local authorities to be energy conservation authorities, which were charged with drawing up annual reports. In those reports they had to state the energy efficiency of all the properties in their areas, across all tenures. They had to produce plans for how they could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by significant amounts. The Act did not lay down that the reduction was to be by 30 per cent., but fortunately the regulations did. They were required to draw up plans to deliver education about energy efficiency. Plans were required for working with local businesses and the community for job creation and for targeting the fuel-poor, which have been mentioned this evening. These energy authorities are required to send reports in to government each year with their housing reports—their HIP reports. We now have a good database on which to start targeting our action and our finances.
Much to my surprise, the Government came up with some grants to go with the Home Energy Conservation Act: £10 million was made available over a period of three years. This week we have come to the last bids for the money given on the back of that Act. I should declare an interest here as I have had the opportunity, as a non-voting chairman, to chair the committee that has distributed the money each year.
The interest from local authorities has been enormous. In 1996, 138 authorities applied for grants and we were oversubscribed by five times. In the end, 72 authorities were in receipt of grants totalling £5.6 million which were made to pump-prime local initiatives, which would run for a number of years, with continuing investment involving partners in all sectors.
In 1997, the bids were five times over the allocation. We learnt from the year before and introduced priority areas. One of those priority areas was schemes to reduce fuel poverty, particularly schemes for improving health and sustainable schemes which did not need grant aid for more than one year. Another priority area was schemes which generated employment, and particularly training. At that time we were looking at the provision of gateway jobs. That was before the New Deal, but this year the bids are looking at involving the New Deal project. Another area we looked at was the private rented sector, which is a very bad area as regards energy efficiency. We were desperately trying to find schemes that would work in the way that we wanted them to work. That was quite difficult, but the position has improved this year. We also looked at schemes to enable the development of energy service provision, particularly the development of energy saving
546
companies (ESCOs), which link energy efficiency measures to fuel supply, which is something that noble Lords have talked about tonight.
The scheme is administered under the auspices of the Energy Saving Trust. Partnership has played a key role. Installers, retailers, manufacturers, financial institutions, housing associations and utilities are all involved. Public networks have been formed between energy conservation authorities, health authorities, schools and education authorities. Voluntary groups have played a part through charities, credit unions and community groups. Groups of local authorities often get together to form consortia to bid for money. As I said earlier, in 1997 there was only £2.5 million of funding, but the research done by the Energy Saving Trust shows that from those grants we drew in, in total, probably £20 million to be spent on the energy measures I outlined. In relation to good job creation, the work being done on the finances shows that the cost of providing jobs in that way has been extremely efficient.
I hope that I have convinced the Minister. I know that in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions there is considerable support for continuing the scheme. In theory, the grants come to an end this year. I hope that the Minister will be looking at ways in which we can build on what happened following the Home Energy Conservation Act. My biggest fear when the Act was passed was that nothing would happen because it was an enabling Act. Quite frankly, if grants had not been given it could simply have lain there. Much has come from it.
Perhaps I can conclude by returning to one issue which came up again recently—it comes up every year. I refer to the problems of fuel policy for elderly people. This was one of the aspects which we asked local authorities to examine. I regret that recent figures from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, show that 2.5 million households live in homes cold enough to increase the risk of ill-health during the winter because people cannot afford to heat them. Every winter 250 elderly people die as a result. Lone pensioners account for 44 per cent. of households in that situation. I hope that the Government can see that the work done is good and include it in a comprehensive energy policy.
8.31 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for tabling this Unstarred Question. The noble Lord has been pre-eminent in the field of energy policy for many years, while I have had a formal involvement for only a few weeks. However, at the time of the passage of the Coal Act in 1994 I was able to visit, I think it was, Rosington Colliery operated by RJB Mining. I was struck by the enthusiasm of not only the management team, but also of the men who were literally at the coalface. They were enthusiastic, but at the same time they recognised that their future depended upon competitiveness, marketing and of course the emissions policy.
I listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Wakeham who was heavily involved in the reorganisation of the energy industry. He made the point

547
that there are two solutions to the coal question: intervention or leaving it to market forces and recommissioning mothballed power stations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, covered the interesting subject of renewables. There are all sorts of interesting technologies being developed and I look forward to seeing what comes from further rounds of NFFO to support them. However, between 1980 and 1995, despite a large increase in electricity demand, the policies of the last government resulted in substantial reductions of emissions from the electricity industry. According to government figures, total emissions of CO2 are down by 24 per cent.; SO2 by 47 per cent. and NOx by 33 per cent. Of course, those improvements were not made without great hardship and trauma, particularly from those who worked in the deep-mining industry. One must recognise also that working in a deep mine is arduous and hazardous and any accidents are often serious.
The situation in the energy industry is that it is now impossible to plan and invest for the future as there is no published energy policy. We are all aware that Section 36 applications are subject to a moratorium, but we do not know for how long that will be the case. An example of the impact of that is the proposed Baglan Bay CCGT plant which should be an eminently sound project as National Grid identified a one gigawatt generating capacity deficit in South Wales.
There are many other projects in the pipeline. In addition, officials at the DTI will be experiencing difficulty with giving advice and making low-level decisions as there is no policy to which to refer. I am sure that the Minister will agree that gas will still represent only 40 per cent. of UK generating capacity by the year 2000 and 55 per cent by the year 2005. That compares to 65 per cent. that coal enjoyed only eight years ago.
In the Government's pre-Budget report of last year, reference was made to the current review of the North Sea fiscal regime and its aim of ensuring that an appropriate share of North Sea profits is taxed while maintaining a high level of oil industry interest in the future development of the UK's oil and gas reserves. The Minister needs to take account of the effect of the so-called windfall taxes and any perception of lack of stability in the fiscal regime. That will be a crucial factor in encouraging the development of existing fields in order to improve the recovery factors. The Minister may have to consider varying the rate of tax as a basin matures, so that new technology can be developed with less risk rather than simply developing new opportunities away from the UK continental shelf.
The Minister will no doubt be happy to confirm his confidence in his honourable and right honourable friends in the DTI. That being the case, why is it necessary for his right honourable friend the Paymaster General to become so closely involved in the future of the coal industry? There have been reports in the press this week concerning the possibility of redistributing the assets of National Power and PowerGen in order to benefit the consumer, with propping up the coal industry as a side effect. Can the Minister say whether the coal
548
industry problem can be solved without either legislation or arm-twisting combined with hidden deals? Further, can he assure the House that any solution will not disadvantage the consumer?
If the Minister and/or the Environment Agency relaxes the emission limits for coal, how can they be sure that the coal burnt will be British rather than cheaper imported coal? I fully accept that some adjustments to the electricity pool are desirable. The current arrangements have worked to increase competitiveness but it is clear that there is opportunity for improvement in the light of experience. We look forward to seeing the conclusion of this review.
This Government acted big at Kyoto. They claim to be a green government but, at the same time, they face severe challenges as regards what to do with the coal industry. We look forward to the conclusion of the various reviews and to examining the Government's energy policy when it appears.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, I join with all those noble Lords who have complimented the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on introducing the debate. There have been some interesting comments—so diffuse however that it will be extremely difficult for me to cover the entirety of the ground and I apologise in advance.
Most noble Lords have spoken from a position of some expertise but a different form of expertise in almost every case. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is particularly interested in the progress being made in formulating an energy policy and in the reviews. He initiated, or was involved in, a similar debate some four months ago in this House. My noble friend Lord Haskel, who spoke for the Government on that occasion, said that the Government were carrying out a thorough review of the whole question of energy policy. He said that it was essential to get the answers right rather than rush into conclusions; after all, we have been in office for only just over 12 months. I want to assure the House that matters are proceeding well and we are now much nearer to announcing a comprehensive energy policy.
We have already taken some action to address specific problems; for example, in tackling subsidised and unfair competition from coal in Germany and Spain and in passing the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill to remove subsidy from nuclear power and to create a more level playing field in the wholesale electricity market.
Our broad energy policy is to ensure secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices. Those are all desirable aims. It is a much more formidable task, however, to work out the detailed steps to be taken to integrate such aims, not least when some are in conflict.
Security, diversity and sustainability of supply have been the keystones of energy policy for several years. The difference now is that we are looking hard at those concepts and trying to define their actual meaning in terms of how markets need to develop. It may be that

549
progress in one area leads to the detriment of another, so that we shall constantly need to weigh the overall balance of advantage.
The issues involved are numerous and complicated, devolving from technical, economic, social and industrial change and from the actions of the previous administration over a number of years. They intertwine with other responsibilities and policies, as we have heard tonight, notably those relating to environment and trade.
Many of the problems we confront today reflect the way in which the energy industries were privatised: much too cheaply, based on too much ideology, and with insufficient regard paid to longer term implications. That, in turn, has created new problems since the structure of the industries and the new regulatory regimes were, in my submission, not properly thought through. The large and continuing structural changes in the electricity industry over the last few years have brought into focus the frailties of the system which was set up in the early 1990s. That is part of the inheritance that this Government have received.
The mistakes of privatisation and subsequent changes to the utility sector mean that we now have to overhaul the regulatory framework, upon which the noble Lord touched at the beginning of his speech, to ensure that prices and service standards properly balance the needs of consumers and investors.
An unforeseen consequence of the liberalisation of the electricity markets was the rapid market driven switch to gas fired generation—driven, in large part, by market arrangements which did not work effectively. Gas fired power stations were able to enter the market at prices significantly above present levels and were able to ensure that they ran ahead of coal plant, which was paid less. The former administration granted consents for new power stations almost on request, which meant that permission was given for new gas fired generating capacity equivalent to about a third of the whole generation sector in England and Wales.
Questions have been raised about the wisdom of generating a significant proportion of our electricity from gas when demand for both fuels tends to peak at the same time and about the depletion of United Kingdom gas when we may need to rely on imports of gas, and whether that is a strategic security issue.
The market view of security is that commercial pressures on individual companies will ensure that they will do whatever is necessary to keep the lights on now and to meet likely future demand. That only works if the commercial pressures are pushing in the right direction. This Government felt that they needed to have a more informed view. We decided upon a review of energy sources for power generation to enable us to take that informed view on the future direction of energy policy. As I indicated, we hope to be able to announce those conclusions quite soon.
Energy is absolutely central to modern society and social function. Its importance is surely reflected in the fact that we are debating energy policy for the second time within a very few months.
550
I now turn to specific points raised during the debate, some of which I have already covered. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke about a levy on gas and electricity. That would, of course, be a burden on all consumers, including the poorer ones.
My noble friend Lord Hardy spoke of the cost of coal and the cost of electricity. I accept the thesis that he advances about the distortion of the market. That is why we are having a review of energy sources and reviewing electricity trading arrangements. Coal may indeed have been disadvantaged by the structure of the privatised electricity market.
I turn from that to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, whom I am delighted to see here, an old friend from another place. Of course, as he reminded us, he was Secretary of State for Energy and was responsible, I fear, for a substantial degree of the distortion of the electricity and the coal market structure which we inherited. He will not agree of course. I nevertheless assert it because I agree with what I have just said.
On the question of other companies using old coal plant, the Director General of Electricity Supply is looking at opportunities for third parties taking on surplus plant for National Power and PowerGen.
I turn to the contribution of my noble friend Lady Young who has an excellent reputation in relation to environmental causes, on many of which I have supported her before and will probably continue so to do. Emissions and energy efficiency are covered by the climate change consultation, following the Kyoto agreement. We recognise that the Kyoto agreement is just a milestone on the way to a radical reappraisal of the way in which we use energy. It is hard to say at this moment what that will imply, but, of course, the points she made will certainly be taken into account.
The points made about insulation and poor buildings are covered by the climate change consultation.
My noble friend Lord Ponsonby spoke about central and eastern Europe and the problems which will be confronted from that source. We are talking about the way in which we utilise our energy resources here, of course. Although central and eastern Europe does not figure centrally, and should not, in this debate, nevertheless it is a point worth noting. I cannot provide a substantive answer tonight but no doubt my noble friend will wish to pursue these matters in more detail on another occasion.
I turn to the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. I can deal with only one of the points—the energy efficiency programmes which were really the key to what she was saying. We have a range of energy efficiency programmes. There is the capital receipts initiative, which will make nearly £800 million available to local authorities over the next two years for capital spending on housing and other regeneration schemes and which will specifically encourage energy efficiency. I accept that there is much substandard housing in this country, and there are a lot of poor people. I cannot undertake that we shall be able to achieve all this in the very near future, but we shall use our best endeavours to tackle the problem.

551
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was kind enough to provide me with a note of his specific points. However, I have already spoken for 11 minutes and I shall have to deal rapidly with some of them. I think he will understand that I shall not be able to deal with them all.
Many of the points the noble Earl raised will be dealt with in the announcement that will be made quite shortly. When he says that it is impossible to plan without policy, of course, that is why we are undertaking the exercise now. It is a pity that it was not done during the course of the previous government.
The question of the North Sea fiscal regime was more than touched on in the Budget. There is further consultation on that, and a decision will be made in the near future. The noble Earl mentioned unfair subsidies. I have already said that we have taken action in that regard because of Spain and Germany.
I have dealt as best I can in such a short time with a number of the points that have been made. I know that I have not done justice to all of them but I hope that I will not be unduly blamed for that. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, once again for introducing this subject, perhaps a little prematurely on this occasion because, as I said, I hope that we will be able to come back to the issue in the Statement that we shall be making in the relatively near future.

School Standards and Framework Bill
8.50 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 46.
[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 163 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [LEAs' financial schemes]
[Amendments Nos. 164 to 166 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 167 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Maintained schools to have delegated budgets]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 167A:
Page 39, line 6, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Every maintained school shall have a delegated budget.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to the rest of the amendments in the grouping. These are largely transitional amendments concerned with the timetable for implementing key provisions of Part II of the Bill. In essence, the main amendments allow that the financial provision should start from the beginning of the financial year and the administrative framework should start from the beginning of the academic year. I have provided the Front Benches and, as a precaution, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, with a lengthy letter explaining the background to the amendments. They are relatively straightforward.
In certain places the Bill as currently drafted assumes that the funding provisions of Chapter IV of Part II will take effect at the same time as the new school categories are introduced. But, as was explained during the proceedings in another place, the Government have concluded that the most appropriate date for introducing the new school categories would be 1st September 1999. But there are obvious problems in attempting to introduce major funding reforms from that date. All previous reforms of this magnitude—including the introduction of LMS itself—have taken effect from the beginning of the financial year in April, and it would be difficult to contemplate any alternative. Our conclusion therefore is that these changes should take effect from April 1999. That has the consequences dealt with by the amendments.
Our intention then is to bring in the new recurrent funding regime from April 1999 and apply it from the outset to all schools in the present LEA and GM sectors. This means, in brief, that GM schools will retain their existing governance arrangements for the five months April to August 1999, pending the transfer to their new legal categories on 1st September, but they would receive their recurrent funding from their LEAs from 1st April, under the provisions of Chapter IV of Part II. A capital grants regime for GM schools would, however, be kept in place for the time being to fund the completion of projects already in progress at 31st March plus any projects on which a start between April and August is essential.
Amendments Nos. 167A and 167B, 168B and 168C, 168E, 168G, 175E, 176G, 176H, 246B, 246E and 259D deal with the date issue. That arises because Clause 48 is the one clause in Chapter IV of Part II which is linked explicitly to the "appointed day", to be designated under Clause 20(6) as the starting date for the new categories. So the aim of the amendments is simply to disconnect Clause 48 from the provision on the appointed day. The effect of this group of amendments is to leave Clause 48 as a set of substantive provisions which define the entitlement of existing schools to delegated budgets from the start of the new regime, and also deal with the position of new schools which open thereafter. We intend to bring these provisions into effect from 1st April 1999.
The present subsections (2) to (5) lay down the circumstances in which, exceptionally, an existing school will not receive a delegated budget under the new regime. The substance of these subsections is now transferred to Schedule 31, by way of Amendment No. 259D. The rest of the amendments simply correct various cross-references so that they refer to Clause 48. None of the amendments affects the substance in terms of who is and who is not entitled to a delegated budget. The only material change concerns the decoupling of the operative date.
Amendments Nos. 257Q, 257Y, 259B and 259C are also concerned with timing. Clause 130 defines the phrase "school maintained by a local education authority" in terms of the new school categories. Amendment No. 257Q simply allows for the situation in which a provision containing this expression comes into force before the new categories. Amendment

553
No. 257Y is the key amendment here. We propose to bring about the "phasing" which I have described by using the powers in Clause 132 to make "incidental, consequential, transitional and supplementary" provisions. Some of the provisions in the Bill will need to be applied temporarily to the existing school categories although they are expressed in terms of the new categories.
Amendments Nos. 259B and 259C are concerned with the winding up of the GM school funding regime. Again they are about timing. Schedule 31 enables the Secretary of State to specify an "appointed day" for this purpose, which need not be the same day as that appointed for the new school categories. But since Schedule 31 at present provides for only one appointed day, we wish to be able to extend the GM capital funding regime beyond that point. Those amendments provide for that.
There are other relatively technical amendments which are not timing amendments. I refer to Amendments Nos. 257T to 257X. Clause 132 confers a power to make incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provisions by order. However, these amendments convert that power into a regulation-making power so that it can be used in conjunction with other regulation-making powers in the Bill to produce a single set of regulations rather than hybrid orders and a set of regulations. The purpose is simply to reduce complexity and bureaucracy and to enable users to rely on one statutory instrument instead of having to refer to two. Again, no additional power is conferred by the amendments.
Finally, there are two further technical amendments, Amendments Nos. 168D and 168F. These relate to Clause 49(7), which provides that, in spending its delegated budget, the governors and heads of a maintained school are ordinarily deemed to be acting on behalf of the LEA. That is to say, they are in law acting as agents, not as principals. This is not intended to change the law. It frankly reflects what the department has always understood to be the legal position. However, for the avoidance of doubt, it seemed advisable to put this express provision in the Bill. One reason for that is that it removes any doubt as to whether VAT can properly be reclaimed by LEAs under Section 33 of the VAT Act in respect of purchases made by schools from their delegated budgets and other funds provided by the LEA.
The present amendments reflect discussions with Customs and Excise. I understand that that department is satisfied that the amended provisions are sufficient to meet its requirements for the purposes of that Act not only in relation to schools now maintained by LEAs but also in relation to former GM schools from the point at which they begin to receive funding from their LEAs under Chapter IV, Part II of the Bill.
That is a rapid explanation of the changes. As I say, the bulk of them relate to timing and there are the other two batches of technical amendments. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): For the convenience of the Committee I advise it, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that if Amendment No. 167B is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 168, which would have been pre-empted.
Lord Lucas: Therefore I am required to speak to Amendment No. 168 at this stage, with apologies for it not having appeared at its right place in the groupings. If I leave it where it is I cannot speak to it. However, I would like to begin with a small protest directed generally at the House. For amendments to Clause 131 the alphabet goes C, D, E, R, F, G, S, H, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, J, A, A.
There is a well-established system of ordering sequences of characters, which is employed in a dictionary or telephone directory. It is perfectly adequate for all purposes and it can be easily adapted to the numbering of amendments. It occasionally leads to slightly long strings, but at least one can find what one is looking for. It has been a real terror trying to find my way round to my amendments. I have been backwards and forwards. Even the old arrangement was better.
That said, perhaps I may turn to Amendment No. 168. It deals with the deletion of a subsection which has now been moved to become Amendment No. 259D and paragraph 3 of the schedule, if I have got it right. Therefore I shall address it in that place, where it will be in the Bill if these amendments are agreed to. In this new amendment we have removed from its original place in the Bill a totally unjustified, random power in suddenly deciding that a school should not have a delegated budget. That is not based on any factual evidence, as required by the immediately preceding subsection, but at the whim of the Secretary of State.
I would like to know in what circumstances the Government propose to use the power and why they consider it necessary as a part of the Bill? Will the Government choose to specify a school to which, if this clause became active today, it would then apply? What circumstances are we looking at? How can we justify a power that is so wide and random and, to my mind, so unusual? Surely, it is something that can be conveniently forgotten. If a school has been condemned by Ofsted that is fine; if it has been found to be failing in conventional ways, then that is fine; but if it has not, then it has not and it should receive its delegated budget until it is found to be failing. That is the question.
If we are forced to pursue this matter to an issue I would point out that the amendments I object to in this group are the first two and the last. I would not be seeking to bring down any others in the group were we to win the vote.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may make an immediate response to the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about numbering. I learnt only this week that a new system of numbering had been introduced towards the end of last year. I have already entered my protest, which is exactly that of the noble

555
Lord, Lord Lucas. It seems to me that we had a numbering system which, although complex, was profoundly rational in that one could always find an amendment in its place in the Bill. We have now introduced a system in which the time of the tabling of the amendment becomes a significant factor in the numbering. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government Front Bench will take up the issues that he has raised.
Baroness Blatch: I, too, am very grateful for what the noble Lord has just said. It may also be convenient to deal with the tabling of amendments. The truth is that we spend a long time looking for our amendments and reporting back to the office that they are not there only to be told through a telephone call that they are there. That adds a great deal of time to our handling of the Bill, particularly when we have a group of amendments such as this, which is a very large batch of technical amendments.
I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, some questions on Amendment No. 257Y under Clause 132 relating to articles and instruments of government. I am decidedly unhappy about that. If I read the notes properly, it is designed with an eye to the position of GM schools from Easter through to September and that somehow it will be at variance with the GM articles of government. I see no reason whatsoever why the GM articles of government cannot continue until the school formally becomes a foundation school. I see no reason at all for Amendment No. 257Y.
My other point relates to Amendments Nos. 168D and 168F. I join with my noble friend Lord Lucas on the points he made about these amendments. I have worries about the schools acting as agents and not principals. My understanding is that GM schools have been principals and not agents. Even so, under the new system—and this is another bit of autonomy that will be removed—they will become agents and not principals. If that is the case the school spends the money and the LEA collects the VAT. Is the VAT then reimbursed to the school? If it is not then the LEA receives a nice little pot of money. I hope to have that clarified.
I also take this opportunity to say that it is helpful to have the explanatory notes in advance. It gives us the opportunity to see what the amendments are about. But the letter I received was copied only to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. My noble friend Lord Pilkington received a "Dear Lord Tope" letter and my noble friend Lord Lucas received no letter at all. Given that we are now seasoned participants in these debates, when letters of this kind are sent out, which are meant to help everyone in the House, anyone participating in the debates should receive copies of the letters. It is not only me who is interested but everyone in the Chamber.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may add that it is very helpful, when faced with a small desk and a pile of junk mail, if envelopes containing important documents have
556
"ministerial/urgent" stickers on them. Such stickers help one to identify which envelopes to open first. I confess that my copy may be lying unopened on my desk.
Lord Whitty: I note those points. We shall attempt to ensure that the Front Benchers participating in these debates receive copies. Frankly, it is impossible for us to predict which other noble Lords are likely to participate in any debates. The question of misaddressing mail is slightly different, and I apologise for that. However, we managed to anticipate that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would be participating in this debate though, unfortunately, not early enough or clearly enough to ensure that he received the note.
The noble Lord's main concern relates to the justification for the Secretary of State having the power to remove a delegated budget. We would not see that power being used on a whim, as the noble Lord implied, but that is the only provision which allows the Secretary of State to suspend the delegation of a budget if the governing body has been guilty of financial mismanagement. That is the reason for that provision. I think that I am right in saying that these amendments do not alter that provision, which has been there throughout.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Baroness about Amendment No. 257Y on the overriding of instruments and articles of government of GM schools, we do not imagine that that provision will come into play extensively. It is designed mainly with an eye to the position of a GM school which finds itself without a delegated budget in the transitional period—that is, between April 1999 and August 1999—before the new regime is operating. In that event, we intend that staffing matters at the school should be governed by the rules which will apply to aided and foundation schools from September 1999. That would be at variance with the pre-existing articles, and it does not seem sensible to deal with the conflict by producing an amended set of articles which would be valid for only a few weeks. That is the reason for that provision.
The noble Baroness also asked about VAT. These amendments seek to make clear the position with regard to VAT payments which will normally be reimbursed. The removal of doubt as to that provision should enable a more favourable VAT arrangement to apply to schools as well as to LEAs.
With those comments, I ask the Committee to accept Amendment No. 167A—
Lord Lucas: Although the noble Lord's comments are much appreciated, they did not answer my question on sub-section (3) of what will be new Section 4A, under Amendment No. 259D. The basic powers for suspending delegated budgets are contained in Schedule 15. I refer to the continuing power which the Secretary of State or a local authority or whoever—it is principally the local authorities—has under various other pieces of legislation. We are looking at the transitional provisions that will apply as the Bill comes into effect. It is not clear to me that there is any necessity for this as a transitional provision. It is drawn

557
extremely widely and, unlike the other powers under Schedule 15, it is not controlled by way of requiring there to be prior evidence of suitability.
Can the noble Lord give an example of the sort of circumstances in which this provision will be required? I do not wish to deprive the Government of this provision if it is clearly required to deal with some massive crisis. However, if it is merely a matter of a safety provision to a safety provision, which is the way it looks, it is drawn far too widely for us to regard it as a reasonable provision for the Government to have.
Lord Whitty: Schedule 15 will apply to LEA maintained schools. It would be needed to stop a GM school getting a delegated budget on entry into the new framework if during the transitional period there occurred an impropriety, or whatever, in relation to which the Secretary of State would normally intervene. Again, this reflects the transitional provision. Without it, the school would move immediately into the new framework, under which it would be entitled to a budget.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps a short letter with an example and some dates would be the best way of handling this.
Lord Whitty: As this provision will arise later perhaps we may deal with it then. In the meantime, I shall let the noble Lord have some further information.
Baroness Blatch: If a school does not have a delegated budget between May and September, what on earth does it have? Is the noble Lord suggesting that this applies only to a GM school that has failed to manage its affairs, has been formally decreed by the authorities to be incapable of self-management, has had its management responsibility taken away and is without power to manage a delegated budget? If that is so, I understand the position. I would find it helpful if that was confirmed.
As to VAT, will the noble Lord return to the Dispatch Box and make clear that, where self-governing schools spend money and incur VAT, that will be reclaimed by the LEA merely as a technicality and pound for pound it will be reimbursed to the particular source of the expenditure?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: On the first point, I believe that the noble Baroness has correctly interpreted the position, but I welcome the opportunity to provide an answer in writing. This relates only to the situation during the transfer period and to financial mismanagement. I shall clarify that matter by way of clause references, if that helps the noble Baroness. As to the question of VAT, that is exactly the regime that we intend should be put in place, and this amendment is for the avoidance of doubt.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 167B:
Page 39, line 9, leave out subsections (2) to (5).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 168B to 168E:
Page 39, line 37, leave out ("Every maintained school other than an existing") and insert ("A new").
Page 39, line 40, leave out ("A school within subsection (6)") and insert ("Such a school").
Page 40, line 12, at end insert—
("(8A) Any amount made available by a local education authority to the governing body of a maintained school (whether under section 49 or otherwise)—

(a) shall remain the property of the authority until spent by the governing body or the head teacher; and

(b) when spent by the governing body or the head teacher, shall be taken to be spent by them or him as the authority's agent.

(8B) Subsection (8A)(b) does not apply to any such amount where it is spent—

(a) by way of repayment of the principal of, or interest on, a loan, or

(b) (in the case of a voluntary aided school) to meet expenses payable by the governing body under paragraph 3(1) or 3(2) of Schedule 3 or paragraph 14(2) of Schedule 6.").

Page 40, line 13, leave out subsection (9).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 [Effect of financial delegation]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 168F:
Page 41, line 8, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clauses 51 and 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Staffing of community, voluntary controlled and community special schools]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 168G:
Page 42, line 37, leave out ("Or by virtue of section 48(2) or (4)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Staffing of community, voluntary controlled and community special schools]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 168A:
Page 162, line 5, leave out ("below") and insert ("in paragraphs 4 to 7").
The noble Lord said: The Committee having now moved into that part of the Bill which deals with staffing, it may be of assistance if I say a few general words before I introduce this amendment and speak to the amendments of other noble Lords. The main purpose of the staffing provisions is to carry existing provisions forward into the new framework. Most of these provisions appeared in the Education Reform Act 1988

559
and some have their origins in the 1944 Act. I have in mind the basic provisions on appointments and dismissals and religious safeguards.
The changes that we have introduced arise mainly from, first, the need to provide for foundation schools which will come back into the LEA-maintained fold but retaining their power to employ their own staff; secondly, the abolition of articles of government, which means that we need to provide to allow some historical practices to continue, such as the right of Catholic religious order schools to give prior consideration to members of the order when a headship becomes vacant; thirdly, the need to clarify but not extend the religious safeguards for Church schools which were couched in the outdated language of the 1944 Act—which I shall gladly explain to the very reverend Canon the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, if necessary—and, fourthly, our policies set out in the White Paper Excellence in Schools in support of good management and leadership, in particular the requirement for schools to have capability procedures and the local education authority's right to make representations to the governing body on unsuitable head teacher appointments.
The basic principles of the staffing provisions reflect earlier arrangements, including those put in place when Local Management of Schools was introduced 10 years ago. I hope that, since there are no changes involved, we need not spend too much time on those provision.
I should like to speak first to the government amendments. There are two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in the group. If he agrees, I shall speak to them after he has spoken. There is also an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. As he is not in his place today, I assume that it will not be moved.
Government Amendment No. 168A is a tidying-up amendment which removes the need for the governing body initially to notify the LEA of a vacancy for a head or deputy head teacher in circumstances where the incumbent is merely absent and the governing body proposes to recommend someone as an acting head or deputy head teacher.
Government Amendments Nos. 175A and 176E will provide Church of England and Roman Catholic diocesan authorities with advisory rights on the face of the Bill. Those are currently provided in the Church of England Board of Education Measure 1991, in the case of Church of England voluntary aided schools, and in the articles of government of Catholic voluntary aided schools. The entitlement for a diocesan authority to advise at a governing body's proceedings on appointments and dismissals will apply where the chief education officer of the LEA has advisory rights on staffing matters. The amendments will also provide Church of England, Church in Wales or Roman Catholic foundation and voluntary controlled schools with the discretion to extend advisory rights on staffing matters to diocesan authorities. The scope to accord advisory rights will apply at any time in the case of voluntary controlled schools, as the chief education officer of the LEA enjoys advisory rights at all times. In the case of foundation schools, it will apply only where the
560
governing body has agreed advisory rights for the chief education officer of the LEA. These amendments represent a rolling forward of the current arrangements for diocesan advice on staffing matters in these church schools, and I therefore trust that the Committee will agree that they should be included in the Bill.
Government Amendments Nos. 176A, I76B, 176C, 176D and 176F also roll forward arrangements that currently exist. They are provided for in the articles of government of those voluntary aided schools which deal with head teacher appointments in the way permitted by those provisions. The effects of amendments are twofold. In the case of a voluntary aided school which is run by a Roman Catholic religious order, provision is made for the major superior of the order to propose a suitably qualified person from the order for appointment to a head teacher vacancy. Provision is also made for the governing body of a voluntary aided school to determine the selection of a head teacher by the whole governing body rather than using a selection panel.
These amendments have benefited from consultation with the churches and I believe that they represent a sensible way forward for providing these church schools with advice on their staffing functions. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting their inclusion in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may speak briefly to the two amendments in my name in this group of amendments. They cover the circumstances, which I must say I have been in on the other side of, where the chief education officer, or one of his delegates, gives advice on the appointment of a teacher or head teacher. On one occasion that person gave extremely prejudicial advice about a certain individual, saying, "Oh, we have heard this, that and the other about him". The chief education officer—in that case he was giving information on a deputy head in his care—is in a position to deny that person promotion and advancement by spreading information—rumour—which is totally unsubstantiated.
The Government, and the previous government, have gone to considerable lengths to prevent credit reference agencies from doing that. It is now a well-established principle that a person has the right to his personal file in order to know what is being said about him on occasions which make a great difference to his life. The chief education officer is and should be a responsible person. If he is prepared to give advice to the governors of a school, those people appointing a head teacher, he should do so in writing. He should make that advice available to the person about whom he is writing. There should be nothing secret, underhand or under the counter about it. If the chief education officer is prepared to say something in public, he should say it, otherwise he should keep decently quiet about it.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I welcome the amendments relating to Church schools. I refer to Amendments Nos. 175A and 176E. Amendment No. 176E refers to voluntary-aided schools. As the Minister said, that extends on to the face of the Bill the provision which has been made by articles of association until now. That is a different provision from that in

561
Amendment No. 175A for controlled schools, whereas for aided schools the Bill provides that the appropriate diocesan officer shall have the same advisory rights as the chief education officer. In relation to controlled schools, the governing body may agree that that shall be the case. Their consent is required. It seems to me that that is proper.
Although many controlled schools had articles of association which provided in that regard, it was not universally the case. Therefore that amendment extends to all voluntary controlled schools a practice which was already largely but not universally in place. It is important because in recent years voluntary controlled schools—they are not on precisely the same basis as aided schools—have come to recognise their Church affiliations, not least because of the Ofsted inspections of such schools. This provision will help those who appoint the teachers to such schools to recognise the Church association and the provision which such a controlled Church school can make to education in the locality.
I welcome the amendment, which will encourage controlled schools to recognise their Church affiliation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may reply to Amendments Nos. 172 and 173, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I understand the point he makes about the possibility of any superior, whether a chief education officer or anyone else providing a reference, for example, behaving in an irresponsible way. But the place to remedy that is in a code of practice rather than on the face of the Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord has taken part in the selection of a head teacher in a governing body, as I have. As chair of a governing body, I have run the selection panel which selects the head teacher. We have the chief education officer of the local education authority with us during the interviews. At the end of the interviewing process he or she gives his or her opinion on the candidate. That cannot be in writing. Therefore, the noble Lord's amendment, which requires it to be in writing, cannot be achieved.
Similarly, where a meeting takes place in those terms, what the chief education officer says cannot be and normally should not be revealed to the candidates. Even if it should be revealed to the candidates, the effect would be to make it impossible for the meeting to come to a conclusion about which candidate to appoint. Therefore, on purely practical grounds, I ask him to withdraw his amendment and to accept our assurance that in terms of general employment law a code of practice is the better approach.
I am grateful for the comments of the right reverend Prelate about the government amendments. I commend Amendment No. 168A to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 162, line 6, leave out ("and either") and insert (", and").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 169, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 170. These are
562
purely grammatical quibbling. Quite clearly, a comma is required after "teacher", otherwise the vacancy is "in and either" the post. A comma is required. I would prefer the word "either" to be removed because I find the either/or construction in that particular collection of commas and sentences to be inelegant and it looks better without. I am certain about the commas, but the word "either" may give rise to a bit of an argument. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have consulted Fowler and Sir Ernest Gowers and neither of them gives me any guidance. I must point out that legislation is not a literary form and where, in a literary form, we probably would include a comma, in legislation we do not. I am advised that the professional draftsmen have it right and that the noble Lord's amendment would make no practical difference. I ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Lucas: I retire defeated.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 170 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 162, line 36, leave out ("England and Wales") and insert ("the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: I do not see why we should deprive our schools of the many wonderful teachers from Scotland, many of whom I remember with pleasure. It seems to me an unnecessary bit of provincialism to leave out Scotland, in particular at a time when what we can do to keep the Union together seems to be worth doing. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall not respond to the noble Lord's unionist point; we can deal with that when we come to the Scotland Bill. Amendment No. 171 could place an additional burden and additional financial cost on the governing bodies of voluntary controlled and community special schools. The purpose of the provision requiring them to advertise their senior posts throughout England and Wales is to ensure that the vacancies come to the attention of the best possible candidates both within and beyond the local area of any school.
The noble Lord will know as well as I that many of the places where one might advertise senior vacancies—notably, without giving undue prominence to the publications of Mr. Rupert Murdoch, The Times Educational Supplement and The Times Higher Educational Supplement—are circulated throughout the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is likely that what he proposes would be the case. To put it on the face of the statute underestimates the ability of those in Scotland or in Northern Ireland who wish to apply for jobs in England and Wales to use their initiative to do so. If they were not willing to use that initiative they might not be the best people for the job. Let us keep the matter as simple as we can. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: In the light of that answer, why should we not put an obligation on schools simply to

563
publicise the post in appropriate documents? Why should Wales have any superiority over Northern Ireland or Scotland? It seems to me that, in some subjects which are short of teachers, schools will want to advertise more widely.
The Minister will no doubt say that schools can advertise where they like, if they wish to do so. But why put a legal obligation in the document? Such examples appear throughout the document. Indeed, there is great prescription in areas that really do not matter, but no prescription in those that do. It seems to me that the obligation on the school should be to advertise the post: end of story.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are concerned to ensure that the post should not simply be advertised locally. I agree that it specifies England and Wales, and perhaps that is an historical accident. Indeed, perhaps it tends to be thought of as a single phrase like, for example, fish and chips—although I probably should not say that. I shall consider the remarks made by the noble Baroness but, in the meantime, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas: My noble friend is probably more sensible in this respect than I am. It is indeed an old phrase and I understand that it has an historical background. However, if we are going to specify something, I believe that "The United Kingdom" is the right expression and is as it should be for now. The Welsh will end up with a different curriculum and a different school system pretty rapidly under this Bill and under the Welsh Bill when they are enacted. There is no reason to link England and Wales together and exclude Scotland and Northern Ireland. It should either be a general requirement to publicise, or the document should specify the United Kingdom of which, thank goodness, we are still part. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 172 and 173 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 167, line 8, after ("capability") insert (", or the failure to give education efficiently and suitably,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment explores a particular phrase used in paragraph 22 of Schedule 16 to the Bill which is used to describe the rules for dealing with staff who are not up to the job, if I may employ ordinary English. The phrase chosen in that particular part of the Bill is,
"lack of capability on the part of members of the staff".
It may be lack of capability on some occasions but, generally speaking, what we are faced with in such circumstances is lack of performance. The teacher may be capable of doing his job but he is not doing it. A good school with a good system for looking after teachers will endeavour to train and encourage them. However, at the end of the day, the problem is lack of performance and not lack of capability.
Elsewhere in the Bill in the section which deals with the employment of teachers of religion in religious schools, the phrase is used that I have included in Amendment No. 174; namely,
"the failure to give education efficiently and suitably".
The two together seem to me to give the right answer. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I, too, had teachers like that. The amendment is unnecessary. The provision in the Bill requires the governing body to establish disciplinary rules and procedures including rules and procedures for dealing with lack of capability of staff. Normal disciplinary rules and procedures would cover such matters as the conduct of someone who does not provide efficient or suitable education, to use the perfectly legitimate phraseology of the noble Lord, but whose capability is not in question.
One can quite see that those who have, for example, been good teachers may have become slack and not actually do the job. It is important to remember that disciplinary rules and procedures should be able to deal with problems of both conduct and capability. The requirement for disciplinary rules and procedures already provides adequately for school staff whose performance is not satisfactory. Therefore, as I said, the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Lucas: I am duly comforted and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 168, line 1, at end insert—
("( ) In determining whether to make such a suspension, the governing body shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment addresses the problem which, again, I can remember not quite coming across as a governor. When one becomes involved in the question of suspending a head teacher, most governing bodies—thank goodness—are entering into complete terra incognita; indeed, sometimes one has never been through such things before.
These days, if one is anywhere near a national newspaper, one is in danger of becoming featured in television and radio reports in a very big way and entering into extremely deep water. At that time I was aware of no guidance from the DfEE as to how one should conduct oneself in those circumstances. I am not aware that any exists now, although that may be due to my ignorance. However, it would be an enormous help to have some. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I must confess that in many years of being a school governor I never had the misfortune to need to suspend a teacher. I bow to the noble Lord's superior experience on that. His amendment would require governing bodies to have regard to guidance provided by the Secretary of State before suspending a member of staff. It would

565
encourage a prescriptive approach to this function which in practice might not always be wise or helpful. As he said, there are many circumstances in which it may be necessary to suspend an employee. The kind of guidance for which he asks could involve an exhaustive list of circumstances in which suspension would be appropriate, or indeed circumstances in which it would not be appropriate.
In practice I believe one would seek advice locally from the local education authority, the social services department or even the police, if that were necessary. As regards the protection of children, the Secretary of State already provides guidance in the context both of teachers' misconduct and the medical fitness of teachers. That guidance sets out general advice to schools but it cannot take the place of local professional advice on the circumstances of any particular case. Generally, suspension of staff is an employer function. It would be neither necessary nor appropriate for the Secretary of State to provide general guidance on the exercise of that function.
The ACAS code of practice on disciplinary procedures in employment which is available to all employers recommends that in serious cases consideration should be given to suspension with pay for a brief period while the matter is being investigated. The problem with the guidance the noble Lord asks for is that it would be either too general to be useful, or it would be so detailed that it would run the risk of covering far too many, but perhaps not quite enough, cases. I hope that in the light of that response the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. It is not what I had hoped for, but I shall take instruction. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 175A:
Page 169, line 5, at end insert—
("Advisory rights for appropriate diocesan authorities
.—(1) This paragraph applies to a voluntary controlled school which is a Church of England, Church in Wales or Roman Catholic Church school.
(2) The governing body may agree with the appropriate diocesan authority to accord to the appropriate diocesan officer—

(a) with respect to all teachers at the school, or

(b) with respect to any particular description of such teachers,

the same advisory rights in relation to their appointment. engagement or dismissal as are exercisable by the chief education officer in accordance with paragraphs 18 and 28.
(3) The agreement of the governing body for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) must be given in writing and may only be withdrawn by notice in writing to the appropriate diocesan authority.
(4) In paragraphs 18 and 28, as they apply to a voluntary controlled school within sub-paragraph (1) above, references to the chief education officer accordingly include the appropriate diocesan officer, so far as necessary for giving effect to any advisory rights exercisable by him under this paragraph.
(5) In this paragraph "the appropriate diocesan officer" means such person as the appropriate diocesan authority may nominate.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 [Staffing of foundation, voluntary aided and foundation special schools]:
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 175B:
Page 43, line 7, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: As ever, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, provides me with a marvellous introduction. He does not believe in prescriptive legislation and I want to talk about prescriptive legislation. In moving Amendment No. 175B I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 175C and 175D which underline my wish that Schedule 17 shall not stand part of the Bill.
As we are all mentioning our credentials at the moment I should say that I have been a governor of seven schools and I was a headmaster for 17 years. I have suspended teachers and therefore I suppose I can speak with some authority on the matter. The most important function of governing bodies is to appoint heads. It is possibly the only great thing that they do, because the future of their school depends on it.
The amendments relate to Schedule 17 standing part of the Bill. Therefore I am referring to Schedule 17. My worry is that, under the schedule, too much is referred back to the local authority. On page 171 of the Bill, Schedule 17 reads:
"If, within the period of 14 days beginning with the date when they receive a notification under sub-paragraph (2)(a), the authority make written representations to the selection panel that any of the applicants selected by the panel is not a suitable person for an appointment".
I should have thought that a governing body would be quite capable of making its decisions without an extra level of bureaucracy referring matters to the local authority.
I welcome the amendments in relation to foundation and voluntary-aided schools allowing for the normal procedure to be followed, which was not to be followed under the Bill as originally drafted; namely, a selection panel referring people to the whole governing body. I am delighted about that, as I am about the fact that the superiors of religious orders have rights of appointment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They have rights of inclusion in a list for consideration, to be precise.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: They own the buildings, it must be remembered. But I thank the Minister.
Line 16 refers to the chief education officer and the provision states that,
"the selection panel's notification … shall be accompanied by such information",
and so on. The provision introduces needless bureaucracy. So far as I can gather, the whole essence of the Government's policy is to hand autonomy to schools, to give them responsibility for these issues. However, under Schedule 17, the Government are

567
nannying more than is necessary. Governing bodies are ready to be responsible. They will appoint the right person. We do not need this extra bureaucracy.
Turning to the appointment of teachers, if a head is going to be any good at all in his job, the appointment of staff is the key test of his ability. A head teacher stands or falls on whether or not he appoints the next member of staff. The Bill lays down a regulation that a post has to be advertised. Perhaps I may relate an anecdote. It is very hard to get teachers of mathematics or physics. A colleague of mine was searching for a teacher of physics. He heard from Australia that a brilliant teacher of physics was moving back to England. He telephoned him, trusted the advice of his colleague, and appointed him without advertisement. He proved absolutely superb. I myself appointed a teacher of mathematics in a similar way. I went to a dinner at Oxford and met a student fellow who was giving up his fellowship and said he was looking for a job. I saw him as a genius, and I appointed him. He was a genius. That would be forbidden under this provision. The initiative of an enterprising headmaster such as myself or many of my colleagues would be stopped. Posts would have to be advertised throughout England and Wales. Under this provision many noble Lords on the Benches opposite would not have occupied their posts. Many jobs have been given to people.
My point is that this measure is prescriptive. I hope the noble Lord will justify that prescription, which I am sure has never applied in his own career. A manager at Marks & Spencer would not accept the restrictions that would be laid upon him under this schedule. It does not exist in many other fields. It is sheer waste in terms of local authority bureaucracy. Will the noble Lord therefore tell us how this prescriptive provision could be relaxed? I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I admire the noble Lord's initiative in recruitment. I think it is fair to say that, having run a business myself for 30 years as a managing director, I would have done exactly the same as he did. When I found somebody, particularly if they were working for a competitor, I would try to poach them. But I have to remind the noble Lord of what I said when we began to talk about staffing. I pointed out that, with the very few exceptions that I read out, we are carrying over into this legislation, with only the minimum necessary adaptation, prescriptions which already exist in legislation.
The noble Lord is right to say that this is prescriptive, but he is attacking something that has been around for a very long time. He, as a head teacher of an independent school, was able to act as a buccaneer, but his colleagues in the state system have never had the type of freedom that he describes—or, if they have, they adjusted the rules slightly.
As I am sure the noble Lord would acknowledge, the effect of these amendments would be to remove Schedule 17 from the Bill, which could have been done more simply by the clause stand part procedure, which has been given notice of. I hope to persuade the noble Lord that Schedule 17 is an essential part of the structure of the new framework, providing for the staffing
568
provisions for foundation, voluntary aided and foundation special schools where the governing body is the employer.
The schedule contains the details of the arrangements for the appointment of heads and deputies, other teachers and non-teaching staff; the regulation of conduct and discipline of staff; the suspension and dismissal of staff; and, where appropriate, the provision of professional and expert advice on those functions from both the chief education officer of the LEA and the diocesan authority. The noble Lord's attack has been very narrowly focused on the appointment of teachers, and in particular of teachers other than the head, and not on the other elements of Schedule 17 which would be removed by his amendments.
I hope to persuade the noble Lord of the need for the staffing functions of the schools to which this schedule will apply to be dealt with in a consistent and considered way as between schools and as between education authorities. These arrangements are currently provided in the instrument and articles of government for voluntary aided and grant-maintained schools, which will be replaced in the new framework. The Churches, which have interests in both voluntary aided and grant-maintained schools with a religious ethos, have made no representations to us about removing the staffing provisions for these schools from the face of the Bill. Indeed, they have worked closely with us in order to include additional staffing provisions in the Bill, as provided for in the government amendments on diocesan advisory rights, head teacher appointments at religious order schools and governing body selection panels to which we have just agreed. If these schools were left to provide for all the details of Schedule 17 themselves, we would create a large vacuum that would need to be filled in some other way to ensure that schools were governed and managed in a prudent and responsible fashion.
Staff appointments, particularly those of head and deputy head teachers, are among the most important decisions that fall to governing bodies. In that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. I am reminded of the late Nicholas Ridley, who thought he could reduce local authorities to bodies which met once a year to award contracts and then adjourn for a good lunch. I think that that is carrying it to extremes, but there is no doubt that this is the most important thing that governing bodies do. The composition and abilities of the staff, and in particular the head teacher, are vital to the success of any school. The teacher appointment provisions give governing bodies the overall decision on who to appoint to their schools.
It is right that governing bodies should have this responsibility. They are best placed to understand their schools' needs and serve their schools' interests. But the appointment provisions provide for governing bodies to take a responsible and considered approach to this important function. They require detailed consideration of head and deputy head teacher vacancies by a duly appointed selection panel of governors after such posts have been advertised—my text says "throughout England and Wales", but that is perhaps a reserve issue—and for the panel's recommendation to be

569
approved by the full governing body. They also provide for the governing body to agree advisory rights for the chief education officer of the local education authority and, where those are not agreed, for the Secretary of State to determine that such rights be accorded if necessary. The Secretary of State might, for example, determine that advisory rights be accorded to the chief education officer where a governing body is unable to satisfy him that they are receiving an appropriate level of good quality professional advice from some other source and that the school is in no way failing to provide a good quality of education to its pupils.
So it is not necessarily the case that the chief education officer will always get advisory rights, but even where he does not, the local education authority will enjoy specific entitlements to make representations to any governing body. That underpins the local education authority's enhanced role of intervening and supporting those schools which fail to provide a satisfactory level of education for their pupils. This is a schools standards Bill and this is the role of the education authority.
Included in the teacher appointment provisions are new arrangements—this may relieve the noble Lord's mind—which give governing bodies the scope to engage staff on a temporary basis; that is, engage persons to provide services as teachers at schools otherwise than under contracts of employment. This includes temporary teachers for less than four months and acting heads and deputies while a permanent replacement is being found or the incumbent is on long-term sick leave. The teacher employment market has changed in recent years, as the noble Lord made clear, and there are now a number of ways to meet short notice staffing needs. Schools need to be able to get the best available local support and that sometimes means using teacher supply agencies. They also need to be able to take decisions on covering absences at short notice. The staffing provisions of the Bill provide governing bodies with the scope to meet such staffing needs as they see fit. The scope to engage staff also extends to heads and deputy heads. Very often it is possible to cover short absences or gaps by using recently retired staff and there are many good retired teachers who can help schools in that way, including retired heads and deputies.
I will not go into the detail of disciplinary procedures or of suspension and dismissal since the noble Lord did not raise objection to those elements in Schedule 17. However, I urge him to recognise that Schedule 17 is much wider than the specific points he raised and deserves and needs to stay in the Bill.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: The noble Lord's reply worries me. In essence we are trying to draw out of the maintained sector the initiative and imagination that is there. As the noble Lord knows from his practice in business, initiative and imagination are drawn out by giving responsibility for decisions.
Schedule 17 is a belt and braces operation. Fundamentally, it says that we cannot really trust a governing body to appoint the right man or woman; we need the local authority to look at it. We cannot rely on
570
the head to appoint the right teacher; we need to safeguard. As the noble Lord said, that does not apply anywhere else. The schools are surrounded by the diocesan authorities and the local authorities. My objection to Schedule 17 is that it does not allow the initiative which exists to come through.
I do not want to harp on about the Oratory School and I do not raise that as a political point in relation to the Prime Minister. However, I must mention the name of John Mackintosh. He is a distinguished headmaster who transformed his school on his own initiative, on his own appointments within the state sector. I want to see 3,000 John Mackintoshes and this schedule stops that happening.
The fact is that people like the noble Lord apply one rule in their business, as does everyone else in society. It is true that the flag of the independent sector, like the flag of the noble Lord's sector, was the skull and crossbones. I acknowledge that, but we followed our initiative and we failed if we did not do that. Why not allow this in the state sector? What is it about teaching that needs this elaborate, complicated control which does not apply in any other area of English life?
I shall withdraw the amendment, but the noble Lord has not proved his point and he did not live his life by the philosophy which he is putting forward.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 175E:
Page 43, line 11, leave out ("or by virtue of section 48(2) or (4)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 175C and 175D not moved.]
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Staffing of foundation, voluntary aided and foundation special schools]:
[Amendment No. 176 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 176A to 176F:
Page 170, line 9, at end insert ("(but paragraphs 6 to 8 so apply subject to paragraphs 28 and 29).").
Page 170, line 11, leave out ("below") and insert ("in paragraphs 5 to 8 (or, in a case where paragraph 28 or 29 applies, any of the steps falling to be taken under that paragraph)").
Page 170, line 35, at end insert—
("(6) In sub-paragraph (1) the reference to paragraphs 6 to 8 includes a reference to paragraph 28 or 29; and in sub-paragraph (2) the reference to paragraphs 6 to 8 includes a reference to paragraph 29.").
Page 173, line 23, after ("9") insert ("or 28 and 29").
Page 176, line 4, at end insert—
("Advisory rights for appropriate diocesan authorities
27.—(1) This paragraph applies to a voluntary aided or foundation school which is a Church of England, Church in Wales or Roman Catholic Church school.
(2) If the school is a voluntary aided school, the appropriate diocesan officer shall have the same advisory rights in relation to the appointment, engagement or dismissal of teachers at the school as are for the time being exercisable by the chief education officer in accordance with paragraph 2(3).
(3) If the school is a foundation school, the governing body may agree with the appropriate diocesan authority to accord to the appropriate diocesan officer—

(a) with respect to all teachers at the school, or

(b) with respect to any particular description of such teachers,

the same advisory rights in relation to their appointment, engagement or dismissal as are exercisable by the chief education officer in accordance with paragraph 2(3).
(4) The agreement of the governing body for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) must be given in writing and may only be withdrawn by notice in writing to the appropriate diocesan authority.
(5) In paragraphs 18 and 25, as they apply to a school within sub-paragraph (2) or (3) above, references to the chief education officer accordingly include the appropriate diocesan officer, so far as necessary for giving effect to any advisory rights exercisable by him under this paragraph.
(6) In this paragraph "the appropriate diocesan officer" means such person as the appropriate diocesan authority may nominate.").
Page 176, line 4, at end insert—
("Appointment of head teachers for schools of Roman Catholic religious orders
28.—(1) This paragraph applies to a voluntary aided school if the trustees under a trust deed relating to the school are also the trustees of a Roman Catholic religious order.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (6), sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) shall have effect in relation to the filling of a vacancy in the post of head teacher of the school, in place of paragraphs 6 to 8.
(3) The governing body shall notify the Major Superior of the vacancy in writing.
(4) The governing body shall—

(a) interview such persons who are members of the order as are proposed as candidates for appointment to the post by the Major Superior; and

(b) appoint to the post one of the persons so interviewed by them unless, by virtue of sub-paragraph (5) or otherwise, they have good reason for not making any such appointment.

(5) No person shall be appointed under sub-paragraph (4)(b) if he does not meet any staff qualification requirements which are applicable in relation to his appointment.
(6) If no appointment is made by the governing body under sub-paragraph (4)(b), paragraphs 6 to 8 shall have effect in relation to the filling of the vacancy.
(7) In this paragraph—
"the Major Superior" means the Major Superior of the order;
"the order" means the order mentioned in sub-paragraph (1);
"Roman Catholic religious order" means a Roman Catholic religious institute or society of apostolic life.
Selection procedures involving whole governing body
29.—(1) If the governing body of a voluntary aided school so determine (and paragraph 28 does not apply), sub-paragraphs (2) to (6) below shall apply in relation to the filling of a vacancy in the post of head teacher or deputy head teacher of the school, in place of paragraphs 7 and 8.
(2) No selection panel need be appointed by the governing body under paragraph 7(1), but the following provisions, namely—

(a) paragraph 7(2)(a) and (b),

(b) paragraph 7(3), and

(c) paragraph 7(6),

shall apply to the governing body or (as the case may be) to any decision of that body taken by virtue of this paragraph as it applies to a selection panel or (as the case may be) to any decision of such a panel taken under paragraph 7.
(3) If, within the period of 14 days beginning with the date when they receive a notification under paragraph 7(2)(a) (as it applies in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) above) the local education authority make written representations to the governing body that any of the applicants selected by them is not a suitable person for appointment to the post of head teacher, the governing body shall not appoint that person unless they have—

(a) considered those representations, and

(b) notified the authority of their response to the representations.

(4) The governing body shall not appoint any person if he does not meet any staff qualification requirements which are applicable in relation to his appointment.
(5) If the governing body do not appoint any person interviewed by them, the governing body—

(a) may, if they think fit, re-advertise the vacancy in the manner required by paragraph 6, and

(b) whether or not they re-advertise the vacancy, may repeat the steps mentioned in paragraph 7(2)(a) and (b) (as they apply in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) above).

(6) Paragraph 7(7) shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 [Staffing for non-school activities]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 176G:
Page 44, line 18, leave out ("or by virtue of section 48(2) or (4)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 55, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Following on from the previous amendment, in respect of what other walk of life would you put in an Act of Parliament a provision such as how a school is to employ people who maintain non-school activities and relative staffing provision? I would like the noble Lord to tell me why it is that the headmaster and governing body of a school are not able to deal with these matters.
I shall not dwell on the issue. This is nannying of the highest order. One is talking about a school which has a reputable governing body and head teacher, and the Government wish to put in an Act of Parliament how they should govern the school. Does the Minister think the management of Marks and Spencer would accept that? This relates to employing extra, part-time staff and 25 trees will have to be chopped down to put this in the Bill. Is it necessary? What is it about governing bodies that makes them so helpless that they cannot employ a couple of extra people to organise a fete in the evening?

573
I would like the Minister to tell us why he has to put this sort of thing in a Bill? It seems to me to be a waste of trees. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord fails to recognise that this is a permissive clause. In other words, it only happens to the extent that the local education authority may determine. If the local education authority so determines, Schedule 16—for community, voluntary controlled and community special schools—and Schedule 17—for foundation, voluntary aided and foundation special schools—apply in relation to persons employed to work solely or partly for the purpose of non-school activities. Thus, either the governing body is able to manage all the staff who work on the school premises or, where appropriate, the local authority can take responsibility for staff engaged in non-school activities.
This is not new. The clause appears in similar form in Section 140 of the Education Act 1996—the consolidation Act—and it dates back to the introduction of Local Management of Schools by the noble Lord's own government in the Education Reform Act 1988.
What we want to do is ensure that non-school activities can take place in schools and that there is a legal framework in which that can happen. It does not have to be imposed if the local education authority does not so determine. But schools have found that where they want to encourage non-school activities on school premises it is helpful to have this kind of provision. It should not be a controversial clause at all. It represents a commonsense approach to dealing with responsibility for staffing at those schools where non-school activities take place.
The school of which I was chair of governors for many years called itself a community school. We prided ourselves in Drayton School in Tottenham on the number of out-of-school activities that took place. Some of them had teachers from the school; some of them had people from community groups outside; a lot of them had adults squeezed into children's desks. But the school was an active place right up into the evening. I am sure the noble Lord shares my enthusiasm for that kind of activity. But it is for the comfort of governing bodies and for the security of those involved that we should have this approach to responsibility for staffing. If the clause were not in the Bill it would introduce an element of confusion over the organisation of these activities and take away a sensible mechanism for organising the staffing of these important community services. I beg the noble Lord not to try to take it out of the Bill.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I accept what the noble Lord has said. I have the advantage over him that I was not responsible for the policies of the previous government as he was for the policies of the Opposition. The Bill is being introduced by a new Government, a Government who are prepared, so I am told, to look at history with a new eye, but who are not prepared to question the restrictions of the past. I accept the noble Lord's point that, legally, most likely in terms of
574
insurance, this is possibly necessary. But the thrust of the Bill ought to be to hand the governors, the headmaster and the staff responsibility for these matters. The Government have avoided doing it. They have surrounded these schools with the same restrictions that existed historically—in particular, the shackles of local authority control—which makes it rather hard to do the kind of things the noble Lord wants. In various parts of the country some schools have found it hard to do this. Some local authorities have worried about the structure of the buildings.
All these amendments rest on the governors and the headmaster carrying responsibility and the local authority recognising that they are able to enter into insurance arrangements and so on. Unless we achieve that level of responsibility, we will never get English schools right.
I accept the noble Lord's point. I raise my point about giving responsibility to schools which I do not think this Bill does. That is why I have tabled these amendments. Fundamentally, this Government or a subsequent government, will have to do that if English education is to be put right. The same factors as made the Minister a success in business will also make headmasters successful in state schools. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56 [Payments in respect of dismissal, etc.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 176H:
Page 45, line 8, leave out ("or by virtue of section 48(2) or (4)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Staff at community, secular foundation or voluntary, or special school]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 46, line 18, leave out ("religious opinions") and insert ("opinions as to religion").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 181. Amendment No. 177 questions the wording of Clause 58(2). At the moment it says,
"No person shall be disqualified by reason of his religious opinions",
which one might conveniently translate into "religious convictions". There are some comfortable religions in this House and many which are not. Some people's religious convictions may amount to things that one does not want to have in a school and quite reasonably so. I propose to change the wording to "opinions as to religion"—in other words, seeking to mean that the person cannot be disqualified because of his opinions about religion. But opinions may also involve doing nasty things to children in a ceremonial sort of way; for example, at the moment a devil worshipper, according to the way in which things are written at the moment, could get in under this clause. If one can change the wording to make sure that the opinions are about

575
religion rather than the nature of the opinions themselves, which are exempt from disqualification, then it will be a safer clause to have in the Bill.
Amendment No. 181 turns to the last line on page 46 of the Bill. I find it an astonishing concept. We are here legislating to make sure that a teacher of religious education in a religious school should not be paid less because he teaches religious education. I find it astonishing that it should be necessary to legislate for that. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate can enlighten us as to whether someone teaching religion in a Church of England school would or could be paid less because he did that. I have not bothered to delete the following line where he could be paid less because he attends church. I find it an astonishing concept. I would like the noble Lord to explain. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We accept Amendment No. 177 in principle. There is a question about how to catch all shades of opinion, including those people who have no opinion at all on matters religious. I do not accept that "opinion" means the same as "conviction", but I do not believe that that is essential to the argument. We shall look into this rather than accepting the amendment now. There may be consequential changes. If appropriate, I shall invite the noble Lord to bring forward an amendment at Report stage which we can accept.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 177A, 178A and 179A, which update and clarify the current safeguards of church schools allowing them to employ teachers with a commitment to the religious ethos of such schools. Government Amendment No. 179A provides for voluntary-aided schools to give preference, in connection with the appointment, remuneration or promotion of teachers to persons whose religious opinions are in accordance with the tenets of the religion or religious denomination specified in relation to the school; or who attend religious worship in accordance with those tenets; or who give, or are willing to give, religious education at the school in accordance with those tenets. Regard may also be had, in connection with the termination of the employment of any teacher at the school, to any conduct which is incompatible with the precepts, or with the upholding of the tenets, of the specified religion or religious denomination of the school.
Government Amendments Nos. 177A and 178A provide a discretion for foundation and voluntary controlled schools with a religious character to have regard to a person's ability and fitness to preserve and develop the religious character of the school in connection with the appointment of any such person as head teacher. The amendments will ensure that Church schools will be able to continue to preserve their religious character and ethos through the discretions that they exercise in employing teachers who support that character and ethos. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Perhaps I may respond finally to Amendment No. 181, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred. I remind the noble Lord that line 42 of Clause 59 refers not only to the question of remuneration but also to
576
deprivation of, or disqualification from, any promotion or other advantage. The provision is a good deal wider than the noble Lord suggested. I submit that line 42 fits well into the clause as drafted and with the amendments to this clause to which I have spoken. I hope that the noble Lord will not seek later to press his amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I see with relief that Amendment No. 179A deletes the offending subsection, so I take it that that is no longer at issue.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 177A, 178A and 179A. These arise from the amendment passed in your Lordships' House to the Human Rights Bill at Third Reading. I have already expressed my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the part that she played in moving that amendment and in being instrumental in having it passed in your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness is unable to be in her place at the moment, but I repeat my previous tribute.
I should like now to express my thanks to the Government for what I regard as a most generous response to the concerns which were expressed by members of the Churches in our debates on human rights. On Report, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor went to some lengths to make clear his view that appointments to Church schools should have regard to belief and practice in accordance with religious tradition. The amendment moved in your Lordships' House at Third Reading largely reflected the Lord Chancellor's words—and that amendment was passed.
I led a delegation to the Home Secretary which included members of the Roman Catholic Church and the free Churches as well as of the Church of England. The Home Secretary expressed the view that our concerns about Church schools would be properly met by an amendment introduced into this Bill. Therefore, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment putting that point. I am delighted that the Government have accepted it. The form of the amendment was prepared in consultation with the Churches and we express ourselves completely satisfied.
Perhaps I may address Amendment No. 179A first. It refers to the appointment, remuneration, promotion and termination of employment of teachers at voluntary aided schools. It is of particular importance to us that the matters that are clarified relate not only to appointment, but also to termination. We are particularly glad that the two words "precepts" and "tenets" appear in the amendment. We take it that "precepts" refers to behaviour and that "tenets" refers to belief. The amendment clarifies what we took already to be the case; namely, that in appointing or dismissing either heads or teachers, regard could be had both to whether their behaviour was in accord with the religious tradition that the Church represented and to whether their belief was in accord with that tradition.
As to Amendments Nos. 177A and 178A, these are new provisions relating to foundation and voluntary controlled schools. Controlled schools are Church

577
schools but have a different status from aided schools. The Committee is aware that the 1944 Act gave schools the choice to become aided or controlled schools. In many cases the decision was fairly haphazard. Aided schools were required to make a financial contribution to the capital costs of the buildings and have a majority of foundation governors. Aided schools had various other features. A controlled school made no financial contribution. Although foundation governors represented the religious foundation of the school they were not necessarily in the majority.
However, controlled schools are still quite clearly Church schools. In recent years there has been greater understanding on the part of such schools that they have Church status and need to pay attention to their religious character. But up to this point it has not been possible when interviewing for headships to make any kind of inquiry about a person's religious convictions or sympathy for a religious belief. A friend of mine told me that when interviewing people for the post of head he had to resort to questions such as how the candidate spent his time on Sunday mornings. This amendment means that questions can be put to establish whether a person has the ability and fitness to preserve and develop the religious character of a voluntary controlled school. We regard that as of great importance to Church schools. Therefore, I thank the Government for a most generous response to the concerns that we have expressed. We wholeheartedly support the amendment.
Baroness Byford: Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether this provision will ensure that there is no conflict between this Bill and the Human Rights Bill. This matter may have posed problems in the past. The right reverend Prelate expressed satisfaction with the amendment. However, can the Minister confirm that there will not be any conflict at any stage and that Church schools will be able to ask very direct questions? It is only right that they should be able so to do. Perhaps the Minister will enlarge upon that matter in his response.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness will be aware that the Government's position was that nothing in the Human Rights Bill removed the ability of Church schools to act in the way provided for in these amendments. Therefore, the conflict that she describes does not arise. I hope that she is as satisfied with these provisions as is the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Lucas: I am totally delighted and overwhelmed by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to Amendment No. 177. It is an enormously rare privilege to have an amendment, if not quite accepted, at least approved by the Government. I am particularly delighted because it has arisen for reasons that I had not intended. I have stumbled across something where for different reasons we both agree that the amendment should be made. This is an amusing contrast to Amendment No. 181 where his speaking note appears to deny that my amendment is right whereas his amendments, Amendments Nos. 179 and 179A, clearly
578
show that my amendment is right. I have won another amendment by the deletion of Amendment No. 179. However, I have not won any hearts in the DfEE in doing so. I shall chalk it up to my personal score, even if I am not allowed to acknowledge it in public. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Staff at foundation or voluntary school with religious character]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe): I should point out that, if Amendment No. 179A is agreed to, I cannot put Amendment No. 181.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 177A, I78A and 179A:
Page 46, line 33, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (3) and (3A)").
Page 46, line 38, at end insert—
("(3A) In connection with the appointment of a person to be head teacher of the school (whether foundation or voluntary controlled) regard may be had to that person's ability and fitness to preserve and develop the religious character of the school.").
Page 46, line 39, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) If the school is a voluntary aided school—

(a) preference may be given, in connection with the appointment, remuneration or promotion of teachers at the school, to persons—

(i) whose religious opinions are in accordance with the tenets of the religion or religious denomination specified in relation to the school under section 66(4), or

(ii) who attend religious worship in accordance with those tenets, or

(iii) who give, or are willing to give, religious education at the school in accordance with those tenets; and

(b) regard may be had, in connection with the termination of the employment of any teacher at the school, to any conduct on his part which is incompatible with the precepts, or with the upholding of the tenets, of the religion or religious denomination so specified.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 178, 179 and 180 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 60 [Responsibility of governing body and head teacher for discipline]:
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 181A:
Page 47, line 18, leave out ("ensure that policies designed to").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry that the noble Baroness is not here to listen to my talk on discipline. I am sorry that the Minister cannot make it late in the evening. I hope that her other engagement is equally interesting. So the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Whitty, will have to listen to me.
Many a tree has died in vain over this. Imagine this in any other walk of life. You are appointing a head teacher, and, such is the parlous state of English education, you have to put in a Bill what he shall do. He shall promote among pupils self-discipline and a proper

579
regard for authority. He shall encourage good behaviour and respect for others, and secure that the standard of behaviour of pupils is acceptable. Why, uniquely, among the professions of England does a head teacher have to be told to do his job? I do not understand why Parliament should have to put what a man should do on the face of a Bill. Is it done for trade union secretaries or directors?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord did it in an amendment earlier on this afternoon with regard to what happens at a parents' annual meeting.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Oh, spiritual values!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: The noble Lord does not like ideology. He must admit that this is a very different matter. I admire the noble Lord's clever tongue, but he does not get away with it. No, no, this is telling a man how to sign a letter.
Everyone knows that a school depends upon good discipline. A head teacher is judged upon whether or not he or she maintains discipline. The judgment comes from two sources. It comes from the parents, who will not send their children to the school if discipline is not kept. It comes, secondly, from inspection.
In all the amendments that I have proposed, I have said that I find that there is amazing mistrust of the education system so that one has to put on the face of a Bill what head teachers see as the essence of their exercise. All schools work well when the teachers and staff agree on a disciplinary code and the parents accept it. It can sometimes be difficult. Sometimes the parents resist some of it; sometimes there is conflict.
It is amazing that Her Majesty's Government should have such disregard for the teaching profession that they have to tell a head teacher that his job is to promote self-discipline, encourage good behaviour and secure the standard of behaviour of pupils. Are you expecting to take him to court if he does not do it? Are you going to take her to court if she does not do it? It is not necessary. Teachers have a standard of professionalism. God knows, I was part of it for long enough. The profession does not need to be told this sort of thing.
I ask the noble Baroness the Minister to tell us why she has to put on the face of a Bill what every head teacher would expect to be part of his or her job. It is an insult to the job that I carried out for 40 years. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: As the noble Lord indicates, the amendments would remove the important duties of head teachers for determining the school's discipline policy. They would leave the governing body with the sole duty of promoting good behaviour on the part of the school's pupils. Important though the governing body's duty is, it is only part of the equation in determining the school's discipline policy.
580
I find these amendments from the official Opposition somewhat extraordinary. I am advised that Clause 60 with relatively minor amendments, re-enacts Section 154 of the Education Act 1996 as substituted by Section 2 of the 1997 Act taken through this House only 15 months ago by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for the previous government. I cannot understand the ideological, or almost trade union, position of headmaster that the noble Lord takes—I use the word "headmaster" advisedly in this case—against this section. It is identical to Section 154 of the 1996 Act.
Secondly, the report of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on discipline in schools made clear how important it is for schools to have a whole school policy, and the responsibilities of head teachers in that respect. These amendments would remove the duty on the head teacher of maintained schools to draw up a disciplinary policy setting out the standards of behaviour: what it expects; how good behaviour and discipline will be encouraged; and the sanctions which will be applied.
It is important that there are separate and specific duties on both the governing body and head teacher for determing the school's disciplinary policy. The governing body sets the framework of that policy by making the statement of general principles. The head teacher has responsibility for determining the measures which make up the school's code of conduct.
That was recognised in the 1996 Act. It was retained in the 1997 Act and we are retaining it now. I therefore believe that the amendments are misguided and in their effect would not help schools to promote and maintain high standards of behaviour. I believe that they should be withdrawn.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I am glad to recognise another dinosaur! I accept that I was not a Member of the previous government, nor I think a Member of this House when the previous legislation was passed. The tendency has been to reiterate clauses from previous Acts as has occurred in this Bill. I am not being trade unionist on this. If a head teacher feels that to maintain discipline it has to be on the face of an Act of Parliament, there is something wrong with the relationship between the Government and teaching profession. Let us envisage a situation where there is fighting in the yard and the head teacher says, "It has nothing to do with me. It is not in an Act of Parliament".
The Government profess to be casting a new light on education. I am encouraging them in that. I ask that the vision should be realised in effect. But the Government prefer to tie themselves to old totems from Acts of Parliament that have been in existence for 50 years. This is not New Labour; it is old-fashioned government.
Lord Tope: It is new Tory.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I hear "new Tory" being mentioned by noble Lords. It is better to trust the head teacher, master or mistress, to do the job than to tell them, "We mistrust you so much we have to put it

581
on the face of the Bill". If that is done, those people will go by the letter of the law. I doubt that the noble Lord understands that.
Lord Tope: The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is right to say that it is not new Labour. The Minister himself in responding told us that it was old Tory and that is where it comes from. I am afraid that we see that too often.
I have total sympathy and support for what is in the Bill. It is clearly right and proper. However, I share a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said about the fact that the provision is included. Much though I support the objectives, it is yet another example of being too prescriptive in telling professionals how to do their job. If it is borrowed from the previous government, so be it.
I have a great deal of sympathy for what has been said. Although I support the provision, I question whether it needs to be included and whether it is not another case of the Government being far too prescriptive.
Lord Whitty: I wonder whether either noble Lord has considered the implication of removing the provision. What kind of signal would be given to head teachers and to people who follow our proceedings if we cross out a requirement for head teachers to have a responsibility for discipline? Whatever the merits of whether it ought to have been there in the first place, a detrimental impression would be given if we removed it at this stage.
Lord Tope: I am not sure that it is a defence to say, "We have included something which should not have been included but we cannot take it out because that would send the wrong signals." There is a changed circumstance. Might the creation of a general teaching council be an appropriate reason for removing provisions from a Bill? When we debated the GTC, many of us argued that this is exactly the kind of aspect for which it should be responsible. We are about to have a GTC undertaking that works so perhaps this is the time to remove such over-prescriptive legislation without sending the wrong message, as the Minister suggests. I do not believe that he has made his point.
Baroness Byford: The Minister asked what signals would be sent to the teaching profession. I believe that to say, "Here we trust you to do a good job. We are not going to prescribe, written down, what you should be about", would send a good signal. I thoroughly support the comments of my colleagues about being too prescriptive. The Government should not be negative but should embrace what we are saying and delete the provision. I do not believe that they should be afraid.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I shall withdraw the amendment, so noble Lords need not worry; there will not be another vote tonight. English education has gone through a considerable amount of turmoil. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that with the GTC we are
582
moving into a new situation. In my experience, the teaching profession, with proper support from the Government, will behave responsibly. That is why we on this side of the Committee have argued about giving responsibility to schools. Our view is that if you hand out responsibility people will behave. The grant-maintained schools have shown that.
In consequence, we feel a certain amount of distress about putting on the face of the Bill the basic duties which are demanded of a head teacher. Do the Government want to ask people to trust them? This is like telling a bank cashier that he does not take £10 out of the till. It is as crude as that.
The Government will never gain the support of the teaching profession if they tell head teachers that one of their jobs is to promote good discipline. It used to be regarded as par for the course. Quite honestly, the Government are trying to combine stick and carrot and it will not work. They must decide where they stand. On the one hand they say they are giving 100 per cent. responsibility to the schools; on the other hand they believe that they must put on the face of the Bill every prescription that they can as regards the appointment of staff and so much else. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 181B and 181C not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 47, line 23, after ("principles") insert (", taking account of children who may have special educational needs,").
The noble Baroness said: At last we come to exclusions. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 189. In these two amendments I have the support, at any rate in name and spirit, of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Northbourne, although they are not actually in the Chamber in the flesh. The purpose of Amendment No. 182 is to build into the behaviour and discipline policy the recognition of the need to respond to children's special educational needs. The purpose of Amendment No. 189 is to ensure that the governing body of a school considers whether a child has special educational needs when it is informed of an exclusion.
One of the difficulties that schools have is in identifying and addressing learning difficulties among those pupils who are demonstrating behavioural difficulties. This is not a new phenomenon. David Galloway's work in Sheffield in the early 1980s showed that teachers significantly overestimated the IQ of pupils excluded from school for behaviour difficulties. They construed them as being brighter pupils who were misbehaving rather than children who were having difficulties engaging with the curriculum and for whom learning difficulties might be a factor contributing to their behaviour difficulties.
Those findings were echoed more recently in the 1996 Ofsted report, Exclusions from secondary schools, 1995–1996, which identified significant levels of unrecognised and unmet learning difficulties among those pupils who were excluded. Carol Hayden reports

583
similar findings in respect of primary school children and it is here that there has been a significant increase in the number of children excluded—indeed, very young children—which is really very upsetting.
Carol Hayden was the principal researcher on a national research project focusing on exclusions from primary schools. She argues that,
"the evidence about children excluded from primary schools illustrates that they should be viewed primarily as children with special educational needs and/or children 'in need' and therefore entitled to the support and protection from the legislation which recognises these needs, rather than viewed as a discipline problem which requires appropriate sanctions, one of which is exclusion from school… The public debate about exclusion tends to focus upon `naughty', 'bad' and 'ill-disciplined' behaviour and thus views the problem in terms of the need for stronger discipline in schools and more punitive action against those who break the rules. If, on the other hand, we look carefully at the mounting evidence about the circumstances of individuals who are excluded from school, we may decide to try to understand the factors at work in order to provide a considered and, we hope, more effective response".
It is precisely this considered response that may be missing in some schools. One of the difficulties is that children with behaviour difficulties who are seen as naughty, bad and ill-disciplined, may be dealt with through the pastoral side of the school rather than through the SEN side of the school. Where the two sides of the school's operation are not well dovetailed with one another, this may mean that pupils' behaviour and learning difficulties are not given the considered and staged response set out in the code of practice.
Evidence in the Ofsted report, The Implementation of the Code of Practice Two Years On, supports that view. The report showed that a significant number of schools do not put pupils with behaviour difficulties on their SEN register. The consequence of this is that neither their behaviour nor their learning difficulties, where these accompany the behaviour difficulties, are then addressed through the staged response of the code of practice.
These are two important amendments. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say about them. I hope that he will be able to accept them. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: This amendment addresses the chicken and egg situation which often occurs with behavioural problems resulting from children finding it difficult to cope within schools. Thus it is something which really ought to be on the face of the Bill. In the field that I know most about—namely, dyslexia—it is known that dyslexics have two standard ways of dealing with failure in the classroom. One is to disappear into the middle of the class: "Don't make too much noise; don't attract any attention and let everything go past you". The other one is to sit at the back and disrupt the classroom. We discussed this type of behaviour when dealing with an earlier amendment.
The pupil who follows the more common pattern—that is the second of those two options—will often be treated as having first and foremost a behavioural problem. However, one has to take account of what else may be happening. It could be said that virtually all pupils who have behavioural problems will have some
584
form of special educational need. It is vitally important to give such pupils support when possible. Ultimately this will require better training for classroom teachers to enable them to recognise these factors. Disabilities such as autism are being recognised. The behaviour of children suffering from a condition such as autism may be misinterpreted as a behavioural problem. As the noble Baroness said, such problems are surrounded by myth. I have been told that all dyslexics are incredibly bright and I am a dyslexic—
10.45 p.m.
Lord Tope: It is true!
Lord Addington: The noble Lord is very kind. Bright children suffering from dyslexia are easy to spot. Once their condition has been recognised they are easy to help. I do not suggest that that is the case with all such conditions. People like to confine these conditions in a "box", but most of them cannot be confined in such a way. Teachers may well not recognise the real reason for a child's bad behaviour; namely, that he or she may have special needs.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I support my noble friend's amendment. My noble friend the Minister may be aware of the research carried out by Professor Neville Harris of John Moore University. I believe that research was carried out some two years ago. He carried out research into special educational needs and into related appeals. He has just concluded research into exclusion appeals. He concluded that there is a high correlation between the two matters, and that if they are dealt with separately that can give rise to difficulties on appeals. Certainly, difficulties can arise on exclusion appeals if account is not taken of special educational needs.
Baroness Blatch: I have sympathy for the teachers and the children in the classroom. Whatever the reasons for it, disruptive behaviour in the classroom inhibits the effectiveness of a teacher and inhibits the learning processes of children in the classroom, particularly those children who have not exhibited the disruptive behaviour. The speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, only strengthen my belief that the disruptive element should be removed from the classroom—whatever the reasons for that behaviour—to enable the problem to be analysed.
My local authority had a primary and secondary support unit. The modern term is a pupil referral unit. Can the Minister say how many pupil referral units exist? I understand that some have recently been closed. How many are planned to support the Government's new policy? I believe there are two keys to solving this problem. One, of course, is early intervention. When I was a Home Office Minister I met young and not so young people who were on probation or in prison. Often those people had not learnt to read and write at an early stage of their education. Often they were bright people who simply had not mastered that skill early enough and had become rather clever criminals. That was unfortunate. There seemed to be a road from disruptive

585
behaviour and disaffection to truancy, street corner and prison cell. That process was set out very well by John Patten in his White Paper and has continued to be accepted by the present Government. So early intervention is certainly one key.
The other relates to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It is especially important that problems such as dyslexia are properly analysed. It cannot be analysed in a disruptive and chaotic classroom. I strongly support the concerns of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers. Its members feel very threatened by the measures that the Government are taking. Setting aside those young people who need special educational measures—in other words, medical, psychiatric or psychological help, or some other form of specialist help—there are young people in our schools who are simply disruptive. They are naughty and badly behaved, and they need managing. The teachers have almost nothing left now by way of sanctions. Even minor forms of corporal punishment have gone. Keeping children in after school is no longer an option because of the difficulties they might have in missing school buses and possibly travelling home in the dark. It is increasingly difficult for teachers to cope.
I am also very concerned about the whole notion of targets. Yes, everybody believes it right to reduce the number of exclusions. But if there is a case for exclusion, there is a case for it—targets or no targets. Either schools are to be made to keep those kinds of cases within the school and manage them, or they must be able to exclude them. The element of second guessing does nothing but undermine the governors and the staff, particularly the teacher who is trying to manage in a classroom. That is very disturbing. When a disruptive pupil is returned to a school where, so far as the school and the governors are concerned, there has been a case for exclusion, the effectiveness of the authority of staff and governors is greatly affected.
I believe that the Government have not found the right remedies. Merely lowering the case for exclusions is wrong. We need to have a care for the orderly running of the schools, for teachers who work very hard to maintain discipline in the classroom.
There was an effective schools unit in the DfEE. I believe it is now called the standards unit. The unit was examining those schools where there was a very low incidence of disruptive behaviour and exclusions to see why that was, and comparing them with other schools which had a high incidence. Very often, it depended upon the regime of the school: how it was run; how it was led; the consistency of approach by staff to the children; the consistency of rules applied; and often the involvement of the children themselves in establishing the rules of behaviour in the school. Some interesting experiments were carried out. That is one area for examination, There is an issue here. It is
586
important to speak up for the school that is doing a good job and is now hard pressed by rather rigid and sometimes counter-productive measures.
Lord Whitty: I recognise and sympathise with the situations described by my noble friend Lady David and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the one hand, where exclusion is based on behaviour which stems from unmet special needs; and the other side of the coin, as described by the noble Baroness, where failure to deal with behavioural problems affects a whole class. It is therefore important that some degree of balance is maintained.
Turning to the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady David, the first relates to the drawing up of the general principles of a school. It is important that the requirements of children with special needs are not overlooked when those principles are drawn up. However, the governing body should take account of all the differing needs of all the pupils in a school, including, for example, the differing ethnic and cultural backgrounds of children. I believe it would be wrong to single out one particular group and place a specific requirement on the face of the Bill. However, the situation as described on both sides of the picture makes this matter more appropriate for detailed guidance. I assure my noble friend that we shall ensure that this point is adequately covered in the revised guidance we shall need to issue following the enactment of this Bill.
As for Amendment No. 189, we recognise that there is scope for many exclusions to be prevented through earlier intervention by schools and by other agencies. A strong focus on earlier intervention, co-operation between the SEN side and the pastoral side of the school and a multi-agency approach are important. We are very concerned that exclusion may on occasion—probably quite frequently—be used to punish poor behaviour that arises from unrecognised or unmet special needs. The department will be issuing new guidance emphasising the importance of identifying such cases early and providing the necessary support to avoid exclusion at a later date.
Special needs, such as emotional and behavioural difficulties, are not in themselves adequate grounds for exclusion unless the child is likely to cause injury or severe disruption to other pupils or staff. Our guidance will make that very clear. The whole emphasis of our policy is to try to promote the helping of children by schools and to deal with the position in the school, even if that requires taking the child out of the classroom.
As regards referral units, which apply at a more serious stage of the process, the noble Baroness asked how many such units were now operating. I am advised that it is 330. Whether that has gone up dramatically or down slightly, I am not clear. I may be able to provide the noble Baroness with more information on that matter.
Unidentified special needs may be just one factor that should be considered before taking a decision to use the punitive sanction of exclusion, but it is a very important

587
factor. That will be covered in our guidance, along with all the complex issues that have been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and other contributors to the debate. A bald statement on the face of the Bill is not sufficient. We consider that the matter should be covered in guidance. In the light of what I have said, I ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Lord Addington: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do about the amendment, I should like to make clear that, although I stated that behavioural problems may well be caused as a result of undiagnosed special needs, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the other pupils in the class also have rights. School exclusion is something I would be worried about, whereas removal from the classroom is often appropriate. As an example, putting a dyslexic into a conventional English class without proper assistance is the equivalent of putting someone in a wheelchair on a cross-country course. They will not benefit from it. Often a unit within a school is a very practical way forward. I hope that that puts some of my comments in context.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Perhaps I may echo what the noble Lord said. The whole point of directing the criteria of special educational needs to a particular pupil may be precisely that they are removed from the ordinary classroom situation.
Baroness David: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble and learned friend Lord Archer for their sympathetic support. I am glad that my noble and learned friend mentioned the research of Professor Neville Harris, of which I had heard, which is very helpful with regard to what I have been saying. Of course, I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch says. It is very difficult indeed for teachers with disruptive pupils. But my amendments try to get at the cause of the behaviour and to deal with it early on. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his sympathetic response. I shall be happy to withdraw my amendment if I can be reassured, as I think he did reassure me, that both the points I made will be covered in the guidance. That is quite satisfactory and, in the light of that, I shall be pleased to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 183:
Page 47, line 37, at end insert—
("(c) registered pupils at the school, and
(d) teaching and non-teaching staff at the school.").
The noble Baroness said: I understood that we were going to stop at 11 o'clock tonight. Amendment No. 183 is the first of a long series of amendments, most of which are mine. I hope that the Deputy Chief Whip will say that this is the moment when the House might resume.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think my noble friend would prefer to move her amendment very rapidly, succinctly and cogently, and then other Members of the Committee can speak even more rapidly and cogently and we can try and get a little bit more business done.
Lord Tope: That is quite wrong. This group of amendments relates to extremely important subjects. It is something on which a number of us want to speak. I am sure we shall all speak cogently: we always do in this Chamber. But to have to rush it through, last thing at night on a Thursday evening, simply to suit the convenience of the Government, is unfair to the Committee; particularly unfair to the mover of these amendments, who I know has a long drive tonight; and, above all, it is unfair to the people who are affected by the amendments. It is now just after 11 o'clock at night.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My noble friend knows that I do not make difficulties for the Government if that can be helped. But the theme which draws together the amendments in this grouping does not become obvious when one looks at it. I have two amendments which are quite different from the amendments about to be moved by my noble friend. How we can be succinct and rapid when we are dealing with a whole group of different subjects escapes me. My noble friend may want to think again.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I yield to the succinct and cogent arguments of noble Lords who have spoken. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at two minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Who Decides?: Consultation Response
  Who Decides?: Consultation Response
  Culture Council, 28 May
  Culture Council, 28 May
  Parking on the Mall
  Parking on the Mall
  Pay Television: Channel Bundling
  Pay Television: Channel Bundling
  Palace of Westminster: Stone Cleaning and Restoration
  Palace of Westminster: Stone Cleaning and Restoration
  NHS Trust Appointments: Vacancies
  NHS Trust Appointments: Vacancies
  NHS Fundholding: Savings from Abolition
  NHS Fundholding: Savings from Abolition
  Cosmetic Contact Lenses
  Cosmetic Contact Lenses
  Wales Industrial and Maritime Museum
  Wales Industrial and Maritime Museum
  Sex Offenders: Child Protection Measures
  Sex Offenders: Child Protection Measures
  Cuba: Debt Conversion
  Cuba: Debt Conversion
  Nurses: Project 2000
  Nurses: Project 2000
  Landmine Convention
  Landmine Convention