Sitting of 24 March 1998

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

    LLOYDS TSB BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 31 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HEALTH

    Co-operation
    Ms Rosie Winterton: What action he is taking to promote better co-operation between health authorities and social services. [34369]
    Caroline Flint: What action he is taking to promote better co-operation between health authorities and social services. [34375]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Since taking office, my ministerial colleagues and I have devoted a great deal of effort to promoting a closer and better working relationship between health authorities and social services. The fruits of that effort were apparent this winter, in the brilliant success of both the health service and social services in dealing with emergencies.
    Ms Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the work of Home Start, which has—through close co-operation between health authorities and social services, and with the help of volunteers—assisted many families in times of crisis? Is he aware that, in my own constituency, Doncaster Home Start is currently helping 54 families, and that 36 families are on the waiting list? Will he tell the House what assistance the Government will give to that very worthwhile organisation?
    Mr. Dobson: Home Start is a splendid voluntary organisation, operating on the boundary of the national health service and social services. Specifically, it provides help to families. The Government recognised Home Start's valuable contribution by deciding to provide it with a grant of over £1 million.
    Caroline Flint: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, compared with the national average, Doncaster health
    162
    authority has a very good overall record on reducing its waiting lists? In the light of last week's pledge by the Government—to reduce waiting lists by the end of April 1999, so that they are lower than they were under the Tories—does he agree that Doncaster's partnership between the health authority, social services and other parties has demonstrated that such partnerships are crucial in reducing waiting lists?
    Mr. Dobson: I certainly share the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend, and think that the most precious resources in the national health service are the million people who work daily to make the service a success. I am determined to take more notice of staff than the previous Government did. I also want to seek their advice. I am therefore taking unprecedented action by writing to everyone working in the health service, inviting them to let me have their ideas for improving the service. I have always believed that, if one wants to improve the way in which jobs are done, the first people to ask are those doing the work, rather than collections of overpaid management consultants.
    Mrs. Roe: Is it not a contradiction for the Government to speak glibly of co-operation, whereas coercion is the method that they have chosen for dragooning general practitioners into primary care groups?
    Mr. Dobson: We are not dragooning anyone.
    Mr. Pickles: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the important part of the partnership is between GPs, local hospitals and social services? Does he believe that, in rural areas, that relationship is extended by including cottage hospitals, which provide services over a wider area and deal with cases that would otherwise clog major hospitals? If the right hon. Gentleman is currently consulting staff, may I communicate a message from staff of the Ongar War Memorial hospital in my constituency? They would like that hospital to remain open, so that it can continue playing an effective part in providing care and medicine in a rural area.
    Mr. Dobson: I certainly bear in mind all the representations that are made, but it comes ill from the mouth of someone who supported the previous Government to talk about the threat to cottage hospitals, when that Government carried out an 18-year search-and-destroy operation on cottage hospitals.
    Mr. White: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the partnership between local authorities and health authorities has led to initiatives such as NHS Direct, which he launched successfully in my area yesterday? Does he agree that that kind of partnership deal is the way forward for the health service?
    Mr. Dobson: Certainly. NHS Direct is a nurse-based helpline that will offer help and advice to people who, in the middle of the night, might be bothered about their own health or that of their child. In the pilot areas, people will be able to ring a 24-hour, nurse-based service for advice or reassurance or, if the nurse thinks it appropriate, immediate attention from an ambulance crew. That will be a big step forward. We are trying to sort out any wrinkles in the arrangements, but we are confident that

    163
    the pilot schemes will work and bring great benefits. That is why we are committed to introducing NHS Direct to every part of England by 2000.

    Waiting Lists (Oxfordshire)
    Mr. Baldry: If he will make a statement on the number of patients in the area covered by the Oxfordshire health authority who have been waiting for operations for over a year; and what was the figure on 1 May 1997. [34370]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Available information shows all patients awaiting admission to hospital, not just those waiting for operations. Provisional figures show that on 31 December there were 963 Oxfordshire health authority residents who had been waiting more than a year. Figures for 1 May 1997 are not available.
    Mr. Baldry: The Minister of State will be aware that, during the last general election, the Labour candidate in my constituency dished out pledge cards to electors, which gave a firm promise that, if elected, a Labour Government would reduce waiting lists by 100,000. The reality is somewhat different. In Oxfordshire, waiting lists have gone up by 11 per cent. and, as the Minister has just made clear, as at 1 January, nearly 1,000 people had been waiting for more than a year, and more than 100 had been waiting more than 18 months. Given the trusts' accumulated deficits of nearly £7 million, when do the Government believe that waiting lists in Oxfordshire will start to fall? Is he confident that Oxfordshire will get a fair allocation of the money made available by the Chancellor last week?
    Mr. Milburn: I can only presume that the hon. Gentleman was not around for the Budget or for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's statement last week; had he been so, he would have been aware that the £500 million made available through the Budget will be targeted specifically at cutting waiting lists. As we have made absolutely clear, the top priority for the national health service for next year is to get waiting lists down. Waiting lists will be shorter by April next year than when we came to power. By the end of this Parliament, the pledge will have been fulfilled.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: In respect of waiting lists in Oxfordshire and elsewhere in the country—
    Madam Speaker: In Oxfordshire.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: And elsewhere in the country.
    Madam Speaker: No, only Oxfordshire.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I am very concerned about Oxfordshire. In respect of waiting lists in Oxfordshire, has my hon. Friend examined the possible connection between the activities of certain part-time consultants and their waiting lists and their private practice? Is it not a fact that if there were no waiting lists, there would not be private practice—in Oxfordshire?
    Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend has just shown, his knowledge of this country stretches well beyond
    164
    Wakefield. He is terribly familiar with the problems of Oxfordshire and has due regard for the way in which the Government will be tackling them. I believe that the overwhelming majority of hospital consultants are performing well above the contract on which they are employed in the NHS. We rely on their endeavours now and will do so even more in the year ahead when we will expect them to do even more with the money that we will be making available to them.
    Dr. Harris: I shall not pursue what I am sure was an unintended slur by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on the hard-working NHS staff in Oxfordshire.
    In Oxfordshire, as nationally, there is a great fear that the funding to deal with waiting lists might not be sufficient to reduce waiting lists as well as to preserve community hospitals, community care beds and mental health services. If local managers decide that, while reducing waiting lists is important, they also wish to preserve drug addiction services, mental health services and community health services, will they be sanctioned, or will they have to say that, although they are embarrassed, they can do no more than make their own judgments and follow the clinicians' judgments as to what are the top priorities, given the insufficient resources available?
    Mr. Milburn: It is a tired old record that we hear from the hon. Gentleman and his party. Whenever we put more money into the national health service, the Liberal Democrats decide that the only tactic is to leapfrog us. We should remember that, at the last general election, the Liberal Democrats were committed to investing an extra £540 million in the national health service. We have doubled that amount—that is how much is going into the NHS—and £320 million of the £500 million for the health service that my right hon. Friend announced last week is targeted at waiting lists. They are the top priority, and we shall reduce them because that is what counts for patients. In my view and that of my party, lengthening waiting lists merely dents public confidence in the ability of the NHS.
    Mr. Truswell: Does my hon. Friend know how many patients in Oxfordshire have shared the experience of my constituent, six-year-old Kristie Swift? Six months ago, she was told that she needed an operation. She was then told that she could not have it because her GP was not a fundholder, and was then informed that she could have it because the trust had made a mistake and her GP was a fundholder. Is not that typical of the hokey cokey bureaucracy with which patients have to deal under the two-tier system that we inherited from the Conservative Government? Will my hon. Friend speed Kristie's recovery by assuring her that she will be one of the last people to suffer from it?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, not just about the circumstances in Oxfordshire, but about those throughout the country. In future, we want treatment to be given according to need alone. That is the founding principle of the NHS, by which the Government abide.
    Mr. Maples: If the Secretary of State tells Oxfordshire health authority to make the reduction of waiting lists its overriding objective next year, is there not a serious

    165
    danger that some other aspect of the service—probably drug budgets—will worsen? Can he promise hon. Members that drug budgets will not be reduced as a consequence of the waiting list initiative in Oxfordshire health authority?
    Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman conveniently forgets one fact: the £500 million allocated in the Budget is on top of the extra £1.2 billion made available to the NHS in the previous Budget, which makes £1.7 billion more for the next financial year than the Conservative party promised.
    Mr. Maples: Hon. Members will have noticed that the Minister dodged a simple and straightforward question. Is not his problem that waiting lists cannot improve without some other service worsening unless and until the NHS receives real annual increases in funding of more than 3 per cent. a year, as happened, on average, for the past 18 years? The NHS would have an additional £940 million next year if the Government had maintained that policy, and I would not have had to ask my first question.
    Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman has a very bad case of wanting to have his cake and eat it. He complained when waiting lists were going up; now he complains when waiting lists are coming down. As we said at the general election, the Government want shorter waiting lists, and are pledged to deliver that. I remind him that, under the Conservative Government, waiting lists went on rising—year in, year out. Under this Government, they will continue to fall year on year, and as a consequence patients will be in a better position.

    Medical Negligence Claims
    Dr. Tony Wright: What was the cost to the NHS last year of medical negligence claims. [34371]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): The cost of clinical negligence to the Department of Health in 1996–97 was £300 million, £235 million of which was a cost to the national health service that was largely made up of provision for probable future settlements. The remaining £65 million was a direct cash cost to the Department of Health under the existing liabilities scheme.
    Dr. Wright: Does not every health authority and trust face rapidly escalating bills for medical negligence claims? Every pound spent on defending such claims is a pound less spent on patient care, which is unsustainable. Is not the way forward the clear separation of complaints against doctors from compensation for medical accidents and a no-fault medical injuries compensation scheme?
    Ms Jowell: The Government do not intend to establish a no-fault compensation scheme; instead, we intend to drive up the standards of treatment in the national health service that lie behind so many negligence claims. We want to keep doctors out of court, and lawyers out of the operating theatre. We want a national health service in which doctors and nurses are in the driving seat, not judges and lawyers.
    Mr. Wardle: Will the Minister reconsider the plight of women who suffer permanent injury and disability as a
    166
    result of radiotherapy treatment for breast cancer, who are represented by the campaign RAGE—Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure? Rather than insisting that negligence in the limited number of cases involved should be proved in the courts, will the Minister agree to compensation now, so that the matter can be settled without further agonising delay?
    Ms Jowell: It is utterly cynical of the hon. Gentleman to seek to secure compensation on the Floor of the House. He will be aware that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has met representatives of RAGE a number of times. The Government's policy is clear: that compensation will be paid when negligence is established in court. That, we believe, is the right way in which to protect patients, and to safeguard the precious resources of the national health service for patient care.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: In view of recent events in my local NHS hospital trust, is my hon. Friend prepared to consider tightening procedures for the employment of NHS staff?
    Ms Jowell: If my hon. Friend writes to me about matters of particular concern in the context of medical negligence, I shall be happy to deal with them.
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: May I return to the question of accepting liability for harm done? The Minister will know that a great many haemophiliacs have contracted hepatitis C from blood donations. Her Department has already paid money to those who have contracted HIV, and I know that the Secretary of State met representatives of haemophiliacs in September last year and promised them a speedy response to the issues that they had raised. Will the Minister enlighten us about what has happened between last September and today, so that I can avoid being instructed—in another capacity entirely—by haemophiliacs to pursue a case against the Government?
    Ms Jowell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the Haemophilia Society last year, and the content of that discussion is currently under consideration. As the hon. Lady is doubtless aware, my right hon. Friend recently announced the Government's intention to make recombinant factor VIII available to children.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the Minister aware of the distinction between cases in which there is clearly no answer to the question of liability in regard to medical negligence—cases in which the Government should come clean, admit that there has been negligence and dispose of the claims—and the variety of other cases of an individual kind in which negligence must be clearly established in accordance with the normal processes in the court? Is that not a valid distinction that the Government should take on board?
    Ms Jowell: We fully take on board the scale of human misery that litigation causes in such cases, but it is important for the House to know that only 17 per cent. of cases taken to court succeed. In the 83 per cent. that fail, the only person who walks away with a cheque is the lawyer.

    Barnet and Edgware Hospitals
    Mr. Clappison: If he will visit (a) Barnet and (b) Edgware hospitals to discuss health provision in north London and south Hertfordshire. [34372]
    Mr. Milburn: We have no plans at present to visit either hospital.
    Mr. Clappison: Is the Minister aware that the trust concerned with Barnet and Edgware hospitals is proposing a programme of service cuts that will result in the loss of one quarter of in-patient beds? If that happens, there is precious little hope for an improvement in waiting lists or anything else for the residents of north London and south Hertfordshire. Despite all the talk of money and improvements in waiting lists, will the Minister take a look at the trust's financial situation and ensure that the service offered to my constituents does not fall below that offered elsewhere in the country?
    Mr. Milburn: I am aware of the concerns in the local community about the issue and the difficult position in which the health authority finds itself—having to sort out the legacy left by the previous Administration. The trust, the health authority and the regional office are working very closely to ensure the best possible outcome for the local community.
    Audrey Wise: Will my hon. Friend take note that at least one good thing has come from what I am afraid I think was a mess over Barnet and Edgware: the establishment of a very progressive birth centre, which will be opening officially very soon? Will he wish that birth centre all the best, keep an eye on it and ensure that it does not become a temporary project, to be discontinued as soon as its value is proven, as is happening to so many useful maternity projects at the moment?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Thanks to all the efforts in the local community over the past few months, we have the option in the Edgware area of a high-quality community hospital, which will blaze a trail that many others will follow. Much work has been done, involving the community health council, some of my hon. Friends' local campaign groups and local GPs, to ensure that the best possible services are provided for the Edgware community.

    Eye and Dental Checks
    Mr. Wallace: If he will make it his policy to reinstate free eye and dental checks. [34373]
    Ms Jowell: The question is being addressed as part of the comprehensive spending review of all Departments' expenditure. The review is being carried out in the context of the Government's clear election manifesto commitment that,
    "if you are ill or injured there will be a national health service there to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone".
    Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister recall that, when her party and mine resisted the Conservative Government's efforts to introduce charges for dental check-ups and eye tests, one of the arguments that we used was that intervention could identify at an early stage diseases that could cause later problems? Does she still agree that that is a valid argument? By making necessary investment to restore free eye and dental checks, the Government could improve the general well-being and health of many, make savings in the long term and—conceivably—even reduce waiting lists. Will she repeal those Tory health taxes?
    Ms Jowell: On the deliberations of the comprehensive spending review, the hon. and learned Gentleman will simply have to wait. It is however important that prevention is available wherever possible. Forty per cent. of people are eligible for free sight tests due to risk of conditions such as glaucoma and diabetes. It is extremely important that every encouragement be given to people to take up such eligibility.
    The Government have recently announced a total of £19 million-worth of investment in dentistry in order to tackle inequality of access in some of the poorest parts of the country.
    Mr. Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way in which to restore all parts of the health service, such as free eye and dental checks, is to make sustainable increases in expenditure. rather than adopt the method proposed by the Liberal Democrats, which would serve only to raise expectations, which would later be met with cuts, as the magic penny would fail to deliver the kind of money about which they are always talking?
    Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend is right. Spraying around spending commitments is the prerogative of a party that will always be in opposition. The people of this country did the best thing for the national health service by electing a Labour Government last year.

    Suicide
    Mr. Lock: What targets he proposes to set for reducing deaths from suicide and undetermined injury. [34374]
    Mr. Levitt: What targets he proposes to set for reducing deaths from suicide and undetermined injury. [34379]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation" sets out the Government's proposed mental health target, which is to reduce the death rate from suicide and undetermined injury by at least a further sixth by the year 2010.
    Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he accept that suicide rates among the socially disadvantaged are higher than those in the rest of the population? Does he agree that taking appropriate action to reduce suicide rates would be one of the best

    169
    ways of getting rid of the appalling legacy of health inequality that we inherited from the previous Government?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is right to point out the impact of inequality, which affects that area of health like every other. We are particularly concerned that, while the overall suicide rate is decreasing, it is increasing among young men between 16 and 25. We are addressing that problem as a matter of urgency.
    Mr. Levitt: My hon. Friend has pointed out that the Green Paper says that we should address health problems by getting the social conditions right. Will he explain how we will tackle social conditions to reduce the suicide rate, which runs at 16 unnecessary deaths a year in north Derbyshire alone?
    Mr. Boateng: Socio-economic conditions, not least unemployment, have clearly contributed to the stress that impacts on young men, which inevitably affects their suicide rate. We aim to reduce that rate through economic regeneration. The health action zones will provide ample opportunity for that.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I warmly welcome the fact that the Government have chosen similar mental health targets to ours—our target was a 15 per cent. reduction in such deaths by 2000, while they have chosen a 17 per cent. reduction by 2010.
    More people take their own life than are killed on the roads. There should be a bipartisan approach to reducing that appalling loss. Does the Minister agree that the issue requires not just resources—in social services as much as in health—but partnership between Government agencies, voluntary bodies and employers? New legislation is required. There was resistance to the introduction of supervised discharge and supervision registers, but if people in the community are to get the care they need to reduce that loss of life, we need to look again at the mental health legislation.
    Mr. Boateng: The right hon. Lady had an opportunity to review that legislation. She did not take it.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the Minister agree that mental health provision continues to be the Cinderella of the national health service? Does he further accept that care in the community is a mixed blessing and has been proven not to work in many cases? Will he ensure that Government policy focuses particularly on reducing loss of life among the young? Will he consider the example of VISYON—the Voluntary Initiative Supporting Youngsters' Ongoing Needs—which is an organisation in my constituency that seeks to help young people with mental health problems?
    Mr. Boateng: I should be happy to consider what we can learn from the hon. Lady's constituency to tackle the problem. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that we believe that care in the community has failed large numbers of our fellow citizens. We are determined to get it right. We shall bring forward proposals on the issue in due course.

    NHS Anniversary
    Mr. Dismore: What resources he is making available to schools to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the NHS. [34376]
    Ms Jowell: The Department has produced a national health service 50th anniversary education pack, which is available to schools and colleges throughout England on request.
    Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as part of the celebrations, schoolchildren should learn the history of the NHS in their area? Will she make resources available so that children in my area can learn about the history of Edgware hospital, which was closed by the previous Government in its 49th year, but which, thanks to the efforts of the local community, will be reborn in its 50th year as the new Edgware community hospital, with widespread local support?
    Ms Jowell: I entirely accept that local history is as important as the proud history of the national health service created by a Labour Government 50 years ago, and rescued and renewed 50 years later by another Labour Government.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the hon. Lady think that the Secretary of State is wise to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the national health service by closing Horncastle hospital, especially bearing in mind the fact that more than 2,000 school children are bussed into Horncastle every day from an extensive rural area, and that, if that much-valued hospital is closed, they will be more than 20 miles away from any other hospital, along difficult winding country lanes that are sometimes almost impassable in the winter months?
    Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman asked me in particular about the Secretary of State's wisdom. My right hon. Friend is infinitely wise, as is evident from all his decisions.
    Mr. Grocott: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important part of celebrating the 50th anniversary of the national health service will be to remind the people of this country, especially the young people, which party established it, and which party opposed its establishment?
    Ms Jowell: I recommend that hon. Members with an odd moment to spare read the report of the Second Reading debate on the National Health Service Bill, which makes my hon. Friend's point entirely clear: the national health service was created in the teeth of the opposition of the Conservative party.
    Mr. Nicholls: Would not school children really have something to celebrate for the 50th anniversary if Ministers would stop pretending to have a better record on funding the national health service than their Conservative predecessors, and pledged instead to bring their funding up to the previous Administration's average increase of 3.1 per cent. per annum? That would be a pledge worth celebrating. Why does the hon. Lady not give it?
    Ms Jowell: As we have improved on the Conservative Government's funding record on every count, that comment comes ill from the hon. Gentleman.

    South Humber Health Authority
    Mr. Mitchell: What proposals he has for reform of health service structures in South Humber health authority area. [34377]
    Mr. Milburn: Our plans for modernising the national health service were set out in the recent White Paper, "The new NHS", which envisages fewer but larger health authorities, more co-operation between NHS trusts, and the development of new primary care groups. As part of that process, we shall work with health authorities and the professions to determine the best configuration of local services.
    Mr. Mitchell: May I express the hope that my hon. Friend will look favourably on the sensible proposals for reorganisation of the health service that the South Humber health authority has now finally produced? Those envisage reducing the number of provider trusts from three to two, setting up two primary care groups to take charge of community services, and putting mental health services, which have always been the Cinderella of the service both locally and nationally, under a wider provider, preferably from the north bank.
    Mr. Milburn: On the face of it, those proposals sound consistent with the policy directions set out in the White Paper, and I look forward to receiving the representations of the health authority. I assume that there will be a period of public consultation before the proposals are agreed. It is important that such proposals meet the needs of the local community, and I know that my hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends have been in negotiations and discussions with the health authority and others over recent weeks, and I look forward to receiving their representations, too.

    Cancer Deaths
    Mr. Corbett: What targets he proposes to set for reducing deaths from cancer among people aged under 65 years. [34378]
    Ms Jowell: A reduction in deaths from cancer among people under 65 will be achieved by improving access to treatment and the quality of treatment, and by widening the scope for prevention.
    Mr. Corbett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will she confirm that the death rate from cancer is twice as high among the unskilled as among professionals, and that one third of the people who die from cancer are under 65? Can she assure me that efforts will be focused on offering deprived communities extra health care and advice to ensure that we overcome the inequalities in health provision?
    Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is estimated that about a third of cancers are in some way linked to poor diet, and half of all those who smoke are likely to die of cancer. Against any measure, the poorer you are, the greater your chance of contracting cancer. That is why, as part of our drive to tackle health inequality and to improve healthy years of life, we will focus resources and efforts on the most deprived communities.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's early response on steps to help cancer victims, but, having
    172
    almost deified the Secretary of State for his infinite wisdom, can she tell us what steps have been taken to help mortal man who may be afflicted with prostate cancer?
    Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the proposals under consideration on the case for screening of prostate cancer. Recently, I was involved in discussions about the importance of an improved focus on men's health. It may not be a matter for discussion on the Floor of the House, but it was put to me that self-examination by men as a preventive step in relation to prostate cancer should be undertaken in the same way as women undertake breast examinations to detect early signs of breast cancer.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend accept that the great increase in smoking among young women in particular is a cause of great concern? We are waiting for the Government to launch a hard-hitting advertising campaign which goes on and on and on, until the consciousness of young people is raised to the real dangers of blighting their lives and their health through smoking. Will we see an early start to that campaign, as we are getting impatient?
    Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend will be aware of the recent advertising campaign—which was successful and was well received among young people—on the risks of smoking, which targeted in particular young people aged 16 to 24. He is absolutely right; we are deeply concerned about the rise in the numbers of young people—particularly young women—who smoke. One in three 15-year-old women are regular smokers.
    To suggest that an advertising campaign alone will be enough to tackle this disturbing rise is too simple a view of an intractable public health problem. That is why the White Paper which we will publish later this summer will focus on protecting children, reducing smoking among children and supporting the seven out of 10 smokers who wish to give up. We must never forget that the 15-year-old woman who smokes today will be a lung cancer victim in 30 years' time.

    NHS Trust Mergers
    Mr. Breed: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on NHS trusts mergers indicating the estimated savings to the NHS from trust mergers in 1998–99. [34380]
    Mr. Milburn: Any merger proposal will be considered on its own merits, on the basis of demonstrable benefits to health and health care and savings in administration. We expect to see about £3 million in savings from mergers of national health service trusts next year, leading to longer-term savings of £10 million per year.
    Mr. Breed: Will the Minister assure my constituents that there will be no hospital closures or bed reductions in advance of trust merger proposals, so that any administrative savings can be directed to front-line services?
    Mr. Milburn: That is precisely our commitment. Any money that comes out of administration and bureaucracy as a consequence of trust mergers will be

    173
    reinvested locally for the benefit of front-line patient care. That is the right priority, which I believe both staff and patients support. We do not have a national blueprint for trust mergers, but we are prepared to listen to local proposals that come about as a result of local decision-making rather than of any national edict.
    Mr. Edwards: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Nevill Hall trust proposal for a separate trust for north Gwent, as opposed to Gwent health authority's proposal for a single trust for the whole of Gwent? I assure him that the health authority's proposal would produce the savings that the Government want, reduce the number of trusts in Gwent, and maintain the integrity of Nevill Hall hospital as a district general hospital.
    Mr. Milburn: It is important that any trust merger proposal takes as its yardstick the improvement of services for patients—that is how trust merger proposals are judged. Moreover, they have to demonstrate that there will be administrative savings. We all know that the lunacy of the internal market led to the embedding of far too many trust organisations in the national health service, all competing against one another. Thankfully, a new spirit of co-operation is abroad in the national health service, which we expect to lead over time to fewer trusts rather than more.
    Mr. Rowe: Does the Minister accept that consultations—in east Kent, for example—are both led and controlled not by medical staff but by lay administrators, whose jobs, of course, are at risk from trust merger proposals? Will he assure the House that he will be robust in ensuring that, in any proposal for trust mergers, the vested interests of administrators do not override medical provision?
    Mr. Milburn: On east Kent, as on any other trust merger proposals, Ministers will examine carefully local proposals that have come about as a result of local consultation and local decision-making. As I said, we do not have a national blueprint that we want to apply to all areas. Different parts of the country have different needs, and it is right that different organisational structures should reflect that.
    Mr. Dawson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his wise decision in approving the merger of acute health trusts in Lancaster, Kendal and Barrow, and of community health trusts in Lancaster and Barrow. Does he agree that those mergers will produce substantial savings in bureaucracy, which will build on the great strides that have been made in Lancaster in reducing waiting lists month on month since 1 May 1997? Does he also agree that there is now a real need to get on with the appointment of non-executive directors to maintain the impetus that has been created?
    Mr. Milburn: Wisdom is obviously contagious, which is useful to all Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the issue of appointments to non-executive directorships; we expect to make an announcement in due course. I believe that the proposal for the Morecambe bay area is right for the people who live there, for patients and staff, and for the national health
    174
    service. Thankfully, there will be a new spirit of co-operation in the Morecambe bay area, just as there is throughout the country.

    NHS Waiting Lists
    Mr. Ruffley: If he will make a statement on NHS waiting lists. [34381]
    Mr. Prior: If he will make a statement on NHS hospital waiting lists. [34383]
    Mr. Dobson: Waiting lists are far too long and must be reduced. Last Wednesday, following the Budget statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I announced that the Government had found an extra £500 million for the health service for next year on top of the previously announced extra £1.2 billion, and that that sum would be devoted to reducing waiting lists by April next year to below the record level that we inherited from the Tory Government.
    That will be followed by further targeted efforts to reduce waiting lists by at least a further 100,000 during this Parliament. Reductions on that scale have never been achieved before in the history of the national health service.
    Mr. Ruffley: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in February 1997, West Suffolk hospital in my constituency had fewer than 5,500 on the waiting list, but that since 1 May the number has risen to more than 5,600? That is a result of the spending allocations for Suffolk being the joint worst in the Anglia and Oxford region. When will he stop the policy of moving money away from rural health authorities and into urban areas?
    Mr. Dobson: As the policy has not started, there will be no need to stop it. The only thing that has started is Opposition Members peddling stories that are not true. The only significant change in allocations was an item to recognise the additional cost that ambulance services in rural areas have to bear because of the distances covered, so rural areas are generally better off. Exactly half the increase in the number on the waiting list in Suffolk last year occurred in the first quarter of the year—the period for which the Conservative Government were entirely responsible.
    Mr. Prior: The Secretary of State has publicly and disgracefully threatened to dismiss local health service chiefs if his targets for waiting list reductions are not met, although he has not provided them with the resources to meet those targets. Is that fair?
    Mr. Dobson: The waiting list reduction target that I announced at the Dispatch Box last Wednesday, to be funded by the extra money that I announced at the time, was not conjured out of the air by Ministers: it was the product of the considered view of the chief executive of the national health service. The British Medical Association, representing doctors, and the National Health Service Confederation, representing board members and managers, confirm that it is a realistic target. It must be taken seriously by everybody in the national health

    175
    service. It is in the interests of patients and of the service that targets should be met, and I am making it clear to all concerned that they will be met.
    Mr. Hepburn: I applaud the Government's policies to reduce waiting lists, but what assistance does the Secretary of State intend to give to NHS trusts in financial difficulties? Will he take into consideration the representations that I have made to him in writing on the future of the minor injuries unit at Jarrow hospital?
    Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend will know that I cannot give him an off-the-cuff answer on the future of the minor injuries unit in Jarrow, and he would not expect me to; but I can tell him that most of the debts that health authorities face are the hangover of the debts that they faced under the previous Government—except that, generally speaking, the amounts are a lot lower. I am making it clear to the non-executive directors, chairs and chief executives of every health authority and trust that not a penny of the extra money for targeting on waiting lists is to be spent on anything else. The people who think that they can divert the money had better think again.
    Miss Melanie Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only have we put in an extra £1.7 billion, but we have had to face the fact that the Conservatives in government wasted a huge amount that could have gone towards cutting waiting lists on the introduction of the marketplace in the health service, and that that led to the increasing waiting lists that we have inherited? We are now promoting co-operation, and, in addition to the extra resources, we have the capacity to make the money work better in the NHS. Is it not a disgrace that Conservatives Members should now be hopping up and down, when they could not deliver on behalf of the people of this country in all their 18 years in government?
    Mr. Dobson: I accept all the points that my hon. Friend has made. During this winter, which is just coming to an end, the NHS and people working in social services have amply demonstrated to everyone that, given targeted additional resources, they can deliver the targets laid down. On the basis of the confidence that I have developed in the capacity of the health service to do that, we have found an additional £5 million, which is to be targeted on waiting lists and will not be diverted for any other purpose.
    That is why, on the advice of the chief executive of the NHS, I am confident that, by the end of the coming year, we will get waiting lists down to below the level that we inherited, and will go on from there—it is not a stunt for one year or anything of that sort—to get them down by at least 100,000 more before the end of this Parliament, and, hopefully, considerably more.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that the whole country now knows that, if the Labour party had been really honest, its election "early pledge" would have read, "Waiting lists will be shorter, but not yet," or, "Waiting lists will be shorter, but not for years," does the Secretary of State accept the view now widely held among the professionals he quoted and informed journalists—the view that my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches have held for years—that waiting lists and times will not come down
    176
    significantly and the NHS will not escape a profound financial crisis until it receives at least a 3 per cent. a year increase in real terms?
    Given that the right hon. Gentleman said last week that managers would not have confidence in the Government exercising their position if they did not use their resources properly, why should the country have confidence in the Government's claim that they are saving the health service if, in the first two years, they have given it less than it needs even to stand still?
    Mr. Dobson: I do not know who these people are in the professions, and as for "informed journalists", that is almost a contradiction in terms. The fact of the matter is that I have talked to the leaders of the professions, and they are confident that the £500 million—
    Mr. Hughes: Is it enough?
    Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman was on his feet speaking for about five minutes and now wants to continue bleating on.
    I was saying that the leaders of the professions have told me that they believe that £500 million targeted specifically on waiting lists will achieve what we have asked for, the British Medical Association has said the same, and that is the considered opinion of the chief executive of the national health service, who was not in thumbscrews or on a rack when he gave that advice—it was entirely voluntary. He thought that it was a good idea, and we have accepted his advice
    We have set the target, and we are now determined that we will help the 1 million people in the health service to deliver it. If the Liberals do not want it delivered in their areas, they can give me a list of the places where they do not want waiting lists to come down, and I am sure we can oblige.
    Mr. McCabe: Will my right hon. Friend tell us how he envisages that the extra £500 million will be put to use to cut the waiting lists in the Birmingham area?
    Mr. Dobson: It will be straightforward. It will be spent on more operations, more work by doctors and more nurses employed in the Birmingham area, on more effort in the Birmingham area to stop people who would be better off at home from having to go into hospital, and on more concerted effort to get out of hospital people who are better off at home. All that will be happening in real terms to real people, carried out by real doctors and real nurses, in real Birmingham.

    Hotel Charges (Health Trusts)
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will list those health trusts which make available facilities for which patients pay hotel charges; and if he will make a statement. [34382]
    Mr. Boateng: All basic services, such as catering, cleaning and laundry, are free of charge to national health service patients. Information is not held centrally on extra services that they may be offered—for example, bedside television.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but does he not feel that the national health service

    177
    as a whole should he able to maximise the use of facilities to provide additional resources for patient care? Hospitals are being closed, wings are being decommissioned and beds are going out of commission. There is a growing need for facilities for people who for reasons of their own require a private room and facilities. Would it not be good for the health service if it could offer that facility—without in any way creating a two-tier system, to which I am 100 per cent. opposed?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman deserves to be heard with respect, because he has on occasion stood on
    178
    his own among Conservative Members in defending the NHS. Nevertheless, he will understand that it is vital that any extra income-generating proposals from trusts must concern optional extras, and they must be just that: optional and extra.
    Dr. Iddon: Will my hon. Friend comment on the huge amount of debt owed to the NHS by people in the private sector who have not yet coughed up their full whack?
    Mr. Boateng: It is important that anyone who owes anything coughs up.

Anthrax
3.30 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the threat from, and the precautions Her Majesty's Government are taking against, any possible attempt to bring anthrax into the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The Government receive a variety of information of the kind that led to today's newspaper reports. As the country knows, Iraq has a clear capability to produce chemical and biological weapons. One purpose, among others, of the United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq has been to detect any production by Iraq of anthrax.
A number of countries have received intelligence about possible threats by Iraq to smuggle anthrax, but our information is that there is no specific threat to the United Kingdom. There is no evidence to suggest that any attempt has actually been made to smuggle anthrax into this country. There is also no evidence that such an attempt at smuggling might be in prospect.
The House would not expect me to go into detail about the intelligence that we have or the specific counter-measures that we have taken. However, we monitor the terrorist threat to the United Kingdom very closely, and we remain vigilant, taking all the necessary precautions. In doing so, we bear in mind the need both for prudence and for a measured, proportionate response that does not generate unnecessary public alarm.
When the initial information about possible anthrax smuggling was received, it was assessed thoroughly alongside all other relevant information and our assessment of Iraqi intentions. In the light of all that, detailed guidance was subsequently given to operational staff at all our ports on the detection of any such attempted smuggling.
Let me emphasise that this warning was a prudent, precautionary measure, and that we have no reason to believe that such an attempt at smuggling is in prospect. All-ports guidance of this nature is not unusual, and has in the past included information on chemical and biological materials.
Our first aim must be to prevent terrorism, but, if necessary, we have the means to deal swiftly and expertly with its consequences. Our plans are well prepared and continually reviewed. They are tested often and at all levels. Our preparations cover all forms of terrorism, including chemical and biological threats. Those preparations include active co-operation with our allies. As part of our European Union presidency, we organised an expert seminar on biological and chemical terrorism which, coincidentally, is being held in the south of England today.
It is right to take sensible measures, but it is unnecessary to be alarmist. The duty of Government is to ensure that we remain prepared and vigilant. We will continue to fulfil that duty with care.
Mr. Beith: I thank the Home Secretary for recognising that, once the stories appeared in the press, it was
180
desirable for him to respond with a Government statement putting the matter in perspective. Is he satisfied that sufficient resources are available at the ports to deal with any needs that may result from such activities? We feel strongly that those who sometimes risk their lives in bringing us such warnings are people on whose work we place a high value and greatly respect.
Does the Home Secretary recognise that we have to be ready to expect anything from a dictator who has already sought to gas the citizens of his own country? That underlines the importance of the stand that Britain took on restarting the weapons inspection system effectively. Is he aware that there is evidence that, during the 1980s, before this Government's time, anthrax was obtained by Iraq from western US sources, and that development of the culture medium and some of the training of Iraqi scientists may have taken place in Britain? Will he consult his right hon. Friends, to whom my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) has put questions on that last point?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman asks me whether I am satisfied that sufficient resources exist to deal with any threat that may arise. Yes, I am. They include, necessarily, not only resources at ports but resources effectively to assess the intelligence and other information that is received and the overall assessment of the threat that is posed at any stage by Iraq. Of course I pay tribute, as the right hon. Gentleman has done, to those on whom Britain relies for a variety of information.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question related to things that may or may not have happened in the 1980s. He will understand that I have no personal knowledge of those things, but I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As this matter was raised last month by me and others, may I ask on what date the perceived threat first became apparent to the Home Office?
Mr. Straw: The specific information to which reference is made in today's edition of The Sun became available on 6 March, but I should emphasise to my hon. Friend that that is part of a series of information that is available. The information has to be assessed within its context, not out of context.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the Home Secretary accept that it is our considered view that, while we demand maximum vigilance at our national points of entry, we should not give Saddam any satisfaction by allowing anyone to generate indefensible public anxiety in this country? While I do not wish him to reveal the contents of the intelligence that he has received, will he assure the House that it has no special features that would constitute a particular threat to this country and/or something about which our public should be told?
Mr. Straw: I most warmly thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tenor of his remarks. He is entirely right to say that we have to balance our response carefully and take sensible and prudent measures without, as he says, giving Saddam the comfort of raising indefensible public anxieties that are not necessary. As I have already

181
explained, the information is part, as he will fully understand, of a series of information that is received from time to time. It has no particular special features. However, it was information that we had to take into account. Following a thorough assessment of that information, the all-ports warning was issued.
Mr. David Winnick: While we do not want panic or undue anxiety, should not the British people learn the useful lesson that the present Iraqi regime is capable of any evil, bearing in mind what has already been said about the gassing in March 1988 in Iraq itself? Does not all this demonstrate that, as the regime continues to have such means of mass destruction, the United Nations weapons inspection needs to continue for a very long time to come?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend has been robust in support of the allied effort against Saddam Hussein—rightly, in my view. The answer to both his questions about the evil nature of the Iraqi regime and the continuing need for weapons inspections is yes.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there has always been a risk that terrorists, whether state-driven or domestic, would resort to biological and chemical weapons? Does he accept that that is a fact that has to be taken into account when determining the proper degree of control at external frontiers, and that we should try to ensure that, when people dismantle external frontiers, they leave in place systems that are capable of identifying the import of such weapons? Does he also agree that it is important that nations that are committed to fighting terrorism should ensure that they exchange information as rapidly as possible when they identify any risk of this sort?
Mr. Straw: I agree with all the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. While important, the need to maintain vigilance at ports is not only to detect illegal immigrants, but to detect matters such as this. However, he will understand that the primary information has to become available first; otherwise, one is searching for things that are virtually impossible to find. Therefore, it is important that effective systems are in place.
I should correct a small error that I made a moment ago: the information was received in the Home Office on 5 March, not 6 March, as I said.
Ann Clwyd: Is it not the case that information about firms in Britain that supplied the components of chemical and biological weapons was conveyed by the United Nations Special Commission to the previous Government and that, unlike other countries such as Germany, where there have been prosecutions of such companies, no prosecutions have taken place in this country? Will my right hon. Friend look again at that matter?
Mr. Straw: I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friends with responsibility for those matters, but my hon. Friend will understand that, by definition, I do not have information that relates to the previous Administration.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I thank the Home Secretary very much for the constructive and
182
informative statement that he has made to the House this afternoon? It was quite clear that, once the matter became public, it was vital that the people of this country should be reassured and given the basic information. The Home Secretary has done that, and I believe that the country will be grateful.
Mr. Straw: May I, in turn, say to the hon. Gentleman that I am extremely grateful for the tone of his remarks?
Ms Sally Keeble: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his measured statement, to counter some very scary stories this morning? Will he confirm that his Department's role is just one part of the total effort by the Government to deal with the real threat posed to this country by Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Straw: Yes, the role of the Home Office is principally internal to this country. We work with the intelligence agencies, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who joins me on the Treasury Bench for this statement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and other Ministers as part of a joint effort, not only by the United Kingdom, but, very importantly, by our allies, to ensure that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is as minimal as possible.
Dr. Julian Lewis: A fortnight ago, hon. Members on both sides of the House were deeply impressed by the bravery of the Secretary of State for Defence and his ministerial team in baring their arms for anthrax vaccinations. Are we now to assume that perhaps that gesture was a little more self-interested than it appeared at the time?
Mr. Straw: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no politician in the House who is less self-interested than my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Tony Benn: May I join in thanking my right hon. Friend for the way in which he presented his statement? In order to put it into perspective, can he give any general idea how many reports of this character reach his Department in the course of a year? There must be a number of alarms of one sort or another, and it would be helpful for us to know, roughly, how regularly warnings of this sort reach his Department.
Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give him the specific information that he seeks, because I genuinely do not believe that it would be in the public interest to do so. As I made clear in my opening statement, all-ports warnings are issued from time to time, and an all-ports warning was issued some time ago specifically in relation to a biological or chemical threat.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I am partially reassured by my right hon. Friend's statement, but only partially. As I previously told the House, the thing that makes anthrax a lethal terrorist weapon is the fact that it is very easy to store, which means that, if such an attack was planned—thank goodness, it appears to be a very big "if"—the anthrax spores could have been in the country for the past six months, stored quite happily in any dark cellar. I would be really reassured only if I knew that the

183
Department of Health had made plans to look out for the symptoms of possible attack, and to respond before any announcement might be made by the terrorists.
Mr. Straw: Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend that this Government—like the previous Government, very assiduously—take every possible precaution to prevent terrorism, including that of a chemical and biological kind, and to deal with it should it arise. That includes a number of terrorist exercises, which are handled by Ministers as well as by officials. A month ago, I and a number of ministerial colleagues took part in a terrorist exercise to ensure that preparations were fully in place.
Coincidentally, the EU presidency seminar on biological and chemical terrorism, which we organised as part of our presidency, is being held today. That is an indication of our earnest intent to ensure that proper preparations are laid down for any threat that may arise.
Mr. John Smith: I and all hon. Members are grateful to my right hon. Friend for the reassurance that he has given us this afternoon. Will he further assure us that, should such a threat exist in future, international points of entry—such as Cardiff, Wales airport in my constituency—which do not have, and have not had for some years, full-time customs cover, will always remain secure?
Mr. Straw: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom are effectively covered by the kind of scrutiny that we put in place.

Points of Order
3.46 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I bring to your attention an article in today's edition of The Times by Mr. Andrew Pierce, its political correspondent, which refers to the extraordinary practice that seems to have been carried out by the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs? The hon. Gentleman may have literary talents of which we were unaware, but it would appear, if the article is to be believed, that he has been writing the questions that he himself has subsequently answered. That may be a way to ensure that the tame Members on Government Benches ask the questions to which he can reply, but it is surely an abuse of the practice of the House. It is also an abuse of his ministerial office to do the drafting on Department of Trade and Industry writing paper.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has, I believe, correctly put this matter to you in writing. We all deprecate planted questions, but ministerial planting of questions is a thoroughly bad abuse, which I hope that, with the full panoply of your office, you will be able to eradicate on our behalf.
Madam Speaker: I have read the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although I have to tell him very clearly at the outset that the matter has not been brought to my notice in the way that he suggests. We all know that the practice that he describes is not new. All Governments have sought to inspire questions, and ministerial aides have often enlisted Back Benchers to ask helpful questions. Generally, in my experience, it has been done in a more subtle way than appears to have been used in this case. Perhaps I may be permitted to add that I find it a sad reflection on Ministers' views of the quality of Back Benchers if they cannot be trusted to devise their own questions.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: No. I have cleared that point of order.
Mr. Llew Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you will be aware, in the past few years I have initiated several Adjournment debates, and tabled more than 100 questions, on problems relating to the measles and rubella vaccination, and the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination. Yesterday, the Medical Research Council assembled a working group to look into the research findings of Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Although I and the parents of a number of children who were damaged as a result of those vaccinations were totally dissatisfied with the way in which the working group was conducted and set up, I accept that that is not your problem, Madam Speaker.
I want to bring it to your attention that the Medical Research Council organised a press conference with the support, I assume, of the Department of Health. I contacted the Department and the MRC to see whether, as a Member of Parliament who had shown particular interest in the subject, I could gain admission to the press

185
conference. I was told that that was not possible. Initially, I was told that there was not a spare chair, which I found it difficult to believe. After something of a row with those in authority, they found a chair. They said that I could attend, but that I could not ask a question.
Would you, Madam Speaker, look into the powers of Members of Parliament to question bodies that were set up under the royal charter and which receive public funds? It is ironic that we are not allowed to question such bodies, but the media are.
Madam Speaker: The point of order for me is whether the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member can ask questions of Ministers—who, of course, have the final responsibility. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will continue to ask questions, initiate Adjournment debates and, perhaps, table a private notice question, if he is not satisfied with what has happened.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to the exchange that you had yesterday with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) about whether the Foreign Secretary would come to the House and make a statement on his visit to the middle east. At that time, you expressed the view that perhaps he would, but that in any event you would do what you could to help. We have not seen the Foreign Secretary today, so we must assume that he is not coming to the House.
It has been a long-established principle that Foreign Ministers should report to the House on the outcome of important foreign visits. Would you, Madam Speaker, do your best, as you were kind enough to say you would do yesterday in a particular way, to ensure that the general practice is not being abandoned by the Government?
Madam Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that it is for him, as a long-standing Member, and the many other hon. Members who are interested in this matter, to use the facilities available—his Front Bench, the shadow Leader of the House and the usual channels—to let it be known that the Opposition want a statement. That is the way to proceed now.
Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that a letter was sent out stating:
"Dear Colleague,
John Maples would appreciate it if you could be in the Chamber for Health Questions tomorrow.
I enclose a briefing note but it is particularly effective if colleagues are able to ask supplementary questions which relate to the experiences of their own constituents. Health Ministers in our last Government have confirmed that it is almost impossible for a Minister at the Despatch Box to deal effectively with questions involving individual cases and the impression given is of widespread problems and discontent"?
That was very naughty.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. It looked as if the hon. Gentleman needed some Scotch tape to hold that together.

Crown Estate (Amendment)
3.52 pm
Mr. James Wallace: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Crown Estate Commissioners to exercise their functions with due regard to the non-commercial interests of local communities; to regulate the granting of sea-bed leases by the Crown Estate Commissioners and establishing the rent therefor; to amend section 4 of the Crown Estate Act 1961; and for connected purposes.
I welcome this opportunity to raise the activities of the Crown Estate Commissioners in relation to sea bed leases. It is a subject that has generated much controversy in the highlands and islands, in particular in my Orkney and Shetland constituency. Indeed, in the northern isles there was even a legal challenge, based on Udal law, as to whether the Crown Estate had legal title to the sea bed. As the Court of Session found that it did, that is the legal basis on which we now have to proceed.
The nub of the problem is that the Crown Estate Commissioners charge excessive rents for the use of the sea bed—a use which, in practice, may not amount to much more than dropping an anchor. That can have a serious financial impact on salmon farming, shellfish farming and non-profit-making community marinas. Their rental charges also have consequences for the cost of providing lifeline transport links in the islands areas.
In all those cases, rent is charged, but the obligations on the Crown Estate as landlord are virtually non-existent. There is almost a parasitic quality about these rental agreements. In fact, the position is that, on the one hand, the Government and Government agencies are claiming to support industries such as fish farming, as well as investing in the transport infrastructure, while on the other, the Crown Estate Commissioners are sucking resources out of those industries and contributing to higher transport costs.
The regulatory function of the Crown Estate in relation to the granting of fish farm leases is currently the subject of Scottish Office consultation. The Bill could provide an opportunity to transfer that function to relevant local authorities in Scotland.
I shall deal with each of those points in turn. My Bill would regulate the way in which rents are charged for sea bed leases, not least to allow for realistic account to be taken of the aquaculture industry and the straitened circumstances that it currently faces. Anyone familiar with the salmon farming industry knows that it is in crisis, with prices barely—if at all—covering production costs. One of the costs that must be borne is the rent charged by the Crown Estate.
In 1996–97, the Crown Estate received some £2.3 million from the Scottish aquaculture industry at a time when it could ill afford it. Although more recently some of the demands for rent have been moderated, salmon farmers still believe that the Treasury, through the Crown Estate, is imposing a production tax on an industry in crisis. What adds to the injury is the feeling that as landlord the Crown Estate has little or no responsibility.
The annual report of the Crown Estate Commissioners shows how much is invested in research. The most recent report informs us that £1 million has been spent on that investment, which sounds a large sum, until one realises that it was spread over 10 years.

187
Not even that limited discharge of landlordly responsibility can be found in relation to the charges made for community marinas in Shetland. As the House will readily understand, island communities have a strong affinity with the sea. For centuries, many of my constituents in Orkney and Shetland have kept boats, and only in very recent times have they been asked by the Crown Estate to pay a charge for the privilege of mooring their boat.
Many communities have worked hard to establish marinas to afford better protection and safety, yet the Crown Estate insists on charging those non-profit-making community associations the same rent as is charged for moorings in the larger and grander yachting clubs on the mainland in Scotland.
Where rentals have not been agreed, the district valuer has been brought in. Sometimes that has led to even higher proposed rents. It is not always clear on what basis a rent can be charged for permission simply to drop an anchor. In one case, the district valuer proposed an annual rent of £450. The secretary of the Marina Users Association made an interesting observation in a letter to me:
"Local land valued by the DV can be bought from approx. 28 pence per square metre, yet he is suggesting an annual rent of 42 pence per square metre for the sea bed."
In another case in which there was concern that excessive rental charges would lead to some port users giving up, therefore putting a bigger financial cost on those left, the commodore of that boating club wrote:
"We rent the foreshore for £3 per annum and feel strongly that any rent levied by the Crown Estate should be similarly nominal. We would in preference like to buy the land and have done with this anachronistic quango for good."
The Crown Estate Act 1961 makes provision in section 4 for the commissioners to waive consideration or dispose of the land where land is to be used and occupied for
"any communal facilities for recreation".
The kind of community marina to which I have referred might be considered a good case for the rental charges to be waived. The two First Crown Estate Commissioners and the two previous Secretaries of State for Scotland have rejected that plea, on the ground that there were strong legal doubts about whether rent charges could be waived.
It would be one of the purposes of my Bill to clarify the law, so that the commissioners could waive rent or merely charge a nominal rent in the case of non-profit-making facilities. If they did not do so, it would be open to the Secretary of State to use his powers of direction.
Similar considerations can apply in the case of transport infrastructure for lifeline services. The ferry terminals operated by Orkney islands council, for example, are also liable to rent charges by the Crown Estate. At the time of the last review, the Crown Estate's valuation agents proposed increases in excess of 900 per cent. for the terminals at Tingwall, Rousay, Egilsay and Wyre.
188
That was modest compared with the 2,000 per cent. increase proposed for Rapness in Westray and the 3,000 per cent. increase for Loth in Sanday.
As those costs must be met from a harbour account that must balance, they must inevitably be passed on to the ferry company and on to the fares paid by ferry passengers. Surely it cannot make sense that fragile communities should have to bear such additional costs. The legislation needs amendment to relieve the commissioners of the obligation to go for every penny they can in such situations.
Finally, I should like to deal with the Crown Estate Commissioners' regulatory functions in the operation of marine fish farm leases. Last December, the Scottish Office issued a consultation document proposing that local authorities assume responsibility for determining siting of fish farms, having regard to the environmental impact of such developments. Although there seems to be a consensus that, in principle, the Crown Estate Commissioners' regulatory powers should be transferred to local councils, the difficulty is in determining how such a transfer can be made. It is difficult to imagine it happening without legislation. Moreover, I do not believe that it would be a simple matter of extending planning legislation to include the sea bed.
The Government propose that, after Scottish devolution, the Crown Estate should be a reserved matter—next week, we might debate that proposal. However, surely it would be better if we passed the necessary legislation while the House has responsibility not only for the Crown Estate but for Scottish local government. My Bill could serve as a vehicle for such a change.
I believe that the problems that I have highlighted are serious, not least in connection with the social and economic well-being of some of our nation's distant and fragile communities. I do not believe that the Government wish to undermine those communities by using back-door taxation. Therefore, if the Crown Estate Commissioners are either unwilling or unable to show greater flexibility than they have shown until now, legislation will be necessary to provide that greater flexibility and fairness.
Even if my Bill suffers the fate of most ten-minute Bills, I hope that Ministers who are listening will be willing to act.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Andrew George.

CROWN ESTATE (AMENDMENT)
Mr. James Wallace accordingly presented a Bill to require the Crown Estate Commissioners to exercise their functions with due regard to the non-commercial interests of local communities; to regulate the granting of sea-bed leases by the Crown Estate Commissioners and establishing the rent therefor; to amend section 4 of the Crown Estate Act 1961; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April, and to be printed image [Bill 157].
Orders of the Day
  School Standards and Framework Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
New clause 7

  TEACHERS' PAY AND CONDITIONS
  '.—Notwithstanding the provisions of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991, a pay and conditions order issued under the Act shall not apply to the statutory conditions of employment of the school teachers employed in a foundation, foundation special or voluntary aided school.'.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.1 pm
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  New clause 7 deals with an absolutely key part of the responsibility of foundation and voluntary aided schools. Clause 52 makes it clear that, ultimately, the appointment and dismissal of teachers in community and voluntary controlled schools will be a responsibility of the local education authority. However, clause 53 makes it clear that a different principle will apply to foundation schools and voluntary aided schools—which reflects the Government's policy, as stated in "Excellence in Schools", and is part of their commitment to creating a difference between foundation and voluntary aided schools and community and voluntary controlled schools.
  I agree with an approach offering two alternative ways of running schools. In the long run, some schools may opt to accept that their teachers should be employed by the local education authority, and that their assets should be managed and owned by the local education authority. I understand why the Government have included that option in the Bill, as some schools may wish to continue operating on that basis. However, I also believe that the Bill should allow schools that wish to accept greater responsibility for their own affairs to be responsible for managing their own teaching and non-teaching employees and their own buildings and assets. Such a freedom should be available to schools.
  The Government have come some way in the Bill in recognising that such freedom should exist. We tabled the new clause to encourage them to follow their own logic, and to go a couple of stages further in providing that freedom.
  Clause 53 and schedule 17 will allow foundation and voluntary aided schools to be responsible for the appointment of teachers, subject to a process involving those schools' head teacher and other teachers. They also make it clear that the management of the teaching force is the responsibility of the head teacher reporting to the governing body. However, the Bill does not allow the head teacher or the governing body, in negotiation with the teachers they employ, to vary the terms of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991. The new clause is an attempt to open the door to that possibility.
  We contend that, if a school is to be the employer of teachers, and if it is to have the freedom to follow its own ideas about how the skills and dedication of those teachers can best be used to meet the needs of its children and
  190
  the community it serves, the freedom to vary teachers' nationally negotiated terms and conditions should be vested in the governing body which is, according to the Government's own drafting, the employing agency for those teachers.
  I do not understand why the Government should open the door to the principle that the school is the teacher's employer, only to deny to the governing body and the school one of the basic instruments that an employer ought to have: the ability to create a context that best allows it to meet its needs by varying—by negotiation, of course—the teachers' employment terms.
  I am not opposed—nor is my party—to the Review Body on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions of Service; it would be odd if we were, as we set it up. The principle of independent advice about teachers' pay and conditions, provided by a body working to the Government, is one which we established and which has a continuing role in the employment of teachers. Indeed, it could be argued that allowing more schools the freedom to develop their own pay and conditions packages to respond to local needs reinforces rather than undermines the need for an independent review body to examine how teachers' pay and conditions evolve. The development of local variations and local flexibility reinforces, rather than undermines, the principle of the review body.
  It is important to emphasise that not every voluntary aided and foundation school would want to follow up the freedom provided in the new clause. We know that only a tiny minority of grant-maintained schools used the freedom when it was available to them. If the new clause were accepted, there would be nothing to stop a foundation or voluntary aided school declaring as a matter of policy that it intended to apply national pay and conditions to its teaching force. That freedom would be available, but alongside it would be the freedom for a school not to apply national pay and conditions if it thought that, given its conditions, a different set of arrangements or a variation on the national arrangements would allow it better to deliver its service.
  My argument is intrinsic to the delivery of what the Minister for School Standards said repeatedly in Committee was the Government's objective—to focus responsibility within the school. He is right about that, so why not give those responsible for the management of the school the greatest possible range of instruments to enable them to fulfil the responsibility which the Minister correctly places primarily on them?
  There are two reasons why the Government cannot argue that they are opposed to that idea in principle. First, paragraph 5 of schedule 31—what might loosely be termed the Oratory school exemption—allows existing exemptions to continue to operate. Presumably the Minister would have withdrawn the exemption if he thought it in some sense inimical to the standard and delivery of high-quality education in the maintained sector; indeed, he would not have extended it to his favourite children—those in the education action zones.
  Secondly, the Government are regrettably withdrawing from grant-maintained schools the ability to apply the principle contained in new clause 7 that there should be greater variety and flexibility in teachers' pay and conditions, but under clause 13 they are extending it in education action zones, which will—in certain circumstances and after proper process—be exempt from

  191
  the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991. New clause 7 acknowledges that the Government are offering the right provision on teachers' pay and conditions in education action zones.
  For exactly the reasons why the Minister is applying the provisions of clause 13 to education action zones, he should extend that freedom to employing schools—the voluntary aided and foundation schools. He vests in them primary responsibility for delivering high standards, and has given them responsibility for employing teachers. Why does he not give them the same freedom to vary teachers' pay and conditions that he is to extend to the education action zones under schedule 31(5).
  Mrs. Theresa May: I support the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell). I made it clear in Committee that I would go further than the new clause; in my view, the watchwords should be maximum flexibility, which should be introduced generally at individual school level. It is illogical for the Government to accept the principle that schools should be able to move away from national terms and conditions under the Oratory school exemption, where the school is the employing body, and to apply it to education action zones, where the employing body will continue to be the local education authority.
  We debated that issue in Committee, and it will be discussed again because of the practical difficulties that may arise. The Government are to allow a school of a particular type that is an employing body for teachers to depart from national terms and conditions, but also intend to allow schools that are not employing bodies that come under the headline description that the Minister for School Standards so favours—education action zones—to do the same. It would be much more logical to extend the ability to move away from national pay, terms and conditions to schools that are employing bodies, to which new clause 7 refers.
  The Government will have to reconsider the matter in the future if they do not accept the new clause. Teacher recruitment has been debated in the Chamber and in the Select Committee on Education and Employment. Problems with teacher recruitment, and the crisis that is developing in our education system, are forcing us to consider locally devised solutions to teacher recruitment package problems. That could be done at LEA level.
  I have been involved in putting together innovative recruitment and retention packages outside national pay, terms and conditions to attract teachers to schools that had experienced problems in attracting teachers. The Government must accept that schools and local education authorities will have to be given more flexibility to enable them to move outside the scope of national pay and conditions—albeit potentially within a national framework—in order to identify local circumstances, put together packages that respect those circumstances and employ the teachers who are required to provide the standard of education that the Government keep telling us they seek.
  It is particularly illogical that the Minister should tell schools that are employing bodies as the Bill stands, "Yes, you can employ the teachers, but you cannot have flexibility in regard to the terms and conditions under
  192
  which you employ them." Few schools would be willing to employ staff on that basis. Surely, if the Minister accepts the principle of the Oratory school clause—if he accepts the principle in terms of non-employing bodies, namely schools within education action zones—it is entirely reasonable to extend that principle to schools that are identified in the Bill, which the Government acknowledge will themselves be employing bodies.
  The new clause would produce the freedom and flexibility for which any employer should ask, and I trust that the Government will accept it.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Phil Willis: I trust that the Oratory School exception will no longer be an exception by the time the Bill is on the statute book, but we need to ask what are the real motives behind new clause 7.
  The new clause cannot have anything to do with the experience of grant-maintained schools and their ability to disapply terms and conditions. I believe that only two grant-maintained schools used that exemption, and we must presume that the vast majority saw certain advantages in remaining within the current national pay and conditions system. Moreover, the system for disapplying pay and conditions was not employed in the case of state schools. If the last Administration thought that the system was such a good idea for grant-maintained schools, surely they ought to have applied it to all schools; but it was applied only to schools that the Government wanted to support.
  The new clause cannot be a result of consultation with representatives of teachers' or head teachers' organisations. In a quick trawl of all those organisations this morning, I did not find one that the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) and his colleagues had consulted. This is another example of something that the teaching profession does not want imposed on it, for reasons that I will come to shortly.
  Nor can the new clause be a result of increasing resources for schools. If resources had been increased and given to teachers, there might have been some logic in it, but the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made no provision for increased teachers' pay, either through the budget process or in their spending plans, which the present Government have inherited. During the last Government's time in office, teachers were underpaid year on year, and were paid in stages. That is how their current terms and conditions were applied.
  The new clause cannot be aimed at improving teachers' morale. Few Members who have visited schools in the past few years—certainly none who were elected on 1 May 1997—have not been struck by the fact that in almost all of them there is a real lack of morale: a sense of wanting to get on with the job and to be left alone rather than being plunged into yet more turmoil. That is exactly what the new clause would do—create further division in the teaching profession and further animosity between those schools to which pay and conditions were disapplied and those schools to which they were not. Indeed, without additional resources, the new clause would create division even within schools to which the provisions applied.
  To be charitable to the right hon. Member for Charnwood, there is a more important purpose behind the new clause: to draw attention to teachers' pay and

  193
  conditions. If the Government are committed to improving standards in our schools—we have to believe that that is so—they must address teachers' pay and conditions. In many schools, there is a sense of injustice that, yet again in this year's settlement, teachers are having to bear the brunt, with a two-stage pay award, rather than being rewarded for the changes that they are expected to make.
  I hope that, following consideration in Committee of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill next week, the General Teaching Council will be much more powerful and will give teachers real status. We also require a professional contract for teachers, so that there is a sense of a professionalism to go with the GTC. Teachers want fair pay, decent conditions and esteem among the populace rather than new clauses that would create division.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). There is a theme to this Bill with which those of us who served on the Committee are familiar. There are two sides to the Government, and two sides to their policy. On issues such as varying teachers' pay, we see contradictions in the Government's policy.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood rightly pointed out the contradiction between the Government's opposition to the new clause and their stated enthusiasm for education action zones. Not all members of the Labour party are enthusiastic about education action zones. Indeed, this week's edition of The Times Educational Supplement carried the headline "Old Left dislikes tone of the zones". That sums up why we face not one Government but two.
  Even when the Bill completes its passage through the House, we will not know in which direction Ministers will drive it. In the article about the attitude of the old left to education action zones—the Secretary of State should be aware of what his old friends in the north are saying about him—one head of education policy is quoted as saying:
  "The north is Labour's stronghold and the idea of its schools being taken over by business made a lot of people shudder."
  The idea of our education policy being taken over by the old left makes many Conservative Members shudder. What worries us deeply is the fact that the Bill gives powers to the centre that will enable the old left to take over the running of our education policy. It would be for the health of the Government's education policy, and give a clear sense of where they are leading the country, if they accepted the new clause.
  I was sorry to read in the press that Ministers are disappointed by the number of applications for education action zones. We are told that they are particularly disappointed by the small number of Labour authorities that have come forward. I can tell the Minister for School Standards that he will be receiving an application from Guildford; we want to take part in EAZs. One reason is that the scheme will enable us to vary our teachers' remuneration. We hope in particular to attract, to any of our schools that are not up to what we deem the appropriate standard, the quality of teaching that all children in our area deserve. Owing to the high cost of living in areas such as the one that I represent, it is very hard to attract that calibre of teacher.
  194
  Only if the Government are interested in improving the quality of education in all parts of the country—not just education action zones—and embracing the years of Conservative innovation will they remain true to their pledge to build on our improvements in education. To do so, they should support the new clause.
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): We are grateful to the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) for tabling the new clause, which has, indeed, encouraged us to follow our own logic. We do not want to follow the logic of the new clause.
  Conservative Members have rightly identified the Government's proposed education action zones as a separate category. We want to provide the opportunity to disregard the national pay and conditions when that is felt appropriate. We look forward to seeing the details of the many applications for education action zones that have come forward. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) quoted from an article in The Times Educational Supplement, which was written a few days before the deadline for applications. By last Friday, which was the deadline and the day of publication of the TES, we were pleased with the number of applications.
  Thanks to the effort of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the additional funding provided in the Budget, we can now increase the number of education action zones. As my right hon. Friend said, we want 12 established from September and a further 13 from January 1999. We look forward to those education action zones being at the forefront of innovation. That will mean giving careful consideration to appropriate pay and conditions for teachers.
  Mr. Willis: Will the Minister confirm that private companies applying for education action zones are being made to jump through every conceivable hoop that the Department can create, whereas a local education authority that the Department wants to encourage to promote an education action zone has only to submit a letter of intent?
  Mr. Byers: All applications are being treated in the same way. It would be unfair and inappropriate to treat one group differently from another. In all applications, whether from the private sector in partnership with local education authorities and whether school-led or local education authority-led, we are looking for proposals that will raise standards in schools.
  I know that we are all excited about education action zones, but we should talk about the new clause. We are concerned that it would cause chaos in thousands of schools by allowing them to establish their own pay and conditions in place of the national agreements. Schools that wanted to follow the national conditions would have to impose them.
  It will be far better to use the opportunity provided by EAZs to test different ways of paying teachers and different conditions. That will give us a national perspective on what practices work in recruitment, in rewarding teachers and in new structures for the school day and the school year. Education action zones will provide that flexibility and freedom, allowing the Secretary of State to monitor and evaluate the changes. The Government moved amendments on the first day of the Report stage to allow the Secretary of State to consider the detailed proposals of those promoting EAZs.

  195
  We have some concerns about the implications of new clause 7. The right hon. Member for Charnwood referred to one of the paragraphs of schedule 31 as the "Oratory exemption clause". I would not describe it in quite those terms myself; none the less, the fact that only two grant-maintained schools have taken advantage of the freedom to opt out of national pay and conditions demonstrates that simply giving a freedom is not the best way to encourage change.
  By the end of the coming school year, education action zones will cover several hundred schools. An examination of what happens there is probably a better way of seeing whether we can begin to break down existing practice and try new ways of determining teachers' pay and conditions. In many people's minds, there is no doubt that the time has come to examine carefully teachers' contracts, pay and conditions, and education action zones will provide us with an opportunity to do that in a focused way.
  Another reason why I feel that moving in the direction suggested by the new clause would cause concern is that it specifically refers to voluntary aided schools. I know that the Church authorities would not support the proposal, and would have grave reservations about the prospect of national pay and conditions being unilaterally lifted from teachers in their schools.
  We believe that a better way forward would be to consider the idea in a focused way, and examine how we can develop new methods in the education action zones. That is a more appropriate way of dealing with change. New clause 7 would divert attention in schools away from their main task, which must be raising standards and providing a better quality of education than may be being provided at present. For those reasons, if the new clause is pressed to a vote, I shall ask the House to vote against it.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Dorrell: I regret the overall conclusion that the Minister has reached in his response to this brief debate. However, I draw some comfort from one or two of his comments. He made it more explicit that, in his eyes, one of the objectives of education action zones is to try out new ideas for teachers' pay and conditions. I believe that his phrase was that we could break down national terms and conditions for teachers, which represents a welcome inching forward of the Government's objectives for the zones.
  I agree that it is desirable to introduce greater flexibility in pay and conditions for teachers, and I am pleased that the Minister has set out so clearly the fact that that is one of the purposes of education action zones. I regret that he thinks that the idea can be tried out only in those zones, and that there is no role for foundation schools or voluntary aided schools in pushing forward the objectives that he has set.
  However, as the Minister is prepared at least to countenance the objective of testing new approaches as alternatives to national pay and conditions for teachers, and in the interests of making progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 13

  DISCONTINUANCE OF MAINTAINED RURAL PRIMARY SCHOOLS
  '(1) Where a local education authority proposes the discontinuance of a maintained primary school in a rural area the matter shall be referred to the Secretary of State for determination.

  (2) Such referral for determination shall take place after consultation under section 28(4) has been concluded.

  (3) A rural primary school is a school identified in a list under subsection (4).

  (4) A local education authority shall maintain a list of rural primary schools; and in compiling and maintaining that list they shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mrs. Browning.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  In some ways, the new clause could be seen as something of a tidying-up measure. On Saturday 28 February, when I was sitting at home sponging the mud off my coat ready for the countryside march in London the following day, I, in common with the rest of the nation, was treated to the sight of the Minister for School Standards gracing our television screens to make an important announcement about village schools.
  We were all delighted to hear that announcement, and I hastened to obtain a copy of the press release that accompanied the Minister's television appearance. In it, he is reported as saying:
  "Today, I am announcing tough new protection for village schools … we have decided that any proposal by a Local Education Authority to close a rural school will be called in to the Secretary of State for decision.
  Further, Ministers will have a presumption against closure. And Ministers will have particular regard to the need to provide access to a local school for rural communities."
  That is all jolly good stuff, which we can totally support. Hence the new clause.
  The Minister went on to say:
  "Of course, we cannot guarantee that no school will ever close. But these changes will give village schools strong new protection".
  I have explained how supportive we are of the announcement, but I was doubly surprised: not only by the sudden announcement on 28 February, but because the Committee had been sitting for some time—we had had no fewer than 19 sittings at that time. I sat through all the sittings of the Committee, and I do not recall the Minister saying that this was a matter of any priority for the Government.
  It seems rather strange that, out of the blue—two days after the final Committee sitting—the Minister made this announcement on Saturday evening television. The Government were clearly in trouble that weekend. Some Ministers said that they would be attending the countryside rally, while others said that they would not, because they thought that the whole thing was a put-up job. However, here was the Minister rushing to the support of rural communities and trying to pour a little oil on what would be a troubled weekend for the Government from the media.

  197
  We have questions for the Minister, and I should be grateful if he would break the habit of a lifetime and answer the specifics tonight.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): That was unkind.
  Mrs. Browning: Yes, it was rather unkind—I withdraw it. I want the Government to vote with us tonight, so I shall try not to be unkind to the Minister for the remainder of our discussions on the new clause.
  Does the Government's promise apply for any restricted length of time? For example, can we assume that it will continue after the Bill receives Royal Assent? Or was it just a short-term measure to bolster the Government through a political problem that will no longer apply once the Bill has received Royal Assent?
  The Minister describes this as "tough new protection". If it is tough, it should have the statutory protection of the law. If it is new, we would have expected the Minister to table a Government new clause when the Committee reconvened—as it did for several more sittings—or on Report to put into statute the tough new measures he announced on television on Saturday 28 February. It might be that, as a busy person, the Minister is minded to table the new clause in another place.
  Will the Minister clarify how the promise and the tough new protection will fit in with schedule 7 and clause 33, which clearly still require the Secretary of State to contact local education authorities to ask them to look at the numbers in their schools and to deal with the rationalisation of surplus places? Clearly the Minister has a new strong power in mind, so that, when the Secretary of State considers each school that comes to his desk, he will almost certainly wish to make changes to the powers he currently has to require LEAs to go through the rationalisation process and to submit to him—as the Bill proposes—some plan as to how they are to deal with rationalisation.
  Schedule 7 proposes that, in some cases, the rationalisation of surplus places will require LEAs to come forward with proposals which could result in the discontinuance of a school. I assume that the Secretary of State will wish to make some modification to the Bill on that. There seems no point in them going through a paper exercise if there is to be a presumption against closure. One could assume that village primary schools will be exempted from that requirement.
  Mr. Byers: If the hon. Lady, as well as watching the teatime news, occasionally referred to the Official Report, she would have read my written answer on 26 February about the removal of surplus school places, in which I gave a clear commitment that, in considering surplus places, local authorities must take into account such circumstances as geography. That must be a factor in the consideration of rural schools.
  Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but a written answer is not tough new statutory protection. If the promise he made on television in such specific terms is tough and new, why did not the Government table such a new clause in Committee or on Report, rather than leave it to the Opposition to do so? Perhaps the matter slipped his mind—I know that his
  198
  officials are busy. As I said—I shall not tease him—we are very much in favour of what he said, and we shall be pleased to accept the support of Labour Members in the Lobby if the new clause is pressed to a Division.
  I hope that the Minister will answer my specific questions, and also say what he had in mind when, as a qualification, he said:
  "Of course, we cannot guarantee that no school will ever close."
  Was he referring to rationalisation of places? What number of pupils does he think makes a village school viable?
  I have been a Member of Parliament for six years, in which time the only school in my constituency to close had a total school roll of 14. In my experience—and I am sure in that of most hon. Members—when a school of any category, but particularly a village primary school, has been considered for closure, the matter has almost certainly gone to the Secretary of State, whom Members of Parliament and governing bodies lobby. That certainly happened under the Conservative Administration, except on the rare occasion when there were no objections. If, over and above that, there will be new, tough powers to protect rural primary schools, I want to know what, specifically, the Minister has in mind.
  Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): I support the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). The Minister's honeyed words at the Dispatch Box sit extremely ill with the letter, signed by an official from his Department, that was sent on 9 March to Kent education authority. Hon. Members will, I hope, share my deep disquiet at the fact that the letter contained a list of 45 secondary and primary schools in Kent, including some in rural areas—it could be termed a hit list of schools for closure on grounds of surplus places. The existence of such a list is a matter of deep concern to me, and, I know, to a number of my hon. Friends.
  The list includes no fewer than four schools in the rural parts of my constituency: Shipbourne primary school; Blacklands junior school; Hever Church of England primary school; and the Eden Valley school. The wording of the letter—for which, of course, the Secretary of State has responsibility—is somewhat threatening. For example, in its request to the local authority, it states:
  "In each case please set out the reasons for the surplus, as far as this can be ascertained, and the justification for continuing to maintain all the schools on the list still open and not yet proposed for closure."
  As I said, that sits ill with the Minister's words.
  For two critical reasons, I hope that the House will support the new clause. First, the continuation of village schools is indispensable. Schools are the lifeblood of a village. If the school is lost, so is the heart of the village—young people will leave, and others from outside will be reluctant to move in.
  4.45 pm
  Secondly, I believe that the Department's exercise rests on a false premise—that it is possible to predict in the long term the demand for places in a village school. In my experience, it is not possible to make such long-term—or even medium-term—predictions about demand for places.

  199
  The St. Mark's Church of England infants school in the village of Eccles, which was part of my constituency before the boundary changes, was once considered for closure. However, only last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), as Secretary of State and Education and Employment, authorised the upgrading of that school to a full-scale primary school, because of the influx of people into the village and the surrounding areas.
  That graphically illustrates the fact that the demand for places at a school can vary enormously over 10 or 20 years. I believe that the Bill's provisions for the protection of rural schools need strengthening, so I warmly support the new clause.
  Mr. Willis: I think that the Minister will, on reflection, come to regret his statement before the countryside rally to prevent the people of North Tyneside from marching on his home later that day. He made a foolish promise—if he meant what he said, the Government should support the new clause, as it would bear out what he said on television, and the commitment that he made in his press release. We do not support the new clause, however, and perhaps the Government will agree with our position.
  The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) made a passionate plea for rural schools in Kent—any hon. Member whose constituency contains a large number of rural schools could have made almost the same speech. I doubt whether any hon. Member—especially those who represent rural areas—does not accept that the protection of village schools is important, provided that they meet appropriate educational standards and are supported by the local community.
  What has happened in the past four or five years, however, does not bear out what the Conservatives now say. Since 1992, 450 village schools were closed, and—until the Minister gave his commitment—thousands were under threat because of the lack of resources. Many small village schools—especially those with fewer than 25 pupils—are concerned that they have to live on a year-by-year basis.
  The new clause will do nothing to preserve village schools. It would undermine the Government's attempt to create a level playing field. All schools, be they urban or rural, small or large, should be given the same consideration when a local education authority proposes closure. The Government's intention in the legislation was to make the decisions closer to the people, giving local education authorities a duty to plan for places and to make proper recommendations on closure.
  The issue of the closure of small village primary schools is very real, as is the issue of surplus places. It is clearly nonsense to include the issue of surplus places in the whole of an LEA's provision in a measure designed to apply to small rural primary schools.
  If we are to maintain those schools, we have to accept that there will be surplus places in them, unless there is expansion in particular villages. The communities in many of the affected areas—especially the Yorkshire dales, near my constituency—remain relatively stable: numbers fluctuate, but they do not go up or down by huge leaps or bounds.
  200
  All schools should be treated the same, and LEAs should be obliged to make rational decisions close to the people. We would prefer it to be up to the LEA, in consultation with local communities, to make decisions about the closure of schools, be they small rural primary schools or large urban secondary schools, on the basis of standards, of what is required for the community, and of what is financially acceptable to the authority.
  Mrs. May: The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) summed up the debate about the new clause when he said that, if the Minister meant what he said in the media about small village schools, he would support it.
  The new clause is designed to put into effect what the Minister stated was the Government's policy. I hope that he will be able to put us out of our misery by saying that he does indeed support it, but I have a suspicion that he may not do so. That says an awful lot about the Government's attitude to rural communities and the cynical way in which he was willing to appear on television at the drop of a hat to announce a new policy to pacify those who are genuinely concerned about the Government's general attack on the rural community.
  In Committee, we debated the removal of the right of parish and town councils to appoint governors to the governing bodies of their local schools. That is an issue about which my local parish and town councils are extremely concerned. They have written to me to point out that the school is an essential part of the local community, as is the parish council. It is important to retain the heart of the local community, especially in dispersed rural communities, which is represented by the village school.
  The Minister tried to placate people in rural areas by suggesting that the Government are adopting a more helpful policy towards village schools than was intended when the Bill was first drafted. There are 14 new clauses and well over 100 amendments on the amendment paper today. More than half are Government amendments, yet nowhere in them is there an attempt by the Government to place on a statutory basis the new policy that they claim, hand on heart, to have adopted. That says more than anything else about the Minister's press release and appearance on television. The policy he announced is a policy in words only. If it were not, the Government would support the new clause.
  The Government should think again about rural schools, which play a key part in the community. They may find that the issue comes into conflict with their announcements on infant class sizes. They have said that, if a 31st child is due to come into a village school, either he or she could go to another rural school, which may indeed have been closed, or the money could be given to the first school to accommodate that child. They will have to think carefully about the interaction of their policy on rural schools with their commitment on infant class sizes.
  If he is serious about the policy that he announced in the national media, the Minister should accept new clause 13 with open arms, and thank the Opposition for having put into words, for inclusion in the Bill, a policy that he claims to support.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) wondered why the

  201
  Minister's honeyed words had not translated into an amendment to the Bill. The answer is simply that a march by 385,000 people generates a media response from the Government, but that, to get a measure into one of their education Bills, one has to belong to the union.
  In whatever areas the unions have opined regarding the Bill—on partnership provision between LEAs and independent schools, for example, or on terms and conditions—the Government bend to what they are told behind closed doors; but when it comes to trying to pacify rural areas, it is a different story. Unless the Minister can spin a convincing tale, we will draw the natural conclusion that what he said was all for effect, with no real meaning.
  I am delighted to support the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton. It was a previous Angela—Dame Angela Rumbold—who, as a schools Minister in the previous Government, first outlined a clear Government pledge in support of village schools. She did so in February 1987, which I remember because I was making my first attempt to enter Parliament. Despite my lack of success on that occasion, we all learned the importance of village schools.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) spoke of a level playing field. In a rural area, such as the part of Cornwall in which I lived for 10 years, there is no level playing field. It sometimes takes a wider view, which may come from a departmental angle rather than from a local education authority, to balance the needs of a rural area against the diktats of the pure numbers and costs of keeping a school open.
  In the light of the epic announcement last week of the ending of outdoor lavatories at schools, how many of the schools involved are village primary schools?
  Noble though the Minister's aim may be of eliminating that inheritance from, as he told us last week, the Victorian era—I am glad that he does not blame everything on the previous Conservative Government—what is the education priority for a village primary school that is facing closure? Is it to spend on average £60,000 to provide loos for the children, or is it to spend it in a way that will guarantee that the school continues through hard times as well as good?
  5 pm
  I know from experience of village schools in my constituency that they are often on a knife edge because of their financial situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said, many will face particular pressure because of the Government's commitment on class sizes.
  One village school near where I live has 70 children and can just afford to provide two full teachers, which makes for a class size of 35. I challenge Ministers to show me any primary school in which children get a better education than they do at that school. It serves nearly all the children in the village, and if it has to reduce the numbers in its classes to 30, not only will some children in the village have to travel much further to school, causing yet more congestion on roads when commuter traffic is at its height, but the very survival of the school will be put at risk because of the loss of income from the additional children.
  202
  These are serious questions for the Minister. Will schools that have the £60,000 be given the option to choose to spend it on higher priorities, and will schools that have more than 30 children per class be allowed to put the survival of the school before the priority of a class size of 30?
  Mr. Blunkett: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the acquisition of an inside toilet might persuade some of his constituents who are putting their hard-earned money into private education to send their children to that excellent infants school instead?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that people who send their children to schools in Surrey take into account a range of factors. The factor that he has suggested is pretty well bottom of the list. It is not a key factor in deciding where one sends one's child to school. Parents will consider the performance of the school—for example, in attaining literacy standards, and its proximity to their home.
  Frankly, as someone who has survived the indignity, as the right hon. Gentleman sees it, of an outside loo when I was at school—he may judge for himself how much damage it has done to my character and personality—I hold no brief against my parents for deciding on that school despite the lack of basic necessities. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is absurd, and I note that he avoided the real question, which was why a school that might need the £60,000 to keep going should be obliged to pander to his whims and sentiments at the expense of its very survival.
  Mr. Byers: A number of issues have been raised in this brief debate on new clause 13, and I will try to answer all of them. First, I must deal with the concerns outlined by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley)—in particular, the letter sent by an official from my Department. Letters were sent asking each local education authority to consider surplus places—an issue that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) raised—and drawing attention to schools that had more than 25 per cent. of places empty.
  The Government take the view that local authorities should review provision to ensure that value for money is achieved. In Kent, 48 primary schools and 25 secondary schools have more than 25 per cent. of their places vacant, and it is appropriate for the Government to ask the local authority for an explanation.
  However, that must be seen in the context of my written reply to a question from the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on 26 February on surplus places and the duty and responsibility of local education authorities. In that reply, I clearly said that the Government recognise
  "that authorities will want to take into account any unusual circumstances, for example geography and social make-up."—[Official Report, 26 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 364.]
  Therefore, in answer to our request for information about those schools, it is for the Kent local education authority to point out the rural communities that might be served by them. It is clearly important for both the Government and Kent local education authority to consider the needs of the school in the context of the community it serves.

  203
  I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing. We are not considering all schools equally. As was said in the statement on 28 February, we recognise that, yes, the matter should be determined by the Secretary of State, but, more importantly, that there should be a presumption against closure, which is vital if we are to offer rural schools far greater protection than they have had.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: The Minister will be aware that, in the list of Kent schools to which he has extensively referred, no fewer than 10 are Church of England primary schools. He will also be aware of the considerable concern about what will happen to denominational schools that face the problem of the 31st child.
  Parents who seek to place their children in denominational schools put first and foremost the teaching of the faith and are looking for the denominational school concerned. If 10 under-subscribed Church of England primary schools are taking children who could not get into over-subscribed schools of the same denomination, would that be a sufficiently unusual circumstance to guarantee that the school continued to function even if it remained heavily under-subscribed?
  Mr. Byers: I will deal in a second with the issues that we might need to take into account when determining the schools that might be closed. As we made clear in the announcement on 28 February, we are not saying, "Never, ever," to the closure of a village or rural school. There must be circumstances in which a closure would be wholly appropriate, but we will consider whether parents are being offered real choice of denominational education if that is what they want. That factor must be taken into account.
  I am sure that the right hon. Lady is aware that, in the Government's discussions with the Church authorities on our class size pledge and our policy towards surplus places, we have reached a situation in which the authorities are broadly supportive of the Government's position. The Church education authorities have approached us about our pledge to reduce class sizes in infant schools, and broadly welcome our measures.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his generosity in giving way again. He has several times prayed in aid the attitude of the Churches to this issue. Is it not the case that the Roman Catholic Church at any rate broadly supports some limit on class sizes, and would want such a limitation to come about, but not at the expense of denying Roman Catholic education to Roman Catholic children?
  Mr. Byers: That is the case, which is why, elsewhere in the Bill, we have made specific admissions provisions to meet those concerns. There is a special provision that admissions will not be dealt with by the adjudicator, as normally would be the case, but referred to the Secretary of State.
  We inserted that provision to meet the concerns expressed by the Roman Catholic Church in particular. Our approach has been clear: that, if the Bill needs to be
  204
  amended to make it better, we are prepared to amend it. We had several constructive meetings with representatives of the Church education authorities. In the light of their views and their concerns about the Bill as originally drafted, we made several changes. The admissions change is an example of one that we made because we believe that it meets the reasonable concerns of the Church authorities, and makes the Bill better.
  On the point made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, if there is concern in Kent, I am happy to write to the chief education officer to clarify the Government's view on the matter. Geography and service to a rural village community are factors that must be considered in replying to letters from officials about surplus places. I hope that that clarifies the Government's thinking, and will reassure parents and teachers in the schools to which he referred.
  It is interesting that the Conservatives seem suddenly to have discovered the importance of rural schools in this debate.
  Mr. Dorrell: We offered exactly the same safeguard.
  Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Conservatives had exactly the safeguard that is being offered. He fails to realise that there are safeguards; I use the plural, because there are more than one. The great weakness of new clause 13 is that it seeks only to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. We need to go far beyond that if we are serious about protecting rural schools.
  Since 1983, under the previous Government, 450 rural village schools have been closed. The Bill means that, between now and September 1999, such matters will be referred to the Secretary of State, as I made clear in my press notice. Most importantly, there will be a presumption against closure. Ministers will have particular regard to the need to provide access to a local school for local communities. No such presumption operated under the previous Government. That is why they were able to embark on wholesale closure of village schools. I will deal in a moment with the framework after September 1999.
  It is not enough to refer such matters to the Secretary of State. There has to be a referral, and a presumption against closure, which will operate between now and 1999. The rate of closures under the previous Government works out at more than 40 a year. We will at least guarantee that, by September 1999, there will not have been such a closure rate.
  Mrs. Browning: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Byers: I want first to describe what we are doing to ensure that village schools provide the quality of education that the children attending them want. I do not want to take an announcement away from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but in April he will make known the allocations for the national grid for learning. They will make it clear that village schools will be linked to the national grid. By harnessing the benefits of new

  205
  technology, we will be able to provide pupils in rural schools with a breadth and range of education experience that has been denied them.
  Mrs. Browning: If it is simply a question of adding presumption of closure to new clause 13, or to another amendment, would the Minister accept such an amendment in another place?
  Mr. Byers: I will not, because I was talking about safeguards, of which there need to be a number. It is not only a referral to the Secretary of State, a presumption against closure, and linking rural schools to the national grid for learning. It is also about reducing class sizes, which will benefit many schools, and giving them the benefits of the new deal capital money, which will make a real difference to rural primary schools.
  I have an illustration of the contrasting approaches. Under the previous Government, Willington county primary school in Lincolnshire was closed in 1995, despite 28 statutory objections, an action committee and a delegation led by the local Member of Parliament. There were 23 children on the roll, and the alternative school was almost three miles away.
  It is worth contrasting that with what happened to Edenham primary school, which is also in Lincolnshire, and which serves a village rural community. As a result of £97,000 from our new deal capital money, linked with £17,700 funded from people locally, it was able to provide new classrooms, making the school even more popular. Those measures are important, because they are part of the safeguards that rural schools need.
  5.15 pm
  The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) referred to what will happen after September 1999. That is important, because a new framework will operate under the Bill. Such matters will go to the school organisation committee. If there is no agreement, they will go to the local adjudicator. From September 1999, the Secretary of State will issue guidance about the measures. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members will listen, I will take them through what will happen, and what local parents will be able to do if they are unhappy about the final decision.
  The school organisation committee will have to act in a reasonable way. If it fails to do so, and, for example, ignores the advice, guidance and regulations laid down by the Secretary of State, it can be challenged by parents for not acting in a reasonable way. If the matter goes to the adjudicator, he will also have to follow the guidance laid down by the Secretary of State, and that guidance will once again be a presumption against closure. If local parents feel aggrieved that the adjudicator has failed to take into account the guidance provided by the Secretary of State, they will be able to subject him to judicial review, which is exactly the position in respect of the Secretary of State at the moment.
  The right hon. Member for Charnwood has not come to terms with the Bill. He needs to be aware that, between now and September 1999, every issue to do with potential closures of village schools will be referred to the
  206
  Secretary of State. From September 1999, we move into a new school framework. When that happens, the school organisation committee and the adjudicator will have to act in line with guidance from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's guidance will include a presumption against closure. Despite crocodile tears from Conservative Members on behalf of rural village schools, they closed 450 in their period in office. That is the reality.
  The Government have put in place safeguards and measures that will protect rural primary schools. We are acting where the previous Government failed to act. Whether under the existing arrangements or under the new framework that takes effect from September next year, we will provide the safeguards and resources to ensure that rural primary schools will provide high-quality education to meet the needs of their local communities.
  Mrs. Browning: I once had a go at tapestry. The most frustrating thing was having to unpick the bits that went wrong. I was reminded of that by the Minister. I might take it up again.
  What the Minister said on 28 February was short of the full story. We have now had the full story. When he said that an LEA' s proposal to close a rural school would be called in by the Secretary of State for decision, the assumption among parents and in rural schools was that the Secretary of State would personally intervene in future, with a presumption against closure to protect rural primary schools. At the same time as the Minister was saying that, he was taking a Bill through Committee. He knew that there was a cut-off date about a year after the Bill would receive Royal Assent, after which the whole system would be changed.
  An adjudicator will make a judgment independently, on the merits of a case put before him or her. It is clear that, whatever guidance the Secretary of State gives, there is no comparison between an adjudicator's decision and something being called in by the Secretary of State.
  I raise again a point that I made in Committee. When a school is due to be closed, Members of Parliament rightly wish to represent their constituents. They have the power, with the Secretary of State's permission, to take delegations to Ministers in the Department to make sure that their case is raised at the highest levels of Government. They can call Ministers to account—at least, they certainly could under the previous Government—on the Floor of the House for decisions they make. The Government's proposals are a departure from that.
  The Minister has revealed tonight that, on 28 February, he had to come to the aid of the party on an issue that was different from anything that his Department normally has to deal with. He had to stitch together some press statement that would make his part in the Government sound user-friendly to the rural communities, at the eleventh hour. He is now having to unpick what he said, so that he can continue to take the Bill through the House without having to amend it to honour that pledge. It is a matter of honour.
  If the Minister really believes what he said on 28 February but cannot accept the wording of new clause 13, he could amend the Bill in another place, or he could

  207
  have tabled an amendment on Report. The fact that he did not table an amendment in Committee or on Report to back up the pledge he gave on 28 February shows that, for all the rhetoric and going round the houses on money for this and money for that, rural primary schools are no better off with all these new pledges than they were before.
  Measures in the Bill that we had already debated by 28 February made that clear. We had already been through that part of the Bill. Liberal Democrat Members know that that is the case. Rural primary schools' fate was already signed and sealed, because we had dealt with the adjudicator by that stage; but that did not figure in the Minister's press release. The press release did not tell the full story, if I may use those words.
  As I have the attention of the two Liberal Democrat Members, may I say that this is the first time that I have ever heard a Liberal Democrate—Liberal Democrat—[Laughter.] "Crate" was perhaps the right word. This is the first time that I have heard a Liberal Democrat make the case for not taking into account the problems of rural areas. They are normally the first on their feet to say that there are special circumstances when rural issues are debated. I have to say to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that I feel an "In Touch" coming on.
  Mr. Don Foster: I remind the hon. Lady that "In Touch" is the newsletter put out, rarely, by the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrat one, which goes out more frequently, is called "Focus".
  Does the hon. Lady agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough did not make the comments that she has just said he made? Does she accept that, when closure of any school is considered, three criteria should be taken into account? The first is the educational impact that the closure may have. The second is the financial implications. The third should be the impact that the closure may have on the local community. All three should be taken into account on every closure, whether of a small rural primary school or of any other school.
  Mrs. Browning: I did mean "In Touch". I do feel a Conservative "In Touch" coming forward. The record will show exactly what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said in putting his case.
  I support what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) says, except that, as he knows—I shall not waste the time of the House in rehearsing this too long—the effect of closure of a school on a rural community is different from the effect on an urban community. There is often no nearby school in a rural community, and transport problems are exacerbated by the closure of rural primary schools.
  I am disappointed—but, perhaps cynically, not surprised—that the Minister says that he will not support the new clause tonight. I am saddened by that. It will make many people, especially in rural areas, question the statement that he made on television on 28 February. I ask the House to support rural primary schools, and to vote for the new clause.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 319.

  Division No. 220]

  [5.24 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Lidington, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Baldry, Tony

  Loughton, Tim

  Beggs, Roy

  Luff, Peter

  Bercow, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Blunt, Crispin

  MacKay, Andrew

  Body, Sir Richard

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Boswell, Tim

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Brady, Graham

  Maples, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Mates, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Burns, Simon

  Moss, Malcolm

  Butterfill, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Norman, Archie

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Page, Richard

  Clappison, James

  Paice, James

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Paterson, Owen

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Pickles, Eric

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Prior, David

  (Rushcliffe)

  Randall, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Colvin, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Ruffley, David

  Day, Stephen

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Duncan, Alan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Evans, Nigel

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Faber, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Flight, Howard

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Spring, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gibb, Nick

  Steen, Anthony

  Gill, Christopher

  Streeter, Gary

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Swayne, Desmond

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Syms, Robert

  Gray, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Green, Damian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Greenway, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Townend, John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Tredinnick, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Trend, Michael

  Hammond, Philip

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Walter, Robert

  Heald, Oliver

  Wardle, Charles

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Wilkinson, John

  Johnson Smith,

  Willetts, David

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Yeo, Tim

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Leigh, Edward

  Sir David Madel and

  Letwin, Oliver

  Mr. James Cran.

  209

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Ainger, Nick

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davidson, Ian

  Allan, Richard

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Allen, Graham

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Denham, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Baker, Norman

  Dobbin, Jim

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Barnes, Harry

  Doran, Frank

  Barron, Kevin

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Battle, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Edwards, Huw

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Efford, Clive

  Benton, Joe

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Berry, Roger

  Ennis, Jeff

  Best, Harold

  Fatchett, Derek

  Betts, Clive

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Blackman, Liz

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Blizzard, Bob

  Flint, Caroline

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Flynn, Paul

  Borrow, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brake, Tom

  Galloway, George

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Gapes, Mike

  Breed, Colin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Browne, Desmond

  Grant, Bernie

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Grocott, Bruce

  Burden, Richard

  Grogan, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Gunnell, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Hain, Peter

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hancock, Mike

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hanson, David

  Canavan, Dennis

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Caplin, Ivor

  Harvey, Nick

  Casale, Roger

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Caton, Martin

  Healey, John

  Chaytor, David

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Chidgey, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Heppell, John

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hill, Keith

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Cohen, Harry

  Home Robertson, John

  Coleman, lain

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Colman, Tony

  Hope, Phil

  Connarty, Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Crausby, David

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cummings, John

  Hutton, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Illsley, Eric

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jamieson, David

  Darvill, Keith

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  210

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Perham, Ms Linda

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Pope, Greg

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Purchase, Ken

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kemp, Fraser

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Radice, Giles

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rammell, Bill

  Kidney, David

  Rapson, Syd

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Raynsford, Nick

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rendel, David

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Robertson, Rt Hon George

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  (Hamilton S)

  Laxton, Bob

  Rogers, Allan

  Lepper, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Levitt, Tom

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Roy, Frank

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Lock, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Love, Andrew

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McCabe, Steve

  Sanders, Adrian

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonnell, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McFall, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McIsaac, Shona

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Skinner, Dennis

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marek, Dr John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

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

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Spellar, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Meale, Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stevenson, George

  Milburn, Alan

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Miller, Andrew

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mitchell, Austin

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stringer, Graham

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Mountford, Kali

  (Dewsbury)

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Oaten, Mark

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Todd, Mark

  Olner, Bill

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  O'Neill, Martin

  Touhig, Don

  Öpik, Lembit

  Trickett, Jon

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Truswell, Paul

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pendry, Tom

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  211

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Willis, Phil

  Tyler, Paul

  Wills, Michael

  Wallace, James

  Winnick, David

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wise, Audrey

  Watts, David

  Woolas, Phil

  Webb, Steve

  Wray, James

  White, Brian

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Mr. David Clelland and

  (Swansea W)

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 24

  REINSTITUTION OF STANDARDS FOR EDUCATIONAL PREMISES
  '.—Section 542 (Prescribed standards for school premises) of the Education Act 1996 shall be amended as follows—

  (a) before "regulations" in subsection (1), there shall be inserted "Subject to subsection (1A)".

  (b) after subsection (1), there shall be inserted—

  "(1A) the minimum standard that regulations will prescribe are those as set out in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981".'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I am conscious of the fact that, later today, we shall have an opportunity to debate the issue of Office for Standards in Education inspections and the chief inspector's annual report. Although there may be many hon. Members who find some aspects of the chief inspector's comments controversial, I doubt that any would disagree with one of his comments in his 1996 annual report:
  "Teachers who lack proper resources or who work in poor buildings experience problems which at best frustrate and at worst defeat their best efforts to do a decent job."
  The chief inspector was talking not only about the quality of the buildings in terms of their fabric, but about the availability of appropriate space in which pupils can learn and teachers teach. Many of us are well aware of the serious detrimental impact that classroom overcrowding can have on the education of children.
  The effect of the new clause is to reinstate into legislation requirements for minimum space standards. Those standards existed for a number of years, but were removed by the previous Administration in September 1996. When they were removed, there was an outcry from the Opposition parties—from the Liberal Democrats and from the then official Opposition, the Labour party. The minimum space standards which we are debating were laid out in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981, which established space standards in respect of recreation areas, playing fields, teaching accommodation, school land, school accommodation and even provision for boarders, and the individual regulations included a minimum net area of 2.3 sq m for each pupil in a nursery school.
  The House will be well aware that very many of our schools, especially our primary schools, are bursting at the seams, not least because the schools standard
  212
  number—the number of pupils that a school must admit—was based on the bulge years of the 1980s, when every bit of space in schools was used. As a result, very popular schools, and those in population growth areas, are too full. The situation is made even worse when, as sometimes happens, the admission limit set by a local education authority is higher than the standard number, creating real difficulty for many schools.
  The capacity needs of our schools have changed since the introduction of the concept of the standard number. There have been huge changes in the requirement, not least because of changes in relation to the national curriculum and changes in our approach to providing support for children with special educational needs. Rightly, there has also been much greater concern about health and safety issues.
  In those circumstances, it seems appropriate that, instead of the current general guidance, clear regulations are laid down on the space standards that should apply in our schools. One would assume that to be the view of the present Government, because, when in opposition, they were vociferous about that issue.
  I draw the attention of the House to comments by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), now Secretary of State for Education and Employment, in a speech when in opposition:
  "There is nothing clever about a Government who … have now decided to deregulate the space available in our classrooms and the area available for leisure and recreation … if the schools do not have the space available, there are two answers. The Government can either provide the resources to ensure that they have the space and the safeguards, or they can deregulate and pretend that the problem does not exist."
  Referring to the former Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), he said that she was
  "bowing and capitulating to right-wing pressures on her, rather than meeting the needs of the service and making the provision required to improve our children's educational standards and to ensure the proper teaching that classroom staff want to deliver to the children in their charge."—[Official Report, 18 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 124–27.]
  Those comments by the present Secretary of State were backed up by several Labour Members. I especially draw the attention of the House to the words of the present Co-Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), in that debate. She said:
  "The new proposals"—
  to remove the space standards—
  "will lower standards, not improve them. They will prepare the ground for further cuts in capital investment in our schools, not lead to the much-needed physical improvement in our schools".
  She said that the regulations that removed those space standards were
  "short-sighted and wrong. They should not be introduced, and they cannot stand the test of time. They are wrong for our schools, they are wrong for our teachers, and, most importantly, they are wrong for our children."
  I entirely agree with everything that the hon. Member for Barking said on that occasion. It was wrong to remove those minimum space standards, and the new clause gives an opportunity to reinstate them, which is obviously the wish of many members of the Labour party.

  213
  The idea of pupil entitlement to a reasonable learning environment was lost when the previous Government abandoned school premises regulations, but, as the hon. Member for Barking said in that debate, reinstating space standards is about
  "sensible rules laid down by Parliament to ensure that minimum standards are enjoyed by all our children in all schools."—[Official Report, 16 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 132–34.]
  I entirely agree with the hon. Lady, so I hope that hon. Members will support new clause 24.
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I share a belief in the need to ensure a quality learning environment in our schools, because we consider that high-quality education takes place where children have access to the facilities that they deserve. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman—and ask the House not to support new clause 24—because I do not believe that, by locking ourselves into the regulations that were appropriate in 1981, we shall provide the accommodation and buildings that are necessary for our children into the next century. New clause 24 would require us to return to the position in 1981.
  The hon. Member for Bath rightly refers to the need to ensure that we invest in school buildings, and to ensure that we do not use the fact that there are no regulations under the Bill as an excuse to cut capital investment. The previous Government used the deregulation of school premises as an excuse to cut schools' capital spending. The present Government intend to increase the amount that we spend on schools' capital, but in a way that is flexible, and meets the needs of a variety of schools throughout the country. We are not convinced that the best way to do that would be to implement the 1981 regulations.
  5.45 pm
  We shall require authorities to prepare asset management plans, in which they will review their current accommodation, giving priority to those buildings and school premises that need to be updated, and that need investment to provide the type of accommodation in which high-quality learning can take place.
  The asset management plans will not be filed away in the Department. They will provide the opportunity for investment with public money and—perhaps most important—will enable the private sector to support investment in school buildings. It has emerged from discussions between the Government and the private sector that the private sector needs, in effect, an audit of the condition of school premises, to make possible its financial support for increased investment in school buildings.
  The Government are investing well in excess of £1 billion in schools capital as part of our new deal for schools, based on the experience this year, when £83 million of public spending led to £115 million of investment in our schools. We believe that, with funding from local authorities, Church authorities and the private sector, the new deal will make it possible for about £2 billion extra to be spent on schools capital.
  In last week's Budget statement, it was announced that an extra £90 million would be made available for schools capital. The Bill provides new safeguards on the disposal of playing fields. We are increasing investment and safeguarding important assets.
  214
  I agree with the hon. Member for Bath that we should not simply defend the status quo and that changes are needed. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this issue. I make this contribution in the hope that, when he has heard what I have to say, he will feel able to ask leave to withdraw the motion and new clause 24.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: Before the general election, there was considerable speculation from the Labour Front Bench about how much money would be needed to bring schools throughout the country up to what we would consider an acceptable standard; the figures suggested ran into several billion pounds. In the year that has nearly elapsed since Labour came to power, has the Department for Education and Employment done any work on finalising what it now estimates to be the total capital that will need to be spent on the school building programme over the next five years to bring schools to what we would all consider to be a desirable state of repair?
  Mr. Byers: One reason why we want local education authorities to carry out their own asset management plans is to provide exactly that sort of detailed information. There will be 150 LEAs in England with effect from April this year, and all will be required to develop asset management plans. Once we have those, we will be able to identify the precise cost of bringing premises up to a suitable standard, not just for 1998 but for the next century as well. It will also allow us to trigger in investment from the private sector, which will be important in meeting our objectives.
  On the points raised by the hon. Member for Bath and the concerns he expressed, at the moment we are operating under the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996. It is our intention to review the regulations in the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments, recognising that they need to be changed to meet the objectives that I think we share. We will be prepared not just to review them in the light of the commitments in the Bill on, for example, school playing fields; if more general amendments are necessary—the hon. Gentleman may wish to suggest some for consideration—we will consider them.
  I hope that, in response to what I hope the hon. Gentleman will view as a positive response to the issues which he raised, we will be able to avoid a Division on the new clause. However, if he presses the motion to a vote, I shall ask the House to reject it.
  Mr. Don Foster: The Minister was generous and positive in his response to this brief debate, but I shall still urge my hon. Friends to press the new clause to a Division.
  I think that the whole House will welcome the Government's plans for an audit of the state of school buildings. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said, we are well aware of the magnitude of the figure likely to be revealed by the audit. Some suggest that the backlog of repairs and maintenance to our school buildings amounts to £4.3 billion—and that does not take into account some of the additional sums that will be needed for the reduction of class sizes in key stage 1 primary schools and the overcrowding in a number of other schools. I suspect that the figure which my hon. Friend suggested is probably right.

  215
  It is also welcome that the Government are putting additional money into the repair and maintenance of school buildings. However, we should not be fooled by the sums of money that the Minister mentioned. When he spoke about £1 billion or so, he failed to remind us that that would be spent over a five-year period. When that is taken into account, the additional amount per year is much smaller than he suggested. The hon. Gentleman also did not point out that some of that money is to be used for capital purposes to meet another of the Government's election pledges, which is to reduce class sizes in key stage 1. Initially, the Government said that that pledge would be met entirely from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme, but we were then told in the Budget that additional capital money would be required from other sources.
  We are pleased that some of that money will be used to get rid of outdoor loos in some of our primary schools. Hon. Members will have found it surprising that the Minister was able to announce the precise number of schools that will be assisted, when only two weeks ago, in answer to a question from me, he said that information on the number of schools with outside loos was not centrally available. I am delighted that, in only two weeks, he has been able to do such a detailed study and give the House the assurances that he did.
  Mr. Byers: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I am sure that he would not want inadvertently to mislead the House. In replying to his parliamentary question, I did say that the Government did not hold the information centrally. However, we discovered subsequently that the two local authority associations had conducted their own survey, and it was on the basis of that information that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to announce that we shall assist more than 600 schools.
  Mr. Foster: I am delighted that the Minister has confirmed my version of events. Two weeks ago, the Minister did not know that information; now he does. I am sure that the House is pleased that he has obtained that information and made the appropriate announcement.
  I intend to press the new clause to a vote. The Minister said that it would lock us into the 1981 regulations, but that would be true for only a very brief period. The Minister was right to say that the regulations needed updating. However, the purpose of the new clause is to ensure that we put back on to the statute book a requirement to have premises regulations. When the Labour party was in opposition, it said that it was passionately in favour of that. We still believe in what the Labour party believed in less than 18 months ago. For that reason, I ask the House to support new clause 24.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 279.

  Division No. 221]

  [5.55 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Brake, Tom

  Baker, Norman

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Breed, Colin

  Beggs, Roy

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Chidgey, David

  216

  Dafis, Cynog

  Rendel, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

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

  Hancock, Mike

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Stunell, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Tonge,Dr jenny

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Tyler, Paul

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Wallace, James

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Webb, Steve

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Willis, Phil

  Livsey, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Oaten, Mark

  Mr. Edward Davey and

  Öpik, Lembit

  Mr. Adrian Sanders.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ainger, Nick

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cos'try NE)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Allen, Graham

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Darvill, Keith

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Davidson, Ian

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Barron, Kevin

  Dawson, Hilton

  Battle, John

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bayley, Hugh

  Denham, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Benton, Joe

  Dobbin, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Best, Harold

  Doran, Frank

  Betts, Clive

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Blackman, Liz

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Edwards, Huw

  Borrow, David

  Efford, Clive

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Flint, Caroline

  Burden, Richard

  Flynn, Paul

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Byers, Stephen

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gapes, Mike

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gardiner, Barry

  Cann, Jamie

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Casale, Roger

  Grant, Bernie

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Grogan, John

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hain, Peter

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hanson, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Coleman, Iain

  Healey, John

  Colman, Tony

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heppell, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hill, Keith

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cox, Tom

  Hoey, Kate

  Crausby, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cummings, John

  Hope, Phil

  217

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Olner, Bill

  Howells, Dr Kim

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hurst, Alan

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pope, Greg

  Jamieson, David

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Prosser, Gwyn

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Radice, Giles

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Rammell, Bill

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Rapson, Syd

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Robertson, Rt Hon George

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  (Hamilton S)

  Kidney, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rogers, Allan

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Rooney, Terry

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Roy, Frank

  Laxton, Bob

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Lepper, David

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Levitt, Tom

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lock, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Love, Andrew

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheerman, Barry

  McCabe, Steve

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Skinner, Dennis

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McFall, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  McIsaac, Shona

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  MacShane, Denis

  Soley, Clive

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Spellar, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mandelson, Peter

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marek, Dr John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Martlew, Eric

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Meale, Alan

  Stringer, Graham

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Milburn, Alan

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Miller, Andrew

  (Dewsbury)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mountford, Kali

  Todd, Mark

  Mudie, George

  Touhig, Don

  Mullin, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Truswell, Paul

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  OHara, Eddie

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  218

  Vaz, Keith

  Winnick, David

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wise, Audrey

  Watts, David

  Woolas, Phil

  White, Brian

  Wray, James

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  (Swansea W)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Wills, Michael

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 21

  KINDS OF FOUNDATION AND VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS AND TYPES OF FOUNDATIONS
  Mr. Byers: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 19, line 10, leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 48 to 51, 31, 65 and 70 to 75.
  Mr. Byers: These are all technical amendments affecting voluntary schools. The vast majority of voluntary schools have foundations, but a small number do not. As the Bill is worded, a school would need to have a foundation to join the voluntary category. The amendments ensure that, if a voluntary school or a former grant-maintained school wishes to become a new voluntary aided school, it can do so without the procedural necessity of creating a foundation. The amendments do not more than that, and I hope that they will be agreeable to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 48, in page 19, line 13, leave out 'and'.
  No. 49, in page 19, line 15, at end insert
  '; and
  (c) those not falling within either of paragraphs (a) and (b) but having been either of the following immediately before the appointed day, namely—

  (i) a voluntary school, or

  (ii) a grant-maintained school that was a voluntary school immediately before becoming grant-maintained,

  within the meaning of the Education Act 1996.'.
  No. 50, in page 19, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert—

  '(i) any body of persons (whether incorporated or not but excluding the governing body) which holds land on trust for the purposes of the school, or

  (ii) a foundation body;'.

  No. 51, in page 19, line 20, leave out from 'if' to end of line 22 and insert—

  '(i) such a body of persons exists for holding land on trust for the purposes of the school, or

  (ii) the school belongs to a group of schools for which a foundation body acts under this section;'.

  No. 31, in page 19, line 37, leave out
  'by schools in connection with'
  and insert
  'in connection with schools'.

  219
  No. 65, in page 20, line 13, at end insert—
  '(6A) Regulations under subsection (5) may, in connection with any matters falling within that subsection—

  (a) modify any provision made by or under this Part of this Act;

  (b) apply any such provision with or without modifications;

  (c) make provision corresponding or similar to any such provision.'.

  No. 70, in page 20, line 18, at end insert 'and'.
  No. 71, in page 20, line 19, leave out from 'section;' to end of line 22.
  No. 72, in page 20, leave out line 24.
  No. 73, in page 20, line 30, at end insert—
  '(9A) Any foundation established otherwise than under this Act which has no property other than the premises of any school or schools falling within subsection (8)(a) shall be a charity which (subject to section 3(5A) of the Charities Act 1993) is not required to be registered for the purposes of that Act (but is not an exempt charity for the purposes of that Act).
  For this purpose "premises" includes a teacher's dwelling-house.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Clause 23

  SCHOOL ORGANISATION COMMITTEES
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I beg to move amendment No. 161, in page 22, line 9, at end insert—
  '(d) a person nominated by other appropriate religious and local community groups.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 141, in clause 25, page 22, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 on page 23.
  No. 162, in page 23, line 9, at end insert—
  '(bb) requiring that agreement of the draft plan by the school organisation committee in respect of denominational school provision shall be by unanimity.'.
  No. 163, in page 23, line 30, at end insert—
  '(h) requiring the school organisation committee to consult with potential promoters of new schools in the formulation of the draft plan.'.
  No. 142, in page 23, line 31, leave out 'in Wales'.
  No. 143, in page 23, line 36, leave out 'in Wales'.
  Mr. Dafis: The amendments that I have tabled in this group—Nos. 161 and 163—should be considered with amendment No. 164 and that group of amendments. I shall therefore deal only briefly with my two amendments—as an introduction to the main theme, to which I shall return in our debate on that later group of amendments.
  I have tabled my amendments at the request of an organisation called the Third Sector Schools Alliance. I have absolutely no constituency interest in the issue, as I have no schools in my own constituency of the type dealt with in the amendments.
  I was approached about the matter specifically because I tabled an amendment in Committee on the Education Bill in 1993, which would have enabled schools with alternative curriculums—such as Steiner and Montessori schools—to enter the state sector. In Committee, the then Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr.
  220
  Murphy)—now the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—said that Labour, if elected to government, would support the principle of state funding for that type of school. I hope that Labour in power will maintain that position. A strong case can be made for providing those schools with state funding.
  Amendment No. 161 would amend clause 23 by adding to the list of categories from which the regulations require that people are appointed to school organisation committees. The amendment would therefore add
  "a person nominated by other appropriate religious and local community groups"
  to the categories of local education authority members and representatives of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. Who in a pluralist society could quarrel with the principle of including persons from other religions and groups in school organisation committees? It is perfectly appropriate, and is at the heart of the amendment.
  Amendment No. 163 would amend clause 25—which deals with school organisation plans—and require consultation
  "with potential promoters of new schools in the formulation of the draft plan."
  The amendment would amount to extending the consultation process, to enable people with proposals for new schools to be consulted in the formulation of a draft plan.
  I shall leave my comments on the matter there for now.
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall address all my remarks to amendment No. 162, which I tabled, and which I shall, at the appropriate place—with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker—seek to press to a Division.
  The basis of the amendment is the underlying presumption that, unless something is written in the Bill, it carries virtually no meaningful weight. Undertakings may be given behind the scenes; Churches may be reassured; bland words may be exchanged; very earnest sentiments may be uttered; and intentions may even be perfectly honourable—but the fact remains that, unless something is written in the Bill, nothing whatever will give it binding force. Circumstances change; financial and other constraints appear; Ministers come and go; and, occasionally, even Governments come and go.
  There can be no reliance whatever on undertakings given in private, or even on notes in Committee, which do not carry statutory force. They can convey nothing other than a Minister's immediate intention in immediate circumstances.
  In the extensive negotiations on the Bill that the Government have apparently been having with Churches, Churches may not have had the wool pulled over their eyes, but they have been much too easily satisfied with undertakings given that do not have the force of statute to back them up. Therefore, I am doing the job that I would rather the Churches themselves had done, and am trying to ensure that the Bill includes some powers for Churches, to safeguard their own specific interests.
  6.15 pm
  I have already expressed the Church's broad position. I have had consultations at the highest level—perhaps not the highest level, because I have not been to Rome about

  221
  it, but the highest level in this country. From those consultations, I understand that the Church's position is that it supports lowering class sizes, if that is possible. It certainly supports the principle that class sizes should be limited if possible. However, that should not happen at the expense of denying a child—I speak specifically to the Roman Catholic issue—a Roman Catholic education. I am sure that the Church of England would also say that, although it might want to limit class sizes, if parents want their children to have a Church of England education, the 31st child should not find himself or herself denied that opportunity and forced instead to take a secular education.
  When I explained the position to Church representatives, first they said, "The Government have promised us that we shall have more denominational places." I have not heard that promise reiterated, but I should be quite interested to hear whether Ministers have made such a promise, or whether perhaps there was a misinterpretation. If Ministers have made such a promise, how will they honour it, and in what circumstances?
  If, for example, children are denied admission to the nearest Roman Catholic or Church of England school because class sizes are too big, will other denominational places immediately be created—which would require considerable Government investment? Or will secular schools first have to be filled with surplus students, who will thereby be denied denominational education? Perhaps only after that has been achieved and there are no surplus secular places, a few more denominational places will be included in the creation of more places. Which of those two routes will Ministers go down, to honour what Churches think is a commitment to provide more denominational places?
  Church representatives also said to me, "It is all right, because even if all that starts to go wrong and we do not get the new denominational places, Churches have a veto." My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) stood at the Dispatch Box and asked the Minister, "What is that veto?" He had never heard of it; there was no veto.
  I did a bit of exploration to discover how that misunderstanding could have arisen. It seems to have arisen because there will be representatives of Churches on school organisation committees. In Committee, it was said that there would be a drive for unanimity, and that, if there was not unanimity, the plan would have to go to the adjudicator. From that, Churches deduced that they effectively had a veto. They could always prevent unanimity on a plan that they did not like, and the matter would end up with the adjudicator.
  Anyone can see that there is no provision for a veto in the Bill. The drive for unanimity depends only on a note in Committee and has absolutely no statutory force. Therefore, if a committee were not unanimous but had a clear majority, nothing in law or in statute would stop the committee enforcing its view over, above and contrary to the wishes of its denominational representatives.
  I am seeking to give statutory force to the undertaking that was apparently given in Committee, but to limit it to denominational schools, because I am very exercised by the consideration that my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) raised in Committee. He said that, if one always insisted on unanimity throughout the system, every case would end up before the adjudicator. Therefore, I have sought to limit to
  222
  denominational schools the undertaking that the Churches believe that they have been given—I believe that they are mistaken, but I hope that it was not done deliberately—that they will be able to exercise some sort of veto.
  The amendment would mean that in a denominational school, it would not be possible to put through a draft plan—this could cover class sizes and the organisation of class sizes to meet any size limitation—without it going to the adjudicator if there were objections from the denominational representatives on the school organisation committee, unless the plan were already unanimously accepted. I do not think that even that is a wonderful solution, but regard it very much as second best. I hope that, when the Bill goes to another place, the original amendment, tabled by Conservative Members, simply to grant flexibility to denominational schools, will again be debated, perhaps with a happier outcome.
  I make no apology for saying that I regard the amendment as a third or fourth best option from among the various ones already tried by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton. However, it at least tests the Government to some extent. In their negotiations with the Churches, the Government promised more denominational places—they have allegedly promised this; I do not know, as I was not there—and a veto. The amendment tests whether they are going to come up with the second, and I hope that the Minister will deal with the first.
  Mr. Willis: I am always interested in what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has to say, but I think she has done herself an injustice by tabling amendment No. 162. She rightly says that it is the third or fourth best option. The amendments tabled in Committee were superior in terms of their overall effect.
  I have much sympathy with the need to protect admissions to Church schools—I have some very fine Church schools in my constituency—but the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is basically saying that parents who opt for a denominational school should have their choice guaranteed. That is the effect of what she proposes.
  Miss Widdecombe: That is not quite the effect. At the moment, if a school is heavily over-subscribed, the head can turn away a child of the relevant denomination, although he will bend over backwards not to do so. However, under the new proposals, the exact opposite will be the case. Even where a head and a governing body believe that they have the flexibility to accommodate extra children, they will not be allowed to do so. The amendment does not give a guarantee; I wish it did.
  Mr. Willis: I am grateful for that clarification, but if the plan had to be agreed by the school organisation committee and the members representing denominational schools, because they had the veto, and if they insisted that there were sufficient places in Church schools to meet the demand, they would in effect be guaranteeing places to parents who wished to send their children to denominational schools. It is not worth having a long debate on the matter, but the issue has been highlighted.
  I want to speak particularly to amendments Nos. 141 to 143. I am conscious of the time and the fact that we have much business to get through, so I shall be relatively brief.

  223
  We have somewhat reluctantly agreed that the school organisation committee will have a reasonable function. The Government have made a case for it, and we support the idea of greater co-operation between various groups of people in drawing up the organisational plan. There is a great deal of sense in that, but we do not accept that there should be yet another layer of bureaucracy involving the adjudicator.
  If the Secretary of State does not trust local education authorities sufficiently to give them control over the plans, he should say so. He should say that there is not to be an adjudicator, but that, if the plan cannot be agreed by the school organisation committee and the local education authority, he himself will decide. In effect, the adjudicator will be the Secretary of State's placeman, and represents an unnecessary level of bureaucracy. Indeed, every attempt should be made to get the school organisation committee and local education authority to agree. Conflict between the two does not bode well for the harmonious running of an authority or for satisfaction for parents. Conflict makes it less likely that parents will be satisfied with the number and quality of places and where they are.
  We shall not press our amendments to the vote, but we should like an assurance from the Minister that she will reconsider the issue of the adjudicator and allow local education authorities to decide on the plans once they have been submitted to them by the school organisation committee.
  Mr. Dorrell: I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said. Her preference would be to solve the problem of the individual child from a denominational family by making the class size pledge more flexible. I entirely agree with her. Indeed, we tabled several amendments to that end in Committee and earlier on Report.
  I also share my right hon. Friend's hope that, when the Bill reaches another place, a means will be found to introduce precisely the principle to which she referred. Should the other place choose to do that, we shall certainly sustain the principle when the Bill returns here. Given that that principle does not appear in the Bill, I support amendment No. 162. Should the Government not accept it, the official Opposition will support my right hon. Friend in pressing it to a vote when we reach the appropriate point.
  Amendment No. 162 would establish that the denominational interest cannot be overruled in the school organisation committee. As my right hon. Friend stressed, to rely on an informal piece of advice that was circulated in Committee, and which was rather vaguely worded anyway, is no reassurance at all. It certainly does not constitute an enforceable veto, even it that is what was meant. My right hon. Friend is attempting to include that principle in the Bill, and she is right to do so.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) left me unclear whether it is still the Liberal Democrats' view that school organisation matters should rest with the local education authority, which I thought was the position that they adopted in Committee, or whether they are now saying that, whenever there is a
  224
  contest in the school organisation committee, the matter should be referred not to the adjudicator, as the Bill provides, but to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Willis: We believe that the local education authority should make the final decision in consultation with the school organisation committee. My point was to ask: if there is to be another authority in the form of an adjudicator, who is to be appointed effectively by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State might as well do the job himself. Why have yet another layer of bureaucracy?
  Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the position. He continues to adopt the view that decisions are best made by the local education authority. I set out in Committee why we disagree with that proposition. I continue to believe that schools should be seen not as part of an integrated system, but as a series of local institutions responsible to the local community and accountable to parents. The principal responsibility rests with the governing body and the teachers at the school.
  The difference between Conservative Members and Liberal Democrats was ventilated a number of times in Committee, and will come up again later—Liberal Democrats believe that the Government are insufficiently committed to the future of local education authorities to the extent that they are edging away from them, but we encourage the Government to go down that path, because we want a more varied, plural system of school provision that gives professionals working within the system a greater opportunity to develop new ideas and approaches to the delivery of high-quality, schools-based education. Plurality and variety would give parents real choice: I emphasise that key difference between Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition.
  We support amendment No. 162, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, for the reasons that I have given.
  6.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): There was agreement in Committee that the move to making decisions at the local level would be widely welcomed. Decisions are currently taken centrally in the name of the Secretary of State, except where local authorities publish unopposed plans. I should emphasise that our premise was that the existing system is not ideal, because that has not been apparent from the comments of Opposition Members.
  The move to local decision making is crucial. We must maintain and treasure the important partnerships between providers of education, such as local authorities and the Churches. Such bodies must work together to provide sufficient places for children to ensure a cohesive pattern of education. I disagree with the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who said that those bodies are separate institutions with no relationship to each other. They have a relationship, because they serve the same community and sometimes members of the same family.
  School organisation committees will ensure that that pattern can continue to serve the interests of children and their families. I said in Committee and say again that local

  225
  authorities have played an important part in the provision of schools and education, as have the Churches over many centuries. We want that to continue, which is why the Bill will enshrine the representation of local authorities and Church of England and Roman Catholic Church diocese on school organisation committees. Hon. Members will welcome the recognition of the important role that those organisations play.
  Amendment No. 161, which was moved by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), is inappropriate. Some groups may be established in certain local authority areas, but not in others. We shall consult on the make-up of school organisation committees and publish regulations accordingly. The special place of the Church and local authorities is recognised in the Bill, but the issue of which other groups might be represented on the committees is best left to regulation.
  Amendment No. 161 refers to
  "appropriate religious and local community groups".
  Who would decide which groups were appropriate, and who would choose which community groups should be represented? Who would approach such groups and decide how they would be represented? I am not persuaded that groups that do not provide education should have a role on school organisation committees. I accept the spirit in which the hon. Member for Ceredigion moved the amendment on behalf of the Third Sector Schools Alliance, and I know of its work, but the amendment is inappropriate.
  School organisation plans will be important facts-and-figures documents that describe the historical background of the provision of schools and places in local authority areas. They will provide the background against which decisions on individual schools will be made by school organisation committees. I remind hon. Members that the documents will not contain proposals for the future of individual schools, but will give a context for the proposals.
  Amendment No. 163, which also stands in the name of the hon. Member for Ceredigion, requires
  "the school organisation committee to consult with potential promoters of new schools"
  and is inappropriate. It will not be for a school organisation committee to consult; it must put facts and figures about the supply of places in its area in a school organisation plan, and therefore into the public domain. Promoters of new schools, whoever and wherever they may be, will be able to study it, object to it and make proposals.
  The documents will not be secret; there will be consultation on them and they will be published locally. Decisions about how new schools should be set up will be taken locally.
  Mrs. May: Will the Minister clarify her references to decisions being taken locally? I understand that school organisation committees would consider such decisions, but would they be referred to an adjudicator in certain circumstances—for example, when challenged? Did not she make it clear in Committee that adjudicators would not be local people, but would be brought in from outside?
  Ms Morris: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that a decision would be taken by an adjudicator if a
  226
  school organisation committee could not agree unanimously. An adjudicator with local knowledge, who works locally and visits an area—rather than someone who sits in Westminster—would take account of local considerations far more than does the current process.
  We debated the matter long and hard in Committee. Our proposals for school organisation committees and adjudicators will ensure that decisions are made locally. The hon. Lady knows that it is not always possible to ensure that adjudicators are locals, but we shall consider regional balance when we appoint them. Her opening premise was right: decisions will go to an adjudicator when there is not unanimity.
  The issue of unanimity brings me nicely to amendment No. 162, tabled by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I hesitate to say this, and do not mean to be disparaging, but she claims to speak for the Churches because she does not think that they can speak for themselves. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has had many lengthy discussions with the Churches and the Bill is better for that. Our early drafts have been changed because of the representations that were made by many groups, such as the Churches.
  To imply that we have sought to pull the wool over the eyes of the Churches during many months of discussion is to discredit not only my hon. Friend, but the Churches. They are happy with the assurances on unanimity that we have given them.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Morris: I shall give way in a moment.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is correct about the Churches, but we differ over whether her proposal should be included in the Bill. We have given assurances in Committee, and now on the Floor of the House, that school organisation committee decisions must be unanimous and will go to an adjudicator if they are not. Whether she believes them is a matter of trust—indeed, a matter of faith.
  The right hon. Lady is a former Minister in a leading Department. She knows that primary legislation does not deal with every issue; we are not the first ministerial team to say that some issues are more appropriately dealt with by regulations. The matter will not rest on what has been distributed on a piece of paper—regulations with statutory force will provide for the need for unanimity.
  Miss Widdecombe: The Minister said that assurances had been given in Committee and were now being repeated on the Floor of the House. As I have said, I was not present at the time, but the Churches believe they have been assured that, rather than a child's being denied a denominational place, extra denominational places will be provided. Has that assurance indeed been given?
  Ms Morris: The right hon. Lady should not go over debates that have taken place in the past. We are well past the clauses that deal with class sizes. The right hon. Lady should have been present at the first sitting of the

  227
  Committee if she wanted to debate issues of class size and denomination. She could then have supported her right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Miss Widdecombe rose—
  Ms Morris: I shall not give way again on this point. Class sizes are a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and he answered questions on that subject fully on Second Reading and in Committee. He has dealt fully with amendments tabled by the right hon. Lady and her colleagues. I suggest that the right hon. Lady read the reports in Hansard.
  The measures proposed in the amendments will be contained in regulations. They will not rest on a whim based on something written on a piece of paper—and, as the right hon. Lady has already admitted, the Churches are well satisfied with the assurances that they have been given.
  We have no intention of pulling the wool over the eyes of the Churches or anyone else. We do not wish to do that and we have no interest in doing it. We value the education that the Churches provide, and have provided for centuries, and we want to retain it in the future.
  Mr. Dorrell: The Minister insists that she agrees with the principle in amendment No. 162. Why, then, will she not write it into the Bill?
  Ms Morris: As I have already made clear, some measures are better left to regulations. The difference between the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is that the right hon. Lady does not believe us. At least the right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that he believes us, although he would prefer the provision to be contained in primary legislation.
  Mr. Dorrell: Why should it be in secondary legislation?
  Ms Morris: We are advised by those who help us to draft legislation that the matter is appropriate for regulations.
  Ultimately, what matters to the Churches—and what will matter to parents and children—is the honouring of a pledge; the pledge will be honoured. People can cite in court and elsewhere what is said by Ministers on the Floor of the House and in Committee: that has been proved. The pledge has been given, and it will be implemented in regulations. There is no need for it to be in the Bill as well. Those who speak officially on behalf of the Churches are happy with the assurances that have been given; I am sorry that the right hon. Members for Charnwood and for Maidstone and the Weald are not happy with them as well.
  As for the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), I, too, was a little confused about whether they had moved substantially from what they said in Committee, but, following interventions from the right hon. Member for Charnwood, I think that we simply disagree on the issue. I think we agree that decisions are
  228
  better taken locally and that—although hon. Members may not approve of the way in which the school organisation committees will be composed—there is grudging acceptance of the fact that they will do a good job, will protect interests and will try to secure unanimity, which is always right. The difference in opinion concerns whether the committees should be able to advise local education authorities or whether authorities should appeal to adjudicators or to the Secretary of State.
  We dealt with the arguments in Committee. We want to take the centralised decision-making power away from Westminster and Whitehall and move it to the localities involved. As I told the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald earlier, the committee members will be in the locality. They will be able to weigh up arguments locally and perhaps look at patterns of decision making around the country. If the school organisation committee that we have established cannot agree, the appeal mechanism should also be as locally based as possible. We see that as a natural next step. Requiring unanimity in SOCs and recourse to the Secretary of State as the very next step surely flies in the face of our attempt to localise decision making.
  Mr.Willis: We do not want the Secretary of State to interfere; we want decisions to be made by local education authorities after they have consulted SOCs. We think that decisions should be made locally by those who go to the ballot box every year—or every four years—to obtain the consent of the people.
  Ms Morris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. As he knows, local authorities will play a key role on SOCs, but they are not the only education providers in the locality. We are establishing a local decision-making process that will bring the partners together and aim for unanimity but enable the adjudicator to make a decision if unanimity is not possible.
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Morris: I will, for the last time.
  Mr. Foster: Is a democrat, does the Minister consider it more appropriate for decisions to be made by an individual appointed by the Secretary of State who has no democratic accountability to local people or by a group of people who have been elected by the local community?
  6.45 pm
  Ms Morris: The adjudicator will not make decisions in isolation. The Secretary of State, a democratically accountable individual, will issue guidance and regulations according to which adjudicators should make their decisions. Under the current system, more than 300 cases have been decided in Whitehall, in the name of the Secretary of State. It makes sense for such decisions to be made locally, but the democratic accountability exists because the guidance that the adjudicator will use will have been issued by the Secretary of State.
  We have discussed these matters in Committee and now on the Floor of the House. Clause 25 is a move towards local decision making; we have established a mechanism to ensure that decisions are made locally and that the interests of local education authorities, Churches

  229
  and parents are protected. I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion will see fit to withdraw amendment No. 161, but if he does not, I shall ask the House to vote against it and to resist those with which it is grouped.
  Mr. Dafis: I shall ask leave to withdraw my amendment, but I noted what the Minister said about the appropriateness of including the proposals in regulations. I merely wish to emphasise the importance of proper consultation with interested parties before the regulations are drawn up.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman has my party's support and I am sure that the Minister acknowledges the importance of talking to a wide range of bodies—especially those in the Third Sector Schools Alliance.
  Mr. Dafis: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. I await the Minister's response to the next group of amendments but one.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Before the hon. Gentleman withdraws his amendment, perhaps we can hear from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I believe that she wants to press her amendment to a vote.
  Miss Widdecombe: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having heard such an inadequate response, I feel that I must press amendment No. 162 to a Division.
  I am always suspicious when a Minister who has been asked a clear question refers the questioner to statements made by colleagues. A simple yes would prevent a great deal of anxiety. In this instance, the yes was not forthcoming, and I remain fairly suspicious.
  I know that many provisions must be dealt with in regulations. I might have swallowed that argument but for the sheer prescriptive detail of clause 97. I wonder why one simple reassuring extra detail cannot be included, and why it is so important not to give that detail statutory force.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take it that the right hon. Lady is referring to amendment No. 162. At the appropriate time, she can move it formally for the purposes of a vote. Does the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) wish to withdraw his amendment?
  Mr. Dafis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24

  ADJUDICATORS
  Mr. Dorrell: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 22, line 21, at end insert—

  '(1A) Any vacancy for a post of adjudicator shall be advertised publicly;

  (1B) Any advertisement issued under the terms of subsection (1A) of this section shall set out the qualifications sought in successful candidates for appointment as adjudicators and shall state the process by which decisions will be made about which applicants are appointed as adjudicators.'.

  230
  The amendment seeks to throw open what will otherwise be the almost completely closed world of the adjudicator. The Bill attributes huge power to adjudicators in the schools system; the amendment would increase their accountability.
  The amendment is relevant to the previous debate on the role of the school organisation committee in designing an area's schools system. The Bill states that whenever the school organisation committee cannot reach agreement—assuming that the Government's assurances on the unanimity principle are given effect—the decision would fall, in the circumstances envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), to the adjudicator.
  Similarly, terms elsewhere in the Bill provide that adjudicators will decide when there are local disputes about arrangements for admission to schools. Those are huge issues that impact directly on the choices parents make about which school their children will attend. They impact on the performance and development of popular and unpopular schools. They impact directly on the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we can have less background noise in the Chamber.
  Mr. Dorrell: I was referring to new clause 13, which sought to give effect to the pledge made by the Minister for School Standards on the day before the countryside march: no rural school would close without a specific decision of the Secretary of State. It became clear in the debate on new clause 13 that the Minister's words meant nothing, because beyond September 1999—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not allow the right hon. Gentleman to go over past business. We are debating amendment No. 89.
  Mr. Dorrell: Both the new clause and the amendment are relevant to the adjudicator being accorded power. The amendment would increase public accountability of the person who will make the decision that the Minister said on television would be made by the Secretary of State. The Minister made it clear at the Dispatch Box this afternoon that, beyond September 1999, when the principle of unanimity, mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, on the school organisation committee, which the Government accepted, leads to the decision not being made locally, the decision will be made by a public official—the adjudicator. The adjudicator will make decisions about the structure of school provision in an area when local forces cannot agree.
  I agree with the Under-Secretary that it is better that local people agree, but when they cannot, who will decide whether a Catholic school expands or contracts? Who will decide whether a Church of England school expands or contracts? Who will decide whether a rural school closes? The answer to every question is, the adjudicator.
  Then we come to the question: who are these adjudicators? To whom will my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald look when her unanimity principle is observed and local people cannot decide? Who will deal with the question that the public

  231
  believe—the Minister for School Standards has assured them—will be made by the Secretary of State? Who will make such a decision on behalf of the Secretary of State and of the public?
  When we raised these issues in Committee, the Under-Secretary gave what can only be described, charitably, as a rather incomplete answer. She suggested that adjudicators would be part time; possibly, she suggested helpfully—at least to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis)—they would be retired head teachers. We were led to believe that the Government would be going on patrol, looking for retired head teachers who wanted to spend two days a week making decisions on which rural schools should close, and the availability of denominational education on behalf of the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the interest groups about which is concerned—against the background of an assurance that the Secretary of State would make such decisions.
  The same story runs through the Government. One of the first announcements after the general election was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would no longer decide monetary policy and would pass such decisions to Eddie George. Now we hear that key decisions on provision of the schools system will no longer be made by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. They are to be passed to faceless people called adjudicators.
  Under the amendment, there would at the very least be a public, open and accountable appointments system for public officials who will be making sensitive local decisions. We would be able to see who makes decisions that the public think will be made by the Secretary of State. The amendment would require any vacancy for such a powerful post to be advertised, so that we can see what type of official the Government envisage appointing to discharge such important functions. We should be able to see the Government's job description for an adjudicator. There is certainly no hint of that in the Bill. The Bill merely describes in broad terms the powers of the adjudicator; it tells us virtually nothing about the way in which the adjudicator is supposed to work.
  In opposition, Labour Members made huge play of the need for open government. The amendment would ensure that the Government have to advertise adjudicator vacancies and state what qualifications they require. They would have to state how people will be appointed, to whom they will be accountable, how they will be called to account if a series of decisions lead to criticism of an adjudicator's role, and how, ultimately, they will be fired if they make decisions for which there is no basis of public support. The Bill answers none of those questions.
  The Government are taking away powers to make key decisions on a locality's schools system from the Secretary of State, who is accountable to the House, and from junior Ministers, who respond to local concerns expressed by hon. Members, and according them to an appointed official. The amendment would begin a path to open up what will otherwise be a completely closed system.
  Ms Estelle Morris: That was the most amazing eight minutes of hot air that I have heard in Committee or on
  232
  Report. The answers are simple. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) has received in writing the assurances for which he has just asked. He asked for the vacancy of the post of adjudicator to be advertised publicly. In a letter of 18 February, I wrote to him saying:
  "We shall advertise the posts widely".
  What more does he want?
  Mr. Dorrell: I want it to be in the Bill.
  Ms Morris: Ah, it is different now; it is not that he does not know what it entails, but that it should be in the Bill. The argument changes as the minutes go by. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to make a big issue of something on which he knows he has received assurances. Proposed subsections (1A) and (1B) describe proper procedures when appointing a person to fulfil the role of adjudicator. I again give the right hon. Gentleman the assurances that I gave him in Committee—at column 380 of the 11th sitting—and that I wrote to him about on 18 February. Both the things he asks for in the amendment have already been given.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Does my hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks are a bit rich, given that the Conservatives set up next steps agencies and appointed bodies that took responsibility from Ministers? I could probably give him a thick sheaf of replies to parliamentary questions in which he said that he was not responsible for a particular issue because it was the responsibility of a next steps agency. His argument smacks of hypocrisy.
  7 pm
  Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. The right hon. Gentleman is a late convert to accountability.
  The amendment should be withdrawn. I do not disagree with anything that the right hon. Gentleman has said, but he has already had the assurances that he seeks. I am prepared to give them again on the Floor of the House. The posts will be advertised, and the advertisements will make it clear that the successful candidates will have to have a range of qualities that we shall decide on when we draw up the advertisements. We have wasted 10 minutes that could have been better spent. There are other issues on which we disagree, but we agree on this.
  Mr. Dorrell rose—
  Ms Morris: No, I shall not give way again.
  We disagree only on whether the provision should be included in the Bill. I have given the right hon. Gentleman verbal and written assurances. There is no need to press the amendment. If he does so, I urge hon. Members to vote against it.
  Mr. Dorrell: I had not intended to push the amendment to a vote, not because the issue is unimportant but because I want to get on to other issues, but not only did the Minister not answer my questions: she resisted my attempt to intervene to remind her of them. The Bill accords substantial powers to the new adjudicators. The Minister has given us an assurance that the posts will be

  233
  advertised; she has not told us to whom the adjudicators will be responsible or what checks and balances there will be on their work.
  I do not intend to push my amendment to a vote, but I give notice that I expect my noble Friends in another place to return to this important issue of accountability. If the school system is to be accountable to local people, it must be clear who makes the decisions, how those people are appointed and how they are held to account. The Minister did not explain that. We shall continue in another place to pursue the accountability of adjudicators. Against that background, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed: No. 162, in page 23, line 9, at end insert—
  '(bb) requiring that agreement of the draft plan by the school organisation committee in respect of denominational school provision shall be by unanimity.'—[Miss Widdecombe.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 308.

  Division No. 222]

  [7.3 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Arbuthnot, James

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hammond, Philip

  Baldry, Tony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hunter, Andrew

  Body, Sir Richard

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brady, Graham

  Johnson Smith,

  Brazier, Julian

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Key, Robert

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burns, Simon

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Butterfill, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Lansley, Andrew

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Leigh, Edward

  Chope, Christopher

  Letwin, Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lidington, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  (Rushcliffe)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Loughton, Tim

  Colvin, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Day, Stephen

  Malins, Humfrey

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Maples, John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Mates, Michael

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Evans, Nigel

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Flight, Howard

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gibb, Nick

  Norman, Archie

  Gill, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Page, Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Paice, James

  Gray, James

  Paterson, Owen

  Green, Damian

  Pickles, Eric

  Greenway, John

  Prior, David

  234

  Randall, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Townend, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Tredinnick, David

  Ruffley, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Walter, Robert

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Wardle, Charles

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wells, Bowen

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Spring, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Streeter, Gary

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Swayne, Desmond

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Syms, Robert

  Sir David Madel and Mr. James Cran.

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Colman, Tony

  Ainger, Nick

  Connarty, Michael

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Allan, Richard

  Corbett, Robin

  Allen, Graham

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cox, Tom

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Crausby, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Baker, Norman

  Cummings, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Battle, John

  Dafis, Cynog

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Darvill, Keith

  Benton, Joe

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Berry, Roger

  Davidson, Ian

  Best, Harold

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Betts, Clive

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blackman, Liz

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Denham, John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dobbin, Jim

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Borrow, David

  Doran, Frank

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Brake, Tom

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Edwards, Huw

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Efford, Clive

  Browne, Desmond

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Burnett, John

  Flint, Caroline

  Byers, Stephen

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foulkes, George

  Cann, Jamie

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caplin, Ivor

  Galloway, George

  Casale, Roger

  Gapes, Mike

  Caton, Martin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Chaytor, David

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clapham, Michael

  Godman, Norman A

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Grant, Bernie

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clwyd, Ann

  Grogan, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Gunnell, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hain, Peter

  Coleman, Iain

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  235

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hancock, Mike

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hanson, David

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Martlew, Eric

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Healey, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Milburn, Alan

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mitchell, Austin

  Heppell, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hill, Keith

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hoey, Kate

  Mountford, Kali

  Home Robertson, John

  Mudie, George

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Mullin, Chris

  Hope, Phil

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Oaten, Mark

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Olner, Bill

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hurst, Alan

  Öpik, Lembit

  Hutton, John

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pearson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jamieson, David

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Pike, Peter L

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Radice, Giles

  Kemp, Fraser

  Rammell, Bill

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rapson, Syd

  Kidney, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rendel, David

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rogers, Allan

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Laxton, Bob

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lepper, David

  Roy, Frank

  Levitt, Tom

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Livsey, Richard

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lock, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McCabe, Steve

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sheerman, Barry

  McDonnell, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McFall, John

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McIsaac, Shona

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Skinner, Dennis

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marek, Dr John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  236

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

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Soley, Clive

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Spellar, John

  Vaz, Keith

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wallace, James

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stevenson, George

  Watts, David

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Webb, Steve

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  White, Brian

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stringer, Graham

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Stunell, Andrew

  (Swansea W)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  (Dewsbury)

  Willis, Phil

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wills, Michael

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Winnick, David

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wise, Audrey

  Timms, Stephen

  Woolas, Phil

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wray, James

  Todd, Mark

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Touhig, Don

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Trickett, Jon

  Truswell, Paul

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mr. David Clelland and Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 27

  PROPOSALS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OR ALTERATION OF COMMUNITY, FOUNDATION OR VOLUNTARY SCHOOL
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Dafis: I beg to move amendment No. 164, in page 24, line 35, leave out 'contain such information' and insert
  'be required to seek approval against the following criteria;

  (i) open to all irrespective of colour, creed, intellectual ability, social class or economic status;

  (ii) offering a broad and balanced curriculum;

  (iii) agreement to inspection and/or submission to SATs or other relevant evaluation procedures;

  (iv) equal opportunities for girls and boys;

  (v) no corporal punishment;

  (vi) establishment of a mission statement of the ethos, beliefs, values and admissions basis of the school;

  (vii) minimum requirement for the number of teachers with QTS and a qualified head;

  (viii) premises or potential premises that comply with health and safety standards;

  (ix) a minimum number of children and statements of intent from parents.'.

  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 166, in schedule 6, page 114, line 12, at end insert—

  '(8) In the event of the proposals being rejected by the relevant committee, the governing body or promoters may appeal to the adjudicator for the decision to be reviewed, who may—

  (a) reject the proposals;

  (b) approve them without modification; or

  (c) approve them with such modifications as he thinks desirable after consulting such persons or bodies as may be prescribed.

  237

  (9) In the event of the proposals being rejected by the relevant committee, the governing body or promoters may appeal to the Secretary of State for the decision to be reviewed, who may—

  (a) reject the proposals;

  (b) approve them without modification; or

  (c) approve them with such modifications as he thinks desirable after consulting such persons or bodies as may be prescribed.'.

  No. 167, in schedule 7, page 123, line 36, after 'insufficient', insert
  'in the number and character of schools necessary to meet the needs of the area.'.
  No. 168, in page 123, line 44, at end insert—
  '(c) consult potential promoters of new schools, inviting them to make a proposal to establish a new foundation or voluntary school'.
  No. 169, in page 123, line 46, after 'pupils', insert
  'and for the requirement for schools of different character'.
  Mr. Dafis: I now come to the substance of the argument that I mentioned briefly when we were discussing amendments Nos. 161 and 163. I reiterate that it was established in 1993 that the Labour party would look positively and sympathetically on the idea—indeed, would agree to the principle—that schools with alternative curricula might be accepted into the state sector as an alternative means of delivering a valid pattern of education.
  There is a strong case for the provisions in the amendments. I am also bearing in mind the fact that the inclusion in the Education Act 1994 of the principle that parents should have a degree of choice over the type of education that their children received not only enabled some Church of England, Methodist, Roman Catholic and Jewish schools to obtain state funding but allowed the growth of Welsh-medium schools in primarily English-speaking parts of Wales.
  Those schools started very small, but they are now making an outstanding contribution to education in Wales and have laid the basis for the revival of the Welsh language. One of the Government's education advisers, Professor David Reynolds, described those schools as the jewel in the crown of Welsh education. They were started through the kind of provision that I am arguing should be applied also to other categories of school.
  The Third Sector Schools Alliance wishes that privilege to be extended to a wider range of schools so that they can be allowed to enter the state sector, probably as voluntary aided or community schools. It wishes to present its case to the Minister, and I hope that she and her colleagues will agree to meet its representatives. The principle is important; I know that many hon. Members, including Labour Members, are keen for the Government to allow such a meeting to occur, and that some of them would like to participate in it.
  The schools that I am talking about find it difficult—in some cases, impossible—to enter the state sector. Some are Christian schools, some Muslim and some Buddhist, while some, such as the Steiner-Waldorf schools and the small schools of the Human Scale Education Movement, could be described as having a philosophical foundation. The amendments would facilitate such schools' entry into the state system.
  238
  It is accepted that schools should meet a set of criteria to obtain state funding, and proposals for some of the criteria are set out in the amendment. The amendment would amend clause 27, which deals with the establishment of new schools—community, foundation or voluntary. I wish to draw attention to some of the criteria. For example, schools entering the state system should be
  "open to all irrespective of colour, creed, intellectual ability, social class or economic status."
  We are not talking about schools that are closed to a particular category of pupil.
  Under the amendment, such schools would have to establish a mission statement of their ethos, beliefs, values and admission basis so that parents knew what they were buying for their children. They would have to offer a broad and balanced curriculum, agree to inspection and submit to standard assessment tests. They would have to meet a minimum requirement for the number of teachers with qualified teacher status. We are not talking about schools that wish to escape from the rigorous expectations that one would have for schools receiving public funding.
  The Third Sector Schools Alliance says that we might accept other stringent conditions before a school was accepted: the group proposing to enter the state system must first have started a school; the school would receive state funding only after the first or second year, and on a three-year trial basis; the funding would be for revenue and not capital costs. Some may fear that the system will be inundated with applications for additional schools in the state sector, but there is no danger of that. Only schools that met the criteria in terms of provision, framework and conditions of entry could apply.
  The alliance wants applications to be judged with consistency, transparency and fairness, and feels strongly that that is not the case at present, finding that there is no consistency, and often no transparency, in relation to the reasons offered for rejection. It wants the ground rules for decisions on applications to be well understood.
  Amendment No. 166 proposes an appeals process for cases where there is disagreement on the outcome of considered proposals, which is reasonable. Amendments Nos. 167, 168 and 169 would broaden the definition of insufficiency of provision, which, as it stands, refers to numbers. The alliance wants the definition to include variety of provision.
  There is a powerful case for the Government to accept the amendments. First, the principle that different value systems should be expressed in educational provision was established in the Education Act 1944, which enabled denominational schools to be accepted into the state system. There can be no justification for refusing the same privilege to other faiths.
  Secondly, few would challenge the idea that diversity of approach and innovation within a rigorous framework are valuable and that we have much to learn from, for example, the Steiner-Waldorf tradition. How can we justify forcing such schools to remain in the private sector when they want to be part of the maintained system? What justification can we give to those pupils who wish to receive that provision—which we recognise as valuable and which could make an important contribution—for obliging them to go to the private sector?
  The amendments do not challenge the idea of a national curriculum: they allow departures from it within a proven alternative. Flexibility was the reason for the inclusion of

  239
  sections 16 and 17 of the Education Reform Act 1988, which established the national curriculum. Those sections were drafted to allow the national curriculum not to apply in certain circumstances, or to apply with modification. The provisions had strong cross-party support at the time, and prestigious people argued that it was important to provide space for innovation and alternative approaches.
  Numerous countries provide state funding for new community schools, and the United Kingdom is unusual in not making such provision. Denmark provides 85 per cent. of the running costs for such schools, and Holland 100 per cent. Similar arrangements exist in Sweden, Finland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Germany. The principle is well established, and the principle of choice in these matters is enshrined in decisions at UN level and in the European Parliament.
  I emphasise that the schools that we are discussing are not elitist and do not select on the grounds of ability. I hope that the Government regard that as a recommendation. Many have a good track record in providing for disadvantaged pupils and underprivileged localities. I can think of one such school which makes wonderful provision for children with learning difficulties. Such schools can make an important contribution.
  I do not expect the Government to accept the amendments, but I hope and trust that they are receptive to the principles behind them and that Ministers will wish to conduct a serious dialogue with the interested parties. I hope that Ministers will agree to meet the Third Sector Schools Alliance, which has fought this issue thoroughly.
  Earlier, the Minister spoke about the long discussions with the Churches and emphasised the value of the dialogue. We live in a more pluralistic society than that which generated the 1944 Act, with its provisions for denominational schools. Other religious organisations should be given their chance, and other providers working on a coherent philosophical basis need to be included. It would be wrong to exclude such schools when so much emphasis has been placed tonight on dialogue with the denominational sector.
  Ms Estelle Morris: I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) for his contribution. As a former teacher, I have often felt that we can learn much from schools outside the mainstream framework. I do not want any of my comments to be construed as disrespectful to the schools to which he has referred, which do a good job, often with children who have found it less appropriate to learn in other situations.
  The hon. Gentleman tabled the amendment on behalf of the Third Sector Schools Alliance, and I understand something about what that group represents. I hope that he will accept that it is not appropriate to set out in primary legislation such detailed information as appears in the amendment, but I assure him that we shall publish guidance for school organisation committees and adjudicators on what they must take into account in making decisions.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly talked about the need for obvious consistency, transparency and fairness when decisions are made about whether schools should enter the maintained sector. I agree that our actions should be guided by those qualities. He may not know that,
  240
  when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced that some Muslim schools would receive state funding, we issued for the first time criteria under which such decisions were to be made. We set out five criteria—if the hon. Gentleman has not had the opportunity to read them, I shall ensure that he receives a copy.
  Previously, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, those criteria had not been in the public domain, although I do not suggest that previous Governments acted unfairly or inconsistently. In fact, I do not know whether they did or did not, because I did not see the criteria. When the criteria are not made public, that can give rise to suspicion, which is not a good way in which to do business.
  7.30 pm
  I do not want to give undue cause for hope, so I should say that existing legal requirements go beyond the criteria that the hon. Gentleman has included in the amendment. We are not yet issuing guidance to school organisation committees and adjudicators, but let me pick out three criteria from the amendment with which we would have difficulty and which I do not expect to see in the guidance.
  First, we believe that all teachers should have qualified teacher status, except in rare cases—for example, graduates who are teaching as part of their training to acquire that status. Secondly, we believe that all schools should teach the national curriculum. Thirdly, religious schools will always be able to select on the basis of creed, so the first criterion in the amendment, which seems to be one that we should all applaud, would in fact cause difficulty for Church schools.
  It is important that all the criteria can be defended. Parents need to know that there is a bottom line for children who are educated in a school that is maintained by the state. There will be diversity—all schools are different; they have an individual ethos and approach—but that must be in a framework of expectations for children about which parents can be sure.
  I can give an assurance that the framework for decision making that we shall bring forward will state that the national curriculum should be taught, that teachers should be qualified, and that religious schools should be able to recruit children on the basis of their creed and their parents' creed. Above and beyond that, there will be for the first time—I think that the hon. Gentleman will welcome this—a set of guidelines against which decisions are made, so that those who want to enter the maintained sector will at least know how they will be judged.
  I suspect that some of the schools to which the hon. Gentleman referred—I cannot speak for them—will find it difficult, and will not be willing, to meet some of the criteria. That is their decision. We were able to grant funding to some Muslim schools because they met the criteria; other Muslim schools will not meet them. We are not talking about excluding one group and including another; as the hon. Gentleman said, we are talking about consistency, transparency and fairness. As he rightly predicted, we shall not accept the amendment, but I hope that he will take some comfort from the fact that that fairness will exist.
  Mr. Dafis: Will the Minister undertake to meet representatives of the Third Sector Schools Alliance to discuss its concerns and what she has said?
  Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman knows that we meet a wide range of educators all the time. It is difficult to

  241
  know the diary commitments of my ministerial colleagues, but I should certainly respond positively to a request for a meeting. I hope that, having been given assurances about fairness, consistency and transparency, the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Dafis: I thank the Minister for at least agreeing to a meeting, during which I hope that she can discuss some of the issues that she has raised, which deserve further consideration.
  I am disappointed by the total inflexibility that I detect on the curriculum. Despite its over-prescriptiveness, the national curriculum undoubtedly provides a useful framework for teachers, but I find it worrying that it should be used as a straitjacket, making it is impossible for schools with a valid and proven approach to education, but with an alternative curriculum, to enter the public sector. If such schools prove beyond doubt through outcome their effectiveness, and if others can recognise and learn from that success,I cannot see why such schools should not, in any circumstances, be let into the maintained sector.
  The previous Government had a particular approach to prescription from the centre—that approach gave rise to the legislation behind the national curriculum in 1988—but the Labour Government should be prepared to think afresh. I hope that they will take a more—dare I say—liberal approach to education, which is essentially a liberal and liberating activity. There must surely be scope for flexibility, and I argue strongly that that door should not be closed. However, having been assured that there will be a meeting at which these matters can be carefully discussed, and that there will be a continuing dialogue, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29

  NOTICE BY GOVERNING BODY TO DISCONTINUE FOUNDATION OR VOLUNTARY SCHOOL
  Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in page 27, line 7, at end insert—
  '(aa) by the Funding Agency for Schools;'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 99 to 112.
  Ms Morris: The amendments are technical. They are designed to secure proper protection for public investment in maintained schools, and will close a recently discovered loophole. I am sure that the whole House will agree that public investment in schools must be protected wherever possible—the amendments will do exactly that, so I trust that they will receive the support of the House
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 99, in page 27, line 18, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1)'.
  No. 100, in page 27, line 36, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1)'.
  No. 101, in page 27, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 40.
  No. 102, in page 27, line 45, at end insert—
  '(11) Where—

  (a) land occupied by a foundation or voluntary school is held by any trustees for the purposes of the school, and

  (b) the termination of the school's occupation of that land would have the result that it was not reasonably practicable for the school to continue to be conducted at its existing site,

  then if the trustees (being entitled to do so) give any notice to the governing body which purports to terminate the school's occupation of the land, any such notice shall not be effective to terminate its occupation of the land unless the requirements of subsection (12) are complied with in relation to the notice (without prejudice to any other statutory or other requirements falling to be so complied with).

  (12) The requirements of this subsection are—

  (a) that the period of notice must—

  (i) be reasonable having regard to the length of time that would be required to discontinue the school (if the governing body chose to do so), and

  (ii) in any event must not be less than two years; and

  (b) that a copy of the notice must be given to the Secretary of State and the local education authority at the time when the notice is given to the governing body.

  (13) Where trustees give, at the same (or substantially the same) time, notices purporting to terminate a foundation or voluntary school's occupation of two or more pieces of land held by the trustees for the purposes of the school, then for the purpose of determining whether subsection (11)(b) applies in relation to any of those pieces of land, regard may be had to the combined effect of terminating the school's occupation of both or all of them.

  (14) If a question arises as to whether the termination of a school's occupation of any land would have the result mentioned in subsection (11)(b) (including a question as to whether subsection (13) applies in any particular circumstances), it shall be determined by the Secretary of State.

  (15) In subsections (11) and (13) "the purposes of the school" includes purposes which (whether the trust deed expressly so provides or not) include the purposes of the school.'.—[Ms Estelle Morris.]

  MAINTAINED SCHOOLS TO HAVE BUDGET SHARES
  Amendments made: No. 4, in page 34, line 10, after 'shall' insert 'accordingly'.
  No. 5, in page 34, line 11, at end insert 'falling within paragraph (b)'.
  No. 9, in page 34, line 11, at end insert—
  '(4) In this Chapter "new school" (without more) has the meaning given by section 68(2).'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Clause 47
  MAINTAINED SCHOOLS TO HAVE DELEGATED BUDGETS
  Amendment made: No. 1, in page 37, line 32, leave out from '1996' to end of line 34.—[Mr. Byers.]
Clause 48

  EFFECT OF FINANCIAL DELEGATION
  Amendment made: No. 81, in page 38, line 22, at end insert
  '(or, in the case of temporary governors of a new school, regulations under section (Arrangements for government of new schools)(5))'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Clause 50

  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
  Mr. Byers: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 39, line 4, leave out from beginning to 'as' and insert
  'their planned expenditure in that year'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 57 to 62, 82, 63 and 64.
  Mr. Byers: The amendments will achieve two objectives. First, they will ensure that, for the first time, we will have full information about local authority expenditure on a single return. That is not the case at present, and difficulties can arise. We debated in Committee the difficulty in identifying exactly where LEAs are spending their money. We all want as much money as possible to go to schools, and the returns that we will require the authorities to make will ensure that we can do that.
  Secondly, amendments Nos. 63 and 64 are technical amendments reflecting the fact that an Audit Commission Bill is currently before Parliament. They will amend the Bill to reflect the fact that, in due course, the Audit Commission Bill, rather than the Local Government Finance Act 1982, will have effect on certain parts of the legislation. I commend the amendments to the House.
  7.45 pm
  Mrs. Browning: I seek some clarification. We welcome more transparency in identifying how the education budget has been spent and apportioned by the LEA, but within some LEAs the accounting practices for certain fixed costs—mainly the salaries not so much of teachers as of the chief education officer and other staff—mean that they are almost invisible, because they are included in the rounded figure for management and administrative charges in the county as a whole.
  It is often difficult to identify exactly how much of the education budget has been transferred to other internal budgets for such purposes. In the return that the LEA will make to the Government, will there be an opportunity to identify clearly where the money has gone? Until one can do that, it is difficult to identify where the LEA has top-sliced certain tranches before apportioning the schools budgets. Can we have some clarification?
  Mr. Byers: The amendments will require the LEA to make returns on non-general schools budget aspects, which may well cover the specific spending areas to which the hon. Lady refers. Perhaps more important, we will have the support of the Audit Commission, working alongside the independent inspectorate Ofsted, as a result of the new inspection regime. I am sure that the Audit Commission will carefully consider the additional areas of expenditure that are all too often subsidised by schools at the expense of the education that our children receive.
  The combination of the information that we will receive as a result of the amendments and the Audit Commission's new inspection role will enable us to take action when we feel that the schools system is subsidising expenditure elsewhere, not only within the local education authority but in the local authority generally.
  244
  I hope that, with those words of reassurance, the House will agree to the amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 57, in page 39, line 9, leave out 'financial provision' and insert 'expenditure'.
  No. 58, in page 39, line 11, after 'incurred' insert
  ',or treated by the authority as having been incurred, by them'.
  No. 59, in page 39, line 11, leave out from 'year' to and' in line 12.
  No. 60, in page 39, leave out lines 13 to 17 and insert—
  '(c) any other resources allocated by the authority in the year to schools maintained by them during any part of the year.'.
  No. 61, in page 39, line 24, leave out
  'in such circumstances as may be prescribed'
  and insert 'if regulations so provide'.
  No. 62, in page 39, line 26, leave out 'a statement' and insert 'such a copy'.
  No. 82, in page 39, line 30, at end insert
  'at any time before the school opening date'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Clause 51

  CERTIFICATION OF STATEMENTS BY AUDIT COMMISSION
  Amendments made: No. 63, in page 39, line 34, leave out
  '29(1)(d) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982'
  and insert
  '28(1)(d) of the Audit Commission Act 1998'.
  No. 64, in page 39, line 39, leave out '29(1)(d)' and insert '28(1)(d)'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Clause 68

  PROVISION FOR NEW SCHOOLS
  Amendments made: No. 6, in page 51, leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert—

  '(a) the staffing and conduct of a new school in advance of the school opening date;

  (b) the determination of matters in connection with a new school in advance of that date;

  (c) the taking of decisions by a temporary governing body, or (where power to do so is delegated to him) by the head teacher, as to expenditure in connection with a new school at a time when it does not have a delegated budget;'.

  No. 7, in page 51, line 12, at end insert—
  '(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in connection with any matters falling within that subsection, apply any provision of the Education Acts with or without modification.'.
  No. 8, in page 51, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—
  '(2) In this section "new school" means a school or proposed school—

  (a) for which there is a temporary governing body constituted under section (Arrangements for government of new schools), or

  (b) for which there is no such body but for which such a body—

  (i) are required to be so constituted by virtue of subsection (1) of that section, or

  (ii) may be so constituted in accordance with such anticipatory arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (5)(a) of that section.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Clause 76

  CODE OF PRACTICE
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 150, in page 54, line 40, at end add—
  '(bb) the governing bodies of city technology colleges,'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 114, in clause 78, page 56, line 40, at end insert—
  '(d) if compliance with the preferences would prejudice the ability of any child living within the locality to gain admission to the school of his choice.'.
  No. 140, in clause 84, page 63, line 5, at end insert:—
  '(ca) the arrangements made by the authority for ensuring that admission procedures are non-discriminatory by ethnicity or gender'.
  No. 157, in clause 86, page 65, line 7, after 'school', insert 'or city technology college.'
  New clause 22—Establishment of entry clearance systems—
  'Every local education authority shall, for each school year, set up or ensure the setting up of an admissions clearance organisation for its area through which all applications for and on behalf of residents of its area to community, foundation, voluntary or maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools, and city technology colleges, shall be made.'.
  Mr. Hughes: I declare an interest, in that I speak in the light of my experience as a trustee of Bacon's Church of England city technology college and the chair of governors of St. James's Church of England primary school. I hope that the amendments and the new clause will find favour with the Government, because they are designed to correct two perceived, and real, injustices in our state-funded schools' admission procedures.
  On Second Reading, the Secretary of State responded positively to a general proposition that I put to him on this subject. I was grateful for that, and I hope for a specific positive response from him tonight.
  The previous Government set up city technology colleges, and, because of the way in which they were constituted, they were from the beginning—technically, they still are—outside both the local authority and the Church systems. The city technology college of which I speak happens to be a Church of England CTC, but many are not.
  Pupils apply to such colleges in the same way as others apply to other secondary schools. They are funded in large measure by the taxpayer and the local authority, as other schools are, topped up by money and obligations from the local diocese and the diocesan board of education. Selection is on an even, non-selective basis, banded in the normal way, and they are mixed schools to which youngsters can apply just as they would to any other Church of England secondary school.
  I give full credit to the Secretary of State, who came to speak at Bacon's the other day and acknowledged that CTCs are very popular, for one reason or another. Bacon's is the most popular secondary school in my constituency, and the number of applicants considerably exceeds the number of places.
  246
  It is completely unjust that there is no independent appeals system for the pupils and parents who are rejected. If a pupil is turned down by a local primary school, there is an independent appeals system; when someone is turned down for a place at a local secondary school—be it a Southwark-run school or a Roman Catholic or Church of England diocese secondary school—there is an independent appeals system; yet, when the same families apply to another school that is to all intents and purposes of the same type, they discover that they cannot appeal.
  I am asking the Secretary of State to make a correction that an earlier Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), very nearly agreed to but then backed away from. We need a mechanism to assess independently the proper running of the admissions policy.
  That is important also because of the inevitable subjectivity in any decision. Selecting pupils for a city technology college on the basis that it is a particular type of school builds in subjectivity. Someone independent of the school must be able to give a second opinion and adjudicate. I speak as a school trustee who is hugely concerned about a system that I find it impossible to defend.
  Amendments Nos. 157 and 150 would introduce arrangements to achieve those aims. Amendment No. 150 would include city technology colleges' governing bodies in the list of those who will be governed by codes of practice on admission arrangements to be drawn up by the Secretary of State. So it is a light touch approach. I simply want to ensure that the provisions of the Secretary of State's codes of guidance include CTC governing bodies.
  The amendment to clause 86 would ensure that an appeal arrangement was set up. On reflection, it is probably not felicitously drafted, and if I were redrafting it, I would include a separate clause or subsection to provide for admissions appeals provisions for local education authorities, the community or voluntary controlled schools maintained by them and for foundation, or voluntary aided schools under the Government's proposals as well as city technology colleges.
  Therefore, I do not seek to die in the ditch for that amendment to that clause, but the proposition is clear, and I hope that the Government will concede that admissions appeals systems for CTCs ought to be set up by the time that the Bill reaches the statute book.
  My final point on new clause 22 is equally important—in fact, it is more important to more people than the CTC amendment. We propose a co-ordination system for school applications. I wish to make a suggestion to the Secretary of State, and I hope that he will be warmly disposed towards it. At the moment, the parent of a five-year-old who wants to come to my primary school or of a 10-year-old who is rising 11 and has to go to secondary school makes an application. The parent may apply to one school, or to two or more.
  The bright, forceful, vocal, pushy and well-prepared parents know how to work the system. Less able parents sometimes apply only to one school, saying that that is the school they want their youngster to go to. They do not think it through, or imagine that the youngster may be turned down. Once he or she is turned down and the parents have appealed, and perhaps not succeeded, they are too late for any more applications. Even if they are not too late, the child may not get in.

  247
  People of my generation had six choices available on the then Universities Central Council on Admissions form. Since then, it has been amended, and there is a five-option choice for the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service and for UCAS. None the less, it is still a multiple choice for applications to colleges and universities. We would serve the cause of equal opportunity and equal access for the pupil if local education authorities or someone else—I am not sold on them, but they are the logical starting point—had a duty to set up what I have called an admissions clearance organisation. The authorities would not have to run it, and in some ways I would rather that they did not.
  I shall give an example. Parents living two doors away from me just off the Old Kent road with a child who is 10 this year would then have to deal with the fact that they have to make more than one choice and that it could cover Roman Catholic, Anglican and non-denominational schools. They could be required to think through the order of priority, but someone else would then do the administration.
  I can say from bitter experience that a very deserving youngster is often not as well served as his or her peers because he or she does not have bright, active and pushy parents who work the system to their advantage. Also, parents applying for their first child do not know the ropes nearly as well as they will when they have to do it for the second.
  I ask the Minister to allow us to have a common admissions clearance system. I ask him to think about it positively. I entirely concede that the wording of my amendment is not perfect, but the proposition is clear. The system should apply for state-funded nursery schools, primary schools and secondary schools. The same principle should apply everywhere, because the same issues apply. If we are to provide equality of access, there must be an objectively run system that will allow people to make their choice.
  Finally, many youngsters and their families believe that they have the right to the school of their choice, but that is not the case in many parts of Britain—it is normally not the case in rural areas, and often it is not in urban areas. If we are to help people to understand that we may not give people the choice of the school they want but we hope to give them a choice of school, we must from the beginning provide a system that makes it clear that it is not a simple case of saying that one wants one's child to go to this primary school, and, because it is a feeder for that secondary school, they will automatically go there.
  We must get them to face up to the fact that choices may be unsuccessful. This system is a way of doing it. If it works for post-16 applications for state-funded institutions, there is no reason why it should not work for under-16 applications to similarly state-funded institutions.
  Mr. Dafis: I want to speak to amendment No. 114, which is tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends. The amendment has to be seen in the context of amendments in the next group, including my amendment No. 115. We will debate selection when we get to that list.
  248
  Amendment No. 114 has been tabled because of the effect of selection on parental choice. It would add an additional condition to those listed in clause 78(3) on parents' rights to choose schools. It would simply mean that authorities would not be required to comply with parental preference among other things
  "if compliance with the preferences would prejudice the ability of any child living within the locality to gain admission to the school of his choice".
  I had to use the word "locality", because I understand that the term "catchment area" is no longer de rigueur.
  This amendment should not be controversial, and I anticipate that the Secretary of State might accept it because, on Second Reading, he said:
  "I am able to confirm that the Bill and the criteria I will lay down as part of our admissions policy will remove partial selection where it currently exists … we are not against the exercise of a parental preference; we are against situations in which, for no other reason than the partial selection system and because parents are exercising their preference from a distance, local parents living in close proximity to a school in, for example, Bromley, find it impossible to get their children into it."—[Official Report, 22 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 664.]
  However, not everyone has been convinced by the right hon. Gentleman's assurances. Specifically, the Campaign for State Education has not been convinced. The situation in Wandsworth, as described at an impressive meeting that CASE and the National Union of Teachers held not long ago, is well known to the House, so I do not need to give the details.
  John Valentine of the Campaign for Local Education described the situation in a letter to members of the Standing Committee thus:
  "All the secondary schools have an entrance test. All the tests are different. Each test takes three hours and takes place in the secondary school under exam conditions. As far as the 50 per cent. selective schools are concerned, siblings account for the entire remaining intake. There are no places on proximity at all. Local children who fail the test or who have no older sibling are not in the catchment area for any other school and must travel five or six miles to go to school."
  He then gives an example, saying:
  "My daughter's junior school shares a campus with Graveney school which selects 50 per cent. on general ability. This year, 17 pupils from that school took the test for Graveney school and six got places. There are certainly four children living within 200 metres of the gates of Graveney school who have no place. Seven children have no offer of a place anywhere at the moment."
  That was in February.
  I am not against parental choice. Indeed, I have already spoken in favour of it this evening, when I presented amendments on behalf of the Third Sector Schools Alliance. Choice is important, in that it can provide for the needs of parents who have preferences regarding type of education, which sometimes cannot be catered for in schools close by. The choice of parents in those circumstances should never prevent other pupils from having the choice of going to their local school. Our amendment would safeguard that fundamental right.
  8 pm
  Mr. Willis: I wish to speak to amendment No. 140. I thank the Under-Secretary for her comments on the need to monitor the performance of children from ethnic backgrounds in respect of determining standards in

  249
  schools. We are grateful for her comments as reported in column 804 of the Official Report of the Standing Committee on Tuesday 3 March 1998.
  Discrimination on the grounds of gender or race is very real, even though it often happens inadvertently. At first sight, and even after close examination, admissions procedures often do not suggest problems of discrimination, but those are exactly what they can create. Take the Education Act 1980. Most hon. Members would accept that the policy of open enrolment has generally been a good thing, and that many advantages have been gained from it. However, the removal of some of the access arrangements has given rise to discrimination on the basis of race, culture and ethnicity.
  A school may give precedence to pupils who have family connections with it. Older siblings are reasonable, but if the school's criteria include parents or even grandparents, it will almost certainly disadvantage students from ethnic minorities. Departmental circular 6/93 drew attention to the potential discriminatory affects of that criterion. Subsequent circulars omitted that reference. It is especially important that local education authorities be required to ensure that all procedures and criteria should be non-discriminatory.
  Giving preference to applicants in certain neighbourhoods may have the effect of discriminating on grounds of race or ethnicity. The neighbourhoods given preference may be mainly white, while others equally near or equally convenient in terms of public transport may contain a high proportion of people from ethnic minorities.
  If primary schools give preference to pupils who attended attached nursery classes, it may discriminate against families where the parents are in full-time employment and cannot send their children to part-time nurseries. Afro-Caribbean mothers are known to work full time more than white mothers, so it can discriminate against them.
  Selection tests and examinations are discriminatory if they are culturally biased, or if tests for cognitive ability, potential or aptitude require levels of competence in English that pupils who have recently arrived in the United Kingdom cannot possibly be expected to have achieved. If musical talent is a criterion for admission, it would be discriminatory if the school insisted on talent in western classical music rather than, say, south Asian music.
  There is a widespread suspicion that prestigious schools do not admit children from groups whose members are disproportionately likely to experience exclusion or to have low achievement. Any instance of treating a prospective pupil as a member of a group rather than an individual would be unjustifiably discriminatory.
  The purpose of the amendment is to put in the Bill a requirement for local education authorities and schools to make their admissions policies clear, so that there will be no discrimination on the basis of race or gender.
  Mr. Blunkett: I will come in a moment to the amendments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) and of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). First, let me say that I was sympathetic when the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) started. By the time he had finished, I realised what a dog's dinner would result if we agreed to amendment No. 140.
  250
  The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976 must be adhered to. If there is a real difficulty in implementing them through the code that we shall issue, I would be disposed to consider the matter again. The longer the hon. Gentleman went on, and the more we delved into the esoteric depths of full or part-time workers with full and part-time nursery children, the more I realised that, on reflection, he could not expect such a provision to be put into a Bill by any party. I ask him to reflect on that, given that I acknowledge, in a spirit of non-partisan politics, that acting against discrimination is crucial.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was good enough to say that I had been to Bacon's city technology college. I am impressed by what it is doing. I appreciate that many parents will want to get children into it.
  There are only 15 CTCs, which are unique in the sense that their structure, establishment and raison d'etre are different from those of other schools. They are, in essence, independent, but substantially funded from state funds. They are prepared to co-operate with the new framework that we are laying down. They will be part of the overall code that we will issue. They have an obligation to adhere to the wider policies laid out in the Bill.
  I am prepared to talk to CTCs further about how to meet particular problems where procedures have not been followed and where an appeal might be appropriate. The present admissions criteria are unique—though some boroughs wish to band their pupils—and there is a difficulty in terms of opening up the procedure in the manner of the admissions policy as a whole. We are establishing the adjudicator not only in relation to the nature and procedure of the policies but in relation to independent appeals in respect of individual children.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is right to draw the issue to the attention of the House, but I do not think that it can be addressed in precisely the way that the amendments seek. The consultation with the 15 CTCs could make some useful progress. I and Ministers are prepared to do that. In the spirit of the fact that CTCs want to be part of the system, and want to collaborate with us in ensuring that their systems are seen to be fair and transparent, I think that that is reasonable.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am reassured. Does he accept the fundamental point that the system for independent adjudication or appeal for CTCs should be similar to, and be seen to be similar to, those of other schools? If he accepts that that is the starting point, I am sure that there will be a way of accommodating them in the general structure that he has described.
  Mr. Blunkett: I accept that the transparency we seek should be part of the total process. Because of the different admissions criteria and policy of CTCs, it is the fairness of those procedures, and whether they have been adhered to, that I am most concerned to ensure is open to scrutiny. We need to discuss with them the way in which appeals on such grounds could be dealt with.
  The hon. Gentleman lives with the issue as a constituency Member. Hon. Members with CTCs in their areas know that the competition for places may make the

  251
  situation more heated than it is elsewhere. That is part of the wider issue that amendment No. 114 seeks to address, which is the difficulty of getting an admissions policy that balances parental preference and sensible planning and organisation, and is fair to those who put their neighbourhood school down as their first preference, and to those who exercise a preference from outside the area. For instance, I do not retract one jot of the words that have been quoted from the Second Reading debate on the Monday before Christmas. We need to try to find a way through what is undoubtedly a jungle in terms of admissions policy. I know a lot about the Rotherham judgment, because the parents lobbied me heavily about their case before they went to the High Court.
  I believe that there is a way forward, but it will require a great deal more collaboration and co-operation than has been apparent and has been fostered in recent years. The market has assumed that supply and demand will balance themselves, but of course they do not. That answers the case put in new clause 22. I am sympathetic to clearance. Through the code, as part of the new collaborative arrangements, we should encourage authorities and schools to work together to achieve that.
  Schools cannot expect someone else to pick up the problem if they discard children. I do not want schools to feel that they do not need to own the problem—that they can pass it over and that someone else will sort it out. I am mindful of real cases such as that of a little girl called Rebecca—I shall not give her full name—from St. Albans, who has shortened tendons. She does not have a place at any of the three schools to which she and her parents applied for the coming September. She cannot walk to the school that has been suggested for her, whereas the three that she opted for are in easy reach. These are real, human problems, not ideological ones in the sense that divides us politically. We need to find a way forward. The guidance that we shall issue shortly for the interim period and the code, on which we shall consult, will seek that way forward.
  The discussion tonight shows that there is a genuine issue here that we all need to tackle together. I ask the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to allow us to do that, and not to press the amendment. I ask him to recognise that we genuinely want to overcome the legacy of recent history and move forward by achieving a balance between the choice we seek to achieve and the genuine heartache that is pressed on youngsters who discover that, through no fault of their own, they cannot get into a school anywhere near them, never mind the one that their parents thought that they were exercising their right to prefer.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: With the leave of the House, I rise again. I am grateful for the Secretary of State's considered and positive response. I am happy to collaborate with my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), the Secretary of State and his ministerial and civil service colleagues, and with the schools in question to find a way forward on both issues where I believe that a way forward exists.
  I wish to end the debate by, in a sentence, painting a picture that the Secretary of State has also seen as a constituency Member, as a shadow Minister and as a
  252
  Minister. At the end of this exercise, I should like never again to have the experience that I have every year when I go to present the prizes at the local authority primary school every July. When I talk to the youngsters, I discover every year that several, as they leave primary school, still do not know where they will go to secondary school two months later.
  Few things undermine youthful self-confidence more than that. It makes the children feel less wanted, just at the moment when they are meant to feel that they are going on to greater things. If we can end that lottery of opportunity, we shall be doing them a good service. In that spirit, I am happy to withdraw the amendment, and to continue the conversation elsewhere at an early opportunity. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 147, in page 67, line 40, leave out from 'ability' to 'any' in line 43.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 145, in clause 92, page 68, line 24, after '(1)', insert
  'Subject to subsections (5) to (9).'.
  No. 148, in page 68, line 25, leave out 'by ability or'.
  No. 149, in page 68, line 27, after 'continue', insert
  'until the appropriate local education authority has, within three years of the coming into force of this Act, and after consultation with relevant persons and bodies, determined the future or otherwise of such a school.'.
  No. 146, in page 68, line 43, at end add—

  '(5) This section shall cease to apply at such date as may be determined in accordance with sub-clause (7) in relation to any school in respect of which the adjudicator, or the Secretary of State, as the case may be, has decided to uphold an objection made under subsection 5.

  (6) The Local Education Authority or the admissions authority for any maintained school in the area of the Local Education Authority in which a school to which sub-section (1) for the time being applies is situated, may at any time make objection to the adjudicator about the continuation at that school of the provision for selection by ability or by aptitude to which this section refers.

  (7) Upon receipt of an objection such as is mentioned in subsection (4) the adjudicator shall either

  (a)decide whether and (if so) to what extent the objection should be upheld, or

  (b)in such cases as may be prescribed, refer the objection to the Secretary of State for that question to be decided by him.

  (8) The decision of the adjudicator or the Secretary of State on the objection shall be binding on the admission authority for the school to which subsection 1 applies and shall have effect on such date as may be specified by the adjudicator or the Secretary of State as the case may be.

  (9) For the purposes of this section "the admission authority" shall have the same meaning as Chapter 1 of this Part.'.

  No. 115, in clause 94, page 69, line 28, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 6 on page 70.
  No. 90, in page 69, line 28, leave out 'Subject to subsection (2)'.
  No. 91, in page 69, leave out lines 36 to 39.
  Mr. Foster: I am delighted to see the Secretary of State in his place for this important debate. I have enormous respect for him. He has done a great deal to improve the quality of education in the short time since the new Government took office. He has given new heart to many of the people who work in education. However, the Secretary of State will have disappointed many people working in our schools as well as many of his Back Benchers on the issue of partial selection, with which amendment No. 147 deals. He has failed to deliver commitments that he offered to his party and to the nation before the general election. I shall argue that he has even failed to deliver commitments that he made since the general election and since he took office as Secretary of State.
  A number of amendments in this group are tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). I do not intend to detain the House on any of them other than amendment No. 147, save to say that I hope that the Government will be prepared to consider carefully the proposal in amendment No. 146 to give LEAs the right of appeal to the adjudicator against partial selection. I hope that the Minister will say that it is the Government's intention to allow the LEA to be one of those that can make such an appeal.
  I certainly do not intend to become embroiled in the debate on selection by aptitude which I suspect is to follow shortly. Suffice it to say that, in our deliberations in Committee, we, like the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), were unconvinced by the Government's arguments about the possibility of selection by aptitude. We argue that, except perhaps in the case of music and art, any attempt to discuss selection by aptitude is merely a covert way of talking about selection by ability.
  Amendment No. 147 would end partial selection where it exists and ensure that there is no opportunity for further extension of partial selection in our schools. The whole House will remember the ringing words of the Secretary of State at a recent Labour party conference:
  "Watch my lips: no selection by exams or interviews under Labour".
  Unfortunately, if the amendment is not accepted and the Bill remains as written, there will continue to be selection under Labour.
  It is worth bearing it in mind that even the White Paper from which the Bill was drawn said clearly in chapter 7, paragraph 33:
  "The use of partial selection, though limited, has led to controversy and caused parents concern in areas such as Bromley and Hertfordshire."
  Even at the time of the drafting of the White Paper, after the election, it was clear that the Government were concerned about the problems created by partial selection. They knew, and they still know today, that selection does not give choice to most parents; it gives choice only to a few whose children pass the various selection tests. The Government know only too well that, with selection, it is the school that selects the pupil, not the parents who select the school.
  The Government will be aware of opinion polling on selection. The Gallup opinion poll in 1996 showed that only 19 per cent. of the public thought that selection should be encouraged, while 77 per cent. were opposed
  254
  to it. The Government will be well aware of what the Audit Commission has had to say on selection. In its report "Trading Places", the Audit Commission spoke of the real problems of "planning gridlock" in many of our local education authority areas. It went on to note that, once individual schools were able to set their own admission policies independent of each other,
  "a situation could arise in which all schools in an area opt to select a proportion of their pupils on academic ability—which may not be in the best interest of the local children who fail to selected for any school."
  That real problem is not one that the Audit Commission fantasised might happen; it is, as I explained in Committee, already happening in various parts of the country.
  In Wandsworth, for example, there are 10 secondary schools: two are Roman Catholic and select by interview, which is something to which the Secretary of State said he would be opposed; two select 50 per cent. of their pupils by ability; one selects 50 per cent. of its pupils on a specialism; one is a specialist technology college, which selects 100 per cent. of its pupils; one selects 25 per cent. of its pupils on ability; and the remaining three use a banding system, taking 20 per cent. of pupils in each of five bands.
  Because of those selection arrangements in every one of Wandsworth's secondary schools, many parents in the area are very concerned—to the point where, at forthcoming local elections, some of those parents intend to put up anti-selection candidates. I received a letter from one of those concerned Wandsworth parents. She wrote:
  "Our local school is 50 per cent. selective and has been for three years. This year there are no places on geography at all. My son's primary school is on the same site—17 children took the test and six got places. Seven children have no place at any school at present. At least four of the children who didn't get a place live within 200 metres of the school gate. One child refused to go to school the day after the results; one told their mother they felt humiliated … The last few months have been hell for everyone and continue to be so for some. My own son has got a place but I have seen him lose confidence and self esteem in the process. His teacher reports that the whole of year 6 is very difficult because of the stress the children are under. The least able are given a very clear message that they are failures."
  That is what is happening in one part of the country because of the continuation of partial selection in local schools. That is something that the Government said would not continue, yet, if the Bill is not amended as proposed in amendment No. 147, those problems will continue. In his helpful comments on earlier amendments, the Secretary of State spoke of real human problems, described the plight of Rebecca of St. Albans, and pointed out that that was the sort of issue about which we should all be concerned—how right he was. I hope that he will understand that there are real human problems in Wandsworth, Bromley, Hertfordshire and many other parts of the country where partial selection is used.
  We are aware that many members of the Labour party are concerned, as are all Liberal Democrats, about partial selection. In Committee, I referred to the views on partial selection of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), now the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who said in January 1997:
  "The arguments against selection are well known and well made: it weakens parental choice and preference; it institutionalises low expectations of children; and it labels too many of young children as failures."—[Official Report, 27 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 92.]

  255
  In a speech in November 1996, the then hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), now the Secretary of State, said:
  "There are only two ways in which to deal with the problem of parents not being offered choice by their neighbourhood school: first, to lift the standards in those schools dramatically and, secondly, to have a comprehensive and sensible admissions policy that covers the entire area."—[Official Report, 11 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 51.]
  It is clear that the vast majority of members of the Labour party had anticipated the ending of partial selection in the Bill. They will have been disappointed, and I suspect that some are still somewhat confused by it.
  Mr. Blunkett: I should like to put it on record that I agree with myself; I agree entirely with my remarks that the hon. Gentleman has quoted. I should like to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that, although they may be discrete, the mechanisms which we have put in place and which are present in the Bill actually achieve the goal which he is setting out this evening. If there is any confusion, it is not on the Treasury Bench, but on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
  Mr. Foster: If the Secretary of State agrees with himself, I hope that he will listen carefully to the quotation which I shall give shortly. I hope that he will be willing to intervene a second time and tell me whether he still agrees with that comment.
  Some Labour Members continued to be confused, even during our detailed debates in Committee. On 24 February, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) said:
  "The hon. Member for Bath said correctly that the Labour party has not believed in the principle of selection by ability for many years, and he rightly grasps what unites us".
  The hon. Gentleman is clearly very confused indeed, because it is the Labour party that now wants selection to continue in some of our schools. He went on to say:
  "partial selection was an unfortunate consequence of the competitive GM experiment introduced by the previous Government".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 February 1998; c. 589–90.]
  From those remarks, it is clear that the hon. Gentleman was keen to see the end of partial selection.
  I hope that I have clearly established that the Liberal Democrats have long opposed selection in our schools and that we are opposed to the continuation of partial selection, which the Bill will allow if the amendment is not passed. I shall end by asking the Secretary of State whether he still agrees with one of his own comments, made when he introduced the Bill on Second Reading. He said:
  "I am able to confirm that the Bill and the criteria I will lay down as part of our admissions policy will remove partial selection where it currently exists."—[Official Report, 22 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 664.]
  I hope that, if the right hon. Gentleman rises to say that he still agrees with that, he will add that he will support amendment No. 147, which would give effect to that clear commitment given on Second Reading.
  Mr. Dorrell: Conservative Members will certainly not support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for
  256
  Bath (Mr. Foster). As his speech made clear, his amendments serve the Liberal Democrat purpose, which is to eliminate selection, whether by ability or aptitude, in all our schools, whether or not it has been shown to be supported by local parents or local teachers, or, most important, to deliver high-quality education in the round to local children. I do not believe that the Liberal Democrats are right to continue a policy of blanket opposition to selection in all circumstances.
  I hope that, when he responds to the debate, the Minister for School Standards will, on behalf of the Secretary of State, disavow the words he uttered on 22 December. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm, on behalf of the Secretary of State, that it is not true that the Bill
  "will remove partial selection where it currently exists."—[Official Report, 22 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 664.]
  That certainly is not my understanding of the Bill's effect, which is why I regard as a welcome step in the right direction those aspects of clauses 91 to 95 that provide recognition and some entrenchment for existing provision for selection by ability and the prospect of selection by aptitude, on which subject I shall have more to say shortly. Therefore, I shall certainly invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose amendments Nos. 147, 145, 148, 149 and 146.
  I do not believe that selection is the right answer in every school and in all circumstances. The last thing we need in our school system is a return to an extremely sterile argument about 11-plus, grammar school or secondary modern school in all circumstances. When we discuss the next group of amendments, we shall talk about the arrangements for existing grammar schools and debate whether there should be arrangements to allow, in some areas, grammar schools to be introduced where they do not currently exist, but it is not my case that we should return to a single, blanket model, applicable in all circumstances.
  I seek to argue that admission arrangements should be allowed to vary in different schools, reflecting the different views of the teaching profession working in different parts of the country, and reflecting too the different views of parents in the communities that the schools exist to serve. I do not believe that the arguments for and against a specific form of selection can be shown to be so conclusive that they are right in all circumstances and in all localities.
  Against that background, I am pleased that the Government's Bill—I suspect, to the surprise of some Labour Back Benchers—recognises existing selection arrangements and, to a limited degree, entrenches the current selection arrangements. I have a different question for the Government: why do Ministers, who are apparently prepared to accept the principle of selection by ability, believe that the position that they inherited from the outgoing Conservative Government on 1 May 1997 represents the best conceivable balance of those different interests that can be achieved?
  I say that because the Government's Bill establishes the principle that the selection arrangements that they inherited should be safeguarded. A ring fence should be built around them. They should not be allowed to develop. Presumably the ideas are right, because the Government have the opportunity to change the ideas, and they are not doing so. Why should we accept that the arrangements that the Secretary of State inherited from his predecessor on 2 May 1997 are so perfect that they are incapable of improvement?
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Blunkett: Once again, I want to place on the record the fact that we do not accept the principle of selection by ability. That is absolutely clear, and I have made it clear ever since I took the job of shadow Secretary of State. However, we accept that the removal of selection by ability in whatever form should be undertaken with the maximum consensus and with the legitimacy that comes from the involvement of those most directly concerned. Our policies and the Bill seek to achieve those goals in exactly that way.
  Mr. Dorrell: With all respect to the Secretary of State, he is getting into trouble, because he is promoting a Bill in which clause 92(1) says:
  "Where at the beginning of the 1997–98 school year the admission arrangements for a maintained school made provision for selection by ability or by aptitude … the admission arrangements for the school may continue to make such provision"
  for as long as
  "there is"—
  and indefinitely is the practical effect—[Interruption.] All right; I shall read it in full:
  "the admission arrangements for the school may continue to make such provision"
  for as long as
  "there is, as compared with the arrangements in force at the beginning of that year—

  (a)no increase in the proportion of selective admissions in any relevant age group, and

  (b)no significant change in the basis of selection."

  Clause 92(1) envisages no end date. The Secretary of State is promoting a Bill that explicitly allows existing selection by ability to continue. It is a pity if the Secretary of State is promoting a Bill a key element of which he is not prepared to defend.
  I believe that the terms of the Secretary of State's Bill are right, not because I consider that selection by ability is right in all circumstances, but because—the Secretary of State will recognise this—professional teachers, parents and supporters in the local community around existing schools that operate partial selection wish to continue to operate that system because they believe that it is in the best interests of the children of their area.
  If the Secretary of State disagrees with that, he has the opportunity to say that partial selection is wrong in all circumstances. I am pleased that he is not taking that opportunity; I only regret the fact that he is not prepared to defend partial selection.
  That is only part of the case that the Government are making to the House in the clauses on selection. The Government are saying that there can be no further development of selection by ability, but they are opening up the possibility of new selective arrangements, provided that we undertake to draw a distinction between selection by ability and selection by aptitude.
  I regret the fact that the Secretary of State is not responding to the debate, because that would have provided him with the opportunity to adjudicate—if we may use that word in the context of the Bill—between the Minister for School Standards, sitting on his right, and the Under-Secretary, sitting on his left. I suspect that that is literally true in the context of this argument.
  258
  We analysed the issue of ability and aptitude in Committee. We sought to draw out the Under-Secretary on what she understood by the concept of selection by aptitude. Her answer was to avoid the subject and say, "Don't worry; the Minister of State will answer this debate later in the day and I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say." I believe that the Under-Secretary was no more persuaded by the words of the Minister for School Standards in seeking to distinguish between selection by aptitude and selection by ability, than any other member of the Committee. It is not entirely surprising.
  The purpose of amendments Nos. 90 and 91 is to seek—if it makes it easier for the Government—to build on the fiction of the distinction between selection by aptitude and selection by ability. The purpose of those amendments is simply to eliminate from clause 94 the effect of subsection (2)—in other words, to allow selection by aptitude without the bar on selection for general aptitude; to allow the Government to preside over the continued slow development, with safeguards, by schools that wish to apply the principles of selection, and to allow that continued development, under the heading of "selection by aptitude", without seeking to obstruct it in the way that clause 94(2) would do.
  The reason I say that the distinction between aptitude and ability is total nonsense is emphasised by a look at the dictionary. The Minister for School Standards seeks to persuade us that there is a difference of principle between assessing the natural ability of a child being considered for entry to a school and assessing the aptitude of that child for a range of subjects. In the "Oxford English Dictionary", the word "aptitude" is defined as "natural ability". The Minister is suggesting that we should not be prepared to allow ourselves to select by ability, but that we should be prepared to select children by aptitude, the dictionary definition of which is "natural ability". He has gone a long way around the houses to return to where he started. In my view, the distinction that the Minister seeks to draw is nonsense squared.
  The Minister believes in allowing the slow development—where schools want it—of selection by aptitude. In Committee, and now in the House, he has tried to persuade us that selection by aptitude is different from selection by ability. The Labour party and, indeed, the whole House know that it is nonsense to draw a distinction between selection by aptitude and selection by ability.
  I am sure that the Secretary of State is speculating about an alliance between the Stephens. We are both in favour of the small-scale continued development of selection, where that is supported by the school and its teachers. I am happy to extend the hand of friendship to the other Stephen in establishing selection—whether by ability or by aptitude—where it is shown to have the support of the teaching profession, the governing body, the admissions authority and the parents. I look forward to my colleague Stephen linking arms with me in that aim.
  I am happy to continue the fiction of the distinction between aptitude and ability—it is fiction—if it serves the cause. It allows the Minister to part company with most of the Labour Members who have come into the Chamber to listen to the debate and, with the courage of his convictions, to pursue the development of selection by aptitude where that is shown to be in the interests of the children. I hope that he will recognise the opportunity that

  259
  we are offering him, and will not argue that the state of affairs which he inherited on 1 May 1997 is incapable of further improvement.
  Mr. Tom Cox: The debate on this group of amendments is of interest both to me and to my constituents. I am one of the Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in the London borough of Wandsworth. Over a long period, the Conservative local authority has deliberately set out to lose as many of its education responsibilities as possible. It has encouraged schools, especially in my constituency, to opt out of the local education system. It then claims that it has nothing to do with the schools and has no authority over them. Because of that, the practice of selection has increased throughout the borough.
  The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) should come to my constituency before he pays such glowing tributes to selection. He said that parents' views should be taken into account, but he should come to my constituency and hear what parents there are saying. They are angry and bitter about the system that has been in place in the borough for a number of years. It is no exaggeration to say that there are schools and head teachers in my constituency who make their own rules. They take no notice of the views of local parents.
  The schools in my constituency that have adopted a selection procedure are: Graveney school, which selects 50 per. cent of its intake, as does Ernest Bevin; Burntwood, which selects 30 per cent.; and Chestnut Grove, which selects 40 per cent. on subject specialisation. In the borough generally, 10 schools have some form of selection or testing for entry. That system has been in place in Wandsworth for many years.
  I have been involved in the issue for a long time, as it is the sort of issue that causes people to come to my advice surgery. I have taken up the matter with Wandsworth council, but it immediately says, "This is nothing to do with us; we have no control over those schools." I took up the matter with the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard); her response was, "We have no responsibility for those schools; they decide their entrance procedures."
  8.45 pm
  There are youngsters in the borough who live close to their local schools, but cannot get places in them, yet youngsters who do not live within the borough—often not even in adjacent boroughs—get places in those schools. Parents complain that the system is unfair and unjust. It is an abuse of the rights of young children. They set their hearts on getting into their local schools, but then, because of selection or entry procedures, they cannot get places.
  Mr. Don Foster: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. He will have seen the document "Choose a Wandsworth School". Page 3 tells parents that they should expect their children to undergo seven
  260
  different sets of tests, followed by admission interviews, for two particular schools. That must put an enormous strain on the pupils as well as the parents.
  Mr. Cox: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted one of the criticisms about selection. I have to tell the Secretary of State and the Minister of State that I share the views of parents.
  I was not a member of the Standing Committee. Had I been, I would have made many of the comments that I am making now. What my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading clearly suggested to parents and, indeed, to me, that there would definitely be a change in the selection procedures allowed in a number of authorities. My right hon. Friend said:
  "I am able to confirm that the Bill and the criteria I will lay down as part of our admissions policy will remove partial selection where it currently exists … we are not against the exercise of a parental preference: we are against situations in which, for no other reason than the partial selection system and because parents are exercising their preference from a distance, local parents living in close proximity to a school … find it impossible to get their children into it."—[Official Report, 22 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 664.]
  That was a clear statement, which I welcomed—but it is not how I interpret the Bill, especially clause 92.
  Clause 92 states:
  "Where at the beginning of the 1997–98 school year the admissions arrangements for a maintained school made provision for selection by ability or by aptitude",
  there will be

  "(a) no increase in the proportion of selective admissions in any relevant age group, and

  (b) no significant change in the basis of selection."

  I must say to my right hon. Friend that, unless those matters are cleared up this evening, there will be continuing concern among parents in my constituency about their right to seek entry for their youngsters to a local school. I do not intend to read loads of quotations, although it would be easy to do so—I am not exaggerating when I say that I have received hundreds of letters over the years from parents in my constituency. A local lady involved in local education was reported to have said:
  "Parental choice is a myth in Wandsworth. It is only the academic elite or children of parents who can afford coaching for their school entrance tests."
  That sums up the position in the borough of Wandsworth.
  We know that there are to be adjudicators who will decide disputes. This is the appropriate time to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on this aspect of policy. Like my constituents, I want to know how adjudicators will approach such disputes. Unless changes are made, the disputes will continue. Can my hon. Friend tell us what the adjudicators' terms of reference will be? What will be their code of practice? There are head teachers in my constituency who have no intention of changing their entry policies unless legislation is introduced that obliges them to do so.
  How will parents express their wishes to an adjudicator? Will a parent go to an adjudicator to complain about the non-entry of their child to a local school? Assuming that the parent wins the case, must the head of the school accept the decision, or can the head reject a decision that goes against him or her?
  There are other questions on which I should like my hon. Friend to comment. Will there be a test case for a school, or will there be a succession of appeals to the

  261
  adjudicator by disgruntled parents who feel that their children have not been given the opportunity to get a place in the school of their choice because of the head teacher's attitude and the school's entrance policy? If the adjudicator finds in favour of the parents and allows the child to enter one of the schools that I mentioned, will that become a requirement of that school for all youngsters who seek entry into it? Those issues are repeatedly referred to me by local parents.
  I close my remarks with one or two further points. Can my hon. Friend tell us how the adjudicator will be appointed? To whom will he or she report decisions? Will it be to the Secretary of State, and if so, what action could the Secretary of State take on the adjudicator's decision? Would the decision be binding on the Secretary of State, as well as on the school?
  This is an extremely important local issue in my constituency. We have an opportunity in the debate this evening to clear up some of the doubts and confusion that, sadly, exist.
  Mr. Dafis: I shall speak to amendment No. 115, which would in effect delete clause 94 and remove the provision for the extension of selection by aptitude in one or more subjects. My amendment would have a similar effect to that tabled by the Liberal Democrats, and the opposite effect to amendments Nos. 90 and 91 tabled by the Conservatives.
  I look forward to a Division on the amendments, which will unquestionably be a Division on the principle of selection. It will be a matter of whether we approve, to some degree, of selection, and whether we want an enhancement and strengthening of the selection principle in our education system.
  The Secretary of State said that there was confusion on these Benches, and that the provisions of the Bill would phase out selection. I must tell him that the confusion is far more widespread than these Benches. Many people from all sectors of education have studied the Bill and come to the conclusion that it will extend selection, rather than reduce it.
  The question is not why I and my hon. Friends tabled amendment No. 115, nor why the Liberal Democrats tabled a similar amendment in Committee and have tabled other amendments before us tonight. The issue is why the Government devised clause 94 in the first place. On top of the fact that they are allowing pre-existing arrangements to continue, they have devised a clause that extends the provision.
  Might the Government have done that out of conviction? Are they enthusiastic about the idea of specialisation? Do they believe that certain schools with a specialism might offer high-quality provision, which would be available to pupils from other schools as well?
  I know that that is being said, but I am highly sceptical about building specialisation formally into the school structure. I am certainly in favour of allowing schools to develop as centres of expertise and excellence in particular subjects, as the opportunities arise and as the talents of teachers at a particular time allow. Schools have always done that, and other schools have benefited from that example. If the intention was to extend that, one might see some merit in it, but why associate it with selection?
  262
  That brings me to my second hypothesis. Might the reason be that the Government have swallowed the George Walden line? The concern, which I believe is sincerely felt, is that the public-private divide is a fundamental flaw in the English school system, and that the only way to entice the private sector into the public sector parlour is by conceding to some degree on the issue of selection—allowing an element of selection as a way of trying to close the divide between the public and the private sector. If that is the case, the Government are conceding on a principle that is fundamental to a united, inclusive society. As far as Wales is concerned, they are addressing a problem that does not exist. We do not have that divide in Wales.
  As a third possibility, do the Government feel that they must mollify sectors of the electorate whose loyalty they regard as necessary for electoral victory? They might be wrong about that, as some public opinion polls—which have already been mentioned in the debate—show. However, if such mollification was the Government's reason for compromising on a matter of fundamental principle, it was an even worse reason.
  Margaret Tulloch, the spokesperson for the Campaign for State Education, CASE, said in a press release:
  "CASE is amazed that a Labour Government seems to be happy to allow more selection to be introduced especially when it claims it wants schools to be inclusive and is concerned about social exclusion.
  Rather than encouraging selection this Government should be unpicking the school pecking order which has reduced choice for most parents and damaged our children for so long."
  I do not think that the Bill will unpick anything. Ministers claim that that is not true, and that the Bill will gradually achieve an unpicking of our current selective system. If that is true, they were being fiendishly clever in their design of the legislation.
  9 pm
  As I said, the Bill will strengthen selection on the basis of ability. Let us be clear about the word "ability", as the Government seek to distinguish between aptitude and ability. As the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said, the distinction is completely spurious. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the "Oxford English Dictionary" in making his point. I should like to quote Wordsworth, who described Michael—in that very great poem of the same name—as being "apt for all affairs". In other words—using a different word for the same thing—Michael was able to perform his tasks well. He had the aptitude, skills and ability to do well all the tasks needed for his calling. There is no substance in the distinction between aptitude and ability.
  The Government would say that selection will be practised in only a small minority of subjects. It is worth asking: how many is "one or more" subjects? How large a minority is it: one, two or possibly even more? Three or more subjects would be a substantial minority. Moreover, I am not convinced that the Government are considering including only subjects such as music and art. I dare say that they are considering subjects such as science. If so, subjects will be included that are pretty close to the core curriculum.
  Ministers would also say that only 10 per cent. of pupils will be selected on the basis of ability. I have two comments on that. First, in clause 94, the Government are

  263
  giving credibility to the principle of selection on the basis of ability. Once that principle is established, it could be more enthusiastically applied later. I do not think that the Secretary of State has any enthusiasm for the principle: my regard for him is too high to believe that he does. However, a future—Labour, Conservative or any other—Administration might wish to apply the principle with much greater enthusiasm.
  Secondly, the provision and principle will be entrenched—as the right hon. Member for Charnwood said—in the statute book. The Bill will entrench the selection principle. If 10 per cent. selection is acceptable, why not 20 per cent. or more? The percentage might well be increased.
  As I said in the debate on Second Reading, aptitude in two or more subjects—or even in one subject—is a good indicator of general ability. Although that is not always true, it is largely true. Someone with considerable aptitude in one subject will have good general abilities.
  Clause 94 will therefore implement selection by ability and establish selection as a principle in school education in England and—unfortunately—in Wales. Moreover, it will do it so that selection may be expanded.
  In some ways, the current situation is worse than in the old days of the 11-plus exams, certainly as I remember them. In those days, pupils were guaranteed a place in a local school—whether it was one of two or, at the most, three schools. Furthermore, the child had to sit only one exam, which decided the matter. Under the old system, there was also an opportunity to change schools at the 13-plus. Now, however, we have an extraordinary, complex mish-mash that imposes severe strain on children and has serious inherent inefficiencies. The Government seem to be intent on adding to that mish-mash, making it even more complex.
  There is no wonder that there are strong feelings—not only among people such as myself—about selection. In a letter to me, CASE's representative says:
  "I do hope that there is a vote on the clauses allowing existing partial selection and the 10 per cent. selection on aptitude. Labour MPs should be ashamed to vote for them"—
  which is the same as saying that Labour Members should be ashamed to vote against this group of amendments.
  There is no consensus in Wales on selection, but—as far as I can determine, because the matter will not be subject to regulation or secondary legislation—clause 94 will apply to Wales. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), said that Wales will be a selection-free zone. I do not know whether he said, "Read my lips," when he uttered that statement, but he said it. I am glad that I heard him say it, and am sure that it is the type of thing that he would wish were true. I should be interested to know—it is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber—how Wales can be excluded from the provisions of the clause, which will be primary legislation and cannot be varied in secondary legislation.
  Groups of parents in Wandsworth say that, in local elections, they will run candidates against Labour candidates on a "no selection in education" ticket. There is a political message for Labour there. In Wales, however, such groups would not have to use those methods. At least one party—I am sure that the hon.
  264
  Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) would say at least two parties—is available to such groups as an alternative, as we remain totally committed to the comprehensive principle.
  I hope also that, in a year or two, there will be an alternative approach in raising standards—which is undoubtedly necessary—and in ensuring rigour in the education system. We also need an alternative approach in developing the competitive market that has been introduced in the past 18 years and more. That matter is not being tackled, to put it rather mildly. I hope that an alternative approach will emerge from the deliberations of the National Assembly for Wales. The big question for me and for other people from Wales is whether the assembly will have the powers to provide that—it will certainly wish to.
  Mr. Tony Benn: I shall vote for the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), because I read it as the Labour party policy to which I personally have been committed throughout my years in the House. If there is one thing that has characterised the thinking of the Labour party it is that it has been in favour of comprehensive education—not just comprehensive schools but comprehensive education.
  The Conservatives were arguing for the 11-plus. They have now modified that view for the simple reason that comprehensive education was much more popular among Conservative voters. For every winner there are losers, and Conservative voters who discovered that their little boy or girl had not got into a selective school were very angry. It is true that selection is a terrible tragedy. The Bill might talk about selection by aptitude or ability, but that could be transformed into rejection by aptitude or ability. The Bill provides that certain people can be rejected because they are thought to have inadequate ability or inadequate aptitude. That is no basis for education.
  I am a great believer in choice in education. By that I mean that every child should have the opportunity to go to a school where the full range of knowledge is available. That is the basis of comprehensive education. The idea of giving teachers or heads the opportunity to keep people out is not about choice for pupils but about the determination of head teachers to control admission, even if it is not in the public interest.
  The issue will not go away. I am very disappointed because I thought that the amendment would be endorsed by the Government, or that the principle would have been in the first draft of the Bill. That was not the case. Having stood for Parliament many times on the basis that I believed in comprehensive education, I have to say that amendment No. 147 corresponds to my deeply held conviction and the pledges that I have given in 15 or 16 general elections to the constituents who have elected me to the House.
  Mrs. May: In no debate in Standing Committee was the difference between old and new Labour brought so sharply into focus as in the debate on selection, and especially on whether selection could be made on the basis of ability or aptitude and whether there was a distinction between the two. I venture to suggest that that difference between old and new Labour has been all too clearly exemplified by the speech just made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). In Committee, the difference emerged in a number of ways.

  265
  The Minister for School Standards assured us that there was a clear distinction between aptitude and general ability. He said that he would give examples of how aptitude could be assessed. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) told us:
  "I do not know of any reliable measures of aptitude".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 February 1998; c. 597.]
  As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) pointed out, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) told us:
  "the Labour party has not believed in the principle of selection by ability for many years".'[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 February 1998; c. 589.]
  Indeed, that position was reinforced tonight by the Secretary of State, who said in an intervention that the Labour Government did not accept the principle of selection by ability.
  I refer the Secretary of State and the Ministers here tonight to a speech made in Southwark cathedral by the Prime Minister back in January 1996 when he was Leader of the Opposition. Hon. Members may be aware that at the time it was regarded as seminal in defining what the stakeholder approach meant in various spheres.
  In that speech, the right hon. Gentleman talked about the need to make good
  "those things left undone at the time of the ending of the 11-plus. Comprehensive admission does not of itself make for good schooling."
  He went on to talk about
  "transcending old structures, refusing to go back to the 11-plus but refusing too to make do with uniformity."
  He then referred to a previous speech in which he had talked about
  "the need to recognise that children do have different abilities"—
  not aptitudes, but abilities. He also talked about how this could be recognised in primary schools, and continued:
  "It is even more self-evident at the secondary school level. It is important that we break down the rigidity in our system that assumes all pupils learn at the same speed in different subjects".
  Quite why the different abilities to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in that speech have been turned in the Bill into aptitude has not been explained by Ministers who, having promised in Committee to define the distinction between aptitude and ability, singularly failed to do so.
  I venture to suggest that the interpretation by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis)—I see from his expression that I have badly mispronounced his constituency—is correct. His reading of the Bill is that the clauses that refer to selection by aptitude are nothing more than references to selection by ability, and that there is no distinction between them. That very point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who gave us the dictionary definition of the words.
  The reality is that the Government are trying to pull the wool over the eyes not only of the general public but of their own Back Benchers. By pretending that there is a difference between aptitude and ability, they are suggesting that they have not left behind the solid Labour party principle, enunciated in the Chamber tonight and previously in Committee, that there should be no such thing as selection by ability. The Bill will allow selection to continue; indeed, it will allow its extension.
  266
  We must ensure that the education provided for each child is appropriate to particular needs and circumstances, and that may be achieved by providing for different forms of selection, for particular schools that select on ability or aptitude and for setting or streaming in a school. In my constituency, there are some first-class comprehensives, but no selective schools; however, some first-class junior schools find that setting in English and in maths works extremely well. In some circumstances, it is better to teach children of certain abilities together rather than to teach a class of children who cross the whole range of abilities.
  I support amendments Nos. 90 and 91. Although the Government pretend that they have not, they have accepted selection and selection by ability. They have also accepted the extension of selection. The amendments would help the Government to achieve their apparent objective of allowing schools to provide the right education for children by permitting a degree of selection.
  In Committee, the Under-Secretary spoke in support of schools being able to select by ability. In a debate about banding, she said:
  "Some people think that for a school to be effectively comprehensive it should have a cross-section of ability. That is debatable, and I do not feel strongly about it. I certainly do not feel that a school cannot be comprehensive unless it has a cross-section of ability."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 February 1998: c. 642.]
  The Government should accept the Bill's effects, and they should also accept the amendments.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I support amendments Nos. 90 and 91 for the simple reason that I believe in freedom of choice. We have heard many comments about the London borough of Wandsworth, but we did not hear an explanation why, despite the criticisms, the people of Wandsworth have voted time and again for a local council that continues with policies of selection.
  I respect the wishes of my constituents and endorse whole-heartedly the fact that they vote for a non-selective system, despite being only a short distance down the A3 from Wandsworth. The system works in the area I represent, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said, words have been used selectively in our debate about a non-selective system.
  There is selection at 18 and at 16; indeed, many people in the education world are reaching a consensus that there should be an element of selection at 14, and in schools an element of setting—and therefore of selection—is increasingly being found to deliver better results, not only for the ablest pupils, but for pupils at every stage of ability.
  A self-selective system exists alongside my area's non-selective system. The parents of nearly one in five children in Surrey have chosen of their own volition to put their children through an independent education, which may involve an element of selection. It is deeply dispiriting that Ministers who claim to have endorsed the spirit of the enterprise economy, and who claim to want the private sector to become more involved in education, are turning against the principles that underpin the success of independent schools despite being aware of the evidence of their success. That contradiction is at the heart of the Minister's policies.

  267
  Ministers should understand that the ideal is cohabitation between independent and state schools. Indeed, in parts of the country that objective is already being achieved. It is not socially divisive if one family chooses to spend its money on independent education while another family in the same street chooses to spend its money on a holiday—or a second or third holiday—overseas. The choice is there, and it is in that spirit that we should all defend the principle of parents' right to ask for a selective system. Some hon. Members may not believe that such a system is right for their own children, or for other children; let them persuade parents of that.
  I am left with a nagging worry. Perhaps the fact that there is a consensus in favour of selection among adolescents is due to the fact that there is a consensus about the means by which academic achievements are measured by the time children reach that age. What if we find that we can adopt new methods of assessment enabling us to assess more fairly the different academic abilities of those at lower school ages?
  In such circumstances, we can imagine the determination to stamp out selection in that age group being seen for what it is—a dogmatic throwback to the era of education that failed us in so many ways, and would fail us again if it ever got a grip on the Department. What worries many Conservative Members is what lies behind the warm words and tokenism that are a hallmark of the Bill.
  There is no better example of such tokenism than the distinction drawn by the clauses that we seek to amend between aptitude and ability. If we read those clauses literally, we must deduce that a school that wishes to encourage children with musical ability will be allowed to ask those children to sing "Twinkle, twinkle, little star" from memory, but will not be allowed to ask them to read it from a music sheet because that would be a test of their reading ability. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] It is true. As in many other contexts, the drafting of the Bill means that everything is down to interpretation and the leniency or otherwise of Ministers.
  Like many other parts of the Bill, the clauses that we seek to amend are all about putting power and decisions into the hands of a few Labour Members and taking power and decisions away from the parents who should have them. In tabling our amendments, we asked the Government to respect our view.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I sincerely apologise for missing the beginning of the debate—[Interruption.] I was at what I assure hon. Members was an important meeting. I will tell them all about it if they want me to.
  I want to make three brief points. First, let me ask the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to consider genuinely whether abolishing selection tests helped the working class. As hon. Members know, I come from Glasgow and was educated there. There used to be selection tests in Glasgow, and they gave people an opportunity to break through the class barriers.
  A few weeks ago, I sent the Secretary of State figures showing what had happened to Glasgow education since we abolished selection tests. What we have now is
  268
  blatant class segregation. Parents who want to help their children are trying to find the cash with which to buy a house in a nice area where there appears to be better education. The tragedy is that better education does not stem from buildings, teachers or anything apart from parental expectation. I can think of one school in which any child who gains any qualification is regarded as having done well, while a child living half a mile away who does not get to university is regarded as not having done well.
  I hope that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield will go to Glasgow, look at educational achievement since selection was abolished, and realise that abolishing tests does not help working-class people. It damages them and prevents them from breaking through rigid barriers in cities such as Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham and many others. We do no service if we build walls over which people cannot jump.
  What is the relevance of the 10 per cent. selective admissions figure? In Southend-on-Sea, where I now live, tests provide for 25 per cent. selection. I would like Ministers to appreciate that, although we happen to have a great deal more poverty, much more unemployment—I am afraid it is about 9.7 per cent. in my constituency, which is extremely high—much bed-and-breakfast accommodation, many broken homes and a great deal of social deprivation, in A-level results we are streets ahead of the rest of Essex, which I am sure has far more large houses, people with big salaries and the kind of financial situation which many in Southend would like. I got the figures from the Library earlier today.
  I appeal to the Minister to consider the situation in Northern Ireland. We automatically think that Scotland has the best education in Britain. In fact, achievement in Northern Ireland, as in Southend, is streets ahead—not because people are cleverer but because a 25 per cent. selection system achieves better results overall. If any hon. Member or the Minister would like to see the figures from the Library, I would be only too glad to supply them. The average points score in Southend for achievement at A-level is 19.8, whereas in Essex as a whole it is 16.6—and Essex is supposed to be quite good.
  I appreciate that the Secretary of State and the Government have moved on grammar schools and selection. I do not believe that that is in any way an attempt to win votes or to try to stop socialism; I am sure that the Secretary of State has realised that he would not be helping able people from good families and poor homes by abolishing selection tests or grammar schools.
  I hope that, having made concessions that will allow selection and grammar schools to continue in some form, the Labour party will realise that, although in places such as Glasgow Labour councillors, for the best possible motives, abolished selection tests and grammar schools, genuinely believing that that would produce equality of opportunity and get rid of some privilege, all that such actions did was destroy opportunities for the working class, build class values and do no good for education. I am sure that the Secretary of State will have looked with care and attention at the list of Glasgow examination results that I sent him two weeks ago and realised that the steps that he is taking are helpful to education and not damaging to socialism, as some would suggest.
  Mr. Byers: The amendments address two distinct issues: partial selection and of 10 per cent. selection on the basis of aptitude for a specialism. I shall deal with both.
  It is worth reminding the House that clauses relating to partial selection will be subject to the code of practice on admissions, to which clause 76 refers. Hon. Members have, of course, made their comments without being aware of the contents of that code of practice. The House will have the opportunity, as clause 77 clearly states, to debate and vote on the detail of the code of practice at a later date.
  That is particularly relevant to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) about parents in his constituency—and, indeed, in Wandsworth generally—being angry and bitter about the situation in which they find themselves. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will produce a code of practice, there will be consultation, and it will be presented to the House.
  The Bill provides that the adjudicator will be responsible for determining issues when there is no local agreement. He will have to follow the code of practice, which will give him the power to end existing partial selection if he believes that it is not in the best interests of other local schools, children and their parents. Without giving away the likely details of the code of practice, I can tell the House that my right hon. Friend would not be prepared to have a code that allowed seven different tests to apply to children, as currently happens in Wandsworth.
  9.30 pm
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) asked whether a local education authority could refer a matter to the adjudicator. That is an important issue. The local education authority will be an admissions authority, because it will have responsibility for community schools. It will have the power to refer matters to the adjudicator.
  We want to go further than that. There may be situations in which a local education authority that contains partially selective schools is not the only interested body. Neighbouring authorities may also have a legitimate interest because of the impact that partial selection has on children in their area. It would be appropriate to give power to a neighbouring authority to refer a matter t0o the adjudicator in such circumstances. When my right hon. Friend brings regulations forward, he will be mindful of the problems of neighbouring authorities, such as Southwark and Wandsworth or Greenwich and Bromley. Those neighbouring authorities have a legitimate interest in the effects of partial selection.
  To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting, adjudicators will have to follow the guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State. If they fail to do so, their decisions can be subject to judicial review if anyone disagrees with them.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister explain how the adjudicator will cope with the potential disappointment and bitterness of a child from a less well-off background who, under the proposed new non-selective system, finds that the distance from his home to the school that his academic ability demands is too great, denying him the education that his ability requires?
  Mr. Byers: I shall try to make sense of what the hon. Gentleman has said because I have a generous spirit—that
  270
  is part of my nature. I disagreed with many of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but I agreed with his comments about the basis of selection. The school selects; the parent does not choose. That is the nature of selection. By promising no extension of partial selection and producing a code of practice under clause 76, we shall ensure that the continuing of partial selection does not cause difficulty for local children. That has been a consistent Labour policy.
  Mr. Dafis: Did I hear the Minister aright? I thought I heard him say that there would be no extension of partial selection. In that case, what is clause 94 about?
  Mr. Byers: I shall move on shortly to talk briefly about the idea of 10 per cent. specialism by aptitude, but first I must conclude my comments on what has been said about partial selection. I know that it is creating difficulties in areas such as Bromley—
  Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Byers: No, I want to make my point first.
  Bromley, Hertfordshire and Wandsworth are probably the three local education authorities most adversely affected by partial selection. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State brings the code of practice before the House, hon. Members will see how we intend to deal with the problem.
  We had a full debate in Committee on the distinction between aptitude and ability, and exchanged definitions from the dictionary and elsewhere. I had not had Wordsworth quoted to me on the subject before, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) for drawing the reference to our attention.
  A clear distinction exists between aptitude and ability. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said that that was a nonsensical distinction, so it may be worth drawing to his attention what the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said on 20 May 1996 when, as Secretary of State for Education and Employment, she launched some research:
  "To help specialist schools which want to identify a pupil's aptitude for the specialist subject as opposed to ability, I am announcing today a government funded research project".
  The right hon. Lady was clearly of the view that there was a distinction between ability and aptitude. The findings of that research project were interesting; that ability is an all-embracing factor that suggests whether a candidate will be able successfully to undertake a course of study, whereas aptitude is narrower, determining whether someone can take advantage of a particular course of study. A clear distinction was made, and the findings were made available by the former Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
  The point of our proposals on selection according to aptitude is that, although we believe in the comprehensive principle, it has to be modernised—and that is what the proposals in the Bill will do. Modernising the comprehensive principle is part of the Government's commitment. We shall embrace concepts such as setting, where that is appropriate in the interests of individual

  271
  pupils; we have no problem with that, and we shall have a range and diversity of provision, but within the comprehensive principle.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Byers: No; I want to make progress.
  The amendments are in many respects backward looking; they do not take the debate forward. Our proposals are pragmatic and realistic and put the interests of children first. They are modern and they are based on partnership. In that spirit, I ask the House to reject the amendments, and to support the Bill in its present form.
  Mr. Don Foster: The Minister was at his most generous when he told us that he accepted the fact that local education authorities need to be able to object to partial selection in their areas. His generosity went even further when he said that neighbouring authorities could also object, and I am grateful for that.
  However, the hon. Gentleman was at his most enigmatic when he told us that much would depend on the code of practice to be announced by the Secretary of State—yet, although speaking from the Dispatch Box, he told us that he himself would not be giving away any details about what would be in that code of practice. I suspect that this is the one occasion when we would have welcomed the full monty from the Minister.
  The Minister made an interesting slip of the tongue. He wanted to say that he had a generous "spirit", but he said something that sounded like "spin-it". In his attempts to explain to the House the difference between aptitude and ability, he was spinning around. He will know that the majority of researchers do not accept what he says, including Professor Peter Mortimore, who in today's The Guardian makes it clear that there is no evidence for making a distinction between the two.
  The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) made clear his concern about the situation in Wandsworth. The Minister told him that he need have no worries because the Bill will introduce a system in which there will be an adjudicator. If a parent in Wandsworth objects to what is going on, he can appeal to the adjudicator. If the adjudicator decides to, he can get rid of partial selection. I hope that that does not reassure the hon. Gentleman. Even if partial selection by ability goes, there will be a continuation of partial selection by aptitude, and that can grow.
  One of the most worrying things I have seen in the House since the general election is the way in which the Labour and Conservative parties have joined in the Lobbies to take away benefits from lone parents. Labour Members ought to be concerned when they hear an offer from the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) to stand together, arm in arm, with the Government on selection by aptitude and ability. I hope that that sets bells ringing for many Labour Members.
  On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that the Bill would get rid of partial selection. The Bill does nothing of the sort. Without our amendment, partial selection by ability and aptitude will continue. We are
  272
  fundamentally opposed to that, and I hope that all other right hon. and hon. Members who are opposed to selection by ability or aptitude will join us in the Lobbies.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 44, Noes 284.

  Division No. 223]

  [9.41 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Baker, Norman

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Beggs, Roy

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Livsey, Richard

  Brake, Tom

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Oaten, Mark

  Breed, Colin

  Öpik, Lembit

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Rendel, David

  Burnett, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Burstow, Paul

  Sanders, Adrian

  Cable, Dr Vincent

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

  Chidgey, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Dafis, Cynog

  Tyler, Paul

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Wallace, James

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Webb, Steve

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Willis, Phil

  Hancock, Mike

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Harvey, Nick

  Mr. Paul Keetch and Mr. Andrew Stunell.

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Caton, Martin

  Ainger, Nick

  Chaytor, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Allen, Graham

  Church, Ms Judith

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clapham, Michael

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clelland, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Clwyd, Ann

  Barron, Kevin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Battle, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coleman, Iain

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Colman, Tony

  Benton, Joe

  Connarty, Michael

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Berry, Roger

  Cooper, Yvette

  Betts, Clive

  Corbett, Robin

  Blackman, Liz

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cousins, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cummings, John

  Borrow, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  (Copeland)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Browne, Desmond

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Darvill, Keith

  Burden, Richard

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Burgon, Colin

  Davidson, Ian

  Byers, Stephen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Caborn, Richard

  Dawson, Hilton

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Denham, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Cann, Jamie

  Dobbin, Jim

  Caplin, Ivor

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Casale, Roger

  Doran, Frank

  273

  Dowd, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lepper, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Levitt, Tom

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Edwards, Huw

  Lock, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ennis, Jeff

  McCabe, Steve

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Macdonald, Calum

  Flint, Caroline

  McDonnell, John

  Flynn, Paul

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McIsaac, Shona

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Foulkes, George

  McLeish, Henry

  Fyfe, Maria

  McNulty, Tony

  Galloway, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Gapes, Mike

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Marek, Dr John

  Godman, Norman A

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Grant, Bernie

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Maxton, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Grogan, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Gunnell, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Hain, Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hanson, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Healey, John

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Heppell, John

  Mountford, Kali

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Mudie, George

  Hill, Keith

  Mullin, Chris

  Hinchliffe, David

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Home Robertson, John

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Norris, Dan

  Hope, Phil

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Olner, Bill

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hurst, Alan

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hutton, John

  Pike, Peter L

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Plaskitt, James

  Illsley, Eric

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pope, Greg

  Jamieson, David

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Rammell, Bill

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rapson, Syd

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kemp, Fraser

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kidney, David

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  (Hamilton S)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rogers, Allan

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rooney, Terry

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  274

  Rowlands, Ted

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Roy, Frank

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Timms, Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Todd, Mark

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Touhig, Don

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Trickett, Jon

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Truswell, Paul

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  White, Brian

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Soley, Clive

  (Swansea W)

  Spellar, John

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wills, Michael

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Winnick, David

  Stevenson, George

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wise, Audrey

  Stott, Roger

  Woolas, Phil

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wray, James

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sutclifte, Gerry

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mr. John McFall and Jane Kennedy.

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 94

  PERMITTED SELECTION: APTITUDE FOR PARTICULAR SUBJECTS
  Amendment proposed: No. 90, in page 69, line 28, leave out 'Subject to subsection (2)'.—[Mrs. Browning.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 331.

  Division No. 224]

  [9.54 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cran, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Bercow, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Body, Sir Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brady, Graham

  Evans, Nigel

  Brazier, Julian

  Faber, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fallon, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Flight, Howard

  Burns, Simon

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Butterfill, John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Fraser, Christopher

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Gibb, Nick

  Chope, Christopher

  Gill, Christopher

  Clappison, James

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Gray, James

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Greenway, John

  (Rushcliffe)

  Grieve, Dominic

  275

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Pickles, Eric

  Hammond, Philip

  Prior, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Randall, John

  Hayes, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Heald, Oliver

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Johnson Smith,

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Key, Robert

  Soames, Nicholas

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Spring, Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Leigh, Edward

  Swayne, Desmond

  Letwin, Oliver

  Syms, Robert

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Loughton, Tim

  Townend, John

  Luff, Peter

  Trend, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  MacKay, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Wardle, Charles

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Waterson, Nigel

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Maples, John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Mates, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Wilkinson, John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Yeo, Tim

  Norman, Archie

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Ottaway, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Paice, James

  Sir David Madel and Mr. Stephen Day.

  Paterson, Owen

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Ainger, Nick

  Breed, Colin

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Allan, Richard

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Browne, Desmond

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ashton, Joe

  Burden, Richard

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Burgon, Colin

  Baker, Norman

  Burnett, John

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Burstow, Paul

  Barnes, Harry

  Byers, Stephen

  Barron, Kevin

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Battle, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cann, Jamie

  Benton, Joe

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Casale, Roger

  Berry, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Best, Harold

  Chaytor, David

  Betts, Clive

  Chidgey, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Church, Ms Judith

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clapham, Michael

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Borrow, David

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Brake, Tom

  Clelland, David

  276

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heppell, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Coleman, Iain

  Hill, Keith

  Colman, Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Home Robertson, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corbett, Robin

  Hope, Phil

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  (Copeland)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hurst, Alan

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hutton, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Illsley, Eric

  Darvill, Keith

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jamieson, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Denham, John

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Dobbin, Jim

  (Wohlerh'ton SW)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keetch, Paul

  Edwards, Huw

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kidney, David

  Fearn, Ronnie

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fisher, Mark

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Flint, Caroline

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Flynn, Paul

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foulkes, George

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Livsey, Richard

  Galloway, George

  Lock, David

  Gapes, Mike

  McAvoy, Thomas

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McCabe, Steve

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Godman, Norman A

  Macdonald, Calum

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McDonnell, John

  Grant, Bernie

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Grocott, Bruce

  McLeish, Henry

  Grogan, John

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Gunnell, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hain, Peter

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hancock, Mike

  Marek, Dr John

  Hanson, David

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Harvey, Nick

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Martlew, Eric

  Healey, John

  Maxton, John

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  277

  Milburn, Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

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

  Mountford, Kali

  Soley, Clive

  Mudie, George

  Spellar, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stevenson, George

  Norris, Dan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Oaten, Mark

  Stott, Roger

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Stunell, Andrew

  Olner, Bill

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Öpik, Lembit

  (Dewsbury)

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pike, Peter L

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Timms, Stephen

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pope, Greg

  Todd, Mark

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Touhig, Don

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Trickett, Jon

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Truswell, Paul

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Radice, Giles

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Rammell, Bill

  Tyler, Paul

  Rapson, Syd

  Wallace, James

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wareing, Robert N

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Watts, David

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Webb, Steve

  Rendel, David

  White, Brian

  Robertson, Rt Hon George

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  (Hamilton S)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rogers, Allan

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Rooney, Terry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  (Swansea W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Roy, Frank

  Willis, Phil

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Wills, Michael

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Winnick, David

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wise, Audrey

  Sanders, Adrian

  Woolas, Phil

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wray, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mr. John McFall and Jane Kennedy.

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the School Standards and Framework Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  Question agreed to.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
  Sir John Stanley: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order arising out of a different aspect of a letter to which I referred earlier in our proceedings. The letter in question is that sent by an official of the Department for Education and Employment dated 9 March to the Kent education authority. That letter included a schedule of 45 schools, primary and secondary, that were potential candidates for closure on the grounds of surplus places. It is extraordinary that among the secondary schools in the list is the Judd grammar school in Tonbridge in my constituency, where in 1997, 100 per cent. of the pupils gained five or more grade A to C GCSEs.
  The letter in question is, I believe without doubt, legally highly prejudicial to the proper and fair conduct of a ballot in relation to the Judd school and any other grammar school that has been the subject of similar letters. That being the case, it is incumbent on the Minister to assure the House that, in proceedings on the amendments, a Law Officer will be summoned to the House to say whether, in his view, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has been responsible for misdirecting himself; whether the Bill will have to be amended to ensure that schools that have been treated in the same way as the Judd school are excluded from the provisions of the Bill; or that the letter will be formally be withdrawn.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but the more he has said, the clearer it has become that his point is a matter of argument, which he has put on the record. There are other ways in which the matter must be pursued. It is not a matter on which the occupant of the Chair can rule this evening.

Clause 96

  DESIGNATION OF GRAMMAR SCHOOLS
  Mr. Dorrell: I beg to move amendment No. 175, in page 70, line 23, leave out 'had' and insert 'has'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 176, in page 70, line 23, leave out
  'at the beginning of the 1997–98 school year'.
  No. 177, in page 70, line 32, at end insert—
  '(3A) Regulations may make provision that where a maintained school is not a grammar school,—

  (a) the admission authority for a school may submit an application to the Secretary of State to change the admission arrangements of the school so that the school will qualify for designation as a grammar school under this section;

  (b) when the Secretary of State receives an application under this subsection he shall arrange for a ballot of parents who would qualify to vote in a ballot under section 97 and if a majority of those parents support the application of the admission authority, the admission authority shall secure that the admission arrangements of the school are revised in accordance with its proposal.'.

  No. 178, in page 71, line 10, leave out from 'read,', to first 'as' in line 12.
  No. 160, in clause 97, page 71, line 22, at end insert—
  '(bb) to any grammar school or group of grammar schools of a denominational character.'.
  No. 179, in page 71, line 27, after 'section', insert,
  'provided that the parents of children who are for the time being pupils of the grammar school shall always be so eligible'.
  No. 165, in page 72, line 40, after 'not', insert 'at public expense'.
  Mr. Dorrell: The amendments deal with the Government's approach to the remaining grammar schools left in the maintained system—just over 160. I firmly believe that clause 96 and the way in which the Government have handled it are one of the worst aspects of the Bill. The Labour party's attitude to grammar schools goes back a long way. It would be improper of me to repeat the quote that is attributed to Anthony Crosland on grammar schools. His attitude was expressed in the late 1960s. As we saw in Committee, Labour Members' prejudices towards grammar schools have changed not one iota in the intervening 30 years. The Minister's attitude is slightly different, but that of his Back Benchers, as it was manifested in Committee, is not different in any important detail from that expressed all those years ago by the late Anthony Crosland.
  We do not need to look at Labour Back Benchers' facial expressions to see contemporary evidence of the strength of that prejudice within the Labour party. The present Secretary of State, when interviewed by the Daily Mail in January 1996, made clear his approach to the question of grammar schools as of that moment. He was quoted as saying:
  "It is 30 years since Crosland embarked on this. I don't think anyone should expect me to complete his work in the first three months of a Labour Government."
  He made it clear that his instinct was the same as Anthony Crosland's; he simply asked for greater time than three months to deliver the objective that Anthony Crosland had set out. Later in the same interview, he said:
  "We have made a clear pledge. There will be no more selection. I'm going to be as blunt about it as that."
  In January 1996, the attitude adopted by the present Secretary of State was extremely straightforward: he was opposed to selection and he was opposed to grammar schools as the manifestation of selection. It was a continuation of the policy pursued by the Labour party, both in government and in opposition, for more than 30 years. In January 1996, the position was clear.
  My hon. Friends will remember that, little more than a year later, there was a by-election in the Wirral, which was awkward from the Labour party's point of view.
  Mr. David Jamieson: Who won?
  Mr. Dorrell: The Whip intervenes—although he should never intervene because he is unable to respond to the reply—to ask who won the Wirral by-election. That is a matter of history, as are the Labour party's pledges during the by-election, which certainly contributed to its result. During the Wirral campaign, it became clear to the Labour party that the attitude expressed by the present
  280
  Secretary of State in that Daily Mail interview and on numerous other occasions in the preceding months was not saleable on the streets of the Wirral.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Where is he?
  Mr. Dorrell: It is, indeed, a pity that the Secretary of State is not here.
  During the Wirral by-election campaign, the attitude of the Labour party evolved to the extent that, by 7 February 1997, the Financial Times was not reporting firm opposition to the principle of selection in grammar schools; on the contrary, it was saying that, under a Labour Government, there would be
  "no threat to their continuance, or to their ethos, or to their quality."
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend believe that that is one of the reasons why the Labour party is so keen on regional development agencies? With regional development agencies, there could be a different Labour party policy for each part of the country.
  Mr. Dorrell: We are not trying to encourage the Labour party to have different policies in different parts of the country. We are attempting to give effect, in a Bill introduced after the general election, to the Labour party's pre-election policy commitments. During the Wirral by-election, the Labour party was at pains to say that there would be no threat to grammar schools if a Labour Member were elected in the Wirral or, come to that, if a Labour Government were elected. During that by-election, the Labour party started to promote the idea that the future of a grammar school or group of grammar schools should be decided by a ballot of local parents.
  In answer to the question, "How do you trigger a ballot under the provisions of Labour's proposal?" a briefing given to The Times in February 1997 said that there could be a ballot
  "only if a sufficient number of parents wanted a change".
  The Times continued:
  "Although Mr. Blunkett declined to give a figure, Labour sources said, 'it will be a very high threshold—i.e. it won't happen'''.
  Therefore, guidance issued by the Labour party before the general election was not consistent with the policy that the Secretary of State had espoused a year previously, and—more critically—that policy is not consistent with the policy that is embodied in the Bill.
  We have before us a rushed series of proposals—so rushed that the Minister of State was unable to tell the Committee the details of the arrangements that will prevail for the conduct of ballots. He could not even answer the most basic question that must be asked about any ballot; he cannot tell us who will be able to vote in the balloting process.
  10.15 pm
  The Bill vests in the Secretary of State a power to introduce regulations establishing the terms on which a ballot will be held to determine either the future of selective arrangements in a whole local education authority area, or the selective arrangements that will

  281
  apply to the continued existence of a grammar school in an area where there are both grammar schools and other forms of school.
  I shall discuss whole-area ballots first. The Minister's guidance to the Committee says that, if a local education authority currently operates a full, traditional selective system, there will be a ballot for the whole local education authority area, to determine the future of grammar schools in that area.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said, that policy does not deliver on the Government's commitment to allow the parents in an area to determine the continuance or otherwise of grammar school arrangements to meet the educational needs of their individual children. The area that my hon. Friend represents is large, and it is perfectly possible that parents looking to one grammar school might reach different conclusions from parents looking to a different grammar school; yet the Government led those people to believe that the matter would be determined by local parents.
  The outline of the voting arrangements says that all my hon. Friend's constituents will be lumped into a single ballot, and that different groups of parents will have no opportunity to reach different conclusions—hence amendment No. 160, which my hon. Friend will seek to move later. That amendment would allow a group of parents who wanted a denomination-based grammar school for their children to hold a separate ballot, regarding a single grammar school or a group of grammar schools, to determine whether that school or those schools should have continued access to a selective system.
  Our first argument against the grammar school provisions is that the arrangements for whole-area ballots do not deliver on the Government's pledge to allow parents of children at a school to determine whether that school continues to be selective.
  The Government get into worse and worse trouble on the arrangements for ballots to determine the future of individual schools. According to my reading of the material that is currently available to us, the first and most obvious inequity is that the Government anticipate that parents of children at feeder schools will have a right to vote to determine the future of an existing grammar school whose future is not the subject of a whole-area ballot, but that parents whose children currently attend the school will have no vote to determine the future of the school in which their own children are being educated.
  I look forward to hearing the argument that the Minister will use when confronted with parents who may have a child aged 11 in a school with 11-to-18 provision, and who have been told by this Government that the future of the school will be determined by a ballot of parents—not of the parents of that school, but of the parents of five-year-olds in feeder schools. The parents of that 11-year-old, who still has another seven years' education at the school, will not have the right to determine the future of the school in which their child is being educated.
  282
  What possible principle provides that the parents of a child who may never come anywhere near that school, because those parents may move away, have the right to vote in the ballot, but the parents of a child already in that school have no such right? That is nonsense.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: Does that principle means that an old boy of the school—
  Mr. Tom Levitt: Old boy?
  Mr. Fallon: Or old girl. However, I am thinking of an old boy from the Judd school in Kent, who might well live in my constituency of Sevenoaks, who has a son aged two or three. That old boy may be a governor of the school and have already decided that he would like his son to follow him and attend that school. He will not be able to vote in the ballot.
  Mr. Dorrell: It is worse than that. That old boy could have a child in the school and a younger child who is not yet in a feeder school, whom the father wants to attend his old school—which that child's sibling attends—yet he will have no right to vote in the ballot to determine that school's future. That is absurd—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is defending the Minister's proposal. I note that no other Labour Member has leapt up to do so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell us the argument that he would use in the sort of case referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). Would the hon. Gentleman like to offer the Minister an answer to my hon. Friend's dilemma? I suspect that the Minister would be pleased to get one.
  The answer is not obvious to me. What will happen when there is an old boy of the school, with a child already at the school and a child not yet in a primary feeder school? There are three specific links with the school, but no right to vote in the ballot to determine that school's future. The hon. Member for Workington is staying firmly rooted in his seat.
  Mr. John Bercow: We would dearly love the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to spring to his feet. However, his credentials on this matter are clear. Only a few weeks ago he described grammar schools as infernal institutions. We know the bigotry that informs his position.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman's use of language is just the right side of what is acceptable in the House of Commons, whereas the language used by the late Anthony Crosland was wildly offside.
  The second example is of a grammar school with a number of different feeder schools. In some parts of the area, the primary provision covers the age range five to 11. In other parts, there is a division between infant and junior provision, with children changing primary schools at the age of seven or eight. Is the Minister seriously saying that the parents of a six-year-old in the separate infants school will not have a vote, but the parents of a six-year-old in the combined primary school will? Is that the principle that the Government want to defend? I look forward to hearing the Minister explain why the parents of one group of six-year-olds in a regular, established stream

  283
  would have a vote, while the parents of another group of six-year-olds coming into the grammar school through a different feeder stream would not have a vote.
  We then come to perhaps the most absurd proposition of all. I am indebted for this example to the head teachers of two schools in Reading, the Kendrick school for girls and the Reading school for boys. Those are two selective grammar schools, one single-sex male and the other single-sex female. There are mixed feeder schools going into those schools. Is the future of Reading boys school to be decided not by parents of children in the school, but by parents who have daughters in feeder schools of Reading school for boys? The decision would be made by parents of children in the feeder schools who have no prospect of ever going to Reading boys' school, because that school makes a conscious policy decision to offer single-sex provision for boys.
  The parents who have a vote in the election are parents of children in the feeder schools, but not the parents of the children in the school itself. The vote is accorded not to the parents of the children in the school, but to parents of girls in feeder schools who have no prospect of going to the school for boys. I look forward to hearing that principle explained by the Minister as well.
  Mr. Fabricant: As confused as I am by the logic of the argument so far, I fail to understand whether there is any equity in it. However strange it may be that the feeder school parents can make a choice in the matter, will my right hon. Friend explain to me whether they will at least have the freedom to decide that the school to which their children will go from the feeder school can become a grammar school—or can they only stop it being a grammar school?
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend clearly has long vision and the opportunity to look over my shoulder to see the next point that I was going to make. The Government sought to encourage the view that grammar schools were safe with them, and that there would be no threat to grammar schools' continuance, ethos or quality. One might almost say that the Government were elected on the undertaking that the grammar schools were safe in their hands.
  The truth, as my hon. Friend rightly notes, is that a one-way ratchet is envisaged in the Bill—one vote once. If the vote goes against selection in a particular school, decades or perhaps centuries of high-quality education can be swept away on the basis of a single vote—[Interruption]—but the opportunity to establish a new grammar school on the basis of parental support is denied throughout the Bill.
  Under the Bill as drafted, there is no prospect of any group of parents being able to commission a ballot in order to establish that the parents, teachers and local community in a particular area believe that the grammar school model offers the best future for their children. That is one of the issues to which I shall return.
  Mr. Fallon: Did my right hon. Friend hear someone shout from the Government Benches, "What about grant-maintained schools?"? I remind my right hon. Friend that the Secretary of State retains the final decision
  284
  on grant-maintained schools. When Amherst school last summer decided to go for grant-maintained status by an overwhelming majority, the Secretary of State, in the person of the Minister of State, overruled the school. Five, six or seven hundred years of history can be wiped out by sudden death on a single ballot, and that is the end of the matter.
  Mr. Dorrell: I thought that my hon. Friend was about to make a different point—which is that, under the Bill, a grant-maintained school that was established on the basis of parental support in a ballot can be abolished without so much as a by your leave. There is certainly no question of seeking parents' support in a ballot to reverse that status.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the outrageous state of affairs described by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) is compounded by the fact that destruction of a grammar school—a beacon of excellence in our system—can occur in a ballot with absolutely no minimum voter turnout requirement? Is that not an indication of how determined the Government are to skew ballots in one direction rather than another?
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Dorrell: I think that my hon. Friend is right, but I have no means of knowing whether he is—and neither does the Whip, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who seems very certain about these matters. Moreover, unless the Minister has cleared the draft regulations with the Whip, the Minister will know no better than I do what will be in the regulations when they are tabled.
  It is yet another manifestation of the absurdity of our position today: we are being asked to debate and decide a system dealing with the future of 163 grammar schools in England on the basis that the Secretary of State will produce the rules after the House has debated the principles and the Bill is done and dusted. Therefore, the answer to my hon Friend's question is that, although I think he is right, no one in the House really knows the answer.
  Mr. Robert Key: Did Ministers give any hints in Committee about how petitions for ballots would work? Like the heads and chairmen of governors of the two grammar schools in my constituency, did my right hon. Friend get the impression that, whereas a ballot might mean the end of the argument—one way or the other—for five years, a parent or group of parents could petition at any time and without any limit? Even if a ballot were held in response to a petition, parents could petition again the day after the ballot, creating instability for years to come.
  Mr. Dorrell: Once again, I must say that I do not know for certain the answer to the question, because I have not seen the regulations. However, the indications that we have had from the Government are exactly as my hon. Friend suggests. Ministers seem to accept that, if a school wins a ballot to retain its grammar school status, the issue should be closed for five years. However, I do not think that five years is long enough. In Committee, we moved an amendment that made the point that an 11-to-18

  285
  grammar school will educate children for seven years. Therefore, although an unsuccessful ballot may be held in the first year of a child's education in that school, the school's future may again be open to question before the end of that child's education. Therefore, the five-year bar on re-balloting is not long enough.
  My hon. Friend is right to say that, if an unsuccessful attempt is made to petition for a ballot, there will be no bar—none has yet been suggested by Ministers—on the right of any individual to launch a new petition and attempt to change a school's status. He is also right to say that, although a school will have a period of grace after its future has been decided in a ballot, a school that does not hold a ballot will be continuously subject to the type of threat that he described.
  Mr. John Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend concede that, on all those matters, the Bill seems directly to contradict the Labour party's policies on grant-maintained schools? When the issues of balloting grant-maintained schools were debated during and after passage of the Education Reform Act 1988, it was never suggested that the type of arrangements proposed in this Bill should be imposed on grant-maintained schools. Now, such arrangements are being foisted on grammar schools. Does it not show enormous hypocrisy in the Labour party?
  Mr. Dorrell: I agree entirely. The Government have told grant-maintained schools that the Secretary of State will sign away their grant-maintained status at a stroke of the pen. I emphasise that a grant-maintained school is grant-maintained only because a majority of parents voted for that status in a ballot. The Secretary of State is taking the power in the Bill to reverse the effect of that ballot, without any suggestion that a ballot should be necessary to support his decision.
  I suppose that it is at least a small mercy that a requirement for a ballot is being written into the Bill for grammar schools—although, as I sought to argue, on the basis of the information available to the House, the requirements that have in fact been written into the Bill are wholly unsatisfactory, and some of their effects verge on the absurd.
  Given the range of inadequacies in the Bill and in the undertakings that the Government have given about the operation of ballots under it, had we tabled amendments to deal with them all and then encouraged the House to vote on them, we would have been here all night. Therefore, I tabled amendments to deal with the two most important failings of the balloting arrangements as they affect individual schools.
  The first of those failings is the proposition that parents of children at an existing grammar school should have no vote to determine the future of that school. That is patently absurd. Amendment No. 179 provides that the parents of children at an existing grammar school should have a vote in a ballot to determine that school's future.
  The second most important failing is dealt with by amendment No. 177. Instead of the grammar school principle being a closed list, schools should have the opportunity to seek the support of groups of parents to establish themselves as new grammar schools. That amendment is the most difficult for the Government to argue against.
  286
  The Government must believe that grammar schools ought to have a continued place in the school system. It may be unfashionable and awkward for the Minister's Back-Bench supporters that that is the Government's position, but it is what the Bill outlines. If the Government really believe that grammar schools are wrong, they now have the opportunity to abolish them. Presumably they do not believe that grammar schools are damaging to the public interest, because they are passing up the opportunity to do anything about them.
  The Government have to explain why a school that is delivering a high-quality service and which they are content should continue to do so, in conjunction with the schools around it, should not be used as a model by parents in other parts of the country to establish similar successful schools to serve their needs and those of their community. The effect of the Bill is to establish a closed paddock: "If you're in there, that's fine. If not, too bad." The ladder is being pulled up. This type of school might work well for some, but the experience and proven track record of a grammar school in one area, serving the needs of certain groups of people, can never be used to offer the same opportunities elsewhere.
  The Government claim that they are inclusive and that they promote opportunity and excellence in education. For such a Government to argue that grammar schools should be available to some but not extended to others who may want them and who could benefit from them is absurd.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend think it ironic that the Minister without Portfolio can use all his venom to accuse the BBC of dumbing down, when he is a member of a Government who want to dumb down centres of excellence in this country?
  Mr. Dorrell: I agree. If there is a theme that has run through the Government's schools policy ever since their election, it is their persistent vendetta against established centres of excellence.
  I do not doubt the desire of the Minister of State to establish and promote high quality where he can do so, and when we have discussed other parts of the Bill, I have welcomed and encouraged his proposals for education action zones in so far as they provide opportunities to develop new ideas for the provision of schools. The problem that the Minister and his party have in spades, however, is that, whenever an existing, proven track record of success has been achieved under the assisted places scheme, by grammar schools or by grant-maintained schools, the Government's approach has been to sweep those schools away.
  The Minister likes to say how important it is to promote high quality where it does not currently exist. No one disagrees with him about that, but he would be a great deal more persuasive if he did not consistently argue against the continued existence of institutions with a proven track record of success.
  Mr. David Curry: At the end of the last debate, the Minister said that we needed to take the discussion forward, and accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) of tabling amendments that looked back. I suggest that the proposals in the Bill look back.
  I believe that the issue in education should no longer be about structure—that it should now be about performance. I think that many schools that look forward,

  287
  seek a new agenda and are concerned about performance, will be thrust back into an old argument from which neither they nor pupils will benefit. That is particularly true in my constituency. Inevitably, many of us will wish to speak about constituency cases.
  I have mentioned this case to the Minister before, and I pay tribute to his understanding. I believe that he is genuinely anxious to improve the quality of education. As he will know, my constituency—which contains the only three selective schools in North Yorkshire—has what might almost be described as a poisonous history. That certainly applies to the Ripon side. We are trying to turn our backs on the old argument, and look forward to creating different but equal centres of excellence in the spirit of diversity.
  Ripon contains a long-standing grammar school of which I was head boy. In fact, I think I still hold the hundred yards record—largely because the boys now run a hundred metres. Across the road is Ripon city school, a secondary modern where my father taught. For many years there was open or covert warfare between the two schools. There is now a new headmaster at the city school, who has decided that he wants to turn his back on that old argument. He is seeking technology status for the school: he wants a centre of excellence that is different. He wants to focus on technological subjects.
  When I sent him a copy of the Minister's letter outlining his proposals, Paul Lowery, the headmaster of the school—a city school; the school that might be deemed to have the greatest stake in change in Ripon—concluded his own letter by saying:
  "we remain committed to the view that it would be divisive and inappropriate in Ripon"—
  reorganisation, that is—
  "and would certainly not contribute to the important issue of raising standards!"
  I must give a full report of the letter. The headmaster also said that he felt that secondary modern schools had become the overlooked element of the education system. I have reported the letter faithfully.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is he in favour of grammar schools?
  Mr. Curry: The headmaster has said that he does not believe in reorganisation in Ripon. Ripon contains a grammar school and a secondary modern, and the nearest comprehensive is in Boroughbridge. I have therefore replied accurately to the hon. Gentleman.
  The situation in Skipton is somewhat different. There are twin schools: a high school for girls and Ermysted's grammar school for boys. They are radically different. Ermysted's is aided; it owns its property; it has a foundation.
  I have explained to the Minister the importance of the headmaster in Ripon seeking technology status in turning the school towards a new agenda, with a very clear unique selling point, to use the modern jargon. If the threat of reorganisation is to hang over that school, it can wave goodbye to the idea of technology status. Nobody would give a particular status to a school where the constitution is likely to change.
  288
  How far does a ballot go in Skipton? Does it extend to the feeder schools to both secondary schools? Does it extend right up the dale to the people who are affected? Where are the limits? That is important. There is a single grammar school in Ripon. One could imagine the Minister saying that the ballot applied to its feeder schools, of which there are 32 or 33. Some send one child a year—or perhaps one child every other year—to the grammar school.
  10.45 pm
  There are 16 or 17 feeder schools for Skipton high school, many of which are out of the area. People flee from the Keighley area, in Bradford metropolitan borough council, to North Yorkshire for their education—about which nobody can really complain. Is it conceivable that Ripon grammar school would go comprehensive, to leave the two schools in Skipton? Is it conceivable that the two schools in Skipton would go comprehensive, to leave Ripon grammar the sole selective school in North Yorkshire? Does the Minister accept that, in practice, it is all or nothing for those schools—and accept equally the schools' different constitutions, which create a problem for him?
  Who ballots? I accept that the Minister has not made up his mind. I accept that his letter set out a series of hypotheses. My speech is to encourage him to look hard at those hypotheses. Ripon grammar has 32 or 33 feeder schools. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood said, under the Bill, the parent of a child in the first form of a primary school would have a vote, but the parent of a child in the first form of the grammar school, who expected their child to attend that school for six more years, would not have a vote. There is a question of natural justice.
  We must ask a further question: if the vote is extended to the grammar school, would it be extended to the other secondary schools in the area? I realise that that is a problem with which the Minister must grapple. I suspect that he wishes that it would go away. That is one element I share with him. The agenda must look forward. The proposals look backwards. We would both like to eliminate the backward-looking agenda.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Coming from the city of Lancaster, I have some understanding of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. In arguing for the status quo, he is surely undermining the case of his right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) that parents should be able positively to ballot in favour of grammar schools.
  Mr. Curry: If it is a postulate of the Government that people should be able to change a school from a grammar school to a comprehensive school, and if the Government believe that we should have a diversity of education, it must be intellectually consistent to argue that parents should also be able to ballot to return to grammar school status. I do not think that that would happen often. I said in my very first sentence that we should look towards performance and not form in education.
  I do not think that my party's campaign for a grammar school in every town made a great deal of sense. I did not think that the Labour party's views on grammar schools, which kept changing with every blow of the wind, made a

  289
  great deal of sense; nobody knew where it stood. Sensible people on both sides of the argument wanted to bring it to an end. We wanted to look towards performance and delivery.
  In the modern world, public services are increasingly asked to demonstrate that they can justify the funding spent on them. That is right; I have no quarrel with that.
  A ballot must be requested by 20 per cent. of parents—but over how long? Will the list be open for a month or a year? We know what will happen; people will persuade others to sign for a ballot on the grounds that they are not voting to change the school, but merely voting for a debate. It is a bit like Members of Parliament being asked to sign early-day motions—nothing will happen; it is just an expression of opinion. Before we know where we are, ballots will be triggered.
  Mr. John Bercow: My right hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. Does he agree that, if the period in which signatures can be collected is not limited, we will be in danger of creating a charter for militant political activists—for what Harold Wilson described, in a different context, as a small and tightly knit group of politically motivated men?
  Mr. Curry: We are in danger of creating an almost permanent situation similar to that on the board of Newcastle United over the past few days. Such uncertainty would be to everyone's disadvantage. How long will the petition be valid? If there is no time scale, the five-year gap between ballots does not mean much, because people can collect signatures in the meantime.
  Mr. Brady: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong for it to be possible for a petition to roll over to a subsequent year, given that the parents who had signed it may not be part of the eventual electorate?
  Mr. Curry: I absolutely agree. Someone who had signed a petition in the initial stages might no longer be eligible to vote by the time of the ballot.
  How will campaigns be funded? Rightly, local education authorities are to have no say. Governors are also apparently to have no say. However, I am worried that organisations such as the National Union of Teachers will throw hundreds of thousands of pounds at the campaign to comprehensivise British education.
  I should like the Government to issue regulations. They should at least have a view on the funding of campaigns. The Freedom Association, or some similar organisation, will come in on the other side. Before we know where we are, megabucks will be thrown at the campaign. In the ideological battle, people will forget that kids' future is at stake. Opinion in small towns will be polarised, and a divisive bitterness will re-emerge in communities.
  If a ballot results in a vote for reorganisation, who will pay for it? The reorganised schools would not use the same buildings in Ripon or Skipton. Where would funding come from for the necessary major physical reorganisation?
  I accept that the Minister probably wishes that he did not have to bring the proposals forward. They are the tail end of the old policy. The Government would—rightly—prefer to address a more forward-looking agenda. In many respects they have done so. I support that. Arguments
  290
  about structures are out of date. We have tried to move the agenda to what happens in schools. How do we improve performance? How do we judge performance? How do we ensure value for money? How do we know that people are getting what they are paying for in education? How are their natural aspirations being achieved?
  In the many small towns that still have grammar schools, I foresee a sustained period of bitterness and polarisation.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: So you assume you will lose.
  Mr. Curry: I do not assume that. The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I am saying.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. More importantly, Members should not intervene from a sedentary position, and Members who are on their feet should not respond to them.
  Mr. Curry: I regret that my natural courtesy overcame protocol.
  We need to move the agenda forward. Grammar schools still exist. If they were continuing to fire the old salvos across the road at the secondary moderns, I should not leap to their defence. I do not leap to their defence on ideological grounds. Frankly, if anyone could not run an effective education system in the socio-economic conditions of north Yorkshire, my advice would be, "Give up." That is true of Kent and Sussex too, and of large parts of Essex.
  I do not believe that comprehensive education would be a catastrophe in North Yorkshire. Heavens above, we have good enough conditions there for it to work. I am asking, "Is it worth the candle?" Do we really want to go back to that argument, or should we look forward to a different agenda in which, most importantly, the secondary modern schools will be able to find a new role in the world?
  It is a great mistake to assume that the debate is about grammar schools alone. It is also about the other schools, and about giving secondary moderns a chance to find a new vocation—if I may use a Gallic word that I hope my hon. Friends will not misinterpret—so that they can carve a valid, different, high-quality place for themselves in the education world. If we can do that, we can put the old arguments behind us.
  Mr. Dawson: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about the debate being not only about grammar schools but about the other schools too, but if the system that he describes is so good, would it not be a mark of confidence in that system to hold a ballot? Would not the system be validated by a ballot?
  Mr. Curry: That may be so, but we know precious little about the details of the ballots or about who would be able to vote. The evidence is circumstantial; we know little about the time scale, and little about the funding. We need precision to be able to come to the judgment that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that Labour Members have been the masters of the art of looking to focus groups? If the

  291
  Government wanted to go and find focus groups to register approval or disapproval of the grammar school system, they would have no difficulty in finding them in my constituency in south Buckinghamshire, and I know what the answer would be.
  Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is confident about the outcome of a ballot. I do not make a judgment about that, because my argument is not about whether grammar schools are a "good thing" or a "bad thing". I am simply arguing that the measures before the House would lead to a period of uncertainty, and certainly to a period of division and argument. Above all, they would force the schools concerned to turn their backs on the progress that they are now making towards more extensive co-operation and the creation of a separate identity that works, and that delivers diversity of education, based on excellence in each case.
  Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that some of the children who live in my constituency go to a school in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), which, far from being a grammar school, managed through a parental ballot to become grant-maintained, and this year is aiming to send at least two of its children to Oxford or Cambridge.
  Mr. Curry: I look forward to the time when the city school in Ripon has a graduates club, and—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now far away from the amendments, and I should be grateful if he would return to them.
  Mr. Curry: The point that I am trying to make, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that one should not get locked into a particular mindset about what a grammar school can do and what a comprehensive or a secondary modern school can do. If people set their minds on developing those schools instead, they can achieve remarkable things—but they have to begin by putting the old arguments aside. In Ripon and Skipton, we are doing that.
  The Bill would drag back those old arguments remorselessly out of the past, and that is wrong. I believe that we need an agenda that looks towards performance and delivery. I believe that the Minister, whom I respect considerably, wishes to do that too. I wish to help him, so I hope that, when he finalises the provisions in the Bill, he will bear those points in mind and look resolutely forward towards how we are to deliver education in the future—in diversity, but with excellence—rather than back towards old arguments that were destructive in the past, and will simply prolong that destruction into the future.
  11 pm
  Miss Widdecombe: I wish to address amendment No. 165, standing in my name, dealing with the gagging clause that the Government have seen fit to insert in the Bill, which prevents a grammar school or its governing body from campaigning or proselytising during the period of a ballot. It is odd that we will have a vote which may not be preceded by a debate among those most concerned
  292
  in the outcome. Not only do we not know the rules that will govern the ballot, but the most interested parties—the ones whose voices need to be heard locally—will not be allowed to campaign during the ballot.
  In my constituency, there are five grammar schools, and they will not be able to state the case for their own continuation. The Conservative county council—which wishes to continue with grammar schools—will likewise not be allowed to put its case. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, there is nothing to stop any organisation from arguing general principles nationally, but there will not be that opportunity locally—because, under the Bill, there may not be a proper debate.
  When this matter was raised in Committee, the Minister's response was that the Government did not want public money used to promote large-scale campaigns during a ballot. That is perfectly fair. All my amendment does is to put that in the Bill. At the moment, the Bill says that bodies concerned "shall not" publish any material, give any financial aid or otherwise campaign. I am simply proposing to add three little words to "shall not"—"at public expense". That leaves heads, governing bodies, parent-teacher associations and anybody who has an interest in the outcome of the ballot free to make the arguments known.
  The parents, teachers, heads and governing bodies of Kent would have been offended by the mirth that has been exhibited by Labour Members this evening in discussing something of major importance to them and to the future of their children.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).
  Mr. Rowe: I am flattered that my right hon. Friend has prioritised me. If I understand her correctly, she is suggesting that if, for example, a school's governing body wanted to have some influence on the debate, it should resign en bloc from its position as the governing body. It would then be entirely free to campaign. This seems to be nonsense. I have no doubt that people listening to the arguments that the body puts forward would rather know that it is associated with the school than finding that it is, in some curious way, forced to conceal it.
  Miss Widdecombe: That is not what I am suggesting, but it is the only possible reaction to the situation that the Government have created in the Bill. People will look for ways around the measure. My amendment is straightforward, and I am amazed that the Minister is not embracing it. Apparently it deals with his objection, which is the use of public money.
  Mrs. Browning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in Committee, we referred to the amount of publicity that trade unions could produce in such a ballot? The Minister said that they were external bodies, and nothing to do with him. Experience of grant-maintained schools, however, has taught us that they would have considerable influence, given their resources. The bodies to which my right hon.

  293
  Friend is referring would have no power against a body such as a trade union unless the Bill contained the powers as she is defining them.
  Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right, and she does well to remind the House of that exchange in Committee, and the deductions that can be made from it.
  I tabled the amendment at the direct request of the head of one of my grammar schools, with the support of other heads of grammar schools. They were severely concerned that there would be a vote but that there would be no input in the debate from the grammar schools.
  Mr. Damian Green: Is my right hon. Friend aware that parents as well as heads and governing bodies want to take part in the ballots? That is shown by the fact that, next year, both the grammar schools in my constituency—Highworth school for girls and the Norton Knatchbull school for boys—will have to impose a further entry condition because of their popularity among a wider and wider range of parents in and around Ashford.
  Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. I heard sedentary comments—to which, of course, I should not respond—asking whether I was afraid of the outcome of the ballot. I refer hon. Members to what happened when a BBC crew conducted a vox pop in the streets of Maidstone on the continuation of grammar schools—the response was 100 per cent. in favour. Interestingly, the crew did not approach people who looked as if they had children who were currently at the grammar schools; it approached those with tiny children—people who certainly did not look as though they had had a grammar school education. Nevertheless, 100 per cent. wanted to keep the grammar schools.
  Mr. Fallon: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: Now, of course, I shall certainly give way.
  Mr. Fallon: Last, and quite clearly least.
  On that point, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that, by definition, some of the people who were interviewed would have voted for the Labour party at the general election? Likewise, some of the people who will be disfranchised at those schools will be members of the Labour party. Will she comment on the absence of support for Labour's proposal from Labour Members who represent Kent?
  Miss Widdecombe: That is a telling point. I must tell my hon. Friend that I chose my two other hon. Friends before him purely on a geographical basis—confronted with an embarrassment of riches, I had to find some way in which to select, so I chose on a distance criterion. He is, of course, right—both Labour and Liberal supporters wanted to maintain the grammar schools.
  Mr. Dawson: If the schools are as popular across the political spectrum as the right hon. Lady says, what on earth is she worried about?
  Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention in class, he would have heard me say that
  294
  I was not worried about the outcome in Kent. That does not mean that I want a silly, unfair system in which there is no reasonable debate before the ballot, and in which major national bodies—trade unions and others—can wage a campaign in Kent, whereas the grammar schools will be gagged. The clause is a gagging measure.
  The Labour Government have let down the people of Kent. During the general election, I was repeatedly told by people who claimed to be Labour supporters, and whom I had no reason to disbelieve, "It's all right. They won't do anything to the grammar schools when they get in—the grammar schools are safe with them." I reckon that many parents in Kent now bitterly rue the way they voted in the election.
  Mr. Brady: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I hope that she appreciates the fact that I am helpfully intervening in strict geographical order.
  The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) made a telling point, on which I should be interested to hear him expand. If he believes that comprehensive schools are so popular, I presume that he will support amendment No. 177, which would give parents of children in those schools the chance to vote on whether the comprehensive system should be maintained.
  Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, my hon. Friend puts an unarguable proposition to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson).
  Mr. Llew Smith: Will the right hon. Lady explain how she can tell whether someone has been to a grammar school?
  Miss Widdecombe: I could not tell, but the BBC crew reckoned they could, so the hon. Gentleman had better put the question to them.
  The BBC crew made a point of approaching a range of people of different ages—people who looked as though they might have children at secondary school or at primary school, and people who looked as though they came from a range of professions and occupations—and 100 per cent., from all political persuasions, wanted to keep grammar schools.
  That view will be reflected in future votes in Kent. Where are the Kent Labour Members? What are they saying on behalf of the parents who want to keep grammar schools in Kent? We have heard from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) often shouts out interventions, but their constituencies are a long way from Kent. Where are the Labour Members from Kent?
  Mr. Rowe: Kent has more grammar schools than any other county, and a proud record of fighting to defend their right to remain as grammar schools. That battle, which had to be fought not only against Labour but, sadly, against the Conservative Government, was fought successfully.
  We strongly believe that we have nothing to fear from a ballot. In many respects, the nature of the ballot that is imposed on us does not matter much. It is perfectly clear that the Labour Government have absolutely no idea what sort of ballot they ought to run. They are full of internal contradictions and paradoxes, and they will not find it

  295
  possible to run a credible ballot on the lines that have so far been suggested. Kent is ready to go along with whatever ballot they decide on.
  In any debate about selective education, it is never suggested that the schools that have selection are inferior; the suggestion is always that they somehow have an unfair advantage over other schools, the removal of which is the purpose of all the activity. In a country that is desperate to raise its educational standards, with a Government who have declared that their first, second and third priorities are education, education and education, there is something strange about persistently assaulting a form of education about whose standards there is no complaint.
  We must find ways of raising standards in other schools to equal those in grammar schools. By becoming grant-maintained, some schools in Kent have broken free of any suggestion that they are less successful than the grammar schools, and have achieved standards of equal quality. It is a tragedy that, when the grant-maintained system was working so well, it was instantly subjected to attack.
  Miss Widdecombe: Does my hon. Friend agree that Cornwallis school—one of the first to go grant-maintained in my constituency and one that also serves people from his constituency—now has a high rate of university entrance and is looking forward to its first Oxbridge entrants?
  Mr. Rowe: I entirely agree; that was the point that I made earlier. That was the school that I had in mind, but there are others.
  Obviously, what is frustrating about this debate is that, although the Labour Government appear to be concentrating on a backward-looking assault on a proven system of education—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a debate not about the relative merits of schools or educational systems, but about a certain group of amendments, and he is very wide of the mark. Will he please return to the amendments that are before the House?
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Rowe: Basically, I am speaking in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), because I believe, as she does, that there is something inherently absurd in debarring the people who know most about the system from taking any active part in informing the public of the merits of system in which they operate. As I said in my intervention on my right hon. Friend, the proposition that, to take part in the public debate, governing bodies have to resign from being governing bodies and conceal from the public their close connections with the schools that they are attempting to promote is nonsense. It should be written out of the Bill.
  The amendment is entirely apropos the argument and it should be supported. I hope to hear that the Minister accepts that argument.
  Mr. Brady: I am pleased to support the amendments on grammar schools that stand in my name and that of
  296
  my right hon. and hon. Friends. As hon. Members who served with me in Committee are well aware, it is with great pride and pleasure that I not only defend the excellent grammar and secondary modern schools in my constituency, but go a little further than one or two of my right hon. and hon. Friends and recommend that the grammar school system be available to parents throughout the country. That is why I wish to speak in particular to amendment No. 177, which would give parents in areas that do not have the benefit of grammar schools the facility to enjoy those benefits if they wish.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) mentioned the changes in the position of the Labour party, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). One unfortunate aspect is that we seem to be in between the position held by very old Labour, when Sidney Webb and R. H. Tawney supported grammar schools because they believed that they gave opportunities for advancement to people from ordinary backgrounds—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have heard what I told the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). He should now speak directly to the amendments.
  Mr. Brady: I was trying to point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that education system must be available to parents whether they are in areas that have grammar schools or not. In fact, there has always been a wide spread of opinion on both sides of the House and support in the Labour movement and on the Conservative Benches for that proposition.
  I shall certainly try to refer specifically to the amendments as you request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is essential for parents who do not have the option of a selective education system to be able to look to areas such as mine in the borough of Trafford and those represented by my right hon. and hon. Friends in Kent and Buckinghamshire that have the benefit of that system.
  It is utterly unacceptable for the Government to include provisions in the Bill, which they claim are there to give choice and rights to ordinary people and local parents to decide, when they are not prepared to be even-handed. They are not prepared to allow a ballot to institute new grammar schools where parents wish. They are prepared only to have the one-way ratchet which, they hope, will lead to the end of the grammar schools. It must not be a one-way door. If there is to be fairness, choice, an element of local democracy and decision making and a balloting procedure, it is fundamental that the system operates in both directions.
  I return to the point that I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) believes that, if we are confident of the popularity of the grammar schools in our constituencies, we should be happy with the balloting arrangements. He cannot argue that we should be comfortable with the balloting arrangement, however

  297
  structured, when Labour Members are not prepared to accept the same proposition for the system of education that they seem to prefer. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. General conversation appears to be breaking out. I should be grateful if hon. Members would listen to the hon. Gentleman who is speaking.
  Mr. Brady: I look forward to some meaningful and intelligent interventions from Labour Members, if they can refrain from the juvenile gestures that they are making. They must explain why they are not prepared to allow parents across the country the choice of looking at the success of the grammar school selective education system, and deciding that it patently works and should be replicated in their areas. The results of the system in the borough of Trafford, which has the best A-level results in the country, or in Buckinghamshire, which has the best GCSE results in the country, show the quality of selective education. Parents should be free to consider that and to decide that they want that education to be available for their children, and not just in those few areas fortunate enough to preserve grammar schools.
  If the Government accepted the amendment, it would have the important effect of demonstrating the good faith of the pledge that they made before the Wirral, South by-election and of subsequent occasional comments on the subject. It would remove the thread of hostility to grammar schools that runs through not only the Bill but nearly everything that Labour Members say on the matter. The amendment would allow access to the excellent academic results that selective education can give.
  Mr. Levitt: Why would parents vote for a selective system in which four out of five would not qualify because of the process of selection, which classifies four out of five children as failures, and which makes its education, however excellent, accessible to only a small minority?
  Mr. Brady: I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing on my next point and, in a sense, underlining it.
  Different selective systems involve different percentages. That is not a particularly relevant concern. If the hon. Gentleman believes that parents will not vote for the selective system because they do not believe that all children will go to grammar schools, he must explain why it is not reasonable to allow other parents the same balloting procedure. The hon. Gentleman is confident that they would not wish to take that option up, but if he is so confident, why will Labour not allow parents that choice? He says that parents will not accept it, but I think that they may in certain circumstances.
  The reason for that is clear from a selective system that works and has developed over the years as it should have. I speak from strong personal experience, although I admit with some shame that I was only deputy head boy of Altrincham grammar school. With a system that works to the advantage of all local children, not only through excellent grammar schools but through excellent secondary moderns across my constituency, we can see the result of a system that has been developed as it should have been.
  I have accepted throughout this debate and in Committee that flaws in the implementation of the system arose from the Education Act 1944. Those parts of the
  298
  Act, those pillars of the tertiary system, that were not properly resourced and put in place should be encouraged and built up. It should be a case not of using a skewed balloting arrangement to level down and to remove quality and excellence where it exists but of allowing all the schools to rise to the same standards.
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: In Kent, 50 or 60 per cent. of children in many secondary schools have special needs. How will schools right across the board rise to the level of the grammar schools, which cream off the top 30 per cent?
  Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman makes a rather tendentious point. I do not argue that all schools will achieve the same A-level results or the same type of highly academic education, or that the output—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to stop the hon. Gentleman again, but will he now return from general debate to the amendment?
  Mr. Brady: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to deal directly with the point put to me by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). I should have been delighted to do that, but I accept your strictures and will move on. [Interruption.] In an English school, as well.
  The critical point is that selection by ability is not only about creating grammar schools. It is about providing the best form of education for each type of child, each type of educational ability—dare I say it, each aptitude. Perhaps I should use those words interchangeably.
  The quality of the results from secondary modern schools in my constituency, such as Ashton on Mersey school—which has received two outstanding awards from Ofsted and two charter mark awards, has now been made a sports college and is achieving better academic results than most comprehensive schools—demonstrates the value of a good selective system. I have the greatest pleasure, therefore, in supporting the amendment to promote the choice of parents in areas where there are no grammar schools. I also support the other amendments in this group.
  Some critical effects must be understood in looking at the balloting arrangement. The proposal for LEA-wide ballots runs through the structure of the outline procedure on balloting and through the provisions in the Bill, and certainly impacts on my local schools. The justification for such ballots is supposedly that the future of one school is intimately bound up with the future of other schools. That has a critical relationship with the importance of being able to create new grammar schools in particular areas and particular circumstances.
  There may already be an imbalance, especially in areas that do not already have fully selective education systems, but have some grammar schools. There may be an imbalance if there is just one grammar school, or an imbalance in single-sex provision by grammar schools. To take the example of Altrincham, there may be different denominational grammar schools. In those instances, it is essential that there is a procedure whereby education provision can be evened out and a new grammar school put in place to ensure proper and fair provision between sexes and denominations, or to ensure that there are sufficient places.

  299
  The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford made a point about the percentages of children in different schools. The decision may be taken, or parents may take the view, that it is appropriate to have a greater percentage going into grammar schools, in which case it would be appropriate for them to vote in a ballot to increase grammar school provision in their area.
  We must not forget that, if grammar schools are voted out of existence through the balloting process as it stands—a one-way door, a ratchet—we shall see not only grammar school status disappearing, but mergers and the restructuring of education systems in large parts of the country. That will create imbalances that can be evened out only by the provision of new grammar schools in areas where parents want them.
  It is tragic that the Government have sought to avoid responsibility on this issue. Ordinarily, I should be happy to support the idea that a decision of this sort should be taken locally, by a ballot if that is the appropriate means of doing it; but I fear that underlying the Government's attitude toward our arguments and to the amendment that would extend ballots and choice to other parents is an unfortunate state of affairs whereby Ministers are trying to avoid responsibility. The Government are trying to farm the issue out to local ballots because they do not want to take responsibility as a Government or even as a party at local authority level.
  I see my neighbour, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), sitting opposite; she will know well the constant battle over grammar schools in the borough of Trafford over the years. The Government are keen to remove the whole issue from the normal political arena precisely because of the popularity of grammar schools. It is most reprehensible of the Government to refuse to accept that all parents should have the same rights to vote in ballots. They refuse to accept responsibility and are farming the issue out to a skewed balloting arrangement in the clear hope and with the clear intention that, over time, grammar schools will be gradually chipped away.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government want to sustain their claim that they are not hostile in principle to the continued existence of grammar schools, the best way in which they could prove their case would be to provide in the Bill for a minimum turnout requirement in the ballots?
  11.30 pm
  Mr. Brady: I should be happy to have a minimum turnout requirement. However, I suspect that, for once, I disagree with my hon. Friend, because I think that the best way for the Government to demonstrate their good faith would be for them to accept the amendment. Doing so would clearly demonstrate that they believe in the principle of local decision making, that all parents should have an equal right to make decisions of that sort and that all parents should have a choice. It is most unfortunate that the Government do not accept that argument.
  If the Government seek to defeat the amendment, as I fear they might, they will be putting their cards on the table and making it clear to the British people—especially those in constituencies where grammar schools exist,
  300
  or those in nearby constituencies—that the Government harbour the same hostility toward grammar schools as Labour Back Benchers. In some ways, I should welcome a more honest and open approach from the Government than the weasel words which we have heard so far. In opposition, the Labour party says one thing when a by-election is pending; in office, it does another. That is most unacceptable.
  Amendment No. 179 would be a crucial improvement to the Bill. It would tidy up the anomaly whereby in those areas where there are only some grammar schools and not a wholly selective system parents of children currently attending grammar schools are not able to vote in the ballot. That is utterly unacceptable to the parents of such children—they have a clear and direct interest in those schools. The words that the Government employ in their outline of the balloting procedures are clear: they say that the objective of the procedure is to give the choice and decision on the future of those grammar schools to those parents who have a direct interest in the future of those schools. However, the Government are still not prepared to allow those with the clearest possible direct interest—parents of children attending those schools—a vote on the future of those schools.
  Amendment No. 179 would remove an anomaly. It would create fairness and it would be seen to be fair. The Government should recognise that there would be some clear benefit in that.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood referred to a letter from the heads of the Reading and Kendrick schools. They draw attention to several serious anomalies and unfairnesses in the proposed balloting arrangements, and it would be constructive to consider one or two of them. The heads of the Reading and Kendrick schools say:
  "If feeder schools are Junior rather than Junior Mixed and Infant, this means in some ballots Years R/1/2 parents will have votes, in others they will not. The right to vote will be determined by the detail of primary organisation. This is demonstrably both inconsistent and unfair. A common provision is needed."
  They also make clear the fact that the Reading and Kendrick schools have received children from more than 150 feeder schools during the past few years.
  All those arguments point clearly to a balloting arrangement that is ill thought out and patently unfair, and which will not be well received in those parts of the country that are still pleased, proud and fortunate to retain grammar schools and selective education.
  Finally, I shall discuss amendment—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I said that I had reached the final amendment that I would discuss; I did not give any hint about the detail in which I would discuss it. It is amendment No. 160, which is especially important to parents in my constituency.
  It is vital to enshrine in the Bill provisions to ensure fairness in the balloting procedures, not just for the normal maintained county grammar schools, some of which are to be found in my constituency, but for the denominational grammar schools in my constituency.
  There are two Roman Catholic grammar schools in my constituency. Under the Government's outline proposals on the balloting arrangements, the future of those schools will be decided not by the parents of children attending those schools, or by Catholic parents in my constituency, or even by Catholic parents throughout the borough of

  301
  Trafford; their future will be decided in a single ballot, which will apply to Catholic schools and to non-Catholic schools. The Government's approach shows no consideration for the position of Catholic parents in my constituency, or in the borough of Trafford.
  Amendment No. 160, which would allow the Government to take separately balloting arrangements on denominational grammar schools, has a vital purpose in restoring some fairness and balance to the Government's proposals. It would give Catholic parents the decision on the future of Catholic schools.
  I suspect that such a position arises in very few parts of the country. Altrincham and Sale, West may be the only constituency in which there are two Roman Catholic grammar schools. Therefore, it is especially important—[Interruption.] I know that the hour is late, but the Secretary of State has had plenty of time out of the Chamber, and he could have had a strong cup of coffee to sustain him through this time. It is very unfortunate that he should yawn volubly during discussion of a crucial matter for the future of Catholic schools in my constituency. That is clear evidence of the trivial approach that he and his colleagues have taken to the future of denominational schools.
  Mr. Blunkett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain to the House, in words of one syllable, how allowing children into a Catholic secondary school without an 11-plus threatens the school, the pupils or the ethos of the Catholic religion that they seek to obtain? Will he withdraw his remark, on the ground that he is seeking to frighten people into believing that selection is essential to keep the school open or to continue to have Catholic education available to those children?
  Mr. Brady: I am pleased that I now have the close attention of the Secretary of State. I have no intention of withdrawing my remarks, because they represent the views of parents, as expressed to me when visiting the Catholic grammar schools in my constituency. It is unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman bats aside such serious and legitimate concerns.
  Mr. Byers: I have a simple question: does the amendment have the support of the Church education authorities—yes or no?
  Mr. Brady: The amendment has the support of the Catholic grammar schools in my constituency. The Minister should accept that it is my responsibility to represent the interests of my constituents, and I shall do so.
  Mrs. Browning: Having visited the Catholic grammar schools in my hon. Friend's constituency just two weeks ago, I am concerned to hear that Ministers believe that parental preference and the views of teaching staff are secondary in the way in which the Government assess what they would call fair and just. When the Government took office, we heard, "Fairness and justice; fairness and justice; fairness and justice." There is nothing fair and just
  302
  about ignoring the sincere and firmly held views of parents and staff. Does my hon. Friend think that, when the Labour party prays in aid—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an excessively long intervention.
  Mr. Brady: I thank hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for her intervention. Not only is there nothing fair and just about the way in which the Government are approaching the matter; it is not consistent with the principles that they have previously stated. Once again, the Government are failing to take into account their stated principle that the parents with a direct interest in the future of a school should decide the future of that school.
  This is another clear instance of the Secretary of State—who is now indulging in ribald laughter instead of taking the point seriously—giving the right to vote in the ballot and make a decision not just to the parents with a direct interest in the future of the Catholic grammar schools, but to all the parents in the borough of Trafford. That is a clear breach of the principle that the Government have previously stated.
  Mr. Levitt: If the only Catholic school in an area is a selective school, and a Catholic parent wishes to send his child to that Catholic school but the child fails the selection process, what choice is there for that child to attend a Catholic school? None at all.
  Mr. Brady: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to mention another of my excellent local schools—the Blessed Thomas Holford school, which is a fine Catholic secondary modern. Currently, if children do not get into the Catholic grammar schools, they have the option to go to the Catholic secondary school, which achieves results rather better than most comprehensive schools. It is another clear example of how a selective education system works, but I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not want me to pursue that point further.
  On the specific point raised by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), I can say only that I am pleased to have a variety of Roman Catholic schools in my constituency—[Interruption.] The Government proposal will limit choice, certainly for my constituents. That is unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman is looking puzzled, so I shall explain why. This might be relevant to the point raised by the Secretary of State, who has again disappeared from the Chamber.
  The two Catholic grammar schools in my constituency were independent until last year. They were so impressed by grant-maintained status that they chose to opt into the state system so that they could take children regardless of their ability to pay. They are now providing free grammar school education to my constituents within a Catholic environment. As a result of the Government's proposals for the removal of grant-maintained status and the threat to grammar school status, at least one of those grammar schools, St. Ambrose college, is giving serious consideration to the possibility that the only way to protect its status as a Catholic school and as a grammar school is to leave the maintained sector again.
  That should be a source of great embarrassment to Ministers and Labour Members. If they are creating an education policy that has the perverse effect of driving

  303
  away good schools, to the extent that those schools not only change their status but leave the maintained sector, the policy is having an appalling effect.
  The Minister has spoken of standards, not structures, but the Government's proposals are having a terrible effect and destroying a structure that works and provides choice. In this instance, their proposals are potentially even driving a school away from the maintained sector. That, in my view, is the definition of a failed education policy.
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Fallon: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 179. I do so on behalf of my constituents who are parents at the Judd school and those who are parents at grammar schools in Dartford, Tunbridge Wells and elsewhere in Kent. Those are the parents who will be disfranchised under the ballot proposed in the Bill.
  Many of those parents may have supported the Labour party at the general election, in Dartford and elsewhere in Kent. They may have been beguiled by that Labour slogan, "Standards, not structure", yet here we are, nine months later, debating structure, rather than standards. Any hon. Members who doubt that have only to look at clause 96(7):
  "In this Chapter 'grammar school' means a school for the time being designated under this section."
  Grammar schools reflect not just the designation of Ministers or the prescription of councils. They reflect above all the consent of their communities and the approval of the parents who send their children to them. By disfranchising parents from the ballots that will decide the future of those schools, the Government are proposing a monstrous unfairness. I want the Minister to reconsider that disfranchisement.
  When we proposed ballots for grant-maintained schools, we did not get the ballots and the rules for them entirely right. We subsequently revised them. However, two points are clear. First, we had the courage to write those ballots into the Bill. That is not the case in the present Bill. Pieces of paper were simply circulated in Committee. I defy any hon. Member to read the four relevant clauses and say how the ballots will work. They are being left to subsequent regulations.
  Secondly, we made sure that where there were to be ballots for grant-maintained schools, they involved the parents of the schools. That was our cardinal principle. We did not enforce grant-maintained status. It was one of the options for status under the Education Reform Act 1988. The schools could have been local authority schools, city technology colleges or grant-maintained schools.
  Mr. Rowe: Does not the method chosen by the Government, of making regulations later, raise the—I am sure unworthy—suspicion that they are waiting to analyse the results of their various focus groups, so that they might create the type of ballot that they think will give them the answer they most want?
  Mr. Fallon: That may well be the case. I suspect that, in those four clauses, old Labour is still at work, and Labour has not properly thought through how it can move to the new Labour ground of effective consultation.
  304
  It is noteworthy that, even in those local authorities where Labour took control and which have retained grammar schools, those Labour-controlled local authorities did not propose abolition of grammar schools, although they had the opportunity under the current statute to do so. Those Labour-controlled local authorities feared the reaction of local parents. Now, those precise parents will be the only group in their local area to be disfranchised. That is what Labour means by democracy.
  Unless we pass amendment No. 179, those four clauses will be another example of the politics of envy. If Labour Members really believe in excellence, they should be attempting not to abolish but to extend—to build on the success of grammar schools, to build on the support that parents give to grammar schools, and to rejoice in that support—and to determine how they can strengthen the relationship between parents and their schools in other schools across our country.
  Mr. Fabricant: I rise not in defence of any grammar schools in my constituency—I have none—but in defence of those constituencies, including Lichfield, which may want the opportunity to have a grammar school.
  First, however, I join the clarion call of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who asked why Labour Kent Members were not in the Chamber for this debate. I should like to know where the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) is. I was there for the Wirral, South by-election and heard him say that grammar schools were safe in Labour hands. It should be noted that he is not in the Chamber tonight.
  Amendment No. 177 would deal with the asymmetry of the legislation, which says that there should be a ballot to get rid of grammar schools—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Good.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman says, "Good," from a sedentary position. However, if he supports balance, fairness and opportunity, which he talked about often enough in the general election—he nods assent now—why will he not also support balance in allowing grammar schools in areas that have none—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I shall heed your earlier admonition not to respond to sedentary interventions, the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), has just said, "Because you lost the general election." He defiantly tells parents, "You fell for our con. You voted Labour. You actually believed our promise that choice was safe in our hands. Now hear what we arrogantly say: there can be only one-sided ballots—to get rid of grammar schools, not to create them."
  As I said in an earlier intervention, arrogant Labour Members and the Minister without Portfolio attack the BBC—perhaps rightly—for dumbing down, yet they belong to the very party that wishes to destroy centres of excellence. What hypocrisy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He came in earlier, but scurried out.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said, there is a one-way ratchet. Once the decision has been made to get rid of a grammar school, history and excellence are destroyed.

  305
  I have a constituency interest—
  Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Fabricant: I am a generous person, and I shall give way shortly.
  King Edward's school in Lichfield was founded 500 years ago. It was a grammar school, and Dr. Johnson was educated there. I know that some parents of pupils there would like the opportunity to choose whether it should be a grammar school again, but that opportunity is not being made available.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend referred a few moments ago to the Minister without Portfolio. Is he aware that the Minister benefited from a grammar school education? Does not he think it appalling and typical that the Minister is not in the Chamber now to witness the dirty work that he expects others to do in his name?
  Mr. Fabricant: I thank my hon. Friend, but the Minister without Portfolio is not the only one who benefited from a grammar school education—the Minister for School Standards, who wants to be the hangman for opportunity in this country did, too. [Interruption.] The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Devonport, is another, and I am told that there are more.
  A great opportunity is being destroyed. There is to be no opportunity to vote for a grammar school, and although there is to be an opportunity to get rid of a grammar school, it is not the parents of children who attend that school who can make that decision. Why not? If I were a suspicious person, I might say that it is because the Minister for School Standards, who benefited from a grammar school education, believes that, if those parents were balloted, they would want grammar schools to maintain their status. So what do the Government do? They are so determined, for dogmatic reasons, to destroy grammar schools that they disfranchise the parents of children at those schools and allow only the parents of children at the feeder schools to vote. They know that the majority of the parents of children at feeder schools would want all their children to attend a grammar school, and therefore think that the ballot would come out in their favour.
  The Bill is ill thought out, as well as being asymmetrical and unfair. There is no mention of a quorum. How many people are going to be allowed to vote to do away with history? Will it be five or 10? If that many parents vote in favour of a change of status while the others stay at home, will that be sufficient to destroy certain schools and history, simply because of the politics of envy?
  As my right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out, there is no control of funding. What is to stop the National Union of Teachers and other pressure groups paying for campaigns to make sure that schools with an excellent history are destroyed in the way that I have described? There has been no consideration of this point, either in Committee or in the Bill itself. If, despite all the odds that the Minister has set up to try to destroy grammar schools, the ballot fails and a grammar school is maintained, there is absolutely nothing in the Bill to prevent another ballot from taking place five or 10 minutes later.
  306
  The Bill is ill thought out, and it shows the intrinsic weakness of new Labour. When it comes down to it, new Labour is no different from old Labour. All the Labour party wants is to destroy choice, opportunity and excellence; it wants to level down, and it despises the excellent.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill will do what Shirley Williams and old Labour could not do, and abolish all the remaining grammar schools? Far from being new Labour, this "new Labour" party is old Labour, with all the venom and spite involved.
  Mr. Fabricant: The Labour party is not just following in the footsteps of Shirley Williams; it is following in the footsteps of Anthony Crosland, who thought that it was his holy crusade to destroy excellence—an excellence that had been created so that people like the Ministers present tonight, who may or may not have been born with silver spoons in their mouths, would have the opportunity given to ordinary, decent people to excel if they had the ability to do so.
  As I said, the Labour party wants to level down. It despises the excellent; it wants to promote unfairness; it wants to make a virtue out of dogma; it wants to destroy parents' choice in our country. More important, it wants to restrict the choice of our children and the future of the nation. I hope that the Labour party—and the Minister, who benefited from a grammar school education—will consider adopting amendment No. 177.
  12 midnight
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I had not intended to speak, but since my election I have made a practice of noting the times when my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is speaking, or has tabled an amendment. I came into the Chamber tonight to listen to her speech, and to note what she was saying. [Interruption.] Labour Members may have pause for thought in a moment.
  Let me draw the House's attention to the precise words to which my right hon. Friend's amendment No. 165 attempts to draw its attention. Clause 97(9) states:
  "An authority or body"—
  in this context, a governing body—
  "to whom this subsection applies shall not … publish any material which, in whole or in part, appears designed to influence the result of a ballot".
  My right hon. Friend proposes that a codicil should be added to that, providing that such arguments should not benefit from public funds.
  The issue that we are debating in the context of amendment No. 165 is not related to grammar schools, and is not related purely to ballots. It is not related to educational choice; indeed, it is not an education issue at all. We are debating an issue relating to free speech, a fundamental liberty that the House defends. Indeed, the very purpose of the House's existence is to defend free speech in this country.
  Tonight the Government have an opportunity to refute a proposition that is implicit in my right hon. Friend's amendment—that they are a Government who deny, and

  307
  wish to continue to deny, and wish to legislate to deny, the right to free speech. To refute that proposition, the Government need only accept the three simple words suggested by my right hon. Friend.
  Let us remember that, in the past few months, the Government have defended efforts by the European Commission to issue propaganda in favour of certain measures, with the use of public money. They have defended those efforts on the basis that the public deserve to be informed. Here we have a harmless governing body—a group of men and women, many of whom are doubtless parents, who have put themselves forward conscientiously with the aim of understanding the interests of their schools. What do the Government propose? They propose to legislate to prevent that body—the group of men and women most closely concerned with the school—from expressing a corporate opinion about a matter that is closely related to their interests, and, in many cases, the interests of their children.
  Mr. David Lidington: Does my hon. Friend agree that the implication of the Bill as it stands is that, if those volunteers, the members of the governing body, pressed ahead nevertheless and spent money—not public funds, but money voluntarily donated to protect the admission arrangements of their schools—the Bill would seek to make them criminals? Is that not a complete denial of justice and democracy?
  Mr. Letwin: With his customary acuity, my hon. Friend moves the debate to the next question: what is the actual effect of the subsection? Is it, as he suggests, the intent to make criminals of such a body? I do not know whether it is possible in English law to make criminals of a body corporate. That raises a most interesting question. If it is not, is such action intended to be unlawful so that it could be prevented by injunction? Are we perhaps in the terrain suggested by the Lord Chancellor, when he proposed—I believe contrary to the opinions of many of his Front-Bench colleagues—that there should be injunctions ex ante to prevent certain things from being said by the press? Are we, on the contrary, dealing with something that would enable somebody to sue a governing body? If so, on what basis? We do not know.
  I very much suspect that the Minister, for whom my hon. Friends and I have considerable respect, has included the statement in the Bill without sufficient thought about the consequences not just in education but across the terrain of public liberty. What is it to legislate to prevent a body corporate that does not use public money from making a statement, perfectly reasonably, about things that intimately concern it and its community? Is it to create criminals of such a body?
  Mr. Grieve: Is not what emerges from the clauses the extent to which Government Front Benchers—undoubtedly the Secretary of State and the Minister—have been torn by the realisation that only by creating a rigged ballot can they get their way? It is because they
  308
  have realised that that is an unpalatable truth that they have kept the clauses so vague. In fact, they do not know what to do.
  Mr. Letwin: I think that my hon. Friend must be right. Ministers hope by the vagueness of the clauses to catch much, not knowing what they may in practice be having to catch.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: He is an old Etonian.
  Mr. Letwin: I am absolutely convinced that the Government, in their better moments, cannot conceivably intend to achieve the effect that the subsection would achieve in the absence of amendment No. 165.
  Mr. MacShane: He is an old Etonian.
  Mr. Letwin: The Minister cannot possibly tell us that it is the Government's intention to restrict free speech in this country.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has my hon. Friend considered whether the Bill might be in contravention of article 2 of the European convention on human rights, on the protection of minorities and freedom of speech? Does he think that the Bill has been cleared by the Government in that respect?
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I was coming exactly to that question. The situation is worse than he imagines. The Government do not rely merely on the European convention on human rights; they seek to enact it in British law. Has the Minister considered how a British court will adjudicate on the possibility of an injunction, criminal proceedings or whatever the Government may imagine under the clause, given the human rights legislation that they promote?
  I cannot imagine, in the light of human rights legislation, the many things that the Government have said about freedom of information and the whole tenor of their rhetoric, that they genuinely intend to argue that free speech on these matters should be prevented by law. This must therefore be a case of legislative mischance. The draftsman must have slipped up. The Government must not have intended to put what they have included in the clause.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, with her customary generosity, has offered the Government in three simple words a way of defending themselves against an attack that will otherwise resonate not just for the next few weeks or months, but for coming years.
  Mr. MacShane: Old Etonian.
  Mr. Letwin: Such an attack will be based on the principle of free speech, which the House must support—Labour Members as much as Conservative Members.
  I genuinely hope that the Minister will tell us that, regardless of whatever else he accepts, he is willing to accept amendment No. 165. If he fails to do that, he will stand convicted of believing that individuals, knowing their situation and that of their children, should not be allowed to take a view.
  Mr. Bercow: I am a strong supporter of grammar schools. I should dearly like there to be more. It is natural that I should support my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) on the amendments. I shall focus my remarks on amendments Nos. 177 and 165.
  Labour Members have made some rumbustious, but not very articulate, sedentary interventions on the schooling of certain hon. Members. During the outstandingly eloquent speech that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has just made in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) made comments about the old Etonian background of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. I take this opportunity to emphasise that, in supporting amendment No. 177, I am motivated by an overwhelming desire to ensure that people who have not enjoyed a grammar school education and those who do not currently enjoy such an education should offer that prospect to others in future.
  Unlike Labour Members, I am not shy about my educational background. I have no hesitation in stating that I did not enjoy the benefit of a public school or a grammar school education. It was my dubious privilege to go to a mid-market comprehensive school in the Finchley constituency then represented by my right hon. and noble Friend, Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven. I am delighted that, with the assistance of a small number of outstanding teachers and some application on my part, I managed to get to university.
  It is a matter of concern that, though the hon. Member for Rotherham is happy to make abusive remarks about the education of others, he is not prepared to acknowledge the reality of his own. He is probably weak on the principle of free speech, and he is certainly weak on full disclosure. In his biographical details, he is suddenly afflicted by an unusual bout of reticence, which most of my hon. Friends have not previously detected in his character. He acknowledges that he—the great anti-elitist—went to Merton college, Oxford. I believe that he gained an MA in modern history at that noble establishment.
  Mr. Rowe: I assure my hon. Friend that he should not judge Merton college entirely by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane).
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would return to the amendments.
  Mr. Bercow: I happily return to the amendments. I was emphasising the rationale behind the support of Conservative Members for amendment No. 177. Those who have not enjoyed a grammar school education can wish others to do so. I simply observe that, if the hon. Member for Rotherham opposes amendment No. 177 and refrains from making a proper, crafted speech, preferring to make down-market and offensive contributions from a sedentary position, he should at least—in the context, of course, of debating amendment No. 177—make his educational background clear.
  Mr. Fabricant: Would my hon. Friend be interested to learn that not only are we not hearing from the
  310
  hon. Member for Rotherham in the Chamber, but that any reference to where he went to secondary school has been deleted not only from "Dod" but also from "Who's Who"? The hon. Gentleman went to Merton college, Oxford, but it is a complete mystery where he was before that. Perhaps he would like to volunteer the information. Could he have been at Eton too?
  12.15 am
  Mr. Bercow: As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and as I am sure the House will be happy to acknowledge, I am always, everywhere and in every particular a charitable individual, so it is not be for me to impugn the motives or the integrity of the hon. Gentleman, despite the disgusting socks that he regularly sports in the Chamber.
  None the less, it is a matter of legitimate concern that, although he has opposed from a sedentary position amendment No. 177, and even amendment No. 165, which was so ably and articulately explained by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, the hon. Gentleman has declined to divulge to the House his educational background. If there is a secret of which he is ashamed, the best way to ensure that it is kept in perpetuity is to rise to his feet in the House of Commons at this time of night and make a speech.
  The issues in the debate, exemplified by the amendments, are of the essence in the context of our objections to the Bill. I begin my remarks about them by acknowledging at the outset that the Minister for School Standards has been fair in giving a hearing to views different from his own.
  In the presence of other hon. Members who are aware of the fact, I can tell the House that a meeting sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and attended by my hon. Friends the Members for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and by several Buckinghamshire county councillors was held at the Department for Education and Employment on 6 November.
  The courtesy of the Minister's acceptance of our representations is not in doubt, although the soundness of his subsequent response most assuredly is. That is a matter for regret. There are good reasons why Conservative Members wish not only for the retention but for the extension of grammar schools in the United Kingdom. It is painfully apparent that not one Labour Member present is prepared to argue the case for grammar schools.
  Mr. Grieve: Did it not become apparent at the meeting that we were really trying to do the Minister a good turn? One thing is certain: the loser from the Bill will be the Government. They may not get their referendums, but if they do get them they may lose them, and if they win them, there will be such disruption to the school system in Buckinghamshire that standards will fall.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is right. At that meeting and in our subsequent contributions to the debate we sought to help the Government. We attempted to extract them from the imbroglio into which their internal party politics had plunged them—
  Mr. Blunkett: Imbroglio?
  Mr. Bercow: If the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has difficulty in understanding that

  311
  word, I suggest that he repairs to the Library, even at this late hour, and consults a copy of the "Oxford English Dictionary". I assure the right hon. Gentleman that he will find the word there.
  There are good arguments both for the retention and for the extension of grammar schools, of which the first is that they are successful. They are beacons of excellence in the education system. I put it to the House, and more particularly to my right hon. and hon. Friends, that it is precisely the grammar schools' success that is the source of Labour Members' resentment of them.
  Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just grammar schools that are successful, but the selective system? If one compares the composite results of grammar schools and secondary modem schools with neighbouring LEAs with comprehensive systems, one finds that all the children at the grammar schools and the secondary modern schools—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman may be a public school boy. I do not know—I do not want to be rude. The evidence suggests that grammar schools and the selective system help all children in a given area.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and it is precisely for that reason that we wish to see the possibility of the extension of grammar schools. Grammar schools' very presence provides a catalyst for the raising of standards throughout the system.
  Mr. Lidington: Does my hon. Friend recall that the results from schools in our county show that secondary modern schools and upper schools in Buckinghamshire—despite Labour Members' allegations that grammar schools have creamed off the top 25 or 30 per cent. of the intake—were nevertheless often attaining significantly better results than comparable comprehensive schools in neighbouring counties?
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Moreover, the point is underlined by what people said during the election campaign. If the Government's logic is to be followed, it necessarily implies that, in an area where there are one or more grammar schools—attended, inevitably, by a minority of local children—the parents of most other children locally are antipathetic to grammar schools. The evidence is demonstrably the opposite.
  In Buckinghamshire, only a small proportion of children go to grammar schools—in my constituency, it is a small proportion—yet support for grammar schools is enormous. In the context of this debate, I appeared on Channel 4 the other day. As a consequence, I have received a stream of letters from parents of pupils at schools other than the grammar school in my constituency saying that they strongly support and wish to see extended the number of grammar schools—and, therefore, that they strongly support amendment No. 177.
  Mr. Grieve: Does my hon. Friend recall that, in April and May of last year, so great was the popularity of
  312
  grammar schools among Buckinghamshire parents that the local Liberal Democrats got extremely upset—to the extent of threatening legal action—when it was pointed out that they had opposed selective education over many years? Does this explain their silence in tonight's debate?
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The lily-livered Liberal Democrats, in their characteristic fashion, had said one thing in the past, were not prepared to admit to it in the present, and denied their intention to revert to it in the future. That is of a piece with Liberal Democrats' politics—they are pioneers in unprincipled politics, and they are without equal in the UK.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I cannot let the debate pass without mentioning Clitheroe royal grammar school in my constituency and the fact that my Liberal Democrat opponent said during the election that he did not support the retention of the grammar school and the selective procedure. I believe that that was one of the reasons I had one of the lowest swings in the country against me. Does not the fact that grammar schools are oversubscribed show their popularity? People want to go to grammar schools, and they travel for miles—even from outside my constituency—to Clitheroe royal grammar school because of the good education that it delivers.
  Mr. Bercow: I have no doubt that the quality of grammar schools in my hon. Friend's area was a significant contributor to his success at the election, but it would be unfair to pass on without mentioning that his success must also have been due to his outstanding diligence and charm, which are regularly on display in equal measure.
  I fear that, in developing the point about the success and continuing popularity of grammar schools, I am inviting comments—it is a welcome invasion—from the hordes of my hon. Friends who have stories to tell of the dramatic successes of the grammar schools and upper schools in their constituencies. It is a merry tale.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The problem is that it becomes rather repetitive.
  Mr. Bercow: Far be it from me to want to fall foul of the amiable temper that is usually on display in the Speaker's Chair. I shall therefore take note of your kindly advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I cannot resist the opportunity to refer to the success of grammar schools nationally and locally, as that provides the rationale for amendment No. 177, which represents our request that individuals be granted the opportunity to vote to create grammar schools as well as to destroy them. The success of grammar schools nationally is not in doubt—no Labour Member has argued that they are failures.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the mechanism suggested in amendment No. 177 would enable more grammar schools to be retained? If the purpose of the Bill is to abolish grammar schools, does he think that that would in any way raise educational standards? In answering that question, will he be mindful of Pates grammar school in Gloucester, which has 170 applicants for each place?
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who confirms the popularity of and demand for grammar

  313
  schools. The idea is absurd and illogical that, by dismantling those institutions that are already achieving excellence, we increase the chances of achieving excellence elsewhere in the system at some time in the future.
  Nationally, grammar schools are tremendously successful: 94 per cent. of children who attend them obtain five or more GCSEs at grades A to C; more than 94 per cent. stay on in the sixth forms of those schools; and more than 88 per cent. of them go on to higher education. That all testifies to the institutions' success.
  Locally, in Buckinghamshire, the position is similar. At the Royal Latin grammar school in Buckingham, 96 per cent. of children in the relevant age cohort secure at least five GCSEs at grades A to C, and more than 64 per cent. achieve A-levels at grades A to C. A substantial proportion of those children go on to higher education.
  Grammar schools are succeeding, which is a powerful reason why those who do not have the opportunity of a grammar school education should be given one and why future generations should also be afforded that opportunity. That would be consistent with what the Secretary of State said in opposition—as was reported in the Financial Times of 7 February 1997. He said that a Labour Government would pose no threat to the continuance, ethos or quality of grammar schools. If that is what he believes, why is he going to allow ballots, which will have no minimum turnout requirement, to destroy excellence overnight? That simply does not hang together logically.
  If the Secretary of State values or does not want to threaten the ethos of those schools, what is the objection in principle to giving people the opportunity to spread that ethos elsewhere in the education system? Perhaps the Minister can tell us tonight—or should I say this morning?
  Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is not only obvious demand for the grammar school ethos but huge scope for a wider variety of schools? The highly academic ethos of the grammar school is by no means the only successful model that ought to be spread round the country.
  12.30 am
  Mr. Bercow: I am in favour of having as wide a market and as great a diversity in education as possible. That is our commitment and our belief, and that was our record. That could not credibly be said of the Labour Government. That is why we support amendment No. 177.
  We also support amendment No. 165, for the reasons eloquently stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald and by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. We believe passionately in free speech. Either the Government believe in the principle and practice of free speech or they do not.
  If the Government are content with the idea that trade unions can mount expensive and probably unrepresentative campaigns against grammar schools, why are they not prepared to allow governing bodies to campaign for them, especially if they do not do so at public expense? The concern about public expense expressed by the Minister has been met by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, so the Government should accept amendment No. 165.
  314
  I cannot for a moment see why teachers and governors of grammar schools should be required to keep mum and to preserve neutrality on whether the institutions to which they have given outstanding commitment should continue to exist. The idea that they should be obliged to remain impartial between good and bad, right and wrong, future success and future failure, is positively absurd.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald made the argument overwhelmingly for amendment No. 165, and the response from Conservative Members demonstrated beyond peradventure that we all agree with her. What credible argument does the Minister have to offer in response? Let it be stated this morning, and let it be lucid.
  Mr. Byers: I could not resist the temptation offered by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) to reply to this important debate. We have listened to Opposition Members' concerns about our proposals. We certainly do not treat these matters as trivial, as some of them suggested. I have been pleased to discuss these matters with several right hon. and hon. Members. We want the ballot procedures to be open, fair and transparent.
  We have been helped in drawing up the draft proposals by Opposition Members' contributions. I have been pleased to be able to meet several of them—not only those from Buckinghamshire—and they have taken me in detail through the arguments as they affect their schools. I believe that our proposals, which I shared with members of the Standing Committee, reflected in some measure some of their contributions. I regret the fact that we could not meet all the concerns that were expressed, but we were able to move some way towards addressing them.
  I have to disagree with the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who said at the beginning of the debate that he had no notion of the detailed procedures that the Government would want to adopt. We circulated draft proposals to Committee members, which ran to seven pages and 37 separate paragraphs and which revealed our present thinking, but we are prepared to continue to listen. Indeed, one of the benefits of this debate is that Conservative Members have raised a number of issues which I am certainly prepared to reflect on and reconsider in the light of our draft proposals.
  The right hon. Member for Charnwood raised one issue on which I agreed. He said that, if we had wanted, we could have moved in this Bill to the abolition of grammar schools. The Bill does not do that. In fact, it honours our manifesto commitment in the run-up to the election on 1 May, when we said clearly that the future of grammar schools would be a matter for local parents to determine. That is exactly the policy that is reflected in the regulations and the proposed approach that we shared with Committee members. Local parents will be able to determine the future of grammar schools: not local education authorities, not individual schools, not the National Union of Teachers, but local parents, will have the power and responsibility to determine the future of those schools.
  Mr. Bercow: At the risk of embarrassing the hon. Gentleman, I want to place it on record that I have the highest admiration for his talents and ability as a Minister. I hope that he will take my point in good part. To prove his good intentions, will he now give the House a

  315
  commitment that, when the regulations are issued, they will contain something specific on the subject of a minimum ballot turnout before a grammar school can be abolished?
  Mr. Byers: There is a far better way to approach the issue, which is by providing a minimum number to trigger the petition. If there is not local support for a ballot, it would be far more effective to ensure that that is tested at a far earlier stage than looking at turnouts at the ballot itself, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear since the early days of our consideration of this matter that we will expect a petition to be triggered by 20 per cent. of eligible parents, reflecting the position that Conservative Members adopted on grant-maintained school ballots. So that is the position.
  I can go further and say that there will not be a rolling petition going from school year to school year. The Government intend to ensure that the petition is triggered in the school year in which signatures are first collected. That has always been our intention, and we shared that with the right hon. Member for Charnwood in Committee.
  Mr. Dorrell: Will the Minister therefore assure the House that the petition will not merely be time-limited, but that, if an attempt is made in one school year to mount a petition and the promoters fail to secure the support of at least 20 per cent. of parents, it will not be possible for a further petition to be mounted for five years?
  Mr. Byers: No, I am not prepared to give that undertaking, because our view is that the moratorium should apply to a ballot once it has been held. I think the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) said that there could be one ballot and then another five minutes later. Our present thinking is that there should be a moratorium of five years on ballots, rather than petitions. We are of the view that local parents should be able to trigger the petition in any one school year, and do not intend to block parents expressing their views by doing so.
  Mr. Fallon: Therefore, why should not parents at the school be able to be involved in that ballot?
  Mr. Byers: There will be two different situations. I think hon. Members are aware of the distinction that we have drawn between whole authority-wide ballots, in which parents will be involved, and free-standing ballots. We have taken the view that, on balance, it is not appropriate for only a grammar school's parents to make the decision on that school; it should be the feeder schools.
  Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that all parents of children attending secondary schools—not only the grammar schools but other secondary schools—should be part of the ballot? If he is, we may want to reflect on it, because it would allow all parents whose children go to secondary schools to have a vote on whether secondary education should be selective or non-selective. It is a logical conclusion of his point that, if grammar school parents have a ballot, it should be extended to all parents with children at secondary schools. Is that what he is suggesting?
  Mr. Fallon: I know that the Minister has been thinking about these matters. By inviting us to consider whether
  316
  parents of all secondary schools in an area should be involved, he is admitting that it is wrong to disfranchise the parents of the grammar school itself.
  Mr. Byers: No. We believe that our proposals, which would make the parents of children attending feeder schools the electorate, is the right way forward. I am saying in a spirit of generosity, to open up a dialogue with the hon. Gentleman, that, if he is suggesting that we should spread the franchise to parents of children attending all secondary schools, I would be prepared to consider it.
  Mr. Grieve: In Buckinghamshire, in my constituency, there is much movement between upper schools and grammar schools of pupils aged 15 and 16. That is another argument for allowing all those in secondary education to be included. If I understood it, the Minister's rationale was that those directly affected, without going to a de minimis rule, should be allowed the vote. If it is to go to those who are directly affected, the parents of pupils at grammar schools must be included.
  Mr. Byers: Yes, and in many cases they will be, because we will distinguish between free-standing grammar schools and places where a wholly selective system covers a local education authority. In those circumstances, the parents of children attending grammar schools will have a vote.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Byers: I shall not give way for a while, because it has been a lengthy debate and I wish to make some progress.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made several important points. I have reflected carefully on them, and on those that he made when we met a couple of weeks ago about our proposals on the details of the balloting arrangements. On the campaign, we have made it clear that, if there is any misleading information that might materially affect the outcome of a ballot, the Secretary of State will have the power to declare it void. That reflects the position on balloting arrangements for grant-maintained status.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) discussed amendment No. 165 and said that there was a gagging clause. I would not have put it like that, but she is right to say that we have sought to introduce restrictions on the information that governing bodies and local education authorities can provide.
  I listened to the right hon. Lady carefully. I considered at an earlier stage the possibility of introducing a condition about campaigning at public expense to overcome the concerns that she expressed. Practically, it will be difficult to distinguish between spending at public expense by the local education authority or a school governing body, and spending money that may be raised by the people involved.
  There is no attempt to gag or to deny free speech. There will be nothing to stop the governors of a grammar school setting themselves up as friends of the grammar school to campaign against selection. They will be entitled to do that, not as governors but in their separate capacity as individual members of the local population. They will be free to do that.

  317
  Amendment No. 177 would allow new grammar schools to be established. We believe that grammar schools and the selective system are flawed, which is why we are drawing a line in the sand and saying that there will be no new grammar schools and that it will be a matter for local parents to determine the future of the 164 grammar schools that remain.
  We do that because we take the view that selection denies choice. It is the school that chooses, not the parent who selects. We had a good example from the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who said that, in one of his local schools, 170 parents were competing for each place. The reality is that 169 parents are denied the school of their choice. That is the nature of selection.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Byers: No, I want to make progress.
  I shall be asking the House to reject amendment No. 177 because it would simply turn the clock back to the days of the 11-plus and a massive waste of talent. At the age of 11, some young people were deemed to be a success, but the majority were deemed to be failures. Labour Members are not prepared to endorse such an approach, which is why I ask the House to reject amendment No. 177.
  12.45 am
  Mr. Dorrell: The Minister started off sounding reasonably encouraging, but he finished with a tone that was, I am afraid, depressingly familiar and predictable. Anyone listening to the arguments made in the debate must conclude that my right hon. and hon. Friends have made a powerful case, to which the Minister made little or no attempt to respond. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was not arguing that we should seek to introduce a traditional selective system across the country, but made the point that the Bill promised his constituents the proposition that the status of Ripon grammar should be permanently open to question—and that from a Government who say that they are interested in standards, not structure.
  No one can look at the results achieved by the grammar schools and the other schools serving my right hon. Friend's constituents and say that the system as a whole is not delivering quality. Yet the Government whose slogan is that they are interested in standards, not structure, threaten my right hon. Friend's constituents with the prospect that the arrangements that serve them well will be subject to upheaval and change.
  Such change would not be devoted to delivering standards. No case has been made against the standards delivered to my right hon. Friend's constituents. The structure would be reformed in a way that would satisfy the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and a large number of Labour Back Benchers, but also in a way that the Minister is perceptibly uncomfortable in defending. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon made a case to which the Minister did not respond.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, on Second Reading, when the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made his disreputable comment
  318
  about grammar schools, the Minister for School Standards raised his eyebrows and looked askance in my right hon. Friend's direction, then at me, in naked embarrassment?
  Mr. Dorrell: It is fair to say that that was not the only moment in the debate when the Minister for School Standards looked as though he would have preferred to be somewhere else.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) proposed that the admissions authority—the governing body of a school—should have the opportunity to present the school's case. Some of those schools have 500 years'—sometimes even more—experience of delivering high-quality service. All that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) seek is the opportunity for the governing body, as the authority in charge of the school, to present the case for the school's record.
  The Minister's response was that, as private citizens, the governors can go out raise money and present the case; but he did not offer any prospect that the governing body as the governing body can present the case to parents of children at the school and its feeder schools for the way in which the school operates. Once again, the Minister did not respond to the case made by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend assist me before I determine how to cast my vote? I raise a serious matter on behalf of the parents of children at the Queen Elizabeth high school and the Caistor grammar school. In times past, when there were many grammar schools, the feeder schools were in the immediate locality; now, such schools are so popular that they are drawing pupils from miles around, from Nottinghamshire and Grimsby and from feeder schools that are very distant from those ancient grammar schools. Will my right hon. Friend assist me, because the Minister clearly has not, by explaining exactly how the feeder schools are to be defined? Should we not know that before we vote on the matter?
  Mr. Dorrell: I wish that I could help my hon. Friend, who seeks reassurance. I invite him to support the amendment, because the Minister has failed—not only this evening, but throughout repeated debates on this subject in Committee—to offer answers to the question that my hon. Friend poses. Here we have 163 schools, the future of which Is to be determined by a balloting process, but the Minister has resolutely refused to offer more than general guidance about how the ballots are to be held, who is to vote, which schools are to be considered feeder schools, or who within the feeder schools is to have a vote.
  I asked several questions in my opening speech about which parents from which feeder schools will have a vote in what circumstances, but the Minister did not even address any of those questions when winding up the debate. I should love to be able to offer my hon. Friend answers to his questions, but I cannot, because the Government insist that the House decides the substance of the clause without telling the House what will be its practical effect on the delivery of service by individual schools.
  Mr. Hayes: Perhaps I can assist my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough

  319
  (Mr. Leigh) by quoting from the Labour party manifesto, on which the Minister relied heavily during his remarks. In extraordinary detail, the manifesto states—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Order.
  Mr. Hayes: The manifesto states—I approximate—that local parents will decide—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. What the hon. Gentleman must do in an intervention is abbreviate.
  Mr. Hayes: In an abbreviated form, would my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) concede that most people would deem "local parents deciding" to mean local parents with a direct interest in the school?
  Mr. Dorrell: That is precisely right, which brings me to the next question the Minister failed to answer in his winding-up speech. Surely to goodness, the people who have the closest and greatest interest in the continued existence of a grammar school are the parents of the children in the school.
  I return to the question with which I started the debate: what is the basis on which the Minister will defend his system when he has to explain to the parents of children in a free-standing grammar school that parents of children in the primary schools that feed the grammar school will have a vote to determine the future of the grammar school, but parents of children actually being educated in the grammar school will have no vote whatever in determining the future status of that school? One can have a parent—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Tedious repetition.
  Mr. Dorrell: I have said it before, as the hon. Gentleman says. It is not tedious repetition; I am reminding the House that the Minister did not answer that question when he replied to the debate. That question will come back to hit the Ministers when they have to explain to parents why they do not have a vote in deciding the future of the school in which their children are being educated.
  The parents of 11-year-olds will find that, although seven years of their child's education have been committed to a specific school, the future status of that school will be decided not—as the Government promised before the general election—by the parents of children with an interest in the school, but by parents of children in primary schools, some of whom may well have an interest in the future of the school, but others of whom, before their children reach the age of 11, may move to a different area and have no interest in the school's future.
  I asked several more questions in my opening speech. How can it possibly be sensible for all the parents of a mixed feeder school to vote for the future status of a single-sex grammar school? Should parents of girls in primary schools vote on the future status of the boys' grammar school? How can that be justified?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said that parents must have a right to vote in determining decisions about the school in which
  320
  their children are being educated. He also emphasised the most important of the principles that came up in the debate—to which, once again, the Minister did not respond: the question whether we should create an opportunity for the success of grammar schools that deliver high-quality service to be copied, extended and reproduced in parts of the country that do not currently have that system.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have just taken advice, and I am advised that, in Committee, the question whether the provisions would breach article 2 of the European convention on human rights was not raised. Does my right hon. Friend believe that there is a possible conflict, and could there be a reference to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of these provisions?
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to ask whether there can be a conflict. There might indeed be such a conflict, as the Government propose that a decision affecting individual children be taken for those children by the parents of a collection of other children, brought together by the Minister's guidance but excluding the parents of the children most directly involved in the individual school whose future is in question.
  The proposition—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Workington complains about the fact that I keep returning to the point. I have returned to the point because I believe firmly that it is the fatal flaw in the Government's proposal.
  The essence of the question before the House tonight is whether grammar schools are safe with the Government. That was the pledge—the reassurance—that the Labour party sought to give, first at the time of the Wirral by-election and then during the general election campaign. I remind the House of what the Secretary of State said of such schools in the run-up to the general election: that there would be
  "no threat to their continuance, or to their ethos, or to their quality".
  How can anyone who has listened to the debate, and to the views expressed from a sedentary position by a wide variety of Labour Back Benchers, continue to believe that the Government offer no threat to the continuance of grammar schools? That is not the essence of the message that has come from the Labour Benches tonight.
  I shall seek, therefore, to withdraw amendment No. 175, in order to seek to divide the House on amendment No. 177. Amendment No. 177 would allow individual schools that want to promote themselves as grammar schools to seek the support of parents of children attending the school to take a successful formula and to introduce it where they can obtain the support of local parents to do so.
  It is impossible to argue against extending the principle where it is seen to work and generalising good practice. I seek the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends and, indeed, anyone else in the House, for that important principle. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed: No. 177, in page 70, line 32, at end insert—
  '(3A) Regulations may make provision that where a maintained school is not a grammar school,—

  321

  (a) the admission authority for a school may submit an application to the Secretary of State to change the admission arrangements of the school so that the school will qualify for designation as a grammar school under this section;

  (b) when the Secretary of State receives an application under this subsection he shall arrange for a ballot of parents who would qualify to vote in a ballot under section 97 and if a majority of those parents support the application of the admission authority, the admission authority shall secure that the admission arrangeents of the school are revised in accordance with its proposal.'.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 279.

  Division No. 225]

  [1 am

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Beggs, Roy

  Johnson Smith,

  Bercow, John

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Key, Robert

  Blunt, Crispin

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Boswell, Tim

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Brady, Graham

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brazier, Julian

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Burns, Simon

  Lidington, David

  Butterfill, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Loughton, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Luff, Peter

  Clappison, James

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  MacKay, Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Cran, James

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Maples, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Mates, Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Duncan, Alan

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Evans, Nigel

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Faber, David

  Norman, Archie

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Paice, James

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paterson, Owen

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Pickles, Eric

  Fraser, Christopher

  Prior, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Randall, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gray, James

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Green, Damian

  Ruffley, David

  Greenway, John

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Grieve, Dominic

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hammond, Philip

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spring, Richard

  Hayes, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heald, Oliver

  Steen, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Streeter, Gary

  322

  Swayne, Desmond

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Syms, Robert

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Trend, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Viggers, Peter

  Walter, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wardle, Charles

  Sir David Madel and Mr. Stephen Day.

  Waterson, Nigel

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Allan, Richard

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Allen, Graham

  Dafis, Cynog

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Baker, Norman

  Darvill, Keith

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Barnes, Harry

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Barron, Kevin

  Davidson, Ian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dawson, Hilton

  Berry, Roger

  Denham, John

  Betts, Clive

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Blackman, Liz

  Doran, Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dowd, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brake, Tom

  Edwards, Huw

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Breed, Colin

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fisher, Mark

  Browne, Desmond

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Flint, Caroline

  Burden, Richard

  Flynn, Paul

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burstow, Paul

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Byers, Stephen

  Foulkes, George

  Caborn, Richard

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gapes, Mike

  Canavan, Dennis

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Cann, Jamie

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Casale, Roger

  Godman, Norman A

  Caton, Martin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Chaytor, David

  Grant, Bernie

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Church, Ms Judith

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clapham, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Grogan, John

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clelland, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hancock, Mike

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hanson, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Coleman, Iain

  Harvey, Nick

  Colman, Tony

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Connarty, Michael

  Healey, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heppell, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cousins, Jim

  Hill, Keith

  Cox, Tom

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hoey, Kate

  Cummings, John

  Home Robertson, John

  323

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hope, Phil

  Macdonald, Calum

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  McDonnell, John

  Howells, Dr Kim

  McFall, John

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  McLeish, Henry

  Hurst, Alan

  McNulty, Tony

  Hutton, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Illsley, Eric

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Jamieson, David

  Marek, Dr John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Martlew, Eric

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Miller, Andrew

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Keetch, Paul

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Mountford, Kali

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Mudie, George

  Kidney, David

  Mullin, Chris

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Laxton, Bob

  Norris, Dan

  Lepper, David

  Oaten, Mark

  Levitt, Tom

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Olner, Bill

  Lock, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Öpik, Lembit

  McCabe, Steve

  Pearson, Ian

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Pickthall, Colin

  324

  Plaskitt, James

  Stringer, Graham

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pope, Greg

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Prosser, Gwyn

  (Dewsbury)

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Radice, Giles

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rapson, Syd

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Timms, Stephen

  Rendel, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rooney, Terry

  Todd, Mark

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Roy, Frank

  Touhig, Don

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Trickett, Jon

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Truswell, Paul

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tyler, Paul

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wallace, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sheerman, Barry

  Watts, David

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Webb, Steve

  Skinner, Dennis

  White, Brian

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Wicks, Malcolm

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

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

  Wise, Audrey

  Soley, Clive

  Woolas, Phil

  Spellar, John

  Wray, James

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Janet Anderson and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Stott, Roger

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 100

  HOME-SCHOOL AGREEMENTS
  Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 125, in page 74, line 25, after 'adopt', insert
  'and from time to time review'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 126, in page 74, line 25, leave out 'agreement' and insert 'policy.'.
  No. 127, in page 74, line 25, leave out from 'school' to the end of line 26.
  No. 128, in page 74, line 28, leave out 'agreement' and insert 'policy.'.
  No. 129, in page 74, line 28, leave out 'specifying' and insert
  'designed to promote partnership between home and school, including'.
  No. 130, in page 74, leave out lines 40 to 45.
  No. 131, in page 75, leave out lines 1 to 22.
  No. 132, in page 75, line 23, leave out 'agreement or parental declaration' and insert 'policy.'
  No. 133, in page 75, line 24, leave out 'agreement' and insert 'policy'.
  No. 134, in page 75, leave out lines 30 to 32.
  No. 135, in clause 101, page 75, line 41, leave out
  'agreement or (as the case may be) in a parental declaration'
  and insert 'policy'.
  No. 136, in page 76, leave out lines 2 to 13.
  No. 137, in page 76, leave out lines 14 to 16.
  No. 138, in page 76, line 17, leave out 'agreement' and insert 'policy'.
  Mr. Foster: This group of amendments would remove from the Bill a requirement for every school to have a home-school agreement, and to replace it with a requirement for every school to have a home-school policy.
  I make it absolutely clear that we are not opposed in principle to the notion of home-school agreements. However, we believe that, if there is to be a home-school agreement, it should be part of a school's home-school policy, and that it should be part of that policy only if the school decides that it is an appropriate contribution within that particular school in developing home-school relationships.
  We are specifically concerned about the way in which the Government propose to operate their plans for home-school agreements. In Committee, the Minister for School Standards said:
  "The agreement will be signed between a parent's being offered a place and the child actually taking up that place."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 26 February 1998; c. 688.]
  The agreement will therefore have to be signed by the parent before the child has even entered the school—which is rather like establishing a pre-nuptial agreement before the partners had even met.
  We appreciate that, in the circumstances covered by the Government's proposals, not one parent will refuse to sign the agreement. If they refuse to sign it, they might fear
  326
  that their refusal will somehow jeopardise their child's education at a school. Although we realise that the Minister—we are grateful for it—has made it very clear that failure to sign will not jeopardise a child's entitlement to a place, it is nevertheless equally clear that all parents will sign the agreement for fear of jeopardising their child's education.
  The concept of a completely non-binding partnership agreement was examined as long as 20 years ago, by the Taylor committee, a majority of whose members concluded that the idea of an unenforceable contract was a bad one. They thought that it was the suggestion by a few of a quick and easy way of enlisting home support, but acknowledged that it would not be a particularly satisfactory way of doing so. We certainly believe that the imposition of such agreements will not improve the relationships between home and school—and, indeed, could even confuse the existing relationships.
  1.15 am
  In a letter that he wrote on 19 February, the chairman of the Education Forum, Mr. Maurice Plaskow, eloquently summarised the crux of the problem:
  "The key issue is whether every school should be required to have agreements, or can choose whether or not to have them, as part of a flexible approach to developing home-school partnerships."
  We want that flexible approach to which he refers.
  Many groups have expressed considerable concern about the Government's proposals and the detrimental effect that, like us, they believe they might have. Those groups include the Campaign for the Advancement of State Education, the Advisory Centre for Education, the National Governors Council, the Secondary Heads Association—the list goes on.
  Many contributed to a letter that appeared in The Independent on 7 March this year. I think that a brief extract would be of interest to the House:
  "We believe that this requirement could lead to division rather than partnership between parent and school and, further, that it will impose an extra administrative burden on schools."
  The Advisory Centre for Education said:
  "Disciplinarian home school contracts look like an attractive quick fix. They locate the problem in a particular, discrete area (parents), divert our attention from politically embarrassing questions (the organisation and funding of education), placate powerful interest groups (teacher unions) and fit in neatly with current concerns about social standards".
  In other words, they regard the proposed approach as the quick fix rather than what we and they believe is necessary, which is the development of a home-school policy in which there is equal partnership.
  If there is to be a contract that all parents are required to sign before the child has even entered the school, it is clear that the parents are not on a par with the school itself. An effective home-school policy involves equality for the partners. There must be an opportunity for both partners—the school and the home—to share ownership of whatever the agreement might be.
  Mr. Fallon: Does that mean that the policy, as distinct from the agreement, should be voluntary?
  Mr. Foster: The whole point of what I am suggesting is that the school would develop a policy, and that the policy itself would be drawn up by the home and school

  327
  in partnership. The hon. Gentleman is right; it would nevertheless be a voluntary policy, in the same way that the Government's own policy for a partnership agreement cannot have sanctions attached to it, as the Minister has made clear.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that there is little value in having a document which parents are required to sign in advance of their child entering the school but to which no sanctions can be attached. I am sure that he would prefer a system in which the school and parents work together to develop a policy that may include a partnership agreement of the type that the Minister has described.
  I am aware that the House is keen to make progress, but I hope that I have, with those few brief words, explained clearly why the Government's policy is not going to be successful in developing the type of home-school partnership that we all want—a partnership in which, for the first time, we perhaps consider not only the rights of parents and the responsibilities of schools but the responsibilities of parents and the rights of schools. That notion needs to be enshrined in a home-school policy, but one for which the home and school have equal responsibility and of which they have equal ownership.
  Mrs. Browning: The problem that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has clearly encountered is one that we encountered in Committee. It typifies the experiences of those who served on the Committee. By failing to present detailed proposals, the Government have deprived both the Committee and the House of an opportunity to deal with the specifics of what they have in mind.
  Amendment No. 125 suggests that the policy should be reviewed from time to time, and I do not think that anyone would disagree with that proposal. Most home-school agreements would be subject to review, and that would be a good thing. When presenting his idea, however, the hon. Member for Bath seemed unclear about the exact difference between an agreement and a policy, if both were to be voluntary.
  The Minister told the Committee that home-school agreements would be subject to consultation. He said that the contracts would contain the sort of provisions that one would expect to see—for example, provisions relating to standards of education, the ethos of the school, regular and punctual attendance, discipline, homework and information that schools and parents exchange. We agree with all that in principle, but the hon. Member for Bath is now saying that what is in the Bill will be insufficient, and will not represent a true partnership between parents and schools.
  In Committee, we discussed exclusions. It was suggested then that the conditions on which a child who had been excluded from a school was readmitted might—I emphasise the word "might"; again, the Government were not specific—be written into the agreements. In that event, when parents sent their children to a school, they would know in advance—because of what had been published in the home-school agreement—the conditions on which children who had been excluded might be taken back. In Committee, however, we never really clarified exactly what the Government had in mind, and whether they were happy for such agreements to encompass the conditions on which exclusions would be dealt with.
  328
  As the hon. Member for Bath said, partnership is needed. Schools and teachers, including head teachers, do not always receive the support they should be able to expect. Equally, parents often complain that schools do not share information with them, and that they are not always made aware of school rules or standards relating to, for instance, when homework is expected to be delivered. They do not always know what their role is.
  I think hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that partnership is needed between parents and schools, but it is not always possible to legislate for that, because parents do not always agree with actions that teachers consider appropriate. In the middle of all that—between the school and the parents with whom it would have a contract—are the children themselves. They clearly need to be made aware of an agreement to which they would be party.
  The way in which the agreements would be communicated is still rather unclear, because the House has not been told exactly what is behind the Government's thinking. We find it peculiar that they cannot give us the details, thus saving—perhaps—some time on amendments such as this. After all, they have been able to come up with the costing for the contracts. According to the Government's own figures, the administrative cost of home-school contracts is likely to amount to £1.6 million in 1998–99, and to an additional £0.5 million a year thereafter.
  It therefore seems strange that, in an important part of the Bill on which there could be quite a bit of cross-party consensus, the Government have been able to provide costings but still cannot provide detailed information on the content of a contract, and more particularly, on exactly how much autonomy a school and a group of parents will have in drawing it up.
  The hon. Member for Bath has made it clear that he believes that there should be dialogue and a contract drawn up before children attend a school. I would not disagree with that principle. He will know—although he did not touch on it—that clause 101 says that the Secretary of State will have the power by order to instruct that
  "any form of words—

  (a) specified in the order, or

  (b) having such effect as is so specified,

  is not used in a home-school agreement".
  Although the Government say that they have a broad idea of what would be appropriate in a home-school contract, and although the hon. Gentleman believes that there should be much more of a partnership between the school and the parent, at the end of the day, as one would expect in the Bill, the Secretary of State will have the power to determine the wording of the agreements.
  Although we have had to deal with this part of the Bill without the benefit of the full detail that one would have expected the Government to provide, it seems clear that there will not be freedom for negotiation between parents and a school, as I assume the hon. Member for Bath wants, because the Secretary of State may intervene to override the precise wording of individual home-school agreements. That causes concern.
  Why do the Government believe that that is necessary? Why do they believe that schools and parents cannot agree? Such contracts will vary from school to school.

  329
  How can the Government stipulate that the Secretary of State should intervene in the school contract in such detail, while being unable to provide us with all the things we discussed in Committee, which I will not rehearse but which are clearly behind the thinking of the hon. Member for Bath in tabling the amendments?
  Mr. Hayes: The relationship between home and school is obviously central to clauses 100 and 101. It is recognised across the Chamber that that relationship is fundamental to educational progress and success. It has been so recognised by educationists for many years—perhaps always. Equally important are the expectations that the school has of parents and their role, and then the parents have of the school. That those expectations are set, confirmed, codified and communicated is critical if parents are to know how the school expects the child to be prepared for and supported in their learning, and parents are to know what they can reasonably expect the school to deliver to their child.
  The home-school agreement must be sensitive to the needs not only of the school but of a particular child. In that respect, I completely disagree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). He talks about a policy being better than an agreement. A policy is a planned, coherent approach; a way of doing things; a set of ideas; whereas an agreement implies some sorted of binding relationship between parties or partners.
  On the one hand the hon. Member for Bath says that he wants partnership, but on the other he says that he prefers policies to agreements. Surely agreements imply partnerships in a way that policies do not. Most schools already have policies for the relationship between home and school. It would be a very poor school that did not include that relationship in its strategic planning document. Such policies do not equal specific agreements that confirm the expectations of the school and the parents on what each of those partners will deliver.
  The hon. Member for Bath should rethink whether an agreement is better than a policy. The Government must be clear about who will be responsible for putting the agreement together. It is obvious, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has said, that the agreement will benefit enormously from the flexibility—
  1.30 am
  Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman passionately believes that an agreement is better than a policy. Does he accept that the word "agreement" means that both sides have jointly accepted it? If so, does he accept that an agreement that is imposed by one side on the other, as the Government are proposing, is not the same as the agreements that he is talking about?
  Mr. Hayes: Yes, I am happy to concede that point. The word "agreement" implies some discussion and an appropriate exchange of views about the contents of the document. It should also be reviewed in the light of the child's progress through the school. It would be nonsense for that not to be the case.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining that his understanding of an agreement is of something that has been discussed and agreed by both
  330
  sides. What sanctions does he believe should fall on anyone who is not prepared to sign such an agreement? The Minister has made it clear that no sanctions would be attached to the agreements that the Government are considering. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there should be sanctions for those who are not prepared to sign agreements?
  Mr. Hayes: The difficulty with sanctions is that turning a voluntary agreement that has been negotiated in the flexible and pragmatic way that I have described into a legally binding contract creates the potential for litigation, which might well be founded on irrational grounds. A parent who was not acting rationally or even in the best interests of their child, but fulfilling a grudge against the school, would be able to use the full panoply of the law to pursue that irrational course of action.
  Let me also put the other side of that coin. Sometimes, a school will not be able to fulfil its side of the agreement, for reasons entirely beyond its control. If the local education authority came under Labour control and cut services and resources—as has happened with Labour authorities throughout history—the school would be in the invidious position, through no fault of its own, of not being able to deliver the range of services that it had promised that parents could reasonably expect. The potential for litigation thus dissuades me from advocating a legal document of the type that the hon. Member for Bath describes.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I am intrigued by how my hon. Friend envisages the flexible system working. Suppose that I were induced to negotiate such an agreement on behalf of our Albert for his education. Does my hon. Friend envisage that I would negotiate with the head teacher a specific agreement on the circumstances for my son? If not, what is the value of it?
  Moreover, what happens if the school does not fulfil the agreement? I might not be being unreasonable; I could be being entirely reasonable. Would that not necessarily open up the issue to the law?
  Mr. Don Foster rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention—and the first intervention has been going on long enough.
  Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for rushing to my assistance in an awkward situation. I shall try to deal with the substance of that intervention, if I may. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, South—[Interruption.] Is it East?
  Mr. Swayne: West.
  Mr. Hayes: New Forest, West. I think that that is the place where the ponies are not.
  My hon. Friend talked about the difference between an agreement and something with the sanction of the law, and the obligations which that implies. My hon. Friend is here tonight by agreement; the Whips would not sue him if he were not here. Yesterday he agreed to buy me a meal at the Savoy, but I shall not sue him if he fails to do so.

  331
  The lack of legal ability to enforce those agreements does not negate them. They depend on his will to be here, my will to accept his hospitality, and the Whips' generosity, which in my hon. Friend's case is endless.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend, whom I thank for his characteristic courtesy in giving way to me, will agree that a body of men and women of sounder common sense than is to be found in South Holland and The Deepings would be unimaginable. Will he therefore tell the House whether the good burghers of that constituency are manning the barricades in support of legally binding home-school agreements?
  Mr. Hayes: First, because of its European connotations, "burghers" is not a word that I would want to apply to the inhabitants of my noble constituency—which, as I have said before, is full of decent fen people who are close to God.
  There seems to me to be a reasonable demand by parents for clarity about what they can expect from their local schools. Given that the law obliges them to send their children to school, and obliges the children to attend school for the most important years of their lives, in terms of their development, it does not seem unreasonable for parents to demand that expectations be codified and communicated in a reasonably coherent and consistent way.
  That is what we aim to achieve with home-school agreements, but there is a lack of clarity in the Government's position. They seem to have alighted on a good idea but not to have had the necessary foresight, or perhaps the time and energy to develop it. I often look at those on the Government Benches and see a swathe of the half-hearted and the half-witted. I do not know which of those characteristics is to blame in this case, but the Government do not seem to have had the clarity of thought to see the basic good idea through to its conclusions.
  Perhaps the worst example of lack of clarity in that respect is the failure to give schools and parents the power to come to local agreements sensitive to local needs. It is nonsense to assume that one home-school agreement can apply equally in the nirvana of South Holland and The Deepings, and in Buckingham.
  The idea that there will not be local needs and local differences, of the sort that should lie at the very heart of the agreements, school by school and area by area, is nonsense. It provides yet another example of the Bill's giving ever-increasing powers to the Secretary of State when we should be enabling—"empowering", to use the trendy term—local people to come to flexible agreements for the benefit of schools and children.
  Mrs. May: I fear that I will not be as entertaining as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) at 1.38 am, but I will address some of the issues.
  The tone of this debate is developing in a better fashion than that of the debate in Committee, which was somewhat sterile. Many of the Labour members of the Committee took the view that the only way in which we could have a good working relationship between parents
  332
  and a school was if the school was required by the imposition of statutory legislation to produce a home-school agreement and a parental declaration of the parent's rights and responsibilities. As a result, we did not have an open debate about the right way forward for schools and parents.
  It is important to place it on record that none of my right hon. and hon. Friends doubts the importance of the relationship between the school and the parents of the children in that school—or the relationship between the school and those bringing up the children if they are not the parents of the children. Education is best, and the achievement of the children is likely to be greatest, where there is full support for those children, not only within the school but within the home environment. We would not deny the importance of that relationship or the importance of parents and schools working together in the best interests of the children and the school. We are looking for the best approach to develop the best kind of relationship between home and school and to develop the interests of the children concerned.
  Members of the Committee received a number of representations on the points raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) in his amendments. For example, the Parent Teacher Associations of Wales wrote to Committee members, offering support for the concept of a home-school policy as opposed to home-school agreements. The associations said:
  "We strongly disagree with the requirement that schools need to be required by law to have home-school agreements, in conjunction with a 'parental declaration' to be signed by every parent."
  The associations urged Committee members
  "to recognise that the development of policies on these and other matters needs to be a two-way process from the beginning. We all agree that home-school links are important, and that everyone has a role to play in stimulating them. There are many good examples of successful partnerships at school level, through which effective home-school polices have emerged. Let us help to build on the evidence of good practice, and not impose the illusion of partnership through this proposed legislation."
  The term "illusion" is extremely important, because it captures what we see all too frequently in terms of the Government's proposals—they are interested in image, rather than in reality and substance.
  Although the Bill gives the illusion that the Government are encouraging partnership between schools and parents, the reality is—given the law of unintended consequences—that the opposite will occur and that, because of a statutory requirement to develop home-school agreements, we will not see good practice developed. The process will become something that governing bodies feel that they have to do because they are required to do so by law. Some governing bodies may even treat the process somewhat cursorily—it may come to be seen either as a bureaucratic requirement that schools do not want, or as something that is created and then put to one side. That would not improve educational standards; it would be to the detriment of children and of the development of the relationship between schools and parents.
  We also received representations from the Education Forum, which is convened by the National Consumer Council. It comprises representatives from a wide range of organisations, such as the Campaign for State Education, the Consumers Association, the National Association for Special Educational Needs, the National

  333
  Association for Primary Education and bodies from Wales and Scotland. On an issue to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings alluded, it said:
  "Even the word 'agreement' implies a legal commitment. Signed agreements would undermine the process that has been made in improving home/school partnerships in many schools … The key issue is whether every school should be required to have agreements, or can choose whether or not to have them, as part of a flexible approach to developing home-school partnerships."
  That is the key to why the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bath is wrong. As some of the groups that made representations to us argued, although a home-school policy—as opposed to a home-school agreement—could be beneficial, the hon. Gentleman's proposal would impose on schools a statutory requirement to develop such a policy.
  We should develop and encourage best practice in schools, but we should allow them to develop approaches that are right for their local circumstances. Some schools might think it appropriate to develop an agreement to which parents would be asked to sign up, although such an agreement would be entirely inappropriate for other schools, as parents might not feel able to abide by the agreement.
  Mr. Don Foster: I have been listening to the hon. Lady carefully, as until a moment ago she was mirroring—although at somewhat greater length—what I said on the issue. Does she believe that a school would not accept the need for some arrangement for liaison between home and school? If so, does she agree that that means that every school would accept the need for a policy of some sort?
  1.45 am
  Mrs. May: I am really concerned when the hon. Gentleman suggests that I go on at greater length than he does. I believe that the majority of schools want not an agreement, but some arrangement—I use his word—that defines their relationship with parents. However, I question whether making the development of such arrangements a statutory requirement will be to the benefit of schools and parents.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) seems to be in a state of some confusion? If he is so convinced that all schools will be persuaded of the desirability of agreements with parents, why is he so preoccupied with the need to make them a legal requirement?
  Mrs. May: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. If schools develop such arrangements in their own right, why do we need to make that a statutory requirement? As I said, the very fact that there was a statutory requirement would be detrimental to the development of arrangements that suited the local circumstances.
  The Education Forum said that it was
  "concerned about the implications of the term 'parental responsibilities'".
  As the Bill sets out the responsibilities of both the school and the parents, the forum said:
  334
  "There is a danger that agreements could detail parental responsibilities in a way that some parents cannot reasonably be expected to meet e.g. because of home circumstances, their income, their own learning difficulties, or because they do not speak English adequately."
  In those circumstances, it is imperative for a school to have flexibility and not to have a single agreement that every parent must sign or be stigmatised. The school should be able to determine how it should develop the relationship between school and home.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings spoke about the legal implications. Notwithstanding the clause that says that the agreements would not be legally binding, I remain concerned that parents might assume that an agreement and a parental declaration signed by them and by the school's representative was a guarantee of a particular level of education.
  Following the Labour Government's local authority settlement, many schools have had to cut such courses as music tuition. They may be unable to deliver the level of education specified in the agreement, and that may result in parental recourse to litigation, which would sour relations between parents and the school. The proposals do nothing to encourage the partnership between school and home that is so important in encouraging and enabling children to get the best out of their education.
  I fear that the clause, even with the amendments, will not encourage best practice or good relationships; indeed, it will sour the relationship between parents and schools. On that basis, I remain unconvinced by the Government's proposals.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) as, unfortunately, I was unable to attend the Committee sitting at which the clause was originally discussed.
  Many of the regulations, conditions and proposals surrounding the Bill were presented to the Committee either at the last moment or, even worse, after clauses had been considered. So it is with this very clause. A Department for Education and Employment press release of 18 March, entitled "Morris launches plans to improve management of pupil behaviour", was issued after we had discussed the clause.
  How do the clause and the amendment affect children who do not behave well—the difficult ones who, in extreme circumstances, have to be excluded from the school? We all support links between schools and parents and want to build on them, but we remain to be convinced that legislation is required to get good parents to co-operate with schools.
  The weakness of the clause is that it will fail to apply to the very children who need it most, because they are often those who are not prepared to co-operate or to consider the home-school agreement closely.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I must remind him that this is not a clause stand part debate. He must direct his remarks to the amendments.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is exactly what I am going to do. Amendment No. 130, tabled by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will exclude clause 100(3), which states:

  335
  "The governing body shall take reasonable steps to secure that the parental declaration is signed by every qualifying parent."
  Before we decide to exclude clause 100(3), Ministers should clarify whether it is part of the reasonable steps that a governing body should take for it to tell the parents of a pupil who is likely to be excluded, "We require you to sign this agreement, or we will go ahead and exclude your child from school." Should powers of exclusion, whether for a fixed term or on a permanent basis, be held over the heads of parents who are proving unco-operative in signing home-school agreements?
  I raise that matter because, as Ministers will know, the Select Committee on Education and Employment has studied hard the problem of disaffected children, among whom we include those excluded from school. We are concerned at what measures schools may take to encourage parents to become more involved in their children's problems, and what is leading to their disaffection. Tonight, we require Ministers to clarify the interaction between home-school agreements in those cases.
  That those questions have to be asked is a measure not only of the surreptitious way in which the Government's policy is evolving but of the confusion in the ministerial ranks. While they are about it, they should explain more fully their policy on exclusions. How far a school can exercise its right to exclude pupils interacts directly with its proposed home-school agreement.
  When the Secretary of State came before a joint meeting of the Select Committees on Education and Employment and on Health, just over a month ago, he gave us some confusing signals as to whether he thought the powers contained in the Bill should be used to provide schools with more effective powers to exclude pupils, or whether, by making schools pay for the cost of exclusion—to paraphrase his words—he would in effect emasculate them and prevent them from using that important final sanction in the armoury of discipline that we give schools today.
  If he is serious in what he told us at that hearing and he believes that schools should in certain circumstances have to bear the cost of a pupil being excluded, he will make it far harder for schools to tell the parents of such children before they reach the stage of excluding them that they want parents to sign up to a home-school agreement.
  In effect, the Department's proposals would undermine the very policy of home-school agreements that it has championed. The confusion should come as no surprise.
  Mr. Hayes: Is that confusion not well illustrated by the fact that the Government's position, rather like that of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), is somewhat inconsistent? Originally, the Government talked about contracts that "define responsibilities". We have now moved to agreements, but the hon. Member for Bath is talking about policies.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I agree. This is another example of the Government's addiction to tokenism. When they wanted to show the world that Labour had changed and that they understood the importance of the relationship between parents and the schools that their children attend, they
  336
  said, "Let us have home-school agreements"—a great banner headline for a day. When we get down to the detail and the complications of requiring parents to sign up to those agreements, it is an entirely different matter.
  Once Labour Members were in government, the impracticalities were visited on them. The Department has explained to them that the ideas that they had in opposition are simply impractical, so we are burdened with confusing clauses, such as clause 100, which do not achieve anything.
  Mr. Willis: I am confused about what we are discussing. We have tabled an amendment that makes a serious commitment to changing the Bill for what we believe is the better. Will the hon. Gentleman say what he would put in the Bill to make it better, or is he arguing that the whole thing should be scrapped?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am not surprised at the hon. Gentleman's confusion. A little while ago, I spoke to his colleague the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who said that he was so tired that he could not remember what he had said in a previous debate. I well understand the problem. It is a disgrace that we should be discussing these important matters at such a late hour. The Government refuse to make available proper time in Parliament for us to debate this in normal hours. They say that it is their flagship policy, but they want it to slip through at 2 am.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is wholly new territory. The hon. Gentleman must come back to the point.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I apologise. My vote on amendment No. 125 will depend on the Minister's answer to our points. The Government have sown the confusion, and it is up to them to clarify their position now.
  2 am
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to be able to speak on this group of amendments and, in particular, on clause 100, which relates to home-school agreements.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a question of "in particular". We are on clause 100 and amendments to it.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: It is common ground that the intention behind clause 100, amended or not, is that the expectations of parents and pupils, and the aims and objectives of schools, should be better understood. The question is whether it is to be achieved by the Bill's terms and, in particular, the word "agreement", or by the amendments' terms and, in particular, the word "policy". We have been debating whether an agreement can be legally binding. I refer hon. Members to clause 101(6), which states:
  "A home-school agreement shall not be capable of creating any obligation in respect of whose breach any liability arises in contract or in tort."
  I concur, because as I understand it—I am not a lawyer—a contract must have parties, a specific performance and a consideration. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt. I do not want debate across the Floor. Hon. Members should listen to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I was trying to describe what I understand to be the legal difference between a contract

  337
  and an agreement. A contract must have parties, specific performance and, in particular, a consideration. The word "agreement" in this context will not have a consideration, so it cannot be legally binding. I disagree with the amendments because I do not think that they are necessary. However, if they are unnecessary, perhaps the Minister can answer some questions on matters that remain unclear, whether clause 100 is amended or not.
  Does the Minister envisage the provision applying to each individual pupil? Will there be different agreements for each pupil? Each pupil's need is different. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) made a point which may have been prompted by remarks that I made to him earlier, about whether home-school agreements will make any difference to the sort of pupil or parent who would not take any notice of such things. It is all very well getting people to sign an agreement, but if they have no intention of agreeing to its terms, it is completely useless.
  We should have voluntary agreements. The Bill provides great detail of what the agreement should and should not contain, but it does not contain any sanctions with which to enforce the agreement. If there are no sanctions, what on earth is the use of prescribing precisely the contents of the agreement? It would be far better to make it voluntary in the first place.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up some of the issues that have been raised. In essence, home-school agreements are a thoroughly good idea. We all want the aims and objectives stated in clause 100(2)(a) to be clear. We all want the school's responsibility as stated in subsection (2)(b) to be clear. We all want the parental responsibilities stated in subsection (2)(c) to be clear. We all want the school's expectations of its pupils to be clear. The idea behind clause 100 is good.
  Mr. Swayne: May I ask my hon. Friend the same question that I asked of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes)? How does he envisage home-school agreements working? Will I as a parent negotiate an agreement specifically on behalf of my child with the head teacher, the form teacher or whomever? Or will it be negotiated between parents and the school collectively, in which case it will be not an agreement but a policy?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend touches the heart of what I am asking the Minister to deal with in her reply to the debate on this group of amendments. Will there be different home-school agreements for each pupil? If there are, it seems to me that they will be negotiated between the school and each pupil. If it is the intention that there will be just one identical home-school agreement for all the pupils in the school, of course there will be no negotiation between the parents or the pupil and the school.
  Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend underestimates the paucity of the legislation. The debate is not just about one home-school agreement for the whole school but about the Secretary of State dictating the content and nature of agreements. Can my hon. Friend envisage the Secretary of State drawing up home-school agreements for every
  338
  child in the country? Or will we have something bland and ineffective rather than something sensitive and particular to the needs of individual children?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It would be nonsense if the Secretary of State prescribed from the centre one model home-school agreement. He might as well not bother, because it would be so bland and ineffective that it would have no import whatever. I notice that the Secretary of State has taken powers in the Bill to enable him to do just that. That would be a dangerous precedent.
  Mr. Robert Walter: He has woken up.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am glad to see that the Secretary of State has woken up. I did not realise that he had quite gone to sleep.
  It has been made clear in the debate on whether there should be agreements or a policy, that there is all the difference in the world between the conditions, requirements and needs of my hon. Friend's schools in South Holland and The Deepings and my constituents' schools in the Cotswolds. Indeed, there is all the difference between those pupils and pupils 10 miles away in the middle of Cheltenham or Gloucester.
  Mr. Willis: Mr. Deputy Speaker, much as some of us would also like to debate Welsh issues tomorrow, could we deal with the issue before us, which is the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)? May I refer the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) to clause 100(2), which clearly states that it is for each school to draw up its own home-school agreement in writing? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, because Ofsted inspects each school and the relationships between the school and parents, it is essential that we have a policy on that?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: When the hon. Gentleman was speaking, I was trying to find the part of clause 100 that gives powers to the Secretary of State to prescribe the nature and content of home-school agreements.
  Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Secretary of State has those powers. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) fails to appreciate that my hon. Friend is pointing out the critical and implicit difference between a contract, a partnership and a policy, which lies at the heart of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). The Government started off with a contract, we are now talking about an agreement, and the hon. Member for Bath is talking about a policy. Each is different, and my hon. Friend is drawing attention to that in an appropriate and entirely apposite way.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall return to that important subject, but first I shall reply to the intervention of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who raised the question whether the power applies to individual schools. Having had a chance to find the relevant clause, I refer him to clause 101(2), which states:
  "If the Secretary of State by order so provides, the governing body of a school to which subsection (1) of that section applies shall ensure that any form of words … specified in the order, or … having such effect as is so specified"

  339
  and continues:
  "An order under subsection (2) may apply … to any school specified in the order, or … to any description of any school so specified."
  Therefore, the Secretary of State can draw up home-school agreements for a specific school or for a wider section of schools if he or she so wishes.
  The import of the amendments is to determine whether the clause establishes a binding agreement, a policy or merely an aspiration. That is the heart of the debate. To my mind, it should be a policy, and there should be nothing binding about the clause. If the agreement is binding, we shall start to see litigation, either of pupils or parents suing a school, or of a school suing a parent. That would be a dangerous and disadvantageous departure, which would negate the whole benefit of the clause.
  I can see no reason why the school, having drawn up a prospectus as required, should not simply issue a statement of the school's aims and objectives and pupils' and parents' expectations. There could be one copy signed by the school, one by the parents and one by the pupil, so that everybody knows exactly what is expected of them. If the agreement is broken, under the clause, neither pupil, parent nor school can be sued—there are no sanctions. Why not have a simple statement of aims and objectives as I have described?
  Mr. Letwin: I shall speak—briefly, at this hour—to amendment No. 125. It is a rare privilege to be able to subscribe whole-heartedly to what I take to be the import of a Liberal amendment.
  Amendment No. 125 takes us to the heart of the problem with clause 100 and specifically with the adoption of home-school agreements. As I understand it, the intention of amendment No. 125 is to allow that which is adopted to be reviewed from time to time.
  Let us cast our minds back to the period from which the British education system, especially our schools, is still recoiling—the 1960s. Had the Bill been law then, many schools in many parts of the country would have adopted as their "aims and values", to quote clause 100(2)(a), aims and values that would have been abhorrent to the present Secretary of State and to Labour and Conservative Members. Many schools at that time would have adopted elements of social engineering as part of their aims and values. In those circumstances, it would have been necessary for an amendment resembling amendment No. 125 to clock in.
  2.15 am
  As educational ideas changed—and, if I may say so, improved—it would have been necessary for schools to refine gradually the statements of aims and values contained in their home-school agreements, on a fluid basis. Had that not been possible, there would have been a perpetuation of the worst features of the educational theorising of the 1960s.
  Amendment No. 125 therefore clarifies for us a danger latent in the notion of the agreements. There is every evidence from the statements made by the Secretary of State and other Ministers that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) pointed out,
  340
  the assumption underlying clause 100 is that schools, under the guidance of the present benign—as the Secretary of State no doubt believes—influence of the Department for Education and Employment, will always produce as their statements of aims and values, and indeed in every other respect, an educational elixir that will benefit all the pupils in all circumstances.
  However, that assumption is not well founded. We must expect that, very often, those agreements, signed by ordinary mortals—in many cases, alas, as one gathers from a reading of the Ofsted reports, ordinary mortals not entirely able to conduct their schools in the best possible fashion—will incorporate principles repugnant to many, perhaps all, hon. Members. It is therefore of the essence that there should be a correction mechanism.
  Amendment No. 125 provides at least the possibility of correction. Alas, it does not contain something that might have gone further: not merely an ability for the school to correct by reviewing its agreements if it sees fit, but a necessity for the school to review its agreements in certain circumstances. If anything, the amendment is too weak to achieve its purpose.
  Mr. Swayne: On that point, does my hon. Friend accept that the primary importance for the parent is not whether the school is able to reach agreement from time to time but whether the parent is able to do so? That is the key in respect of having an agreement. I find it exasperating, but I repeat: if that is not to be the case, it is not an agreement, merely a policy.
  Mr. Letwin: As usual, my hon. Friend hits a point of the greatest possible significance. These, of course, are not agreements, and for that reason the emperor's clothes have been removed by the reference to policy. For that reason, the Government will object to many of the amendments that we are currently discussing.
  Mr. Hayes: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that an agreement necessarily implies obligation—or can an agreement be less formal than that?
  Mr. Letwin: As my hon. Friend is not tired of pointing out in these discussions, this is not an agreement. An agreement would imply something mutual—something that is, to some degree at least, morally enforceable. What we have in the Bill is in practice a policy but, alas, without amendment No. 125, that policy is stuck in stone.
  Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is using the term "morally enforceable". Will he explain how the agreement is actually enforceable?
  Mr. Letwin: My right hon. Friend poses a problem that I am unable to solve, because clause 100(6) makes it clear that the agreements are not enforceable, although in a sense they might be morally enforceable. It must be the hope of the Secretary of State that, by signing the document, parents will somehow implicate themselves in the policy, and having implicated themselves will feel a moral obligation to fulfil their part of what he would describe as the bargain. The problem is that it is not a bargain, and parents have not had a choice in whether to implicate themselves. As a consequence, they cannot have morally implicated themselves and so cannot be said to have a moral obligation in any sense.

  341
  I leave aside that slight lacuna in what is actually a policy and revert to the main substance of my point.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend may not have had a chance, at such a late hour, to read the notes on clauses, but they help to clarify the fact that there is no legal power behind the clause. They draw a helpful parallel with section 13 of the Education Act 1997—which these clauses repeal—which would allow a home-school agreement to be used as part of a school's admission process. Therefore, a child could be refused admission if his parents refused to sign the agreement.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In fact, I did have a brief opportunity to look at the notes on clauses, but not in the detail that he was able to do during the Committee proceedings.
  We should inspect in more detail the proposition that the agreement will stipulate a school's aims and values, bearing in mind that, without amendment No. 125, that would be locked in stone. It would be a useful thought experiment for the House to think ourselves into how this would have operated in the 1960s and ask ourselves how schools using a policy—misnamed an agreement—enshrining a set of aims and values repugnant to this House would have approached the question of admissions or, indeed, expulsions, to take the two ends of the possible life history of a more unfortunate pupil. Surely we all agree that enshrined here are not just wild and woolly policies, but policies that might affect the conduct of a school and its relationship with its pupils on a day-to-day basis.
  I remind the House that there were individuals—Professor Ted Wragg springs to mind—who leaped to the fore in the 1960s with wide-ranging descriptions of aims and values that might have been appropriate for schools. Who knows, perhaps 20 years from now—heaven forfend—there may be the successors of Professor Wragg.
  Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me for a second time. Surely his thesis presupposes that parents would have voluntarily entered into those agreements or, if my hon. Friend likes, policies—I prefer agreements. Surely he concedes that those misguided policies of the 1960s were not born of the will of the vast majority of ordinary hard-working, decent patriots, but of the liberal bourgeoisie who were the architects of the policies and imposed them upon the ordinary citizens of this country.
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is right to say that we were dealing at that time with the utmost treachery—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is moving rather far away from the amendments. I should be grateful if he would come back to them precisely.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful for that admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was distracted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) into territory that I should not have strayed into.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: In fact, that territory does touch on an important point. Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend
  342
  spoke learnedly on the question of human rights and whether a previous clause might constitute a breach of human rights—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Letwin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not be tempted to stray into that territory.
  If we imagine how it would be if the clause without amendment No. 125 came into force, and if some future successor of Professor Wragg incorporated into teacher training or the general jargon of the education establishment views similar to those that he held 10 or 15 years ago and which were at that time the orthodoxy, and if those were locked in—here I refer to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings that is directly germane—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman cannot address himself directly to the amendments, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
  Mr. Letwin: The point is directly germane to amendment No. 125, because we are dealing not with agreements, but with policies. In the absence of amendment No. 125, those policies may be locked in stone with no possibility of being revised, even though they may be repugnant to the parents who were artificially made to sign up to them.
  I cannot imagine that it was the Secretary of State's intention to provide for the policies to be locked in stone. I hope that he will tell us, or that the Minister will tell us when he sums up this section of the debate, that the intent of amendment No. 125 always lay in the Government's mind—that it was the intent not merely that a policy or agreement should be adopted, but that there should be constant revision, as thoughts about education develop over time.
  That is the only rational interpretation of the intent. However, the Liberal Democrat amendment clearly reveals that there is no such provision in the Bill. That is a remarkable omission. It must be a drafting omission. If so, we shall discover that when the Minister, in his summing up, accepts the amendment. If I am mistaken in my interpretation, it must be the Government's intention—which seems bizarre, but it would have to be the interpretation that the House placed on it—to insist that the terms of the so-called agreements that are actually policies, which have the appearance of being voluntary but are not, are those that the Government intend for education for eternity, or until Parliament changes its mind and enacts an amendment.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes a good point in relation to amendment No. 125. With his extensive knowledge, he will recognise that ideas on education change radically, even over a period of five years, so unless the agreements were constantly updated, they would become otiose.
  Mr. Letwin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. These are fast-moving matters—perhaps too fast moving. Some stability is to be hoped for. One would hope that, having adopted certain aims and values, a school would pursue them for a reasonable period. Nobody, not even

  343
  the Secretary of State, could hope that his present vision of what should be the aims and values of schools is the guide for all time. It would be a remarkable statement if the Minister rejected amendment No. 125.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I invite my hon. Friend to consider the import of all this in respect of the human rights of the parents, who might be affected by a refusal to review the policy.
  Mr. Letwin: Much as I would like to answer that acute point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not be tempted to stray, because of your earlier admonition.
  It would be remarkable if the Government maintained that their current views of what should be in such an agreement constituted the inalienable truth—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has said the same thing several times. I must ask him to resume his seat. I call Ms Estelle Morris.
  Ms Estelle Morris: I should say that amendment No. 125 was at least an effort to make a positive contribution to an essential debate. In moving it, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) expressed a point of view that he and his colleagues have long held. Although we differ on that point of view, we share the belief that we have to do more to help parents to support their children.
  I cannot say that the same attitude was expressed in many of the comments of Conservative Members. The sadness of that is that—as much as they filibuster and make comments that are not conducive to serious debate—we are debating the serious issue of helping parents to support their children. For too long, we have not taken action to address that important issue.
  Schools can do much for children. Good schools and good teachers are essential if children are to get a good education, but we know now—all the evidence shows us—that, if a child is really to do well, they will need support also from home.
  2.30 am
  The Government disagree with Conservative Members who have talked in somewhat disparaging terms about parents who may not know how to help their child, or who cannot cope with that need, who turn their backs on it and who may not want to help their child. We believe that it is so important that parents support and help their children at school that we must make every effort to ensure that they can do so.
  Parents have rights—some of our debates today have been on those rights—but they also have responsibilities for their child's education. A home-school agreement is, first, about stating those rights and responsibilities so that parents know where they stand. I think that parents will welcome that knowledge.
  Some of the parents to whom Conservative Members have so disparagingly referred do not know what they can do to help their child, but they want to help. They want their children to do well, just as middle-class parents want—and know how to help—their children to do well. They have aspirations and ambitions for their children and
  344
  want their children to do better in school than they did themselves. Sometimes they do not know how to go about realising those ambitions. One of the advantages of a home-school agreement is that it will clearly state how parents can help their child to succeed. If they do not have an agreement, that opportunity will be lost.
  Secondly, a home-school agreement is about expectations and about saying to parents, "You have rights. Society expects you to exercise those rights and to fulfil your responsibilities to your children who are in school." That is the key reason for making such agreements compulsory. For every parent, the agreement will state how they can support teachers in helping their child.
  As a society and as communities, we are beginning to have high expectations of parents. For too long we have heard the type of moaning that we heard today from Conservative Members: that we cannot expect some parents to deliver the goods in supporting their children. In the interests of supporting their children, we can and we must have such expectations. The Bill's provision for home-school agreements is an attempt to establish in law the expectation that we rightly have of parents to fulfil their responsibilities to their children.
  Some schools already have home-school agreements. The impact that those agreements have had on the children and communities involved shows that achieving those objectives is possible. Not only middle-class schools have home-school agreements; some schools in the toughest and most difficult areas have them. Those schools have begun to recreate a learning culture among parents in their communities. That must be our objective. It is sad that not all schools have chosen to attempt to recreate that culture.
  We are clearly stating in the Bill that, in our efforts to value education and to acknowledge the essential partners in a child's learning, we will establish an expectation that parents have both rights and responsibilities. We will also explain how they can help to fulfil their responsibilities for their child.
  It is quite clear in the Bill that we do not want to have to take criminal or other legal action or to disrupt a child's education because a parent will not sign an agreement. The agreements are about an expectation and about creating a situation in which parents know that they are doing something on behalf of their child.
  There is much in the Bill that will serve to raise standards for every child. If we are serious about that, we must also tackle the role that parents can play. There is an honest difference of opinion between us, but the matter is so important that it cannot be left to chance. Our proposals are set out in clauses 100 and 101. As soon as the Bill is enacted, we intend to ensure that the education service sets out rights and responsibilities for all the essential educators, in the interests of the child. They are important clauses dealing with the responsibilities and rights of parents and teachers; they work in the interests of children and they will raise standards. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Don Foster: As the Minister said, there is an honest difference of opinion between the Liberal Democrats and the Government on this issue, but it is an honest disagreement about how we achieve something

  345
  that we both regard as vital. I entirely agree with her about the unhelpful contributions made by Conservative Members—
  Mr. St. Aubyn rose—
  Mr. Foster: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. One of the reasons I will not give way is that during one of the hon. Gentleman's numerous interventions my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) asked what he would suggest, given that he was so critical of the Liberal Democrats' and the Government's proposals, but the hon. Gentleman had no answer.
  Mr. St. Aubyn rose—
  Mr. Foster: I have made it absolutely clear that I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I am a new Member, will you explain to me whether it is in order for one hon. Member to attack another but not give him the right to reply?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not so new any more, and knows the rules of debate.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) is not so naive that he was not able to intervene, I think, 14 times on other hon. Members.
  Home-school arrangements are vital, whether they are called contracts, agreements or policies. The relationship between home and school is very important. Research into what raises standards in schools shows that the quality of the head teacher nearly always comes first, but high on the list is the relationship between home and school.
  The Liberal Democrats believe that the most important aspect of the relationship between home and school is the building of that relationship rather than the product, or the simple piece of paper itself. The Government are concentrating predominantly on the piece of paper, which has to be signed so early that there will be no real opportunity for the signatories to it to have time to be involved in its development and to feel ownership of it. However, as the Minister said, that is an honest disagreement between us. As I hope that there will be opportunities to work constructively with the Government on developing their thinking, and perhaps ours, on the issue as the Bill continues its passage through Parliament, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Blunkett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to delay the House, but I wonder whether there has been a breach of privilege by The Independent. In what is now today's edition, the newspaper reports a debate on corporal punishment in independent schools, which has not yet taken place. It quotes extensively the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) who have not yet made their contributions. I pass the newspaper to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and would be grateful if, during the debate on the next group
  346
  of amendments, you might consider whether it and the hon. Gentlemen have breached the privilege of this House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to raise the question of a breach of privilege, the normal procedure is to write to Madam Speaker. I suggest that he do that.
  Mr. Don Foster: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I have dealt with the matter adequately.

Schedule 2
  ALLOCATION OF EXISTING SCHOOLS TO NEW CATEGORIES
  Amendment made: No. 3, in page 102, leave out lines 20 and 21.—[Mr. Byers.]
Schedule 3

  FUNDING OF FOUNDATION, VOLUNTARY AND FOUNDATION SPECIAL SCHOOLS
  Mr. Byers: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 103, line 4, leave out 'new'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 33 to 38, 52, 53, 39 to 41, 43, 29, 44 to 46, 30, 54 and 55.
  Mr. Byers: This may appear to be a considerable body of Government amendments, but they are technical. I commend them to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 33, in page 103, line 31, at end insert—
  'and for the purposes of any agreed determination under subparagraph (6) regard shall be had to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.'.
  No. 34, in page 103, line 36, leave out
  'The Secretary of State shall not make a determination'
  and insert
  'A determination may be made'.
  No. 35, in page 103, line 38, leave out 'unless' and insert 'if (and only if)—

  (a) the determination is made by the Secretary of State, and

  (b)".

  No. 36, in page 106, line 16, leave out 'maintained' and insert 'appropriate'.
  No. 37, in page 106, line 29, leave out 'is the greater' and insert
  'the Secretary of State determines to be just'.
  No. 38, in page 106, line 40, at end insert—
  "appropriate schools"—

  (i) in relation to a voluntary aided school having a religious character, means schools which are either foundation or voluntary schools and whose specified religion or religious denomination under section 65(4) is the same as that school's, and

  (ii) in relation to any other voluntary aided school, means maintained schools.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 4

  SCHOOL ORGANISATION COMMITTEES
  2.45 am
  Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 109, leave out lines 40 to 46 and insert—
  '3.—(1) For the purpose of the payment of financial loss allowance under section 173(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, that provision shall apply, with any necessary modifications, to any member of a committee as it applies to any member of a parish or community council; and a committee shall be included in the bodies to which section 174 of that Act (travelling and subsistence allowances) applies.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 26 and 27.
  Ms Morris: These, too, are technical amendments. They are intended to ensure that the admission exclusion appeal panels of school organisation committees fall within the scope of section 173 of the Local Government Act 1972.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6

  STATUTORY PROPOSALS: PROCEDURE AND IMPLEMENTATION
  Amendments made: No. 52, in page 118, leave out lines 26 to 31 and insert—

  '(a) in the case of proposals published under section 27(2) so far as relating to the provision of any relevant premises for the school, by the local education authority;

  (b) in the case of proposals published under section 28(2), by the governing body and the authority; and

  (c) otherwise by the governing body.'.

  No. 53, in page 118, leave out lines 34 to 36 and insert—

  '(a) so far as relating to the provision of any relevant premises for the school (but subject to sub-paragraph (5)), by the local education authority; and

  (b) otherwise by the promoters.'.

  No. 39, in page 120, line 7, at end insert—
  'and for the purposes of any agreed determination under subparagraph (5) regard shall be had to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.'.
  No. 40, in page 120, line 12, leave out
  The Secretary of State shall not make a determination'
  and insert
  'A determination may be made'.
  No. 41, in page 120, line 14, leave out 'unless' and insert 'if (and only if)—

  (a) the determination is made by the Secretary of State, and

  (b)".—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 8

  CHANGES OF CATEGORY OF SCHOOL
  Mr. Byers: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 131, line 9, at end insert—
  348
  '(aa) where a foundation is proposed to be established for the school otherwise than under this Act, that the foundation would meet such requirements as may be so specified;'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 12 and 13.
  Mr. Byers: These, too, are technical amendments, intended to tidy up the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 12, in page 131, line 20, leave out
  'approved under regulations under this Schedule'
  and insert 'published under paragraph 2'.
  No. 13, in page 131, leave out lines 27 to 30 and insert—
  '(2) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may, in connection with any matters falling within that sub-paragraph—

  (a) modify any provision made by or under this Part of this Act;

  (b) apply any such provision with or without modifications;

  (c) make provision corresponding or similar to any such provision.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I want to speak to amendment No. 13.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot do so. All the amendments in the group have already been discussed.

Schedule 10

  INCORPORATION OF GOVERNING BODIES
  Amendments made: No. 14, in page 138, line 8, after first 'school', insert
  '(other than a grouped school)'.
  No. 15, in page 138, line 12, leave out from 'day' to 'conform' in line 14 and insert
  'the governing body shall (subject to regulations under subparagraph (4))'.
  No. 16, in page 138, line 16, after 'shall' insert
  '(subject to regulations under sub-paragraph (4))'.
  No. 17, in page 138, line 17, leave out
  'end of such period as may be prescribed'
  and insert
  'appointed day; and regulations may make such provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient in connection with the reconstitution of a governing body in pursuance of this sub-paragraph.'.
  No. 18, in page 138, leave out lines 18 to 24 and insert—
  '(4) Regulations may, in relation to cases where—

  (a) the instrument of government required by paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 in the case of an existing school within sub-paragraph (2) above is not made by the appointed day, or

  (b) the governing body of such a school are not reconstituted by that day,

  make such provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient in connection with any of the following matters, namely—

  349

  (i) the making of such instruments of government on or after that day,

  (ii) the reconstitution of governing bodies on or after that day, and

  (iii) the constitution of such bodies on and after that day pending their reconstitution at some later date.

  (5) Regulations may, in relation to existing schools which are grouped schools, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient in connection with the transition of such schools from being grouped under a single governing body to having their own governing bodies constituted under instruments of government made in accordance with Schedule 12.
  (5A) If the instrument of government required by paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 is not made before the appointed day in the case of an existing school, the following requirements, namely—

  (a) the requirements of paragraph 2(1) below as to the name of the governing body, and

  (b) the requirements of section 36(3) as to the name of the school,

  shall not apply until such time as that instrument of government is made.'.
  No. 19, in page 138, line 25, after 'means' insert '(subject to sub-paragraph (7))'.
  No. 20, in page 138, line 29, at end insert
  '; and "grouped school" means a school grouped under section 89 or 280 of the Education Act 1996.'.
  No. 21, in page 138, line 29, at end insert—
  '(7) A school is not an existing school for the purposes of this paragraph if immediately before the appointed day—

  (a) in the case of a school within paragraph (a) of subparagraph (6), it has a temporary governing body, or

  (b) in the case of a school within paragraph (b) of that subparagraph, it has a governing body but it has not yet opened;

  and for this purpose a school "opens" on the date when it first admits pupils.
  (8) Regulations may make such provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient in connection with the transition of—

  (a) any such school as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (7)(a) or (b), or

  (b) any proposed school which would be a school within sub-paragraph (6)(a) and which has, or is required to have, a temporary governing body,

  to a school with a governing body constituted under an instrument of government made in accordance with Schedule 12.'.
  No. 22, in page 138, line 29, at end insert—
  '(9) Regulations under any provision of this paragraph may, in connection with any matters falling within that provision—

  (a) modify any provision made by or under this Part of this Act;

  (b) apply any such provision with or without modifications;

  (c) make provision corresponding or similar to any such provision;

  (d) provide for the continued application of any provision of Part II or III of the Education Act 1996 with or without modifications.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 11

  MEMBERSHIP AND PROCEEDINGS ETC. OF GOVERNING BODIES
  Amendments made: No. 66, in page 141, line 4, at end insert—
  350
  '(4) The regulations may authorise or require governing bodies to make provision with respect to any matters relating to their meetings or proceedings (including any of the matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)).
  (5) Subject to the regulations, a governing body may regulate their own procedure and that of any of their committees.'
  No. 67, in page 141, line 21, at end insert
  ', and the payment of allowances to a governor at any such time shall instead be in accordance with a scheme made by the local education authority for the purposes of section 519 of the Education Act 1996.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 12

  INSTRUMENTS OF GOVERNMENT
  Amendments made: No. 11, in page 143, line 2, leave out from 'section' to 'modifications' in line 3 and insert
  '(Arrangements for government of new schools) for a new maintained school,'.
  No. 23, in page 145, line 24, after 'be' insert or is,'.
  No. 24, in page 145, line 28, at end insert
  ',including provision modifying any provision of this Schedule or Schedule 9'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 16

  STAFFING OF COMMUNITY, VOLUNTARY CONTROLLED AND COMMUNITY SPECIAL SCHOOLS
  Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in page 155, line 41, after 'and', insert
  ',where the post is that of head teacher,'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 69.
  Ms Morris: The amendments seek to correct an error in the original drafting and limit to head teacher posts the local authority's entitlement to make representations to the governing body's selection panel.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 17

  STAFFING OF FOUNDATION, VOLUNTARY AIDED AND FOUNDATION SPECIAL SCHOOLS
  Amendment made: No. 69, in page 163, line 42, after 'and', insert
  ',where the post is that of head teacher,'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 18

  APPEALS AGAINST EXCLUSION OF PUPILS
  Amendment made: No. 26, in page 170, leave out lines 5 to 11 and insert—
  '3.—(1) For the purpose of the payment of financial loss allowance under section 173(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, that provision shall apply, with any necessary modifications, to any member of an appeal panel constituted in accordance with paragraph 2 as it applies to any member of a parish or community council; and such an appeal panel shall be included in the bodies to which section 174 of that Act (travelling and subsistence allowances) applies.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 22

  FOUNDATION, VOLUNTARY AND FOUNDATION SPECIAL SCHOOLS: DISPOSAL OF LAND AND DISCONTINUANCE
  Amendments made: No. 43, in page 180, leave out lines 42 and 43.
  No. 29, in page 181, line 11, leave out 'within the meaning of and insert 'as defined by'.
  No. 44, in page 181, line 12, at end insert—
  '(1A) If a voluntary aided school was, immediately before the appointed day, a controlled school within the meaning of the Education Act 1996, this paragraph also applies to any disposal by the trustees of the school of any land acquired, or enhanced in value, wholly or partly by means of expenditure incurred under section 63 or 64 of that Act.'.
  No. 45, in page 181, line 13, leave out
  '(b), (c) or (d) of sub-paragraph (1)'
  and insert
  '(c) or (d) of sub-paragraph (1) or sub-paragraph (1A)'.
  No. 46, in page 181, line 14, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'provision'.
  No. 30, in page 181, line 36, leave out 'within the meaning of' and insert 'as defined by'.
  No. 54, in page 181, line 40, leave out
  'hold the proceeds of disposal on trust'
  and insert
  'use the proceeds of disposal'.
  No. 103, in page 182, line 4, at end insert—
  '(10) Where the trustees of a foundation, voluntary or foundation special school wish, in the case of any land held by them for the purposes of the school, to use the land for purposes not connected with the provision of education in maintained schools—

  (a) the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall apply as if any such change of use of the land were a disposal of the land; and

  (b) the value of the land as at the date of any determination under sub-paragraph (2) or of any direction under subparagraph (7) shall be treated as proceeds of the disposal of the land.'.

  No. 104, in page 183, line 27, leave out '29' and insert '29(1)'.
  No. 105, in page 183, line 28, leave out 'on' and insert 'in relation to'.
  No. 106, in page 183, line 30, leave out 'on'.
  No. 107, in page 183, leave out line 39 and insert 'public expense'.
  No. 108, in page 183, line 44, leave out from 'at' to end of line 45 and insert 'public expense'.
  No. 109, in page 183, line 45, at end insert—
  '(2A) In sub-paragraph (2) "at public expense" means at the expense of—

  (a) the Funding Agency for Schools, or

  (b) any local education authority or an authority within section 29(2)(c).'.

  No. 110, in page 184, line 2, leave out
  'the use of land as'
  and insert
  'any such change of use of the land as is'.
  No. 55, in page 184, line 25, leave out 'them' and insert 'the governing body'.
  No. 111, in page 184, line 32, at end insert—

  'Notice by trustees terminating foundation or voluntary school's occupation of existing site
  7A.—(1) This paragraph applies where trustees have given a notice falling within section 29(11) which is effective to terminate a foundation or voluntary school's occupation of any land ("the relevant premises").

  (2) If any expenditure has been incurred on the relevant premises as mentioned in section 29(2)(a) to (c), the Secretary of State may impose any requirements that he thinks just—

  (a) in respect of the repayment by the trustees of all or part of any such expenditure which was incurred by him;

  (b) in respect of the transfer by the trustees to the local education authority of the whole or part of the relevant premises where he is satisfied the authority will need them for any purpose connected with education;

  (c) (to the extent that the relevant premises are to be so transferred) in respect of the payment by the authority to the trustees of so much of the value of those premises as is just having regard to the extent to which the premises were provided otherwise than at public expense;

  (d) (to the extent that the relevant premises are not to be so transferred) in respect of the payment by the trustees to the authority of so much of the value of those premises as is just having regard to the extent to which they were provided at public expense.

  (3) In sub-paragraph (2) "at public expense" means at the expense of—

  (a) the Funding Agency for Schools, or

  (b) any local education authority or an authority within section 29(2)(c).'.

  No. 77, in page 184, line 38, leave out from '"disposal" to end of line 39 and insert 'includes a compulsory disposal;'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 24

  ADMISSION APPEALS
  Amendment made: No. 27, in page 192, leave out lines 40 to 47 and insert—
  '4.—(1) For the purpose of the payment of financial loss allowance under section 173(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, that provision shall apply, with any necessary modifications, to any member of an appeal panel constituted in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 (or in accordance with paragraph 2 as it applies by virtue of paragraph 3) as it applies to any member of a parish or community council; and such an appeal panel shall be included in the bodies to which section 174 of that Act (travelling and subsistence allowances) applies.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

New clause 5

  PARTNERSHIP SCHEMES
  '.—(1) In discharging its obligations under Section 78(1) of this Act a Local Education Authority shall ensure that parents of children in the area of the authority are able to express their preferences without regard to whether a school is a maintained school or an independent school.
  (2) If, under Clause 78(1)(a), a parent expresses a preference for their child to attend an independent school, and the headteacher of the independent school expresses a willingness to accept the child as a pupil at the school, the local education authority may introduce a scheme of support (to be known for the purposes of this section as a partnership scheme) to allow the fees or expenses which are payable in respect of the child's attendance at the school to be met in whole or in part from the funds available to the local education authority, provided that the condition set out in sub-section (3) of this section is satisfied.
  (3) In the exercise of the power conferred on a local education authority under this section, the authority shall ensure that the public funds which are committed to support a partnership scheme are fair, having regard to the factors or criteria which that local authority takes into account when determining school budget share of maintained schools under section 45 of this Act.'.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  2.45 am
  Mr. Dorrell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6—Assisted places scheme—
  '.—Notwithstanding the provisions of the Education (Schools) Act 1997 any pupil who was attending a former participating school (within the meaning of that Act) on May 1st 1997 and in respect of whom the fees or charges of the school were being met in whole or in part from public funds under the terms of the assisted places scheme shall be entitled to continue support until the end of their education.'.
  New clause 9—Charitable provision—

  '.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall prevent a charity from reimbursing either

  (a) a primary or secondary non-maintained school; or

  (b) a local education authority

  in respect of the fees or related charges or expenses of any pupil resident in the area of that local authority whom the authority determines may benefit from education at that school (whether inside or outside their area)

  (2) Expenditure by a charity in making a reimbursement under subsection (1) above shall be charitable expenditure, within the meaning of section 44 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993.'.

  New clause 10—Partnership provision—

  '.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall prevent a local authority from reimbursing any primary or secondary non-maintained school (whether inside or outside their area) in respect of the fees of any pupil resident in the area of that local authority whom the authority determines may benefit from education at that school.

  (2) The fees of any pupil reimbursed under subsection (1) may be reasonable fees in respect of—

  (a) courses of academic study in a specific subject or a range of subjects; or

  (b) courses in music, drama, ballet; or

  (c) games including football, cricket, tennis, swimming, athletics

  attended by such pupil's selected by reference to his or her particular aptitude and ability.

  (3) The parents of any pupil benefiting from payments under this section shall be free to choose either at their own expense or with the aid of charitable reimbursement as provided in section (Charitable provision) to maintain such pupil's at such primary or secondary non-maintained schools for the balance of such pupil's education if the parents believe it is the best interests of such pupils to do so having regard to the continuity of his or her study and the consistency of his or her environment.

  (4) No local education authority shall be under any obligation to make any payment in respect of any individual pupil under this section and an authority shall be entitled to restrict such payments by reference to household income (or such other measure of parental means that is deemed appropriate) as well as by reference to the ability and aptitude of a pupil.

  (5) This section shall not apply to any pupil with special educational needs, as defined in section 312 of the Education Act 1996.

  (6) Assistance under the terms of the section shall be known as Partnership Provision.'.

  354
  Amendment No. 92, in clause 118, page 87, line 24, leave out 'Subject to subsection (2)'.
  Amendment No. 94, in page 87, line 24, after '(2)' insert
  'in respect of any pupil with Special Educational Needs as defined in section 312 of the Education Act 1996'.
  Amendment No. 93, in page 87, leave out from beginning of line 30 to end of line 10 on page 88.
  Amendment No. 95, in page 87, line 36, after 'pupil', insert 'with Special Educational Needs'.
  Amendment No. 96, in page 87, line 37, after 'prescribed', insert
  'in respect of any pupil with Special Educational Needs'.
  Amendment No. 97, in page 87, line 38, after 'Regulations', insert
  'in respect of any pupil with Special Educational Needs'.
  Government amendments Nos. 83 and 84.
  Mr. Dorrell: If Ministers and I agree nothing else about the amendments, I suspect that we will agree that they are the very opposite of technical. The group dealing with partnership schemes concerns a major issue of principle between the Conservative party and the Government and their supporters.
  The amendments bring together a number of different aspects of the issue and pose a choice. They bring together, first, the scope of the choice that should be open to parents in making a choice about the school in which their child will be educated; secondly, the scope of the Government's commitments in advance of the general election on the operation of the assisted places scheme and to children who took places on that scheme; and thirdly, the scope of discretion that should be open to a local education authority to offer support to children benefiting from education in an independent school.
  Underlying all that is a key question of principle: whether the Government favour, as they say they do, an inclusive vision of education that holds out to every child from whatever background the prospect of a choice between independent and maintained-school education, or whether they intend to continue with the policy, which has motivated their actions since 1 May, of a sharp, indeed enhanced, division between the independent sector and the maintained sector—the further development of a state of affairs that has been described by George Walden as one country, two systems.
  George Walden's book, which analyses what is good and bad about Britain's schools system, emphasises the damage that is done to the provision of schools education by the continued deep divide between the independent system, to which, in the Government's vision, a family can aspire only if they can afford to pay the fees, and the maintained system.
  The new clauses and amendments seek to challenge the Government's view that the two systems should be kept entirely separate, and offer a variety of ways in which the Government's inclusive rhetoric can be turned into reality for families to whom the Secretary of State is effectively saying in the policies that he has espoused since coming to office, "I, the Secretary of State, am in favour of inclusion, but not in favour of including you in the choice that is available to other families in Britain." We on the Conservative Benches are clear. We are in favour of all

  355
  families having choice; we are in favour of variety; and we are in favour of a system of support in education that gives real effect to the Government's rhetoric about inclusiveness.
  That is why we have tabled new clause 5, which would require a local authority, when collecting the preferences of parents on the school that they want their children to go to—a process that is rightly foreshadowed in clause 78—to allow parents to express a preference not only for a maintained school, but for an independent school in the area. If a parent expressed a preference for an independent school and the head teacher of that school was prepared to accept the child on the basis of a use of funds that was fair in the context of the rest of the funding of maintained education in that local education authority, the LEA should have the power to support that child's education in that independent school. That is an important principle. I deeply regret the Government's approach to the assisted places scheme, which flew in the opposite direction. The new clause would give real effect to the ambition, which the Secretary of State is fond of quoting, of providing inclusive educational prospects for all children.
  The argument used against the assisted places scheme—that it is an unfair allocation of resources—is not open to the Secretary of State in response to the new clause, because the new clause would explicitly empower the LEA to provide support to a child's education following the expression of parental preference if the use of resources was fair in the context of other resource decisions in the area. I have discussed that principle with representatives of independent schools. Not every independent school would offer places on that basis, but there is a good prospect that some would wish to do so. The argument that the Government like to use against the assisted places scheme is not available to them in response to new clause 5. It is a challenge to the Government to make real their rhetoric about inclusiveness.
  If the Government do not respond to that challenge, we shall see the true substance of the rhetoric that the Minister for School Standards—who has absented himself from the Chamber—is fond of using about the importance of a partnership between public and private sector. He likes going to assemblies of independent schools and holding out the prospect of improved co-operation between the public and private sector. He has even attached £500,000 to improving that co-operation.
  The new clause will flush out the Secretary of State. Does the partnership that he envisages involve simply the crumbs that fall from the table of those who can afford to pay the fees for independent schools, or is he prepared to offer children of parents who cannot afford the fees the real choice that is available under his proposals only to those who can afford the fees?
  Perhaps the Secretary of State agrees with Mr. Doug McAvoy, who clearly thinks that only education provided in a maintained school should be supported from taxpayers' funds. I do not understand the logic of that. Suppose that taxpayers' funds are available to provide the best possible education for a child and the parents choose to have that child educated at an independent school, which is prepared to accept the child. Provided that the resource consequences are fair in the context of the decisions of the LEA, on what basis do the Government
  356
  reject the principle of new clause 5? That is the first important principle that arises from this group of new clauses and amendments.
  The second important principle relates to new clause 6, which deals with the argument whether children who were accepted on to the assisted places scheme before its abolition should be able to look forward to the planned completion of the course of education for which they were accepted.
  The House will know that the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, who was the Labour party spokesman on school standards before the election, wrote at that time to many parents making it clear that any child accepted for an assisted place at a school that offered education up to the age of 13 could expect to be able to complete that education.
  We failed to persuade the Secretary of State to accept the principle in the Kilfoyle letter and write it into the Act that abolished assisted places, so we now seek to bring him back to the issue. He said at the time, "Trust me; trust our discretion," but then refused, even on the basis of his discretion, to give the firm assurance that any child accepted for an assisted place at a school which in the normal course of events would offer education to the age of 13 would be able to complete his or her education in that school.
  That commitment was given repeatedly and officially on behalf of the Labour party before the general election. Now the Secretary of State should at last recognise that it is an election pledge which, as the law stands, the Government have already broken.
  Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 address the effect of clause 118 as it emerged from the Standing Committee. That clause was a late addition to the Bill; I believe that it was added to the Bill at the Committee's last sitting. It was prompted by an attack by Mr. Doug McAvoy of the National Union of Teachers on a scheme being promoted by Surrey county council, which planned to offer an arrangement similar to the one I described when I was talking about new clause 5.
  Surrey made it clear that it wanted to offer to children from every background a real choice, including the choice of an independent education. Doug McAvoy opposed the idea because he said that it would take funds away from the maintained sector and allocate them to the independent sector.
  Mr. McAvoy seemed unaware that the funds under the Surrey county council scheme would have been used to support the education of Surrey residents, exactly as they would have been if they had been spent in maintained schools. He did not seem to know, either, that the council had made it clear that its scheme, like new clause 5, was designed to offer nothing more than support similar to that available for the education of children within the maintained school system.
  The effect of clause 118 as drafted is to give the Secretary of State the power to declare that scheme illegal. However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept new clause 5, which would write in the principles of the Surrey scheme and make it a national arrangement. Because I believe in inclusive education, I think that it would be a good scheme to introduce in county council areas in general.
  If the Secretary of State is not willing to do that, I hope that he will at least accept amendments Nos. 92 and 93, the effect of which would be to remove the threat to the

  357
  Surrey county council scheme. He could do that on the basis that discretion should be left to LEAs. We have heard a great deal about the importance of LEAs in the Government's, and the Secretary of State's, vision. I hope that he will believe his own rhetoric about LEAs, local discretion and local decision-making and allow Surrey county council to follow up its own choice.
  This is a key group of amendments. We favour partnership schemes, designed to break down the divisions between the maintained and independent sectors. That is why we tabled new clause 5. As a second choice, we believe that the Government should accept the amendments we have tabled to clause 118 to allow the Surrey county council scheme to go ahead. Most important of all, we believe that the Government should be held to the election pledge made, on behalf of the Labour party, in the Kilfoyle letter.
  I challenge the Secretary of State to accept the new clause and the amendments, because they are consistent with his words. If he does not accept them, we can only conclude that his rhetoric should be disbelieved and that we should look only at his actions, which, in important respects, are at variance with his words.
  3 am
  Mr. Brady: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), and I wish to refer to a specific local example which sheds light on these matters. St. Bede's college in Manchester is an independent Catholic grammar school, and Trafford borough council—and Cheshire county council before it—have, since the second world war, funded the provision of places for local Catholic children in the borough of Trafford at St. Bede's.
  It throws light on the attitude of the Labour party and the Government that, now that Trafford borough council is Labour-controlled—for the first time in its history—it has decided to end that provision, in spite of the fact that the circumstances which my right hon. Friend described appertain exactly; the school has offered places to the local authority at exactly the same cost as the places in maintained schools. There is no financial benefit to the local authority from scrapping the scheme. It is simply an ideological attack on the principle of selective and independent schools, and shows a negative attitude to partnership.
  The provision of places at St. Bede's is actually cheaper for the local authority, because there are no capital costs for the local authority—unlike at maintained schools. I am keen to support new clause 5 and the amendments, because the other parties—and I am pleased to say, in this instance, that that includes the Liberal Democrats in Trafford—are supporting partnership and choice, and opposing the Labour party's regressive thinking on this matter.
  The Conservative and Liberal parties have pledged to restore the scheme when they take control of Trafford borough council. I am concerned that clause 118 could be used to prevent that, and I seek an assurance that that will not be the case. I strongly urge the House to support the new clause, to prevent any attempt to stop the reintroduction of that scheme if the local population vote for it.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I, too, support new clauses 5 and 6. I also want to speak to new clauses 9 and 10, which
  358
  I tabled. We are talking about serious issues of trust. Ministers should be on the Front Bench to answer questions about what they said, day in and day out, in Committee. The moment they knew that they would be asked to explain their comments—which are recorded in Hansard—they ran away.
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall not detain the House, but I want it put on the record that my ministerial colleagues, having been on the Front Bench almost continuously for the past 11 hours, deserve a break to get a cup of tea and relieve themselves. The silly nonsense that we hear from Conservative Members illustrates the utter contempt in which they hold standards and children's education.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I have not been a Member of Parliament for long, so perhaps this will carry less weight than if it were said by someone else, but I have rarely heard such a ridiculous statement by a Minister. It ill behoves the Secretary of State to try to disguise the fact—which everyone knows—that his ministerial colleagues made remarks on this issue that, after slipping clause 118 into the Bill at the last moment in Committee, they cannot now defend. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) is now back in the Chamber—I hope that she will resume her seat on the Front Bench.
  As I said, we are discussing an important issue, which goes to the heart of the question whether we should trust anything that the Ministers say. They are asking us to take much on trust, as so much in the Bill is to be governed by regulations that will be issued and reviewed long after the Bill is enacted.
  It is fitting that we should be discussing partnership schemes at 3 am, because last year we debated the assisted places scheme at a similar hour of the morning. That was another occasion on which the Government did not give sufficient time for proper consideration of an issue that affects so many children—nearly 400 in my constituency alone. In the last stages of that discussion, I tabled amendments similar to new clauses 9 and 10, but I was persuaded by the Minister's response to withdraw them.
  New clause 9 would encourage and enable charities to top up the fees of a child at an independent school where the cost would exceed the standard spending assessment for a child at a maintained school in the area. Last year, I accepted the right of the new Government—although I did not agree with them—to claim back the £1,000 more that it cost on average to send a child to an independent school through the assisted places scheme rather than to a maintained school, and to use that money towards the costs of teachers in other parts of the education service. However, I tabled the new clause because I believe that we should allow charities to step into the breach. In that case, the assisted places scheme, or a version of it, could continue in areas where it had popular support, without doing so at the expense of the Government's objective of finding more money for primary school teachers.
  The equivalent of new clause 10 in the Education (Schools) Bill would have ensured that councils had the power to go ahead with a new version of the assisted places scheme. The Minister for School Standards said:
  "I intend to ask the Committee to reject new clause 2, because it is unnecessary to include its provisions in the Bill, given that … Regulations … made under section 518 of the Education Act 1996,

  359
  already give LEAs the discretion to pay the whole or part of tuition fees … and other expenses relating to the attendance of a pupil at a fee-paying school."
  He went on:
  "If the local authority wants to use the money that it raises locally for this purpose, that is for it to decide. It will be held accountable by Surrey people, if that is how it wants to spend money from the education budget. The authority has the freedom to exercise that power".—[Official Report, 10 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 1008.]
  Emboldened by the Minister's statement, I felt no need to press the motion to a vote, and I went back to Surrey and discussed the matter with the chairman of the county council's education committee. After taking expert advice, we developed a scheme that we believed was a great improvement: a development of what was best in the assisted places scheme and in the rhetoric that we were hearing from the Government about building partnership between independent and state schools.
  Nearly one in five children in Surrey go to independent schools, and it is especially important for us to build bridges between those schools and the state sector. It so happened that our scheme came to fruition when the Bill was in Committee, so I took advantage of its approval by the county council to announce it to the Committee, and to seek endorsement from Ministers for what we were trying to do.
  I said:
  "The Education (Schools) Act 1997 … was a retrograde step away from more partnership between the public and private sectors. Since then … it was agreed to create a new partnership scheme in Surrey between independent schools and the state sector."
  I sought the reaction of the Minister for School Standards and his ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Yardley, who said:
  "The Department looks forward to receiving details of those plans and to hearing how children can be given more opportunities than at present. That is exactly the sort of co-operation that we want to see".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 5 February 1998; c. 346–47.]
  I was so delighted by that response that I sought confirmation from the hon. Lady, who said:
  "we welcome the partnership that is clearly being made in Surrey with the private sector; that is exactly what we want in the interests of children."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 5 February 1998; c. 351.]
  So, there we have it—the endorsement of the principle by the Minister for School Standards, and the endorsement of our scheme, when it is approved, by his ministerial colleague. We feel that we are going places. We have a scheme that will be greatly to the benefit of children in Surrey.
  We have heard the rhetoric from Labour Members about how, through their new education action zones, they will get companies such as Proctor and Gamble involved in education—a field that the company has not previously entered to any great extent. We thought, why not get the royal grammar school in Guildford involved, as it has been in the business of education for more than 500 years and might have a thing or two to teach other schools in the area, given that it is often the best performing school in the country by many measures?
  360
  3.15 am
  So we thought that we were on to a good thing, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood pointed out, we heard from the other side of the Labour Government. Something that we have learnt the hard way in Committee is that there are two sides to this Government. This is the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Administration. If they drink the right potion, one hears the right noises, but when they make the decisions they often reach into that other cabinet and drink potion B—then the lesson is, "Watch out!" I fear that one Minister—I would not like to say which one—had drunk deep of potion B before the Government came up with clause 118.
  Mr. Willis: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has been drinking, but it is certainly something of the night. Will he confirm the reality of these amendments, and in particular new clause 5? If it were adopted, the public sector would make a huge subsidy to every child in a private school throughout the country. Will he confirm that that is really the intention—a huge transfer of funds from the public sector to subsidise the private sector?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I hesitate even to attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman, because he clearly has not been listening to what I have been saying. I clearly described the Surrey scheme. Any additional costs—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will listen, I said that, under the Surrey scheme, any additional cost over the standard spending assessment would be met from outside charitable sources.
  Local education authorities can now spend money in ways that we all would agree would be unreasonable. We do not object to reasonable constraints on the way in which councils spend their money, but let us not forget that children in my county are costing the local ratepayers £80,000 a year because they are in care, and there are many more costing at least £20,000 a year. Some children in our society require us to spend a great deal more per year than the standard spending assessment. Those powers would remain with the local education authority, even after the enactment of the Bill without amendment.
  Mr. Willis: Probably it is the lateness of the hour and the fact that I am getting old, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that new clause 5 basically states that parents can choose to send their child to an independent school if they wish to do so, and that the cost to the local authority would be the average cost of sending them to a state school—
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I will quickly answer the point for the hon. Gentleman. He should refer to new clause 5(3). If he reads it carefully, he will understand where we are coming from. I think that we need to move on, because this is a very sterile debate.
  Mr. Dorrell: The answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) is that new clause 5(2) makes it clear that the local authority could meet the cost
  "in whole or in part"—

  361
  the purpose being that it would meet it in part, or indeed not at all, according to a means test similar to that provided for under the assisted places scheme. So the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I refer the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) to new clause 10, which may be more to his liking, and which follows the new clauses that I proposed last year. I particularly refer him to new clause 9, which exactly mirrors the one that he and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) supported when I tabled it last summer. I was alarmed to hear from the hon. Member for Bath that he has become so tired that he cannot decide whether to support the proposal again this evening. I was sorry to hear that, but not surprised, given the confusion among the Liberals.
  New clause 10 is a menu, and I invite the Minister to say how far down it he is prepared to go. I hope that the Minister is listening, because the education of children—for which, apparently, there is some support among Labour Members—is important. The menu includes buying lessons from the independent sector for a child that needs them.
  Do the Government support the principle that, if a school cannot provide classes in Japanese or Latin, and it has a pupil with a particular aptitude or need to learn them, the LEA may help the pupil by buying that provision, and, at the same time, building bridges with the independent sector? Does he accept that the same should apply to courses in music, drama and ballet? Should it not apply to games such as football and cricket, where a school may have particular expertise? Does he support the principle of parental choice?
  The Minister for School Standards said that his objection to grammar schools was that schools make the choice, not the parents. We invite him to support a scheme that gives parental choice. Does he agree that the parents of a child who has been favoured by support from a local education authority in having some lessons bought in from an independent school should also be able, possibly with charitable help, to buy the rest of that child's education provision at the same school out of their own resources? There is a logic to what we are asking the Government to support, and it is dictated by the needs of children, not only in Surrey but in other parts of country.
  Only last night, Bromley council considered a similar scheme. It has found that the demand for places means that, if assisted places are abolished, it will have to meet not only the standard spending assessment of pupils coming back into the state sector but the capital cost of new classrooms. The Government have not provided the necessary money for that.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the sniggering lack of interest of Labour Front-Bench spokesmen is only what the people of Surrey have come to expect from the Labour Government? Does he further agree that people in Surrey and all over the country will look carefully at how the Liberal Democrats vote? This is a test of the Government's commitment to partnership in education that people in Surrey will hope the Liberal Democrats do not fail. The Conservatives will stand up for their interests.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. It is disappointing that Labour and Liberal Members seem to think that this is a joke. The fact is that it involves the education of thousands of children and building the sort of bridges between independent and state provision that everyone claims that they favour. If they do, they must support our amendment.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Does my hon. Friend see any analogy with the bridge built between the Prime Minister—a product of independent education—and the Deputy Prime Minister, who, of course, is not?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: That is an avenue down which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not allow me to travel. Nor may we consider why the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), is not present.
  We know that Labour Members have a hidden constraint on the way in which they vote tonight. They have the constraint of the union vote. They have the constraint of the unions telling them that they are against the type of scheme that we suggest. We may be sure that, if Labour Members go through the No Lobby, it will be due not only to the potions that they have been drinking but to the message that they have been imbibing from their union paymasters.
  I am mystified by the statements that I read out from the Minister earlier in the year, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) has highlighted the mystery of them. I suggest that they consider their position carefully. We heard from the Minister for School Standards that he was all in favour of Surrey making up its own mind. Now he is introducing regulations that we have not even seen today at this late stage of considering the Bill. Even now, we have no idea what the regulations will do, and how they will affect us. In the meantime, if children are to participate in a partnership scheme in Bromley, Surrey or other parts of the country, decisions have to be made today.
  Decisions about where children go in the autumn have to be made at this time of year. The delay, which may suit the political purposes of Labour Members, is at the expense of children who saw themselves knocking at the door of opportunity when the schemes were put forward in good faith after the statement by the Minister last summer. Now they find the very same Minister blocking their path, because he dare not show his hand before the Bill is passed.
  With this amendment, we invite the Minister to show his hand. He owes it to those children, as he does to the House, to explain the behaviour of his Department in the light of statements made by him and his colleagues. I urge all those who support the principles of the amendments to support the one on which we shall vote.
  Mr. Blunkett: I wish the shadow Secretary of State a happy birthday. If I had had this inflicted on me on my birthday by my Whips and business managers, I would genuinely believe that they had got it in for me. I can only presume that it is because he has been doing too much work on a Monday and Friday in his family business, but someone has certainly got it in for the shadow Secretary of State.

  363
  We have been debating Report and Third Reading now for almost 20 hours. It is a long period, and I do not intend to keep the House on this set of new clauses and amendments. I shall seek formally to move Government amendments Nos. 83 and 84.
  We debated the issues last summer, and a Bill received Royal Assent on 31 July. We debated that Bill in the light of the manifesto on which the Government were elected. I want to make it clear this morning that, whatever Conservative Members feel or think, that was a mandate, and we will not have it overturned by local authorities that are blatantly trying to reintroduce the assisted places scheme under another name.
  There will be partnership. We shall have agreements. The private sector is prepared to co-operate, and we welcome that. It has to be a genuine partnership, not a subsidy to the private sector. It has to be in the interests of all children, which means not diverting public money allocated by Government for spending in state schools, to provide money for private schools. We shall continue to seek that partnership and to build on the progress that has been made, and I commend the excellent work that my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has been doing to build those bridges.
  I also want to make it clear that there will be no danger to those programmes in music, ballet, special needs, which we all accept and which we have repeatedly said are perfectly legitimate. What we shall not tolerate is local government simply seeking to cock a snook at the elected Government on a manifesto that was overwhelmingly carried on 1 May last year as a deliberate political act that has nothing to do with increasing the standards of education.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall not give way. In politics we are all subject to pomposity, but if there had been a competition for pomposity over the past few hours, the hon. Gentleman would have won hands down. At this time in the morning, we need to be able to distinguish simple verbal diarrhoea from genuine argument.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am glad the hon. Gentleman agrees.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: In that case, will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I want to make it absolutely clear that I shall give way to no Conservative Member, in view of the filibuster that they have operated over the past 12 hours. We are now going to make progress.
  The argument is clear: yes, let us have partnership; yes, let us ensure that, where provision is not available at local level for special needs, ballet or music, it is made available; but we are not prepared to have an assisted places scheme by another name. We shall judge each of the proposals brought forward by local government on its merits; we shall not fetter our discretion. We shall not go again through a debate that we have already had just for
  364
  a party political game, which has nothing to do with the standard of education for the bulk of this country's children.
  Mr. Dorrell: First, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his birthday wishes. There are few things I should prefer to be doing than debating with him an issue of such profound importance.
  The right hon. Gentleman persists in believing that the opportunity for a local education authority to buy an education from an independent school, in a way that represents a fair use of resources compared with the education bought for other children in its area, is somehow doing down the maintained sector, and is an artificial subsidy to the private sector. That is total nonsense: it is one of the clearest descriptions possible of the difference between the Secretary of State's approach and mine.
  I believe that money voted by Parliament for the provision of school education for children should be used in a way that focuses on the needs of individual children, and provides that education in whatever institution is best placed to provide it. The Secretary of State clearly still believes that money voted in those circumstances is money voted to an institution. That is the clear distinction of principle that continues to divide us.
  The Secretary of State says that the issue was resolved by the passage of the Bill last summer, but the fact is that the divorce between the independent sector and the maintained sector is a continuing problem facing the education system—indeed, it defaces the British school system. The Secretary of State has no response to it whatever, and he cannot simply decree it away. It is an issue that will continue to dog education debates until we have a Government who are prepared to face the issue head on, and deal with it for the serious issue that it is.
  That is why—despite the lateness of the hour—we shall push the new clause to a Division. Few issues illustrate more clearly the difference of principle between the Secretary of State, who is more interested in the institutions, and the Conservatives, who are more interested in providing education to children in whatever institution is best placed to meet their needs.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 45, Noes 220.

  Division No. 226]

  [3.34 am

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brady, Graham

  Leigh, Edward

  Brazier, Julian

  Letwin, Oliver

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Loughton, Tim

  Burns, Simon

  Luff, Peter

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Fallon, Michael

  Prior, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Randall, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hayes, John

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Heald, Oliver

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  365

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Swayne, Desmond

  Tredinnick, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sir David Madel and Mr. John Whittingdale.

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Ennis, Jeff

  Allan, Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Allen, Graham

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Flynn, Paul

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Barnes, Harry

  Galloway, George

  Barron, Kevin

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Godman, Norman A

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Berry, Roger

  Grant, Bernie

  Betts, Clive

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Blackman, Liz

  Grogan, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Hanson, David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Breed, Colin

  Healey, John

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Heppell, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hill, Keith

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Hinchliffe, David

  Burden, Richard

  Hoey, Kate

  Burgon, Colin

  Home Robertson, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Hope, Phil

  Byers, Stephen

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hurst, Alan

  Casale, Roger

  Hutton, John

  Caton, Martin

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Chaytor, David

  Jamieson, David

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Clapham, Michael

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Clwyd, Ann

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Coleman, Iain

  Keetch, Paul

  Colman, Tony

  Kemp, Fraser

  Connarty, Michael

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Kidney, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Cousins, Jim

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Cox, Tom

  Laxton, Bob

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Lepper, David

  Cummings, John

  Levitt, Tom

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lock, David

  Darvill, Keith

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  McCabe, Steve

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Davidson, Ian

  McDonnell, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McFall, John

  Dawson, Hilton

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McIsaac, Shona

  Doran, Frank

  McNulty, Tony

  Dowd, Jim

  MacShane, Denis

  Edwards, Huw

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  366

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marek, Dr John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

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

  Miller, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  Mitchell, Austin

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moffatt, Laura

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stott, Roger

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Stringer, Graham

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mountford, Kali

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Mullin, Chris

  (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Norris, Dan

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Touhig, Don

  O'Neill, Martin

  Trickett, Jon

  Öpik, Lembit

  Truswell, Paul

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Watts, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Webb, Steve

  Rapson, Syd

  White, Brian

  Raynsford, Nick

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Wcks, Malcolm

  Rendel, David

  Willis, Phil

  Rooney, Terry

  Wills, Michael

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wise, Audrey

  Roy, Frank

  Woolas, Phil

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wray, James

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 16

  PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY OF ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR FOR ENGLAND
  '.—The School Inspections Act 1996 shall be amended as follows—

  (1) in section 2 (Functions of the Chief inspector for England), subsection (7)(a), after 'lay' there shall be inserted insert, "by order,"

  (2) in section 45 (Orders and regulations)

  (a) in subsection (2), after 'section' insert '2'.

  (b) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—

  "No order shall be made under section 2 of this Act unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3 45 am
  Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

  367
  Few in the House would disagree with the Prime Minister when he said that his top three priorities would be education, education and education. The House would also agree that in education the priority must be to raise standards.
  A couple of years ago, the chief inspector, Mr. Chris Woodhead, gave a talk, which he called "Inspecting schools—the key to raising educational standards". He believes, and I agree with him, that, if inspection is properly carried out, it can be a major tool in the drive to raise standards in our schools, local education authorities, colleges and universities.
  If inspection is so important in raising standards, the annual report of Her Majesty's chief inspector is a vital document which should inform not just the Secretary of State but the whole of Parliament. For that reason, the new clause proposes that the HMCI's annual report should not just be laid before Parliament, as is required in the School Inspections Act 1996, but should be subject to debate in both Houses of Parliament.
  Until the advent of the new Government, we used to have an annual debate on the assisted places scheme. We believe that, if it was important to debate a matter that affects such a small proportion of pupils, time could be found for Parliament to debate a matter that should affect every pupil in every school. It deserves the scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament.
  Many people are concerned that there is a lack of democratic accountability in the work of Ofsted. [Interruption.] Many of us are concerned that, when we ask Ministers about Ofsted's work, we do not get—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Could there be less distracting noise from the Benches, please?
  Mr. Foster: There are concerns about the democratic accountability of Ofsted. For example, when we ask Ministers about Ofsted's work, we often get the reply, "That is not a matter for the Minister," and our inquiries are passed on to the chief inspector.
  Many of us watched the television programme "Dispatches" last Thursday, when the chief inspector acknowledged that there might be a need to improve his organisation's democratic accountability. He said:
  "We've certainly got no secrets that we feel guilty about. So we're open to any kind of documentary inquiry, any kind of academic inquiry, any kind of inquiry that Parliament, perhaps, might want to throw at us."
  It is therefore quite clear that the chief inspector himself can, and would, have no objection to the scrutiny allowed by public debate on the Floor of both Houses of Parliament.
  Such debate would enable us to ask some questions about certain aspects of the chief inspector's report, and help us to formulate future policy. Undoubtedly, we would wish to question, for example, the chief inspector's choice of language.
  There were criticisms of the chief inspector in a recent study, which dealt with how two inspectors studying the same lessons reached different judgments in a third of all
  368
  lessons. Although the researchers pointed out that there was such a discrepancy in judgment in one third of all lessons, the chief inspector chose to interpret that as meaning that judgments agreed in two thirds of lessons.
  The two thirds/one third issue is quite an interesting one. In the initial draft of one of his own reports, "The Teaching of Reading in 45 London Primary Schools", the chief inspector said:
  "the quality of teaching is satisfactory or better in approximately 2/3 of lessons observed in Year 2."
  However—as he wanted, I suspect, to make a rather more derogatory report—he changed that to:

  "weaknesses in teaching hampered pupils' progress and attainment in reading in 1 in 3 lessons in Year 2."
  Clearly, Ofsted's work is not of particular interest to Labour Members. However, given that it is costing the United Kingdom £150 million annually, I believe that it should concern them. I certainly hope that they believe that Ofsted should provide value for money. They should also be concerned about criticisms made of the chief inspector's annual report.
  Those who watched last Thursday's "Dispatches" programme—as I certainly did—will have been very concerned by comments by Mr. Alan Padden, head teacher of the Adel primary school, in Leeds. He was very concerned about an Ofsted report of his school, and said:
  "four days in a school isn't good enough if your camera isn't focused and your camera isn't pointing in the right direction. The snap isn't worth having."
  In that programme, Mr. Padden reported that, in some cases, judgments of lessons in his school were made by inspectors after less than five, 10 or 15 minutes. He defied any inspector to evaluate teaching quality, the attainment level of a class of up to 30 pupils and the progress that those pupils made in a lesson, and to validate those judgments, in such short periods. Perhaps even more worrying was that the Ofsted report included judgments on—and scores for pupils' attainment in—a music lesson that had not even been given. Hon. Members should have an opportunity to debate such matters and concerns on the Floor of the House.
  We should be able to debate also the manner in which the chief inspector collects his own data. It is quite fascinating that the chief inspector tells members of the public that the vast majority of people in schools are satisfied with how his inspections are conducted, yet I have a copy of his method of collecting data to formulate judgments.
  The chief inspector uses a five-point scale. As I am sure hon. Members are well aware, a five-point scale will usually have a spectrum comprising statements from "strongly agree" and "agree", to a central, neutral position, and finally to "disagree" and "strongly disagree". However, although one extreme end of the spectrum in the chief inspector's scale says "strongly agree" and "agree", the middle statement is "broadly agree". At the other extreme end of the spectrum is "disagree" and "strongly disagree". It is thus hardly surprising that the chief inspector tells us that many people are happy with what he is doing, when the reality is that many are not happy.
  If the chief inspector's report is considered so important by him and by the Government in the process of levering up standards in schools, and if both Houses of Parliament

  369
  are interested in levering up standards, as I believe they should be, we should have the right to debate the chief inspector's report on the Floor of the House.
  Only a few years ago, the chief inspector said that the importance of Ofsted's work was that it ensured that it was possible to ascertain whether the emperor's clothes existed and whether they were as they might seem to an unsuspecting eye. A debate on the chief inspector's annual report on the Floor of both Houses of Parliament would give us the opportunity not only to have an informed debate on educational standards but to check whether this particular emperor—the chief inspector—has any clothes.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I shall detain the House for only a short time. I am a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, and this issue goes to the heart of that Committee's responsibilities—[Interruption.] It is a disgrace that Labour Members are not prepared to consider the duties that the House gives to Members and how they might be affected by amendments. It is also a disgrace that no Labour member of the Select Committee is present to discuss this important subject. It is a matter of regret to me that only two Conservative members of that Committee are here. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) is otherwise detained, but she has been here for virtually the entire evening. However, not one of the Labour members of the Select Committee on Education and Employment has bothered to be here for this debate.
  I regret that I have to oppose the new clause, and must point out that we have a means of examining the chief inspector: we have the right to inquire of him what his views are, and we call him before the Select Committee. My concern is that the new clause would undermine that very important role of the Committee.
  Mr. Hayes: I hope that my hon. Friend's concern is not so deep that he will not be able to support the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I may well end up in the Division Lobby with the hon. Member for Bath on the ground that I suspect that the new clause will be opposed by the Government, and I am deeply opposed to everything that the Government are doing in the Bill. However, I have to point out that the hon. Member for Bath did not pay enough attention in his speech—although I regret missing the first part of it—to the vital role of the Select Committee. That is where the chief inspector is primarily accountable and where we must hold him accountable on behalf of the House.
  Mr. Byers: I shall invite the House to vote against the new clause, and I give two fundamental reasons why it should do so. The first is that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has misunderstood the role played by the chief inspector. The chief inspector might advise the Secretary of State, but the Secretary of State will determine his own policy in the light of advice which he receives from a range of individuals and organisations.
  The second reason, in respect of scrutiny by the House, is that the chief inspector is independent of the Secretary of State. That is one of the reasons why parliamentary questions tabled to Ministers are in fact replied to by the chief inspector—he is a Crown servant and, as such, not answerable to the Secretary of State.
  370
  In fact, the best way to scrutinise the work of the chief inspector and Ofsted is through the Select Committee. If there is an annual report, the chief inspector can be invited to give evidence, and the Select Committee can then report to the House in the light of those hearings. That is a far more appropriate way of scrutinising Ofsted's work. It keeps lines of communication and responsibility clearly defined.
  We believe that the new clause will create confusion. It will not help in holding the chief inspector to account. I hope that, at this late hour, the new clause will not be pressed to a Division, but, if it is, I shall invite the House to oppose it.
  4 am
  Mr. Dorrell: I listened to what the Minister had to say, but I also listened to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), and I found his arguments persuasive. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) was right to say that the Select Committee was an important element of parliamentary accountability, but I am sure that he—indeed, any member of a Select Committee—understands that the Select Committee is a Committee of the House of Commons, and that ultimate responsibility rests with the House.
  The hon. Member for Bath made a number of points to which the Minister did not respond. As I have said, I found the hon. Gentleman's arguments persuasive, and if he chose to press the new clause to a Division, we would support him.
  Mr. Don Foster: I was delighted to hear the response of the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell). In the light of his comments, I shall be interested to see how the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) votes.
  Like the right hon. Member for Charnwood, I found the Minister's response deeply disappointing. I hope that we can press the new clause to a vote, and that it will be supported by all who believe that there should be democratic accountability in the work of the chief inspector. I hope that all who believe that raising standards is important, and that inspection is an important element of that, will have the opportunity to engage in a serious annual debate on the chief inspector's report.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 194.

  Division No. 227]

  [4.1 am

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Allan, Richard

  Hayes, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brazier, Julian

  Lansley, Andrew

  Breed, Colin

  Luff, Peter

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Burstow, Paul

  Madel, Sir David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Öpik, Lembit

  Evans, Nigel

  Pickles, Eric

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Prior, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Randall, John

  371

  Rendel, David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Webb, Steve

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Whittingdale, John

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Sanders, Adrian

  Willis, Phil

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'dns)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Mr. Paul Keetch and Mr. Edward Davey.

  Stunell, Andrew

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Godman, Norman A

  Allen, Graham

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Grant, Bernie

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Grogan, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Barron, Kevin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Hanson, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Healey, John

  Berry, Roger

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Blackman, Liz

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Heppell, John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Hill, Keith

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Hoey, Kate

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Home Robertson, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Hope, Phil

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Burden, Richard

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Burgon, Colin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Byers, Stephen

  Hurst, Alan

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hutton, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Caplin, Ivor

  Jamieson, David

  Casale, Roger

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Caton, Martin

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Chaytor, David

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Clapham, Michael

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Clelland, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Coaker, Vernon

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Kidney, David

  Coleman, Iain

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Colman, Tony

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Connarty, Michael

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Laxton, Bob

  Cooper, Yvette

  Lepper, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Levitt, Tom

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Cousins, Jim

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Cox, Tom

  Lock, David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cummings, John

  McCabe, Steve

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Dalyell, Tam

  McDonnell, John

  Darvill, Keith

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Davidson, Ian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Dawson, Hilton

  McNulty, Tony

  Donohoe, Brian H

  MacShane, Denis

  Doran, Frank

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Dowd, Jim

  Marek, Dr John

  Edwards, Huw

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Martlew, Eric

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Flynn, Paul

  Miller, Andrew

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Galloway, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  372

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Soley, Clive

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mountford, Kali

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mullin, Chris

  Stott, Roger

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stringer, Graham

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Norris, Dan

  (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Olner, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Timms, Stephen

  Plaskitt, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pollard, Kerry

  Touhig, Don

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Truswell, Paul

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rapson, Syd

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watts, David

  Rooney, Terry

  White, Brian

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Roy, Frank

  Wills, Michael

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wise, Audrey

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Woolas, Phil

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wray, James

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mr. John McFall and Mr. Clive Betts.

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 17

  REQUIREMENT FOR RECOUPMENT TO BE PAID FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
  '.—In section 492 of the Education Act 1996 (Recoupment: adjustment between local education authorities), for "may" in subsection (1) there shall be substituted "shall".'.—[Mr. Burstow.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I shall endeavour not to detain the House too long. I should like to start with a positive comment. The aim of the new clause is to address the worst effects of the interplay of the Greenwich judgment, grant-maintained schools and selection, which can leave children in many parts of the country without a school place.
  We want to allow the money to follow the pupil. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I have read the report of its debates. The Liberal Democrats moved an amendment in Committee in an attempt to address the Greenwich judgment head on by reversing it. After debate, the amendment was withdrawn. We have reflected on what was said and have tabled the new clause in an attempt to move matters forward.
  A number of problems arise from the Greenwich judgment. It is not relevant in every area, but the problems affect many, particularly those in large conurbations with a number of smaller local education authorities—areas where selection continues and there is a large number of

  373
  grant-maintained schools. There has been a fragmentation of the admission and planning arrangements designed to meet the demand for places.
  As a result, it can be increasingly difficult for a local education authority to match demand for places. Authorities have a statutory duty to provide school places, and some are trying to plan for that by increasing the number of places, while others have surplus places.
  Those facing increasing demand for school places experience a volatility of demand that creates greater pressure on the overall supply. It is difficult for LEAs to anticipate or control that, and thus to fund it. In those circumstances, taking into account both market-led forces and the lead times for building new accommodation, it is difficult to meet the additional demand.
  Within an individual LEA, the distribution of places is no longer a question of demography but one of parental choice—perfectly legitimate choice. In Sutton, my local education authority, the situation brought about by the Greenwich judgment on grant-maintained schools and selection means that on current projections, based on the continued inflow of out-of-borough pupils, there will be a shortfall of 2,400 places by 2003.
  4.15 am
  In Committee, there was a detailed debate about the effects of the Greenwich judgment—[Interruption.]—perhaps of the sort that is not possible in the Chamber at this hour in the morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The amendment was designed to reflect the concern of Liberal Democrat Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wake them up."] My hon. Friends certainly have those concerns, and we seek through the new clause another way of mitigating the worst effects of the judgment, without denying parental choice.
  The new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to enable local education authorities to charge other LEAs for pupils who come from elsewhere to be educated within their areas. At present, the Secretary of State has the power to do so under the Education Act 1996. It is our view that the standard spending assessment does not provide an adequate way of redressing the imbalance increasingly occurring between popular local education authorities and those with surplus places that are not doing as good a job.
  The new clause represents a way in which we could begin to address that problem. I hope that the Government will give us a positive response, and that we shall be able to do something to stop the spoilt choice that parents and children in many LEAs now face.
  Mr. Byers: New clause 17 would effectively reintroduce mandatory inter-authority recoupment in relation to pupil numbers. That is not a road down which the Government would wish to go, so if it is pressed to a vote, I shall ask the House to vote against it. However,I hope that we can avoid that, because the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has raised some important points about the consequences of the Greenwich judgment on payments for pupils in the home authority rather than the host authority where they may be attending school.
  We believe that such matters are best dealt with through the standard spending assessment regime. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we are conducting a
  374
  wholesale review of the system with the intention of introducing new measures for April 1999. I can assure him that the concerns that he has just raised will be taken into account as part of that exercise. In the light of those assurances, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw new clause 17 and allow his concerns to be addressed as part of the review of the standard spending assessment regime.
  Mr. Burstow: I have listened carefully to the Minister, and I am grateful that he listened carefully to my remarks about the way in which the Greenwich judgment affects my authority and many others. It is not the effect on the LEA that concerns me and my colleagues—it is the effect on parents and children who find themselves unable to get a school place. However, having listened to the Minister's generous offer in respect of SSA methodology—which provides a way forward to address the funding issues—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 18

  MAKING AND APPROVAL OF CODE OF PRACTICE FOR LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES AND MAINTAINED SCHOOLS
  '—(1) Where the Secretary of State proposes to issue or revise a code of practice under section 117, he shall prepare a draft of the code (or revised code).

  (2) The Secretary of State shall consult such persons about the draft as he thinks fit and shall consider any representations made by them.

  (3) If he determines to proceed with the draft (either in its original form or with such modifications as he thinks fit) he shall lay a copy of the draft before each House of Parliament.

  (4) If, within the 40-day period, either House resolves not to approve the draft, the Secretary of State shall take no further steps in relation to the proposed code.

  (5) If no such resolution is made within the 40-day period, the Secretary of State shall issue the code (or revised code) in the form of the draft, and it shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.

  (6) If a draft of a proposed code of practice is not approved under subsection (4), the Secretary of State may lay a new draft of a proposed code before both Houses of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Willis.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I shall be equally brief. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This bear pit is what it must have been like for the Christians being fed to the lions.
  The purpose of the new clause is straightforward, and we hope that the Government will support it. In Committee, we discussed the relationship between LEAs and schools. It took a great deal of hard work to get from the Government an agreement that there would be a published code of practice. We welcomed that, and we welcomed also the fact that there will be a clear set of criteria covering the relationship between an LEA and an individual school. What worries us is that the Bill proposes to give the Secretary of State the power to change the code of practice without any review. The purpose of the new clause is to say that, if the Secretary of State wishes to change the code of practice, a resolution from both Houses will be needed.
  Mrs. Browning: We have touched on this issue in Committee and on Report and, yet again, I seek an

  375
  assurance from the Minister. The Government's consultation will be reported in the summer—I believe in about June. Will the Minister assure us that, if there are changes to the code of practice, they will not be implemented during the summer recess, and that the Government will wait for this House to give the changes full scrutiny?
  Mr. Byers: I am more than pleased to give an assurance to the hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that there will be the fullest possible consultation about the LEA code of practice. It will be one of the most important codes to come out of the Bill. It will define the relationship within the new framework between LEAs and individual schools. There is some uncertainty between those partners, and it is only right and proper that the code of practice clarifies the respective responsibilities.
  I do not feel that it is appropriate to deal with the matters in the way outlined by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. It may be that the regulations need to be changed on a regular basis, to reflect the different responses and needs of the partners within the new framework, and we need flexibility. If changes are proposed, the new draft document will be fully consulted upon, with the intention of getting it absolutely right. If, after that consultation—during the practical implementation of the system—the view is that changes are needed, once again there will be the fullest possible consultation. I hope that, in the light of that assurance, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the motion.
  Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances, which were the sort of assurances that we required. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 21

  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
  '(1) The Education Act 1996 shall be amended as follows.

  (2) In section 548 (no right to give corporal punishment)

  (a) omit subsections (2), (4) and (5).

  (b) in subsection (3), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—

  (aa) any pupil for whom nursery education (within the meaning of Part V of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998) is provided.

  (c) in subsection (3), omit subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (b), and paragraph (d).

  (3) In section 549 (interpretation of section 548), omit subsection (3).'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 23—Abolition of corporal punishment in schools etc.—
  376
  '.—(1) For section 548 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be substituted—
  "No right to give corporal punishment

  548.—(1) Corporal punishment given by, or on the authority of, a member of staff to a child—

  (a) for whom education is provided, at any school, or

  (b) for whom education is provided, otherwise than at school, under any arrangements made by a local education authority, or

  (c) for whom specified nursery education is provided otherwise than at school,

  cannot be justified in any proceedings on the ground that it was given in pursuance of a right exercisable by the member of staff by virtue of his position as such.

  (2) Subsection (1) applies to corporal punishment so given to a child at any time, whether at the school or other place at which education is provided for the child, or elsewhere.

  (3) The following provisions have effect for the purposes of this section.

  (4) Any reference to giving corporal punishment to a child is to doing anything for the purpose of punishing that child (whether or not there are other reasons for doing it) which, apart from any justification, would constitute battery.

  (5) However, corporal punishment shall not be taken to be given to a child by virtue of anything done for reasons that include averting—

  (a) an immediate danger of personal injury to, or

  (b) an immediate danger to the property of,

  any person (including the child himself).

  (6) "Member of staff', in relation to the child concerned, means—

  (a) any person who works as a teacher at the school or other place at which education is provided for the child, or

  (b) any other person who (whether in connection with the provision of education for the child or otherwise)—

  (i) works at that school or place, or

  (ii) otherwise provides his services there (whether or not for payment),

  and has lawful control or charge of the child.

  (7) "Child" (except in subsection (8)) means a person under the age of 18.

  (8) "Specified nursery education" means full-time or part-time education suitable for children who have not attained compulsory school age which is provided—

  (a) by a local education authority; or

  (b) by any other person—

  (i) who is (or is to be) in receipt of financial assistance given by such an authority and whose provision of nursery education is taken into account by the authority in formulating proposals for the purposes of section 110(2)(a) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, or

  (ii) who is (or is to be) in receipt of grants under section 1 of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996; or

  (c) (otherwise than as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)) in any educational institution which would fall within section 4(1) above (definition of "school") but for the fact that it provides part—time, rather than full—time, primary education."

  (2) The following provisions of the Education Act 1996, namely—

  (a) section 549 (interpretation of section 548), and

  (b) section 550 (no avoidance of section 548 by refusing admission to school etc.), shall cease to have effect.'.

  Amendment No. 144, in clause 114, page 83, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 41.
  Amendment No. 171, in schedule 29, page 205, line 25, at end insert—'Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c.12)—
  In section 1(7) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (saving for right of parents etc. to administer corporal punishment), for "teacher, or other person" substitute "or (subject to section 548 of the Education Act 1996) any other person,".'.
  Amendment No. 172, in page 223, leave out lines 9 to 13 and insert
  'Omit sections 549 and 550 (provisions about corporal punishment).'.
  Amendment No. 173, in schedule 30, page 235, column 3, leave out lines 40 to 44 and insert 'Sections 549 and 550.'.
  Amendment No. 174, in page 237, line 54, at end insert—

  '1997 c. 59.

  Education (Schools) Act 1997

  Section 6(1).In section 7, in subsection (3)(a) "section 6(1)", and in subsection (4)(a) "(1) and".'

  Mr. Foster: New clause 21 would remove corporal punishment from independent schools. I move it in the certain knowledge that it will receive significant support in the House—I know that because I read it in today's The Independent,which tells us in advance of our deliberations that the House has swept away the last vestiges of caning. It is not enough to rely on The Independent, however, so I shall make the case briefly in the hope that hon. Members will support the new clause.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Do the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues make a habit of issuing press releases before events in this manner?
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman should know that it is certainly our practice to issue press releases saying what we hope to achieve in the House. Indeed, The Independent carries reports of what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and I said about the issue at a press conference at 10.30 am—we made no attempt to imply that those comments were made later. Perhaps it will speed up the debate if I briefly describe what we said.
  This debate gives us the opportunity to complete what I believe, and I am sure the House will believe, to be unfinished business. [Interruption.] Well, I hope that some hon. Members will believe it to be unfinished business. In 1948, birching as a judicial punishment was abolished in the United Kingdom. In 1957, flogging was abolished in the Navy. In 1967, corporal punishment in prisons and borstals was abolished. That was an important year, because it was in that year that the Plowden report, "Children and their Primary Schools", recommended the abolition of corporal punishment in both state and independent schools. The report stated:
  "We believe that the kind of relationship which ought to exist between teacher and child cannot be built up in an atmosphere in which the infliction of physical pain is regarded as a normal sanction."
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the new clause draws a distinction
  378
  between the ritualised flogging that both he and I want outlawed and the teacher who slaps a child? [Interruption.] Obviously, that concept excites some ribaldry among Labour Members, but some parents who are completely against ritualised beating would be concerned if a teacher could not lightly slap a child. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that matter?
  Mr. Foster: I will clarify it, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice that he would raise the issue. I believe that the Secretary of State was right when, about two weeks ago, he introduced guidance to teachers that made it very clear that they could reasonably use a physical approach if it prevented children who were fighting from harming one another. I believe that teachers needed that reassurance. Anything beyond that is, in my view, unacceptable, and the new clause would not make the distinction to which the hon. Member refers.
  It is my clear view that corporal punishment is wrong in principle: it is barbaric and inhuman. It is also wrong in practice, because there is no evidence whatever that it is an effective deterrent either for the child who may have been misbehaving or for other children.
  4.30 am
  The Elton committee, which studied the matter in considerable detail in 1989, said:
  "there is little evidence that Corporal Punishment was in general an effective deterrent either to the pupils punished or to other pupils."
  I do not believe that the use of corporal punishment in schools can help to develop good educational practice.
  I hope that the House is aware that although the vast majority—80 per cent.—of independent schools have the legal right to use corporal punishment, they have already decided voluntarily to abolish it. The Independent Schools Council said:
  "Many schools concluded long before any form of legal ban was contemplated that corporal punishment impeded good education."
  I estimate that no more than 200 independent schools continue to use corporal punishment, but I believe that the House should act to ensure that schools are legally obliged to cease its use forthwith.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman said that it is barbaric to use corporal punishment in schools. If it is barbaric for a teacher to slap an unruly child, is it also, in his opinion, barbaric for a parent to do the same?
  Mr. Foster: My personal view is that corporal punishment by a parent is wrong, but the new clause does not in any way infringe the rights of individual parents to inflict such punishment.
  Dr. Lewis rose—
  Mr. Foster: I am still answering the hon. Gentleman's first point. My personal view is that corporal punishment by a parent is indeed barbaric. It is for other hon. Members to decide their view on the matter. The new clause does not deal with that point, nor was it intended to.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: No, the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to contribute.

  379
  As I said at the beginning, this is an opportunity for the House to complete some unfinished business. Were we to pass this new clause or new clause 23, we would bring this country into line with all other European countries, both east and west. Surely it must be of interest to the House that not one other European country allows corporal punishment in any of its schools. I hope that, by the end of tonight, this country will have signalled its intention of joining that sensible decision taken by all other European countries.
  Kali Mountford: I shall address my relatively brief remarks to new clause 23. We are drawing to the close of a very long debate, and we are also drawing to a close the practice of corporal punishment in our schools and educational establishments.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on raising this important issue on the Floor of the House. I entirely agree with his aims and hope that he and his hon. Friends will agree that, as well as removing the right to corporal punishment, new clause 23 would protect teachers who in the course of their duties may be accused of administering corporal punishment when they are attempting to protect children. In the light of that, I hope that Liberal Democrat Members will consider supporting new clause 23. We have had to be patient tonight. It has been a long debate and I want to keep my comments as brief as possible. In that vein, I do not intend to take interventions.
  I have seen no evidence that corporal punishment enhances teaching or learning, that it enhances a child's life chances or makes a child a better citizen, or to show that a classroom cannot be controlled without the threat or the use of violence.
  Relatively few schools still indulge in this outdated practice—a practice that has been outlawed throughout the rest of Europe and abandoned by Eton. I am sure that many of the old Etonians in this place will confirm that Eton is not renowned for its lax discipline. Other disciplinary measures are available that are more appropriate in a modern school setting and which allow children the opportunity to learn how to deal with conflicts.
  The report, "Childhood Matters", by the national commission of inquiry into the prevention of child abuse, chaired by Lord Williams of Mostyn, states:
  "The general decline in the permitted use of sanctions in this form, for example in publicly maintained schools and nurseries, is to be welcomed. Alternative ways of ensuring acceptable standards should be explored and promoted".
  Evidence shows that children in schools that indulge in corporal punishment are either frightened by the experience, which is not conducive to good education, or resentful and rebellious, which is not good for discipline. One boy in my old school was beaten daily and became the school hero as a result. Other boys sought to emulate his behaviour. Canings had the opposite effect to that intended.
  Physically abused children often have problems in life. Many prisoners were beaten in school. Evidence shows that people who use violence to settle disputes have experienced violence themselves. In the interests of discipline, we merely conserve the conditions in which
  380
  violence can thrive. Some hon. Members invoke the in loco parentis argument to support their case that parents can choose corporal punishment, but it is not right to delegate that choice to another adult. Teachers do not want that right, and their trade unions do not want it; they welcome prohibition.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn felt that parents and those acting on their behalf as parents had no more right to use physical punishment on children. The commission that he chaired felt that children should have the same right of protection as adults, and said that the ban on the use of corporal punishment in publicly maintained schools should be extended to independent schools and nurseries.
  The Independent Schools Joint Council supports the end of corporal punishment. It represents 80 per cent. of children in the private sector and supports a ban because that is what parents want. In one school, parents withdrew their children because they discovered that children were being physically punished. They did not know that their children were being beaten; when they found out that they had had their choice taken away, they withdrew their children.
  The Utting report on children and violence found that children need protection when living away from home. It said that reasonable chastisement should not constitute a defence for physical abuse of children. It also said that the most effective way of discouraging violence against children is to make it plain that none is acceptable. Children should be defended against punitive treatment.
  Schools need to develop disciplinary measures. I see no reason why that cannot involve the withdrawal of treats, detention, performing useful tasks and extra home work. With older children, peer group councils have been especially useful with bullies and other disruptive behaviour. It is a far better form of discipline than corporal punishment. If hon. Members accept the amendment, it will end a discredited, outdated and ineffective practice and bring us into line with the rest of modern Europe.
  Mrs. Browning: New clause 21 will be subject to a free vote for Conservative Members.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will the hon. Lady declare an interest?
  Mrs. Browning: Yes. I have slapped a lot of little legs and I can see a lot of little legs that need slapping tonight. [Laughter.] Line up in the corner and see me afterwards.
  I cannot support new clause 21. There are some variations on it in new clause 23, to which the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) spoke. For example, subsection (5) makes an exception in respect of action taken where a child is in immediate danger. That is a sensible addition, but I parted company from her when she invoked the idea that corporal punishment was necessarily akin to child abuse or violence with long-reaching psychological effects. She mentioned, as did the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the European dimension. I should like to put on record the position on corporal punishment based on case law in the European Court. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently ruled that there is nothing inherently inhuman or degrading about physical correction. In its judgment on a case concerning school corporal discipline, it declared:

  381
  "a particular level of severity"
  had to be reached for a punishment to be in breach of the European convention on human rights. The judgment went on to say:
  "factors such as the nature and context of the punishment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration, its physical and mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health"
  of the child being disciplined must all be taken into account. That judgment was in the case of Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom in 1993.
  4.45 am
  Furthermore, article 2, protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights requires states to
  "respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions".
  I am concerned about the spirit of new clauses 21 and 23 not because I advocate the flogging of children—certainly not—but because there could be a dangerous read-across from schools to the rights of parents to smack. At present, if corporal punishment is practised in an independent school, parents have an opportunity to say whether they are in support of it or not and make an appropriate choice.
  I jokingly said to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) that I had smacked a lot of little legs. I have to say to the hon. Member for Colne Valley—perhaps I failed as a parent in this—that when a child of two or three tries to run into the road, you can point out the dangers to him, but there comes a point at which a slap on the leg prevents the child coming into danger. I advocate the parents' right to exercise that type of discipline in the child's own interest. It would be a great concern if the new clauses were accepted and that subsequently led to a diminution of the rights of parents. I am not talking about flogging; I am talking simply about the slap on the legs that many parents feel is necessary in the interests of the child's safety.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: Not many things would get me on my feet in this place at 4.45 am, especially when I have to be on my feet again at 9.30 am for another debate. Having seen what corporal punishment does to people in a secondary modern school, however, I feel deeply that we should move ahead this morning in the way outlined in new clause 23.
  The current situation is ludicrous and anomalous. I am grateful that the Government are prepared to listen to arguments that this nonsense should be removed. My central point is that corporal punishment simply does not work. That was my experience at secondary modern school. I urge any hon. Members here who advocate retaining corporal punishment to look at the punishment books of schools that still use corporal punishment, or of those, like my own, which used it in the past. The same names appeared week in and week out—the same boys and the same girls. That is the most obvious evidence that it does not work.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I will not take interventions. The hon. Gentleman can make his own points at the appropriate time.
  382
  After listening to the comments that have been made so far, I should like those hon. Members who argue for the retention of corporal punishment in schools to define the difference between legitimate corporal punishment and child abuse. I say that because I have had the experience on more than one occasion of having to define that difference in a juvenile court. I used to work in a social services department.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) talked about slapping legs. When one slaps legs, occasionally one marks a child. I have had to go to court and give evidence in cases where children who have received corporal punishment have been marked. I should like to hear a clear definition of what is child abuse and what is not; what is legitimate corporal punishment and what is abuse. I suspect that no one here can define that difference, which is why we have to grasp the nettle tonight and get rid of this nonsense once and for all.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I have made it clear that I am not giving way. I intend to conclude shortly.
  This country is looked upon by other European countries as an anachronistic regime living in a historical time warp, because we still permit corporal punishment. I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), and I hope that a time will come when we do not hit our children but look for alternative methods of discipline. I plead guilty to having occasionally slapped my children when they were younger. I recognise now that that was not the right approach. There are alternative ways, and I hope that the Government, who are making efforts in this respect, will help parents to find those other ways of ensuring that their children are disciplined and behave in an appropriate manner.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have been prepared to listen to the arguments from Back Benchers on the Government Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches and even, I suspect, from several hon. Members on the Conservative Benches who feel uneasy about the current position. I hope that, in a free vote tonight, hon. Members will support new clause 23.
  Mr. Nicholls: I hope that I do not embarrass Labour Members too much by joining them in the Lobby later tonight. Of all the arguments I have heard tonight for abolishing corporal punishment in independent schools, the one that I find utterly unconvincing—almost, but not quite, to the extent that it might make me change the way I vote—is that we must do it because otherwise we would be out of step with Europe. We are having a debate in Westminster, in our own sovereign Parliament; we should make up our own minds, one way or the other, for better or for worse, about how we feel about this issue. We should make a decision and be prepared to justify it to ourselves and to our constituents.
  The idea that, even at this time of the morning, we should troop up and cravenly say that, simply because Europe is out of step with the United Kingdom, we should follow Europe, is one that I find demeaning and insulting. In saying that, I hope that, to a certain extent, I have been able to do something to save the embarrassment of Labour Members who will, I suspect, find me with them in the Lobby when we vote on the new clause.

  383
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was perfectly straightforward in stating how he felt about smacking children, but he is wrong. It is frankly ludicrous to say that one can persuade a two-and-a-half-year-old child not to run out into a road simply by saying, "We're going to reason with you and discuss other forms of disciplinary sanction with you." That is complete and utter nonsense, although I accept that that is how the hon. Gentleman feels. The crucial point is that, even though the hon. Gentleman disagrees with it, it is not slapping in that context that has made him table his new clause. What animated the hon. Gentleman was what I would call ritualised flogging, which is what we are actually talking about.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). My memory is imperfect, but although I do not think that we went to the same school, I am pretty sure that we suffered the same experience. I do not know whether we are going to hear from my hon. Friends some sort of nostalgia for the good old days. I wonder whether they will say, "Well, I got beaten at school and it didn't do me any harm"—[Interruption.] The House can draw its own conclusions about whether it did any harm to those among my hon. Friends who may say that.
  My point is that I can remember the state of boys who were beaten at my prep school. I regularly saw marks put on their backs. That was not something out of "Whacko", as some of my colleagues will know. I am talking about boys of 10, 11 or 12 who, as a result of perfectly routine, not particularly excessive, beating, were bruised, cut and bleeding in a way that even I—this should cheer Labour Members up—find utterly unacceptable. I did not think that it was right then and I do not think it is right now. That is what we are talking about—that is what is before the House this morning.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Nicholls: I shall give way, because I am not afraid to defend my arguments, but first I want to make the point that what I have described is what we are talking about—that is what animates and drives the clause. We are not having a debate about smacking, although I shall come to that in a moment.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: We are not talking about beating. No one seems to be suggesting that that sort of beating is going on. It is normal chastisement, such as a parent would administer to his own child without any suggestion of abuse, that will be ruled out by new clause 21. That is the subject to which my hon. Friend should address himself.
  Mr. Nicholls: I gave way to my hon. Friend; I hope that he will give me credit for that. I was going to come to the arguments that he was making, but let me deal with them now, in short order.
  I accept that ritualised beatings are not taking place. I know of no public school to which I would contemplate sending my son—or to which any of my friends and relatives who educate their children at public school would send their children—that still uses beating. I know
  384
  no one who sends children to a private school that treats children in that way. However, some of us have received letters from one or two strange-sounding schools which say that, for a fee, they are perfectly prepared to beat our children for us. If those schools exist, it is legitimate to ask whether they should have that power.
  Although I am convinced—and on this subject, I know what I am talking about—that no public school, major or minor, to which any of us would contemplate sending our children today, beats children, the point on which the hon. Member for Bath is seizing is that it is still possible.
  I now come to the second point that worries my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). It is the only argument in this whole business that would cause me some concern. The argument goes—my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) mentioned it—that new clause 21 might be the thin end of a particular wedge. It is argued that, if we passed the new clause tonight, it might mean that parents could not apply reasonable chastisement to their children. I admit that that is a risk, and for some—but not for all—it is the motive.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East that, if that is so, it is far better to legislate out the unjustifiable and then take the argument on its merits. One does not ultimately safeguard and justify the right to smack a child by ensuring that ritualised flogging in schools remains legal under British law. I put it to my hon. Friend that we might just as well say that we cannot outlaw hare coursing because that would have an effect on the fox hunting argument. I would much prefer to defend fox hunting on its merits rather than thinking that I must defend hare coursing because otherwise there will be a read-across.
  It is being suggested that we should retain for children a punishment that we would not inflict on the worst criminal. I want to distance myself from some of the hon. Members with whom I shall vote in a few minutes, so let me say that I believe that there is a very good argument for bringing back corporal punishment for a certain type of criminal. [Interruption.] There we are; we are sorting out the relativities again.
  I believe that there is a good argument for corporal punishment for some criminals. If the hon. Member for Bath wants to return to the House on another occasion with such a provision, I shall support him again. However, it is nonsense that, as the law stands, a child who says boo to teacher can be beaten, but a criminal who mugs teacher afterwards cannot have a hand laid on him.
  In some ways, I wish that new clause 21 had not come before the House; I should have liked to go home early. I do not believe that independent schools throughout the country are flogging children. I do not know why the hon. Member for Bath tabled the new clause. I am not sure that it was answering a perceived need, but it is there, and we must take a view on it.
  The key argument for my hon. Friends to consider is whether the best way to justify the right to chastise one's own child moderately in one's own household is to defend a situation that amounts to the continuing legalisation of ritual beating. That is not the way to meet the argument.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: One of the endearing features of the Liberals is that, on many issues, they display a substantial degree of illiberality. One issue

  385
  on which they do so is the question of the right of individuals to go fox hunting, although there are honourable exceptions among the Liberals.
  The new clause has a lot to do with principle—the principle of the right of a parent to decide how to deal with his children.
  Mr. Dawson: What about the right of a child to be protected from violence?
  Mr. Howarth: I am happy to deal with that point as I proceed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) made it clear that there has been a test case under the European convention on human rights, when it was found that there was nothing inhuman or degrading about physical correction. It was decided that particular levels of severity had to be reached for a punishment to be in breach of the convention. We are not talking about a breach of the convention.
  5 am
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said that there was something barbaric about the application of corporal punishment in schools. Good luck to my hon. Friend. That may be his view and the view of the hon. Member for Bath, but they do not have the right to tell parents throughout the country that they do not have the right to take a contrary view.
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend must wait a minute. He is effectively saying that his morality is superior to that of those who take a contrary view. He should consider that carefully before he troops into the Lobby with Labour Members.
  Mr. Nicholls: We have a problem; I accept that I am a very superior person. My point—and my hon. Friend knows it—is that we are talking about fact and degree. There are all sorts of things that everyone in this House accepts we cannot do to children; we are simply talking about where we draw the line. I specifically said that I was not talking about what a parent may choose to do to a child. I was talking about handing over that right in circumstances that amount to ritualised beating. That is what I was talking about, and my hon. Friend knows it.
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is perfectly content, within the confines of his own home, to apply corporal punishment to his children, but he is not happy about allowing somebody else, who takes precisely the same view, to do so. He is saying to me, as a parent, that I may apply corporal punishment in my own home, but that I may not say to the headmaster of a school to which I wish to send my child that I want to delegate that responsibility to him, provided that he does it in a way that I approve of and not in a way that would inflict undue violence. That is somehow unacceptable.
  Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: No. The hon. Gentleman has already had a go and he must now make his own speech in his own time—if his hon. Friends will let him have a few moments at this hour of the morning.
  386
  There is an important point of principle—that it should be the right of a parent to decide. That is agreed by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bath had said that he believes—although I do not know whether we should take it at face value—that parents should have that right in their own homes.
  I believe that the new clause is the thin end of the wedge. The fundamental principle is that parents should have the right to send their children to a school that provides a level of discipline that suits them. I say to Labour Members that the reason why many of their constituents crucify themselves financially to send their children to independent schools is that there is a level of discipline in those schools that they do not find in state schools. That is one of the factors that they take into account.
  Mr. Lansley: Does my hon. Friend agree that many parents scrimp and save to send their children to schools in my constituency? The parents are seeking a level of discipline in the school, but those schools do not apply corporal punishment
  Mr. Howarth: I accept that different schools apply different ranges of discipline. It is up to the parent to decide. If parents are spending that sort of money, they are entitled to make that decision. Parents should have that power.
  The hon. Member for Bath assesses that only 200 independent schools use corporal punishment. Although the great majority of independent schools do not apply corporal punishment, we are asked to change the law. The school to which my son went did not apply corporal punishment. I am not necessarily defending corporal punishment. I am defending the right of parents to send their children to a school that applies corporal punishment, if that is what they want.
  The fact that the hon. Gentleman seeks to use to law of the land to deal with 200 schools is rather pathetic. I have a suspicion that this is the first step towards Parliament and the law of the land telling parents what they may do in their own homes.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: One thing that has emerged clearly from the debate is that no argument that has been used tonight to outlaw modest physical punishment or restraint in schools could not be used to outlaw modest physical punishment or restraint in the home.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) gave the game away, although not willingly—it had to be dragged, if not beaten, out of him. In the course of his oration, I asked him whether, when he said that he regarded the use of physical punishment in schools as barbaric, he also regarded the use of physical punishment in the home as barbaric. Eventually he admitted that that is what he felt. That is the motivation behind the new clause.
  Everyone seems to be agreed that physical punishment of an abusive nature is not going on in public schools, so why the urgency to legislate? The reason for the legislation is that it is an indirect way to set up a situation in which it would be logically inconsistent to say that a teacher may not exercise physical punishment or restraint on a child, but a parent can do precisely that in his own home.

  387
  Time and again in the contributions that we have heard on the other side of the argument, it is clear that like is not being compared with like. Our opponents speak of gross physical abuse in schools, but they say that the measure does not affect the right of parents to use modest chastisement. However, the new clause is framed in such a way that it will affect the right of teachers to use modest chastisement as well. It is not about physical abuse: it focuses on the right to slap a naughty child.
  It is an insult to every parent who believes that it is right to slap his or her own child when it misbehaves to say that that cannot be done in a school. The entire basis for it to be done in a school is that the school is operating in loco parentis. By ruling out physical punishment for the teacher, the new clause is designed, intended and motivated to rule it out in the not too distant future for the parent as well.
  Before I comment on an article in The Independent that has been mentioned, I shall deal with the difficulty of technical assault. If we rule out any sort of physical punishment for a child or physical restraint in a school, any teacher who so much as lays a finger on the child is liable to be had up for technical assault. Therefore, when people ask why one requires the ability to inflict modest physical restraint or chastisement on a child if that ability will not be used, one could answer: because one must have the ability to restrain a violent child without having the fear of being had up in court because of the provisions of this Bill.
  Several remarks have been made in the debate about an article in today's Independent, which was supposedly "reporting" this debate before it had even been held. The hon. Member for Bath said that nothing that he or his colleagues had said in the article was meant to imply that their comments had already been made in the House. I should therefore like to read a few extracts from the Independent article, which I first read at 2.20 this morning—a full three hours before the debate on new clause 21 had even started—and to state for the record the prophetic skills of Mr. Colin Brown, the Independent's chief political correspondent.
  Before the event, Mr. Brown "reported":
  "A Liberal Democrat MP last night spoke of his 'shame' at caning children as MPs voted to sweep away the last vestiges of corporal punishment in independent schools"—
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Labour Members say, "Hear, hear," but they have not done it yet. Although they will perhaps do it, even people as craven and predictable as they are might have a tinge of resentment at The Independent saying that they had done it before they had even got off their backsides.
  The "report" continues:
  "Former secondary school teacher, Phil Willis, the MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough, said: 'Whenever I caned a child, I felt demeaned by it. Quite frankly, I felt quite ashamed later in life to feel that for many years I supported the use of corporal punishment.' …
  MPs were given a free vote by the Government to extend the ban in the independent schools during the final Commons stages of the School Standards Bill. …
  Don Foster, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on education, challenged Tory backwoodsmen who defended"—
  [Interruption.] Yes; but we have not done it yet. The hon. Member for Bath
  388
  "challenged Tory backwoodsmen who defended 'spanking'"—
  a word that I do not think has yet been used by any hon. Member on either side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "You did."]—but that is not to say that we will not use it.
  The "report" states that the hon. Member for Bath challenged those who
  "defended 'spanking' on the grounds that it did children no harm. 'How do they know?', he said. 'I have been caned. It did me harm.'"
  With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is a case of what educationists would call post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Merely because something has done him obvious harm—particularly to his logical faculties—one should not assume that it was caning.
  The article continues:
  "Mr. Willis said there was a need to use a degree of force, sometimes to protect pupils, but caning was an admission of failure in discipline in schools. The ban will"—
  it will—
  "also stop punishment with a slipper or a ruler. It will still allow parents to smack their children, and smacking by child minders with the approval of parents."
  The "report" deserves to be put up with those other headlines of events before they have happened, such as the Hindenburg's safe landing and Dewey's defeat of Truman in the United States presidential election. Sadly, the report may be borne out in the event, but not for the right reasons.
  It has been a pleasure to have the opportunity—albeit this early in the subsequent morning—to fulfil a promise to my constituents that, if there were a free vote on this issue, I would vote against the new clause. I shall vote against it. Moreover, I know that a majority of public opinion and of parents who believe that they should have the right modestly to chastise their own children would vote against it if they had the chance. It is only sad that the serried ranks of politically correct nannies on the Labour Benches will not give them that opportunity.
  Mr. Willis: It seems rather pointless for me to speak after the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has already said so much. However, if hon. Members need to see an example of the effects of caning, they have just seen it.
  It matters naught to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath and me which of the two new clauses ultimately gets on to the statute book, provided that one of them does. This debate is not about slapping a naughty two-year-old; nor is it about flogging youths, young adults or young children until their backsides bleed. It is basically about the legalised abuse of children, because that is exactly what corporal punishment is.
  5.15 am
  The one point that has not been made in this debate, perhaps because very few hon. Members have been in the position that I have been in as a teacher and head of a school that used corporal punishment—incidentally, I totally support the comments that I am reported to have made in today's edition of The Independent in this respect—is that, when one administers corporal punishment on another human being, in this case on a child, one demeans oneself. Anyone who does not feel that is a sick person.

  389
  Earlier today, I appeared on a television programme with a young teacher who was looking forward to an opportunity to cane students. I think that it is terrible that, as we move into the next millennium, someone looks forward to beating children as a way to discipline them.
  I had a fairly long and happy career in the teaching profession, but the one thing I regret more than anything else is that, for a significant number of years, I believed, like some Conservative Members, that corporal punishment was perhaps the only way to deal with recalcitrant children. I was wrong. The system did not work.
  In my early days, I worked at a school where every misdemeanour was punished by a stroke of the cane. Every member of staff had a punishment book and a cane. I remember one child coming late into my class and being caned. He was caned at each of the other four lessons of the morning, before having his lunch and running home, or so I thought. That happened for three days. It was only on the third day that I bothered to ask the youngster why he was doing this. The reality was that he had been thrown out of the house by his father on Sunday night and was living in the back of a van. The only way he could get a free meal was to come to school and bear his punishment.
  That is a graphic illustration of the futility of caning. It was an easy way to deal with a situation, which avoided—[Interruption.] If hon. Members would have the courtesy to listen to me now, they can barrack me outside.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: No, I will not.
  If hon. Members feel that caning is still a worthwhile activity, they are in fact saying that they cannot be bothered to examine the real reasons why children are naughty. Children are naughty; my children are naughty. As the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) will know, I worked in a very difficult school until I became a Member of Parliament.
  In 1986, when Leeds city council decided to abolish corporal punishment in Leeds's schools, an army of staff came to tell me that it would mean the end of discipline in the school. In fact, it did not, because we found other ways of getting to the root of the problem and of understanding children. We found that many children for whom corporal punishment had been an answer got twice as much when they got home. To them, it was the norm to be beaten. It was the norm to experience violence, whether of language, a fist or a belt. We were told that that was somehow right.
  The new clauses and amendments give us an opportunity to end systematic legalised abuse of children. [HON. MEMBERS: "Barbarous."] Yes, it is barbarous. I hope that tonight we shall see all hon. Members trooping through the same Lobby.
  Mr. Dawson: I did not intend to speak, but I have been driven to do so by the speech of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), which was the most disgraceful speech that I have ever heard. It is a sad day when a supposedly intelligent person cannot distinguish between the role of a teacher—a professional role requiring a repertoire of professional skills—and the role of a parent, in which a relationship is crucial and seminal.
  390
  I hope that, in this country, people will eventually be able to develop parenting skills to the point at which parents themselves will relinquish any thought of inflicting physical pain on their children; but I suspect that that day is some way off, and it is not part of this debate. This debate is about the children's rights to be respected as individuals, which are separate from parents' rights. It is about children's rights to be protected from abuse.
  The debate is intended to clarify what abuse of children actually is. It is disgraceful that we need have such a debate at the end of the 20th century, and it is sad that we are having it; but I am glad that we are going to get rid of physical abuse of children.
  Mr. Lansley: I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), and disagree with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). I do not think that it is simply a case of pursuing children's rights. The logic of that means trespassing on the rights and relationships of parents and children, and I do not think that that is what we are discussing. Nor do I support the premise of the speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), that this is unfinished business in the process of abolishing corporal punishment in judicial proceedings. We are discussing corporal punishment in the context of education.
  I would not apply corporal punishment to my children, and I would not permit a school to do so. The new clauses, however, clearly relate to independent schools rather than the maintained sector. I felt that there were two competing arguments—my own argument about corporal punishment, and the argument about the desirability or otherwise of legislating for interference in the internal arrangements of independent schools.
  I consulted five independent schools in my constituency, and the result was interesting. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East in an intervention, none of those schools uses corporal punishment; indeed, none of them has used it for years. The head teacher of one of those schools—a respected secondary school—wrote to me in a letter:
  "I also feel very strongly that a school cannot treat pupils in varying ways according to the views of individual parents … Given that a sizeable number of parents would greatly object to corporal punishment (a situation which is unlikely to change for the foreseeable future) I think it is impractical to retain it."
  I believe we can conclude on practical grounds that the great majority of independent schools not only do not use corporal punishment, but would not return to it. On that basis, it is demonstrated that no educational purpose is achieved by the retention of corporal punishment.
  Why as a Parliament should we interfere in the internal arrangements of independent schools? In doing so, we do not deny independent schools the opportunity to use punishment for an educational purpose, since I see no argument that such a purpose exists. In pursuing such a course—on this, I go along with the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)—we add to the protection of children under certain conceivable circumstances where abuse could occur. If parents believe that corporal punishment plays a role in the disciplining of their children, I for one feel that it is far better administered by them in a loving environment than by officialdom in an environment separated from the love of parent and child.
  I look to the hon. Member for Bath for guidance if I am wrong in the following respect. If there are schools, as there may be, that see a need for corporal punishment

  391
  in the context of the relationship of parent, child and school, administering it should be possible only in very rare circumstances when all parents subscribe to it—perhaps for religious reasons—and when parents exercise it in pursuit of the disciplinary code of the school, rather than under any circumstances the school's teachers or staff administering it.
  I rest with the view that it is therefore appropriate to proceed down either the path proposed by the hon. Member for Bath or that proposed by the hon. Member for Come Valley (Kali Mountford). I await an understanding from the Minister of the technical deficiencies or benefits of the new clauses.
  Ms Estelle Morris: In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister promised a debate on this subject on the Floor of the House—and a free vote at that. The fact that so many hon. Members are still present at 5.30 am shows that he was right, and that the issue should be decided in the House and not in Committee.
  Mr. Robathan: Labour Members are still present because of the Whips.
  Ms Morris: That is the first time that whips have been mentioned in the debate. We Labour Members also have a free vote.
  I turn to the new clauses. I ask the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) to withdraw new clause 21, and instead support new clause 23, which we are advised by parliamentary draftsmen will fulfil all his aims.
  I have listened carefully to the debate. Much of the fear of new clause 23—even among Conservative Members who I think will eventually vote for it—surrounded how far it could be interpreted, and into which realms it might extend. I should therefore make it clear that new clause 23 extends prohibition of corporal punishment to pupils attending all types of schools, including non-maintained schools, irrespective of whether their fees are met from public funds. It also extends prohibition to children receiving nursery education that is provided on a formal and systematic basis. The new clause is tightly drawn, and we are advised—I think quite rightly—that it means exactly what I have described.
  I can give a further assurance to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who spoke sensibly and sensitively, that the Government would certainly not support an extension of the provision into the realms of the family. I think that it is easy to see a marked difference in the relationship between a parent and child and decisions that parents may make on how they keep discipline in their household, and the relationship between an institution and many children, where the right to punish is given to the institution and delegated to a number of people who happen to work there at any one time.
  I think that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) used the phrase "institutionalised beating". The crucial fact is not whether one uses the term "beating" or any other term, but that power is given to the institution. New clause 23 would prevent that. I hope that the hon. Member will accept my assurances that the Government have no intention of using the new clause or any other provision to extend that into the family.
  392
  I have listened carefully to the debate, as I did last year when the former hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth moved a similar new clause to reintroduce corporal punishment to mainstream schools.
  Mr. Don Foster: The opposite.
  5.30 am
  Ms Morris: Yes, the opposite. The hon. Gentleman is right. It is much later—or much earlier—than I thought.
  There was an acceptance in the House last year that things had moved on. We all want discipline in schools—I am pleased that that has not been questioned today. We need discipline so that children can learn effectively and teachers can get on with teaching. However, corporal punishment is not the best way to achieve it.
  The principal argument in that debate, which has been repeated today, has always persuaded me: corporal punishment does not work. The same names appearing time and again in the punishment books show that it does not work. Corporal punishment can give status to a child who may not be able to gain status among their peer group in any other way.
  We must consider what message we want to give to young people about how to deal with conflict and address situations with which they are not happy. That demands skill. Objectives must be set, and there must be consequences if children do not obey the rules. We must ask whether we want to give our children the message that one way in which to deal with people who do not act in a way of which we approve is to use physical force. That conflicts with how we teach them to deal with other people.
  Children will learn how to deal with other people from the message we give them in our dealings with them. Sometimes, corporal punishment says more about the state of mind of the person inflicting it than about their belief in its effects on the child.
  Last year, I voted that corporal punishment should not return to maintained schools. I hold to that view. We are debating whether those schools in the independent sector that still use corporal punishment should be allowed to continue to do so merely because the parents pay a fee so that their children can go there. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) put the issue plainly, saying that, given how much money the parents pay, they should at least have the right to think that their children could be beaten by the teachers. That is a funny equation.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The issue is not the terminology of beating, but the level of chastisement that is given, with sensitivity and love. If parents are not entitled to take discipline into account when choosing a school, should they be able to take into account other factors, such as a school's religious denomination? Independent schools provide a range of choice for parents. The Minister should respect that.
  Ms Morris: I am sorry that I gave way. It was a huge mistake. I shall make progress rapidly. In his original speech, the hon. Gentleman said something along the lines of, given the amount of money that the parents pay, that is almost the least that they could expect. He did not progress with the argument that, the more they pay, the greater the beating. That is the issue in deciding whether to extend the prohibition into the independent sector.

  393
  I can do no more than quote the chairman of the Independent Schools Council, Ian Beer, who said in the press release to which the hon. Member for Bath referred:
  "ISC schools have always regarded themselves as an integral part of the nation's education system".
  He speaks on behalf of the independent sector. I am happy to take his word for the fact that that sector is part of the nation's education system. In my view, the rules that the House has approved for the vast majority of children who are educated in the maintained schools should also apply to those who are educated in the independent sector.
  We have made it clear that Labour Members have a free vote on the subject, and must follow their consciences. My conscience tells me clearly that I should vote for one of the new clauses, but I ask the hon. Member for Bath to withdraw his new clause and to support instead new clause 23, which is to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley.
  Mr. Don Foster: The Minister referred to the debate a year ago, led by Mr. James Pawsey, who was then the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth.
  Mr. Andy King: He lost. He was beaten badly.
  Mr. Foster: Tonight's debate has been much more measured than last year's, and I shall finish by making four brief points.
  The contribution by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) was measured, but in reply to his comments about our following Europe, I must explain that the reason for raising the fact that all other European countries have abolished corporal punishment—more than 200 years ago, in the case of Poland—was simply to give further evidence in support of the people who believe that it is not an effective form of punishment.
  Child abuse has also been mentioned. In 1996, the national committee of inquiry into the prevention of child abuse said:
  "As a general proposition and on the weight of evidence, physical punishment is an unsatisfactory and, ultimately, ineffective way of improving children's behaviour".
  That is what the House will decide tonight.
  Thirdly, as a follow-up to my observation that we were completing unfinished business, hon. Members may be interested to know that the first attempt to persuade the House to abolish corporal punishment in schools in this country took place as long ago as 1669, when a "lively boy" presented a petition to Parliament on behalf of the children of this nation to protest against
  "that intolerable grievance our youth lie under, in the accustomed severities of the school discipline of this nation".
  So many years since that petition was presented, I hope that tonight, at last, that lively boy's wishes will come true.
  394
  I hope that the following quotation from Elizabeth I's schoolmaster, Roger Ascham, will sum up the feeling of most Members:
  "Love is fitter than fear, gentleness better than beating, to bring up a child rightly in learning".
  That, I think, is what the House believes.
  I am convinced by the arguments of the hon. Member for Colne Valley and the Minister that, although our new clause 21 would have achieved our purpose, new clause 23 would do so even more effectively. I therefore hope that the House will give me leave to withdraw our new clause, in the hope that there will be an opportunity to vote instead for new clause 23 and the various amendments consequential upon it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 23

  ABOLITION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS ETC.
  '.—(1) For section 548 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be substituted—
  "No right to give corporal punishment
  548.—(1) Corporal punishment given by, or on the authority of, a member of staff to a child—

  (a) for whom education is provided, at any school, or

  (b) for whom education is provided, otherwise than at school, under any arrangements made by a local education authority, or

  (c) for whom specified nursery education is provided otherwise than at school,

  cannot be justified in any proceedings on the ground that it was given in pursuance of a right exercisable by the member of staff by virtue of his position as such.

  (2) Subsection (1) applies to corporal punishment so given to a child at any time, whether at the school or other place at which education is provided for the child, or elsewhere.
  (3) The following provisions have effect for the purposes of this section.
  (4) Any reference to giving corporal punishment to a child is to doing anything for the purpose of punishing that child (whether or not there are other reasons for doing it) which, apart from any justification, would constitute battery.
  (5) However, corporal punishment shall not be taken to be given to a child by virtue of anything done for reasons that include averting—

  (a) an immediate danger of personal injury to, or

  (b) an immediate danger to the property of, any person (including the child himself).

  (6) "Member of staff', in relation to the child concerned, means—

  (a) any person who works as a teacher at the school or other place at which education is provided for the child, or

  (b) any other person who (whether in connection with the provision of education for the child or otherwise)—

  (i) works at that school or place, or

  (ii) otherwise provides his services there (whether or not for payment),

  and has lawful control or charge of the child.

  (7) "Child" (except in subsection (8)) means a person under the age of 18.
  (8) "Specified nursery education" means full-time or part-time education suitable for children who have not attained compulsory school age which is provided—

  395

  (a) by a local education authority; or

  (b) by any other person—

  (i) who is (or is to be) in receipt of financial assistance given by such an authority and whose provision of nursery education is taken into account by the authority in formulating proposals for the purposes of section 110(2)(a) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, or

  (ii) who is (or is to be) in receipt of grants under section 1 of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996; or

  (c) (otherwise than as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)) in any educational institution which would fall within section 4(1) above (definition of "school") but for the fact that it provides part-time, rather than full-time, primary education."

  (2) The following provisions of the Education Act 1996, namely—

  (a) section 549 (interpretation of section 548), and

  (b) section 550 (no avoidance of section 548 by refusing admission to school etc.), shall cease to have effect.'.—[Kali Mountford.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time—
  The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 15.

  Division No. 228]

  [5.38 am

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Coleman, Iain

  Allan, Richard

  Colman, Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Connarty, Michael

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Cousins, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Cox, Tom

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cummings, John

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Betts, Clive

  Dafis, Cynog

  Blackman, Liz

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Darvill, Keith

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Davidson, Ian

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Breed, Colin

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Dowd, Jim

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Edwards, Huw

  Browne, Desmond

  Fisher, Mark

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Flynn, Paul

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Burstow, Paul

  Galloway, George

  Byers, Stephen

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Cann, Jamie

  Godman, Norman A

  Caplin, Ivor

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caton, Martin

  Grogan, John

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Harris, Dr Evan

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clelland, David

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Coaker, Vernon

  Healey, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  396

  Hepburn, Stephen

  O'Neill, Martin

  Heppell, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Hill, Keith

  Pearson, Ian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Home Robertson, John

  Pollard, Kerry

  Hope, Phil

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Rapson, Syd

  Hurst, Alan

  Rendel, David

  Hutton, John

  Rooney, Terry

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jamieson, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Roy, Frank

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Savidge, Malcolm

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Sheerman, Barry

  Keetch, Paul

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Kidney, David

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

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

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Soley, Clive

  Lansley, Andrew

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Laxton, Bob

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Lepper, David

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Levitt, Tom

  Stott, Roger

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Stringer, Graham

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lock, David

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McCabe, Steve

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  (Dewsbury)

  McDonnell, John

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  McFall, John

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Timms, Stephen

  McNulty, Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  MacShane, Denis

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Mactaggart,.Fiona

  Touhig, Don

  Madle, Sir David

  Trickett, Jon

  Marek, Dr John

  Truswell, Paul

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Tyler, Paul

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Wallace, James

  Martlew, Eric

  Wareing, Robert N

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Watts, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Webb, Steve

  Moffatt, Laura

  White, Brian

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Willis, Phil

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wills, Michael

  Mountford, Kali

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Mudie, George

  Wise, Audrey

  Mullin, Chris

  Woolas, Phil

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Wray, James

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Norris, Dan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Oaten, Mark

  Mr. Adrian Sanders and Helen Jones.

  O'Hara, Eddie

  NOES

  Brazier, Julian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Luff, Peter

  Evans, Nigel

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  397

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Mr.Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and Mr.Andrew Robathan.

  Swayne, Desmond

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 109

  EARLY YEARS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIPS
  Mr. Dafis: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 80, line 20, at end insert
  '(2A) In Wales, the partnership shall have regard to the need for Welsh-medium nursery education to be accessible to all pupils.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 124, in clause 110, page 80, line 43, after 'and,' insert—
  '(aa) a statement of proposals, which sets out the authority's proposals for providing nursery education for children who have attained the age of three years.'.
  Mr. Dafis: The way in which the provisions in part V are implemented in Wales will be of momentous importance to the Welsh language and to the prospects of creating a truly effective bilingual society—an aim that has overwhelming popular support in Wales.
  The growth of Welsh-medium education over the past 30 years has been built to a large extent on the foundation laid by nursery education provided substantially by the voluntary nursery schools movement, Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin. A survey by the Welsh Language Board showed that 50 per cent. of parents would send children to Welsh-medium nursery schools if such provision were available.
  It is vital that the expansion now proposed in publicly funded nursery education makes it possible to build on what has been achieved. That depends on partnership between LEAs and the voluntary sector and on accessibility—not just availability—of Welsh-medium provision.
  Ironically, there is a danger that accessibility will be reduced by the expansion in the state sector. That issue was raised previously with the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), and I had hoped that he would be here to give me some unequivocal assurances that the right thing would be done.
  Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin nursery groups are often small and are located in communities and close to homes. Welsh-medium primary schools in areas such as the valleys of the south-east are fewer in number than other schools and, therefore, further from pupils' homes. If primary schools provide nursery education directly, the danger is that existing groups will become unviable.
  Parents would be understandably unhappy about sending three to four-year-olds the greater distance to Welsh-medium primary schools and would send them to English-medium schools instead, so what would seem on the surface to be an expansion of provision in Welsh-medium education in maintained schools could lead to reduced accessibility and a reduction in the number of pupils entering the Welsh-medium system.
  398
  Some LEAs might see that as an opportunity to solve what some of them would regard as the problem of meeting increasing demand for Welsh-medium education and, at the same time, to fill some of the empty places in English-medium schools. Places are scarce in the Welsh sector.
  That problem can be prevented if the Secretary of State for Wales, and, from June 1999, the National Assembly for Wales, ensure that early years development plans build in the accessibility and availability of Welsh-medium provision.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Liberal Democrats that this is a vital consideration in ensuring that Welsh culture has equal status in a Wales with its own assembly?
  Mr. Dafis: The Liberal Democrats are in the forefront of thinking in these matters.
  Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin must be accorded a key role in the process and be included in the partnerships established under the clause. LEAs preparing schemes under the Welsh Language Act 1993 are required to show how the language is to be treated equally with English, and I trust that the Welsh Language Board will ensure that accessibility in early years provision is a key consideration.
  I am glad to know that each early years development plan is to be sent to the Welsh Language Board for comment. Its comments must carry weight with the Secretary of State, who will have ample powers under the Bill to ensure that the right policies are pursued at local level.
  A few other matters arose from the guidelines on early years education issued recently by the Welsh Office. First, education and its integration with child care provision will be part of the Welsh Office's child care strategy. That will be the subject of substantial investment, so how will the Welsh language be safeguarded within that strategy? Obviously, that is of crucial significance.
  Secondly, the guidelines stated that qualified early years teachers should be attached to each establishment that provides early years education. That provision is laudable, but how will it work in relation to Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin nursery groups, each of which will not have a qualified early years teacher? That must be considered, as must a strategy to provide sufficient qualified Welsh-medium nursery teachers.
  Thirdly, the guidelines refer to the development of training schemes and the use of grant for education support and training money for that purpose. How do the Government propose to ensure that Welsh-medium training is central to those schemes?
  We have an opportunity to achieve major progress if we get early years provision right; however, the perils are also apparent. I look forward to having the Minister's assurance—I suppose that I will receive it not tonight, but at some future time—that the perils will be avoided and the opportunity taken.
  Ms Estelle Morris: The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) has had an opportunity to talk about a subject that is vital to people in Wales. I hope to give him some reassurance on the issues which he raised. I know that he

  399
  had a meeting just before Christmas with the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), and that, as a result, the Welsh Office guidance on early years education issued in January is unequivocal on that issue. It states that partnerships that are providing for early years places must take into account the need for Welsh-medium provision. My hon. Friend certainly thinks that that is much better left to guidance than put in the Bill, like many other aspects of guidance on that issue.
  The fact that the provision is in the Welsh Office guidance that was issued in January should give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he has sought.
  Mr. Dafis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 114
  No RIGHT TO GIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT TO NURSERY PUPILS
  Amendment made: No. 144, in page 83, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 41.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
Clause 127

  GENERAL INTERPRETATION
  Amendment made: No. 76, in page 92, line 40, at end insert—
  '(3A) For the purposes of this Act references to disposing of land include references to—

  (a) granting or disposing of any interest in land;

  (b) entering into a contract to dispose of land or to grant or dispose of any such interest; and

  (c) granting an option to purchase any land or any such interest.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Clause 128

  INDEX
  Amendments made: No. 10, in page 94, line 37, at end insert—

  'new school (in Chapter IV of Part II)

  section 43(4)'.

  No. 2, in page 95, line 20, at end insert—

  'school opening date

  section (Arrangements for governments of new school£(9)'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 29

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendment made: No. 87, in page 205, line 25, at end insert—
  'Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (c.39)
  .—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), in the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (supply of goods and services by local authorities to public bodies) "public body" shall include any Education Action Forum established in an education action zone.
  (2) The provision in sub-paragraph (1) shall have effect as if made by an Order under section 1(5) of that Act (power to provide that a person shall be a public body for the purposes of the Act).
  (3) An order under section 1(5) may accordingly vary or revoke the provisions of sub-paragraph (1) above as they apply to an Education Action Forum specified in the order.'.—[Mr. Byers.]
  Amendment made: No. 171, in page 205, line 25, at end insert—
  'Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c.12)
  In section 1(7) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (saving for right of parents etc. to administer corporal punishment), for "teacher, or other person" substitute "or (subject to section 548 of the Education Act 1996) any other person,".'.—[Kali Mounord.]
  Amendments made: No. 74, in page 209, line 16, at end insert—
  '. In section 3 of the Charities Act 1993 (the register of charities), after subsection (5) insert—
  "(5A) In subsection (5) above—

  (a) paragraph (a) shall be read as referring also to any school to which section 21(8)(a) or (b) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 applies, and

  (b) paragraph (b) shall be read as referring also to any foundation to which section 21(9A) of that Act applies;

  but an order of the Commissioners, or regulations made by the Secretary of State, may provide that section 21(9A) of that Act shall cease to apply to any such foundation as is mentioned in that provision or to any such foundation of a description specified in the order or regulations." '.
  No. 75, in page 209, line 17, leave out 'the Charities Act 1993' and insert 'that Act'.
  No. 83, in page 219, line 47, leave out from 'etc.)' to end of line 49 and insert—

  '(a) in paragraph (a), for "county, voluntary, grant-maintained" substitute "community, foundation, voluntary"; and

  (b) omit paragraph (b).'.

  No. 28, in page 219, line 49, at end insert—
  '.—(1) Section 519 (allowances for governors, etc.) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1), for the words from "travelling" to "section 115);" substitute "such allowances as may be prescribed to governors of—
  (a) any community, foundation or voluntary school or community or foundation special school which does not have a delegated budget (within the meaning of Part II of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998);".
  (3) In subsection (3) for "travelling and subsistence allowances" substitute "such allowances as may be prescribed".
  (4) After subsection (6) add—
  "(7) Regulations may impose a limit on the amount which may be paid by way of any allowance under this section." '.
  No. 78, in page 222, line 40, at end insert—
  '. In section 543 (relaxation of prescribed standards in special cases)—

  (a) in subsection (1), for "or (4)" substitute ", (4) or (4A)"; and

  (b) after subsection (4) insert—

  "(4A) This subsection applies, in relation to any playing fields used by the school for the purposes of the school, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that, having regard to other facilities for physical education available to the school, it would be unreasonable to require conformity with any prescribed requirement relating to playing fields.

  401
  In this subsection "playing fields" has the same meaning as in section (Control of disposals or changing use of school playing fields) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (control of disposals or changing use of school playing fields)."—[Mr. Byers.]
  Amendment made: No. 172, in page 223, leave out lines 9 to 13 and insert
  'Omit sections 549 and 550 (provisions about corporal punishment).'.—[Kali Mountford.]

Schedule 30

  REPEALS
  Amendment made: No. 84, in page 235, line 8, column 3, at end insert—
  'Section 518(b).'.— [Mr. Byers.]
  Amendments made: No. 173, in page 235, column 3, leave out lines 40 to 44 and insert 'Sections 549 and 550.'
  No. 174, in page 237, line 54, at end insert—

  '1997 c. 59.

  Education (Schools) Act 1997

  Section 6(1) In section 7, in subsection (3)(a) "section 6(1)", and in subsection (4)(a) "(1) and".'.—[Kali MounYbrd.]

Schedule 31

  TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
  Amendment made: No. 112, in page 239, line 46, at end add—
  '6.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

  (a) at any time before the appointed day, whether before or after the date on which this Act is passed, any trustees (being entitled to do so) have given to the governing body of a former voluntary school a notice which is effective to terminate, on or after that day, the school's occupation of any land held by the trustees for the purposes of the school; and

  (b) the termination of the school's occupation of that land would have the result that it was not reasonably practicable for the school to continue to be conducted at its existing site.

  (2) Paragraph 7A(2) of Schedule 22 shall apply in relation to the land to which such a notice relates as it applies in relation to the land to which a notice falling within section 29(11) relates.
  (3) Section 29(13) and (14) shall apply, with any necessary modifications, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) as they apply for the purposes of section 29(11)(b).
  (4) In this paragraph "former voluntary school" means—

  (a) any voluntary school, or

  (b) any grant-maintained school which was a voluntary school immediately before becoming grant-maintained or was established by promoters,

  within the meaning of the Education Act 1996, which on the appointed day becomes a foundation or voluntary school within the meaning of this Act; and "the purposes of the school" has the meaning given by section 29(15).'.—[Mr. Byers.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  5.59 am
  Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  402
  It gives me great pleasure to move Third Reading. I thank my ministerial team, the Whips and the parliamentary private secretaries, and all those who have stayed for the last 14 hours who are with us in being committed to making the Bill a reality.
  The Bill is about standards and opportunity, ranging from the early years development plans, to lowering class sizes, to the education development plans for local authorities, to a new framework to reunite the education system, to pull school together with school, to unite partnerships between LEAs and schools, parents and governors in lifting standards across Britain. It gives me great pleasure as the clock strikes 6 o'clock to move that we at last send the Bill to the House of Lords so that we can give every child in Britain the opportunity that they deserve.
  6 am
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall be as brief as the Secretary of State. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for her support during the passage of the Bill. I thank hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel), who acted as Whip, and my hon. Friends who served in Committee and who stayed in the House this evening. I also thank the officers and staff of the House of Commons for supporting us through a long sitting.
  We shall not support Third Reading. The Secretary of State has said times without number, both inside the House and outside, that his priority is standards, not structures. However, the Bill damages key structures which deliver the standards that we all want in our schools. It is committed to the abolition of grant-maintained schools and to an overly restrictive control on class sizes which will reduce choice for parents with children in infants schools. It establishes a one-way ratchet for the abolition of successful grammar schools.
  Earlier, the Government sustained yet again their view that we should continue to have a division at the heart of our school system between the independent sector and the maintained sector, a division which I believe continues to damage opportunities for many children. This is a bad Bill which should not command a majority in the House. We shall oppose its Third Reading.
  6.2 am
  Mr. Don Foster: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who has worked tirelessly with me in Committee and on Report.
  We made it clear on Second Reading that, like the Government, we were interested in raising standards in our schools and that the Bill contained many measures that had our full support and many exciting ideas. We also made it clear that we disagreed with the Government about the appropriate way forward on certain aspects. We discussed those issues in Committee and on Report. On some, we received assurances from the Government about our concerns; on others, we continue to believe that the Government are not necessarily pursuing the most effective way forward. Broadly speaking, because there are so many measures that we support, and because we are keen to show our desire to be part of the process of moving forward to raise standards in our schools, we will certainly vote for Third Reading.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 19.

  Division No. 229]

  [6.3 am

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Godman, Norman A

  Allen, Graham

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Grogan, John

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Barron, Kevin

  Hanson, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Harvey, Nick

  Berry, Roger

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Blackman, Liz

  Healey, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Henderson, lvan (Harwich)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Hill, Keith

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Hoey, Kate

  Breed, Colin

  Home Robertson, John

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Hope, Phil

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Browne, Desmond

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Hurst, Alan

  Burden, Richard

  Hutton, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Burstow, Paul

  Jamieson, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Canavan, Dennis

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cann, Jamie

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Casale, Roger

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Caton, Martin

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Chaytor, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Clapham, Michael

  Keetch, Paul

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Kemp, Fraser

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Clelland, David

  Kidney, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Colman, Tony

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Connarty, Michael

  Laxton, Bob

  Cooper, Yvette

  Lepper, David

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Levitt, Tom

  Cousins, Jim

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Cox, Tom

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Lock, David

  Cummings, John

  McCabe, Steve

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  McDonnell, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  McFall, John

  Darvill, Keith

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Davidson, Ian

  McNulty, Tony

  Dawson, Hilton

  MacShane, Denis

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Doran, Frank

  Marek, Dr John

  Dowd, Jim

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Edwards, Huw

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Martlew, Eric

  Flynn, Paul

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Miller, Andrew

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Galloway, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gapes, Mike

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  404

  Mountford, Kali

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mudie, George

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mullin, Chris

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stott, Roger

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stringer, Graham

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stunell, Andrew

  Norris, Dan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Oaten, Mark

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  O'Hara, Eddie

  (Dewsbury)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Timms, Stephen

  Plaskitt, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Touhig, Don

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Trickett, Jon

  Purchase, Ken

  Truswell, Paul

  Rapson, Syd

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Rendel, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Rooney, Terry

  Wallace, James

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rowlands, Ted

  Watts, David

  Roy, Frank

  Webb, Steve

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  White, Brian

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sanders, Adrian

  Willis, Phil

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wills, Michael

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wise, Audrey

  Sheerman, Barry

  Woolas, Phil

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wray, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'dns)

  Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Soley, Clive

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Arbuthnot, James

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Brazier, Julian

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Browninq, Mrs Anqela

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Swayne, Desmond

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Evans, Nigel

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sir David Madel and Mr. John Whittingdale.

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

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

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Special Grant Report (No. 33): Community Care Special Grants for 1998–99 (HC 534), which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  RATING AND VALUATION (SCOTLAND)
  That the draft Railways (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  Question agreed to.

  Farming (Ribble Valley)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  6.14 am
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I have waited a long time to make this speech. It is important, and I have an important point to make at the start. I see that the Minister who will respond to the debate is not a Farming Minister. At about midnight, I was told that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), the junior Minister in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, would answer my debate on farming. I thought that that was especially odd, but later I was told that I was not even to be blessed with someone from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
  I do not blame the Minister for School Standards, the junior Minister who is responding to the debate this morning, because obviously he has had this put upon him, but, whereas the environment was somewhat removed from farming, which is the subject of my debate, education is even further removed. The Government must explain themselves.
  I know that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has a specific problem, and I fully accept that he cannot be with us today, but there are other Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture and, as far as I know, in the five years when the Conservatives were in government when I was a Member of Parliament, we never once at an Adjournment debate put up a Minister who was not associated with the subject matter that was being discussed. The Government have a duty to tell the House why they have put up someone from the Department for Education and Employment to answer a debate on farming. What they have done tonight is contemptuous of the farmers of Ribble Valley and of this country, and a contempt of the House.
  We need to get answers on that, but I shall continue with my speech and trust that someone from the Ministry of Agriculture will read it at some stage, and that we shall receive a proper response to the debate.
  I suspect that Radio 4 could do no better than to scrap what it had planned for its "Farming Today" programme and broadcast what I have to say, so that people may listen to the problems of the fanners of Ribble Valley, which are replicated throughout the country, and can witness the fact that the Government think so little of farmers' problems that they cannot be bothered to put up a Minister who is available to respond to the problems of farmers in Ribble Valley.
  Earlier this month, I challenged the Minister of Agriculture to come to Ribble Valley, to visit a farmer in Samlesbury and talk to the farmer's wife, Cath Wright, who had telephoned me that day and spoken about the plight of her husband, and of all the other farmers in the Samlesbury area. She said:
  "I don't think the Minister is aware of the amount of effort we put in for little return. My husband regularly ploughs at night because he doesn't have the time during the day and often works a 90-hour week. The Minister is trying to turn a blind eye to our problems. That's why he will not come!"
  I can tell the Minister, through the Minister for School Standards, that Cath Wright still extends that invitation—that she would like the Minister of Agriculture to visit her farm in Samlesbury, to see the problems that she is experiencing there.

  407
  Today is also poignant because it was the day that a delegation of 30 people from this country involved in farming, including a constituent of mine who is chairman of the Lancashire branch of the National Farmers Union, Peter Stott, went to Brussels to meet the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Franz Fischler; Commissioner Leon Brittan; Commissioner Neil Kinnock; and several MEPs concerned with farming, so that they could bring directly to Brussels the problems experienced in farming.
  The one thing that the members of the delegation wanted was a lifting of the beef ban in this country. They wanted to ensure that they were getting the same treatment as the rest of Europe. It is important to note that, in the easing of the beef ban in Northern Ireland, even with all the scientific evidence that supported the lifting of that ban, Germany and Belgium still voted against us, and Luxembourg and Spain abstained. Science has been neglected for too long. Some countries were using all sorts of excuses to ensure that protection was in place for their own industries while British farming was being damaged.
  The excellent recent Agriculture Select Committee report stated:
  "Ironically, while the slaughter and other measures introduced to eradicate BSE from the British herd have raised UK beef hygiene standards to exemplary levels, inevitably they have reduced the volumes of the domestic product and opened up the UK market to some beef imports produced to less exacting hygiene standards."
  That will include beef from European Union countries that have refused to acknowledge the action taken by the Conservative Government, and even by this Labour Government, to ensure that we have traceability of stock and eradication of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
  Of course, it is not just the European Union, but other countries. I asked the Library for recent figures for Argentina, for example, which show that, including corned beef, £39 million-worth of beef came into this country from Argentina in 1997. Indeed, imports generally were up 18 per cent. in 1997 on the year before.
  While we welcome the overdue easing of the ban in Northern Ireland, we need to know when the Minister of Agriculture will achieve the timetabled lifting of the ban in the remainder of the United Kingdom. After all, British beef is among the safest in the world. For purely political reasons on the part of our competitors, my farmers are suffering. British farmers are seeing their markets being destroyed.
  I want to touch on a number of problems facing the farming industry in Ribble Valley, which is not unique by any stretch of the imagination. It is a micro-picture of what is happening elsewhere. The National Farmers Union county chairman wrote to me in December saying:
  "I scarcely need to tell you about the mood of British farmers at the present time. You will have understood from media reports just how angry the mood is—the industry is facing a bleak future if nothing is done to address the extremely serious economic situation reflected in the Government's 1997 farm incomes. These show a 47 per cent. drop in real terms in just one year."
  So what has got Ribble Valley farmers so angry? I thought I would go through some of the anecdotal evidence from the farmers, so that the Minister will be able, at some stage, to respond to it. Paul Kenny, one of
  408
  my farmers from Slaidburn, has 60 dairy cows. He is facing a veterinary bill this month of £600. Because the farmers care about their animals, they do not turn their backs when some of their animals are ill. Even though he cannot afford the £600, he will have to pay that amount.
  Two years ago, Paul Kenny was getting 26p a litre for his milk; now, it is 19p a litre, and he has been told that next year it is likely to go down to 16p a litre. What he resents more than anything is that, because of the way in which the quota is arranged, he cannot produce enough to make his farm viable. I was talking to another farmer today, who has poured 6,000 litres down a hole in his farm because his quota does not allow him to put that milk on the market. That is the sort of problem that our farmers are facing.
  Peter Stott, whom I mentioned earlier, is a farmer. He says that the whole of farming is in total disarray and that the beef crisis is not over. Prices are as low today as they have ever been. Howard Blackburn, who works for Dugdales in Clitheroe—a feed merchant—says that in certain areas beef production is at a standstill. There is so little happening that it is laughable. There is talk now that farmers are making a negative profit, which is a euphemism for a loss. He told me that that has an enormous knock-on effect.
  Farmers are not buying machinery for their farms and they are not buying stuff from other dealers, so there is less trade in the auction marts. There is a real danger of farmers going out of business and depopulation of the rural areas. We all know the dangers of depopulation. Rural schools and shops will close and the rural way of life will go. Howard Blackburn says that banks are looking seriously at the borrowings of some farmers. In the summer, they give out umbrellas; when it is winter, they take them away. That is exactly what they are doing. He also complained about the price that people are getting for their milk.
  Harry Backhouse, a farmer in Bashall Eaves, talked about the price that farmers are now getting for their sheep. It is half what it was a year ago, when they were getting £60. They are now getting £30 to £32. Some cast sheep are fetching prices of less then £30.
  Steve Fawcett, who works for the National Farmers Union in Clitheroe, said that many farmers who own their farms will not risk going bust—they just get very poor. They do not want to do anything other than farm, but because of the low incomes that they are now receiving, they have become poverty-stricken.
  Stuart Kerr, one of my butchers from Clitheroe, spoke about his pride in the people of Ribble Valley, who have stayed loyal during the beef crisis. They have gone to him and carried on buying beef because they do not believe the rubbish that they have read in some of the papers and all the nonsense that Professor Richard Lacey churns out, frightening people needlessly.
  John Swingler, who works at the Clitheroe auction mart, made it clear to me that the beef crisis is certainly not over. He said that the trade simply is not there. One farmer to whom he spoke the other day had to get two new tyres for his tractor. That cost him three cull cows, because he was getting £300 for each cull cow and the tyres cost £900.
  John Swingler also complained about the price of the sheep. He said that one man aged 30 who is a farmer has had to supplement his income by going to work in another

  409
  industry in Clitheroe. That means that he must farm when he has finished his work in the industry. Farmers now need two jobs to earn a living. John Swingler recently had a meeting to discuss the problems in farming and how farmers could present their produce better. More than 300 local farmers attended the meeting.
  I spoke to Nick Capstick this evening. He is a fifth-generation fanner, only 34 years old. Council tax in Ribble Valley is going up 12 per cent. this year—that is four times the rate of inflation—yet he tells me that he put two cows into auction the other day and got only £294 each for them. Nick has four children to look after. His income has gone down dramatically.
  How will a farmer like Nick—in his 30s, with four children and a wife to keep—make a living? He used to employ his sister to help milking the cows, but he can no longer afford to employ her, so he has to do the work himself. His situation is desperate. Nick was telling me about the problems caused by the increase in petrol prices. As a result of the Budget last week, he must pay 4.5p more on his petrol, on top of the 4p rise in July. Moreover, there is a tremendous knock-on effect for anyone who distributes goods to the farms.
  There have been enormous problems in farming in Ribble Valley. We know about the cuts in the hill livestock compensatory allowance. Our Government gave £60 million to those areas, and it is being clawed back. We know that the Government got well over £100 million in the EU premium underspend, yet that did not go back into farming—the money has gone elsewhere. We know the problem of beef on the bone and the reaction that that has produced. There are people in Ribble Valley who want to buy beef on the bone, but they are not allowed to do so.
  The cuts in the over-30-months scheme when the deadweight limits were introduced mean that the farmers are getting far less for the cattle when they take them to market. Green-top milk is another issue. Simonstone dairyman Alan Picking said:
  "I have drunk raw milk all my life without incident and the Government should leave it alone."
  Bryan Jackson from the Primrose dairy in Clitheroe said:
  "It's down to freedom of choice. If people want to drink unpasteurised milk, let them. Cigarettes and cars are far more dangerous."
  I agree entirely with him.
  There is also the green pound and the strengthening of sterling. The Farmers Guardian reports how the strong pound is slowing the UK farming recovery. The article talks about the problems that farmers are facing because of the strengthening pound. Cheap imports are entering the United Kingdom, and our fanners are unable to compete—because of the five interest rate rises that have further increased the pound's value. What does the Minister think has happened to the pound since the Budget? It has gone up, making the farmers' job all that more difficult.
  We also want the Government to do much more to ensure that local authorities and hospitals source locally and buy British meat, particularly beef, and that the armed forces are encouraged to buy much more British beef.
  I have anecdotally described some of the problems and aspects of the daily crisis faced by people involved in farming in Ribble Valley. We want the Government to
  410
  take action to help farmers with the problems that I have described. Fanners do not need more words; they need help.
  The matters with which farmers most require help are the strong pound and timetabling, to ensure that not only Northern Ireland, but Scotland, England and Wales will see light at the end of the tunnel. Farmers will have to prove to their bank managers that there is some light. They want to farm, Minister—please give them the opportunity to do so.
  6.30 am
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on securing this debate on a most important issue. I should also like to address the issue that he raised at the beginning of his speech—why I, as a Minister in the Department for Education and Employment, will reply to the debate. As a Minister of State, I shall reply on behalf of the Government. The hon. Gentleman knows why the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture was unable to attend the debate, and he should be aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture is representing the United Kingdom at the Fisheries Council meeting. It is very important that he discharges those specific responsibilities. I therefore have the opportunity, as a Minister of State, to reply on behalf of the Government to the serious points that have been raised in the debate.
  The Government are not turning a blind eye to the constituents mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—whether Cath Wright or the others he mentioned—but are very mindful of the difficulties and problems that they face. However, the difficulties and problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman did not suddenly emerge on 2 May 1997; many of them are legacies that we inherited from the previous Administration. We are developing policies to address and alleviate the issues and concerns that were mentioned in the debate.
  The Government are aware that agriculture is currently going through a difficult time, and there is no doubt that the past year has been a bad time for farm incomes generally and for the livestock sector particularly. Total farming income has fallen in 1997, although it is true that some sectors have fared far better than others. The fall in incomes for the general cropping sector, for example, has been less marked than that for mixed farms or for lowland cattle or sheep farms.
  The principal cause of the across-the-board fall in incomes has been the lower prices attracted by all major commodities. Furthermore, as the hon. Gentleman said, sterling's relative strength throughout 1997 has clearly had an effect on the prices that can be achieved by United Kingdom producers.
  While sterling remains at its current high levels, and with structural surpluses in most agricultural sectors not only in the United Kingdom but in Europe generally, prospects—certainly in the short term—for increased commodity prices and therefore for improved incomes are not good. However, it is worth pointing out that the longer-term prospects for farmers are perhaps not as gloomy as the hon. Gentleman has said and as other Opposition Members have been very keen to portray. Although, as I said, incomes fell in 1997, that followed some very good years for fanning. Incomes rose steadily

  411
  from 1990 onwards, rising to a peak in 1995. During that time, sterling was relatively weak, and commodity prices were firm.
  In general, that was a good period for the farm industry generally although, clearly, some sectors experienced difficulties throughout the 1990s, and the Government are very mindful of that. Because of the increase in farm incomes that was achieved in the 1990s, business debts could be repaid and farmers could reinvest for the future. As a result, the level of debt experienced in the agricultural sector as a whole is low compared with that in other industries. There is good reason to believe that farmers will come through the present difficult period, although the Government are not complacent about the problems facing farmers.
  I deal now with how the Government will tackle farmers' concerns, and why we believe that it is important to take a rational, long-term view of the pressures and needs of the farming industry. Many hon. Members, including Conservatives, have demanded that the Government act to secure the aid available under the European Union's agrimonetary arrangements to offset the strength of the pound. In order to mitigate the effects on farmers' incomes, the argument has been that we need to take that action. It is argued—the hon. Gentleman touched on this point—that we should draw on European Union funds for that purpose. It is also argued that the money is there and that the Government should not ignore the availability of such funds. Those demands ignore several key issues and questions, which have wider implications for the public purse and for taxpayers.
  First, those demands ignore the substantial protection that the agrimonetary arrangements automatically give to the value of the common agricultural policy payments against the consequences of the strength of sterling. The rules delay green-rate revaluations, which reduce the value of CAP payments, but allow devaluations, which will increase them, to take effect almost immediately. CAP payments made direct to UK farmers—around 60 per cent. of UK CAP spending—will receive protection under the European Union rules to the tune of around £400 million over two years. That is a considerable contribution by way of protection to the farming industry.
  Secondly, such demands ignore the fact that aid has significant implications for public expenditure. European Union rules would allow the UK to pay farmers up to £690 million spread over three years. Up to half that total could be reclaimed from the European Union budget. In practice, however, that compensation is not simply ours for the taking.
  As hon. Members will know, the operation of the UK rebate from the European Union budget—a rebate that was negotiated by Baroness Thatcher when she was Prime Minister—means that even paying the EU-reimbursed element of the aid carries significant public expenditure implications for the UK. Broadly speaking, the UK Exchequer would bear around 71 per cent. of the costs of EU-reimbursed aid. Most of the money that we would be spending would be not the European Union's money but the UK taxpayers'. The argument is perhaps not as simple as it is made out to be.
  412
  It is also worth bearing it in mind that the legal basis for agrimonetary compensation payments for currency revaluation has been in place since April 1997. In fact, it was introduced in the dying days of the previous Government. Had they wished to do so, the Government could have begun to make payments then, but—despite pressure from farmers' organisations using the same arguments that we have heard today—no such compensation was provided.
  Sir Robert Smith: The Minister ought to accept that two wrongs do not make a right. The farmers are genuinely concerned not just about where the money is coming from, but about the fact that other European countries are being subsidised to the full.
  Mr. Byers: As I think the hon. Gentleman will know, in the case of some sectors of the United Kingdom farming industry that are under particular pressure, we have been prepared to use European Union support. The Government's policy has been to provide support where it has seemed to be in the national interest. It is worth noting that the previous Government voted to abolish the compensation mechanism completely when it was established at the Agriculture Council meeting last March. That demonstrates their intent all too clearly.
  As I have said, the present Government recognise that some sectors are more affected than others by the current situation—which is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith). That is why, even against a background of tight public expenditure control, we decided to provide some aid for the beef and sheep sectors. In structural terms, those sectors find it most difficult to absorb and adjust to the changes in income generated by green-rate revaluations.
  The measures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on 3 February will deliver £72.5 million to the specialist beef sector, in the form of payments made on the basis of eligibility for the 1996 suckler cow premium scheme. The benefits of focusing aid on specialist producers, who have the least flexibility to adapt to revaluation-derived falls in income, should feed through to other parts of the sector—by, for example, helping to ensure a supply of reasonably priced calves to calf finishers, thereby improving finishers' gross margins. We are also making £12.5 million available to the sheepmeat sector. That is targeted aid to the tune of £85 million.
  Livestock farmers will receive £1 billion in direct subsidy this year. The Government have also said that they will fund the initial costs of the new cattle-tracing system, and the implementation of specified risk material controls. That will save the industry £70 million. It is clear that farmers are receiving a great deal of support from the taxpayer. That aid is in addition to nearly £1.7 billion of support for the livestock sector as a whole in 1997–98. It is a significant sum in public expenditure terms, by any standards. Total UK expenditure on the common agricultural policy will be—3 billion this year.
  We acknowledge that other sectors also face difficulties. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley specifically mentioned the dairy sector, which I know has particular significance in his constituency. He referred to

  413
  the difficulties caused by the fall in the price of milk. The price has dropped dramatically over the past 18 months—albeit, perhaps, from very high levels—not only because of the strong pound, but because of strong competition between buyers and sellers. Such competition, however, has been an inevitable consequence of the deregulation of the UK milk market, which the previous Government introduced.
  It remains the case that, over the years, dairy farming has been relatively profitable compared with other sectors. The continued strong demand for milk quota, for lease or
  414
  for purchase, indicates that there are plenty of producers in the dairy sector who feel that an adequate return can still be gained from dairy farming.
  Apart from the effects of a strong currency, the farm incomes problem in the UK has highlighted a more general problem in the European Union—the problem of a long-term structural surplus in agricultural production. The Government recognize—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Seven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Driving Hours
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in how many fatal road accidents in the last three years over-tiredness has been assessed to be a contributory factor. [34336]

  Dr. Strang
  Information is not at present collected on the causation of injury road accidents on a national basis. However, research commissioned by the Department estimated that tiredness is a principal contributory factor in around 10 per cent. of road accidents. Details of this research were published in TRL Report 169 (1995),Driver sleepiness as a factor in car and HGV accidents.

  Housing (Condition)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the findings of the English House Condition Survey 1996; and if he will publish a summary of its main findings. [35710]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The findings of the 1996 English House Condition Survey will be published through a detailed and priced report. There will also be a separate summary document of key findings available free of charge. Publication is expected within the next two months.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for local authorities in each of the years 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97(a) the total number of statutory notices served under section 189 of the Housing Act 1985, (b) the total expenditure on grants made to owners of properties on whom section 189 notices were served, (c) the total number of statutory notices served under section 352 of the Housing Act 1985 and (d) the total expenditure on grants made to owners of properties on whom section 352 notices were served. [35707]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department does not hold information in the form requested. Such information as we do hold is set out in Housing and Construction Statistics 1985–1995, Table 7.9 (Unfit dwellings, England), a copy of which has been placed in the House Library.

  Regional Planning Guidance
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the housing figures to be used by strategic planning authorities in the West Midlands for the period up to 2011 84
  will be those contained in the answer to the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) of 4 December 1997, Official Report, column 288. [35857]

  Mr. Caborn
  Yes. We will issue amended housing policy guidance for the West Midlands shortly setting out clear policies that authorities should pursue in their development plans to increase the amount of housing on previously developed land to make provision for affordable housing and to ensure sustainable locations for development within transport corridors.

  Highway Signs
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the current regulations controlling the nature, size and location of highway signs in areas of outstanding natural beauty and National Parks; and if he will make a statement. [35948]

  Dr. Strang
  The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 were framed, and are currently being updated, to balance the interests of road safety, efficient traffic management and the environment in the design and use of signs so that traffic authorities can, as far as practicable, provide signs appropriate to local conditions. My Department has published guidance on designing signs effectively so that they are not larger than they need to be for the information they contain. We are also actively supporting the Countryside Traffic Measures Group's initiative to investigate the extent to which local traffic management and traffic calming schemes—and associated signs—can be effective in meeting their traffic objectives, whilst being designed with sensitivity to the countryside environment in which they are set. This includes projects in two National Parks.

  Rail Services
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 1998,Official Report, column 438, if he will request the Rail Regulator to discuss with (a) Railtrack and (b) TOCs the public provision of national time tables for future years. [36081]

  Dr. Strang
  Railtrack meets the train operating companies to discuss bids for train services which are subsequently incorporated into the national timetable. The Rail Regulator is also involved in the process and he can be approached by either party if they were dissatisfied with the outcome of the discussions. Demand for future services is subject to fluctuation and discussions therefore tend to focus on services that are to be included in the next edition of the timetable rather than for many years ahead.

  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provision he is making for the cost of rail services secured by English Passenger Transport Executives in 1998–99. [36330]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A special grant Report has been laid before the House today for the payment of Metropolitan Railways Passenger Services Grant in 1998–99 to English Passenger Transport Authorities
  85
  (PTAs). The main purpose of the grant is to provide support to those PTAs for the local rail services secured by the PTAs' Passenger Transport Executives under the terms of franchise agreements with franchise operators and the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by what means and according to what timetable his Department is proposing to consult regional authorities regarding their views on international air service access to regional airports. [35437]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department is already aware of the support of a broad spectrum of regional interests for a greater degree of liberalisation of international air services to regional airports.

  Planning Inspectorate and Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the (i) location of, (ii) running costs of, (iii) salary costs of and (iv) number of staff based at the Head Office of the(a) Planning Inspectorate and (b) Building Research Establishment; and for these bodies if he will list the percentage of (1) staff, (2) salary costs and (3) running costs which are based in (A) London and (B) Scotland. [36108]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Planning Inspectorate is an Executive Agency of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and of the Welsh Office. As of 2 March 1998, the Planning Inspectorate had 440 staff based at its Headquarters offices in Bristol and Cardiff. The Inspectorate's gross running cost allocation for the current year is £29.254 million. Forecast outturn for the paybill is £18.895 million. None of the staff are based in offices in London or Scotland. The Planning Inspectorate has no jurisdiction for planning appeals and other statutory functions under the Planning Acts in Scotland, for which there is a separate Inquiry Reporters Unit, which is part of the Scottish Office Development Department in Edinburgh.

  The Building Research Establishment was privatised in March 1997; the Department therefore no longer has responsibility for its operations.

  Transport Council
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the result of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 17 March. [36417]

  Dr. Strang
  The first Transport Council of the current UK Presidency of the EU Council of Ministers met under my Chairmanship in Brussels on 17 March. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London represented the United Kingdom.

  I particularly welcome the progress the Council was able to make on proposals for establishing a new European Aviation Safety Authority. There is strong support among Member States for these proposals, and it
  86
  was agreed that work should continue with the aim of adopting a Council decision in June. The Council also took note of progress on a draft negotiating mandate for Community membership of the EUROCONTROL air traffic management organisation, again with a view to adoption in June.

  The Council discussed the Community's role in EC/US air transport negotiations, in the light of the Commission's existing mandate and a recommendation by the Commission for supplementary negotiating directives. It was agreed that officials should undertake further technical work with a view to more extensive discussion at the June Council. Several Ministers expressed regret that the Commission has recently sent Reasoned Opinions to a number of Member States.

  The Council reached a common position on a Regulation on vehicle national identification signs, under which Member States would not require a separate national sign where on is already included (in specified form) in the vehicle number plate, and (with Germany abstaining) adopted a Regulation on the harmonisation of statistics on the movement of freight by road. The council agreed Conclusions welcoming the Commission's recent Communication on satellite navigation systems.

  The Council made significant progress in its consideration of the proposed directive on heavy goods vehicle taxation and charging. The Presidency put forward a compromise proposal, with further modifications in response to concern expressed by delegations, but agreement proved beyond reach.

  The Commission reported on its negotiations with the Swiss Government on proposals for a land transport agreement between the Community and Switzerland. Following clarification of some outstanding points, a substantial number of delegations were broadly supportive. Presidency Conclusions reflecting the Council discussion were drawn. The General Affairs Council will take the final decision for the Community on a series of proposed agreements with Switzerland.

  Several delegations requested a study into the employment effects of the abolition in 1999 of duty-free sales for intra-Community travel. I agreed to forward the comments raised to the Chairman of ECOFIN.

  I made a short statement on the Presidency's plans to present a paper to the June Council on the subject of transport safety across the modes. This will set out proposals for exchanges of information and regular reporting by the Commission on safety in all modes and in all EU Member States.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the impact on litigants involved in expensive, lengthy or complex cases of the introduction of contracting between the Legal Aid Board and legal service providers. [35237]
  87
  Mr. Hoon
  Contracting is a flexible tool, which will allow the Legal Aid Board to test different arrangements to determine which are most suitable for different types of case. We believe that individual negotiated contracts are likely to prove most appropriate in expensive cases.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps his Department is planning to concentrate the legal aid budget on promoting access to the judicial system for the poorest and on cases which raise issues of wider public interest. [35236]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are consulting on our proposals to begin:to focus on the priority needs of the poor by concentrating legal aid more tightly on cases that cannot be funded in the private sector and which are of high priority;
  to support cases which have a significant public interest and might otherwise not be brought.

  These are the first two steps in the Government's plans to modernise legal aid which are set out in the consultation paper, "Access to Justice with Conditional Fees", which was published on 4 March.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list planned expenditure on hospitality for April and May, indicating the date, location and purpose of each event. [35120]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no expenditure currently planned for Ministerial hospitality for April or May 1998. It is not, however, possible to provide a comprehensive estimate for total expenditure on Ministerial hospitality as the majority of events and meetings will not be finalised until nearer the time.

DEFENCE

  Bosnia
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by(a) craft or speciality and (b) unit the numbers of territorial army personnel serving in Bosnia. [35381]

  Dr. Reid
  There are currently 380 members of the Reserve Forces (including the Territorial Army and Individual Reservists), serving in Bosnia. They are drawn from the following specialisations:

  Unit

  Number

  Royal Armoured Corps

  9

  Royal Artillery

  18

  Royal Engineers

  46

  Royal Signals

  26

  Infantry

  100

  Army Air Corps

  1

  Royal Army Chaplains' Department

  1

  Royal Logistic Corps

  107

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  7

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  25

  Adjutant-General's Corps

  37

  Intelligence Corps

  2

  Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps

  1

  88
  The individuals in that list are serving with the following units in the theatre:

  Unit

  Number

  Specialisation

  HQ SFOR

  15

  All

  SFOR Support Command (Zagreb)

  6

  All

  HQ Multinational Division (South West)

  29

  All

  HQ MND(SW) Signals Squadron

  42

  Royal Signals

  HQ National Support Element (Split, Croatia)

  28

  All

  National Support Element Support Squadron (Split)

  20

  Royal Logistics Corps

  UK Communications Troop

  4

  Royal Signals

  9th/12th Lancers Battlegroup

  10

  Royal Armoured Corps

  26 Regiment, Royal Artillery

  11

  Royal Artillery

  35 Engineer Regiment

  27

  Royal Engineers

  38 Engineer Regiment

  15

  Royal Engineers

  1 King's Own Royal Border Regiment Battlegroup

  81

  Infantry

  664 Squadron, Army Air Corps

  1

  Army Air Corps

  4 General Support Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps

  23

  Royal Logistic Corps

  2 Close Support Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps

  4

  Royal Logistic Corps

  518 Pioneer Squadron, Royal Logistic Corps

  2

  Royal Logistic Corps

  24 Armoured Field Ambulance

  20

  Royal Army Medical Corps, Royal Logistic Corps Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps

  6 Battalion, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  8

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  3 Regiment, Royal Military Police

  32

  Adjutant General's Corps

  5 Allied Tactical Air Force, (Vicenza, Italy)

  1

  Varies

  Royal Navy and Royal Air Force Support Helicopter Force

  1

  Varies

  Shooting Ranges
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to alter access to military ranges for civilian shooters for target shooting purposes. [35378]
  89
  Mr. Spellar
  There are no proposals to alter the current arrangements for civilian use of military firing ranges for marksmanship practice, which are designed to ensure appropriate access to these ranges and proper safety.

  Nuclear Accident Exercises
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many nuclear weapon accident exercises entitled Senator have taken place since 1985; and where and when each exercise took place. [35366]

  Dr. Reid
  Two exercises entitled Exercise SENATOR have taken place since 1985. The details are as follows:

  Date

  Exercise

  SENATOR 96

  20 May 1996 to 24 May 1996

  Army Training Area Otterburn

  SENATOR 97

  22 September 1997 to 25 September 1997

  Prince William of Gloucester Barracks Grantham, with the Strategic Co-ordination Group meeting at Lincolnshire Fire Bridgade HQ, Lincoln.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer on 5 March 1998,Official Report, columns 761–62; what will be the scenario of the Diagonal Glance exercise; on which of his Department's properties the exercise will take place; how many of his Department's personnel will take part in the exercise; and if the media will be invited to the exercise. [35365]

  Dr. Reid
  Exercise DIAGONAL GLANCE will test the procedures in place for responding to the crash of a US transport aircraft carrying nuclear weapons. RAF Locking will be used as a convenient location to base elements of the MoD response forces. There will also be exercise activity in Main Building, Whitehall and at AWE Aldermaston. Approximately 300 personnel from my Department will participate. A press statement about the exercise will be issued, but it is not intended to invite members of the media to the exercise.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 1998,Official Report, columns 761–62, what are the definitions of Grade B and Grade C nuclear weapon accident exercises; and if his Department has other categories of nuclear weapon accident exercises. [35363]

  Dr. Reid
  Prior to March 1997, nuclear accident response exercises were categorised as major, medium and minor; descriptions of the scales of these exercises were given in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995. They were then recategorised as Grade A, B, C and D. This was done to give external agencies a better understanding of the levels of our exercises by reference to the co-ordination levels detailed in the Home Office publication "Dealing with Disaster". The definitions of these exercises are:Grade A—A demonstration exercise of all phases of the response in which live play and the participation of all MoD and external agencies is maximised at the national strategic, local strategic, tactical and operational levels.
  Grade B—A demonstration exercise focusing on medium and long term phases of the response in which live play and the participation of MoD and external agencies is maximised at the local strategic and tactical levels.
  90
  Grade C—A demonstration exercise focusing on immediate and medium term phases of the response in which live play and the participation of MoD and external agencies is maximised at the tactical and operational levels.
  Grade D—An exercise of the MoD response only, involving live play at levels appropriate to the exercise and its duration.

  Admiralty Intelligence Papers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will open for public inspection files concerning Admiralty Intelligence papers with the classmarks ADM 223/719 to ADM 223/734 at the Public Record Office. [35499]

  Mr. Spellar
  In line with our commitment to greater openness, arrangements are being made to review the papers listed at the Public Record Office under references ADM 223/719 to ADM 223/734 to see whether release into the public domain is now possible. I will write to the hon. Member on completion of the review process.

  Heavy Lift Cargo Aircraft
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost has been to his Department in each of the last 10 years of the charter of heavy lift cargo aircraft from civilian operators. [34890]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]: The costs of the charter of heavy lift cargo aircraft from civil operators for 1996, 1997 and 1998 (to date) are set out below. It is not possible to provide figures for years before 1996 without disproportionate cost.

  £ million

  1996

  1.60

  1997

  3.30

  1998 (to date)

  1.32

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the types of civilian heavy lift cargo aircraft chartered by his Department over the last 10 years; their country of registration and the names of the air carriers by which they were operated. [34891]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]: The details of the types of heavy lift cargo aircraft chartered by the Ministry of Defence from civil operators for 1996, 1997 and 1998 (to date) are set out in the table. It is not possible to provide the information required for the years before 1996 without disproportionate cost.

  Aircraft type

  Country of registration

  Operators

  1996:

  AN-124

  Russia

  Heavylift

  IL-76

  Russia

  Heavylift

  Belfast

  UK

  Heavylift

  1997:

  AN-124

  Russia

  Heavylift

  AN-124

  Ukraine

  Air Foyle

  IL-76

  Russia

  Heavylift

  DC8

  Zimbabwe

  Heavylift

  Belfast

  UK

  Heavylift

  1998 (to date):

  AN-124

  Russia

  Heavylift

  AN-124

  Ukraine

  Air Foyle

  IL-76

  Russia

  Heavylift

  IL-76

  Ukraine/Latvia

  Air Foyle

  Belfast

  UK

  Heavylift

  91

  Exercise Tartan Strike
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of the recent Tartan Strike exercise; which countries took part; how many(a) UK personnel and (b) US personnel were involved; who was the identified enemy; and if he will make a statement. [35603]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]: The purpose of the recent Tartan Strike exercise was for the Armed Forces personnel involved to practise basic counter-insurgency skills. The participating countries were the United Kingdom and United States, with some 105 UK personnel (a number of whom acted as unidentified enemy) and some 55 US personnel involved.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 December 1997,Official Report, column 6, if he will publish the results of his inquiries into dead animals found and analysed during the Gulf War; and if he will make a statement. [35423]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]: I expect to publish the outcome of MOD's research into this matter by Easter.

  RAF Croughton and West Ruislip Station
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the functions undertaken at(a) RAF Croughton and (b) West Ruislip station. [35604]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]: RAF Croughton is home to the US 422nd Air Base Squadron whose mission is to manage, operate and maintain communications computer facilities and systems for theatre-wide support of the Defense Information Infrastructure, US Department of Defense airborne missions and the Air Weather Network. The squadron also provides all base facilities, support and services for over 700 military and civilian personnel. West Ruislip is a US storage and support facility for the US Navy in Europe and covers 81 US housing units, a commissary (food store), US shopping facilities, a medical and dental clinic, welfare services and a US community school for children of serving US personnel.

  Meteorological Office
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 June 1997,Official Report, column 265, if he will make a statement about the key targets for the Meteorological Office for 1997–98. [36301]

  Mr. Spellar
  The targets I gave on 19 June have not changed but two of them require clarification as follows:

  Performance Target (b)—Numerical Weather Prediction Index for the UK (UKNWP). This performance target is intended to be a three year target, which will be set annually for the following three years. However, an adequate baseline is not available on which to set targets for intermediate years. The first target is therefore to improve the UKNWP index by four index points by March 2000 from a baseline of 100.00 in March 1997.
  92
  Performance Target (c)—Service Quality Index (SQI). It has now been agreed that the target for each year should be directly related to the agreed customer requirements for the component services represented in the index. This means that from a baseline of 100.00 in 1996–97 the target for 1997–98 is to increase the SQI by 3.2 index points (not 1 as stated previously).

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Documentary Series
  Mr. Dennis Turner
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if the Committee has considered any requests to make a documentary series about the House; and if she will make a statement. [35606]

  Mrs. Roe
  Since November the Committee has been considering two proposals, one from the BBC and one from Channel 4, to make a documentary series about the work of the House. I wish to advise the hon. Gentleman that the Committee has agreed that such a series might be useful in helping to give a clearer idea of Parliamentary practice and procedure, explain the legislative process and to give an insight into the work of hon. Members.

  Of the two options, the Committee considered that the Channel 4 proposal was the more appropriate, as the way the series would be structured offered less disruption to the work of the House.

  The House authorities are therefore beginning detailed negotiations with Channel 4 and Partners in Production, who will make the series. Subject to a successful outcome to these negotiations, it is envisaged that filming will commence at the time of the Queen's Speech this year, and continue throughout 1999.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agencies
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the(a) location and (b) costs of each refurbishment programme undertaken in each year since 1994 by (i) the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, (ii) the Centre for Environmental, Fisheries and Agriculture Science, (iii) the Central Science Laboratory, (iv) the Veterinary Laboratory Agency and (v) the Pesticides Safety Directorate. [34776]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 March 1998]: In financial year 1997–98, the first since its formation in 1997, a total of £1,351,000 was spent on a refurbishment programme for the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency. In the main this covered refurbishment of buildings at Aberystwyth, Bristol, Cambridge, Cardiff, Crewe, Leeds, Northallerton, Nottingham, Preston and Wye.

  The figures for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) are: 1995–96 £50,000; 1996–97 £401,000; and 1997–98 £14,000 for work on the CEFAS laboratories at Lowestoft and Burnham-on-Crouch, and for the CEFAS Lowestoft lecture theatre.
  93
  The figures for the Veterinary Laboratories Agency are: 1995–96 £5,084,000; 1996–97 £1,473,000; and 1997–98 £574,000 for the work at the Central Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge and the Veterinary Investigation Centres at Itchen Abbas (near Winchester), Penrith, Sutton Bonington (near Loughborough) and Thirsk.

  No refurbishment programmes have been carried out for the Central Science Laboratory of the Pesticides Safety Directorate since 1994.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the(a) location of and (b) costs of each refurbishment programme undertaken by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service in each year from 1994 until privatisation. [34781]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 March 1998]: From 1994 until its privatisation on 1 April 1997, expenditure on a refurbishment programme for the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service involved a total of £170,000 in financial year 1994–95 on work at Boxworth and Oxford Spires and a total of £138,000 in 1996–97 for work at Bridgets Experimental Husbandry Farm, Oxford Spires and Penrith. There was no refurbishment work for ADAS in 1995–96.

  Wasted Food
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will commission research on the impact of EU regulations on the quantity of edible food thrown away by British supermarkets; what estimate he has made of the quantity they disposed of in the last twelve months; and if he will make a statement. [34757]

  Mr. Morley
  No estimates are available to the department, and I do not at this stage regard this as a priority research topic in the light of other pressures on our scarce resources. The firms concerned can be expected to keep wastage to a minimum for economic reasons, and a number of them participate in a voluntary scheme for the distribution of surplus food to charitable bodies caring for the disadvantaged.

  Public-private Partnerships
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to extend the use of public and private partnerships to conduct his Department's business and deliver services to the public; and if he will make a statement. [35137]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 March 1998]: Competitive tenders have been sought for the redevelopment of the Department's Cambridge Regional Service Centre site.

  In addition, the Environment Agency, in liaison with the Department, are in discussion with selected consortia, in advance of a formal notice of Intention to Negotiate, on pilot projects for Hood and Coastal Defence works at Pevensey and Broadland.

  Plans to extend the use of public and private partnerships to conduct the Department's business and deliver services to the public are also being considered as part of the Department's Comprehensive Spending Review. As part of its procurement policy, the Department has already entered into key supplier relationships with a number of private sector suppliers. It
  94
  intends to develop these further and with others as appropriate, subject to the value for money and transparency requirements of the public procurement rules.

  Canthaxanthin
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the safety of canthaxanthin for use in animal feed insofar as it affects eggs and farmed fish consumed by the public; and if he will make a statement. [36345]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am grateful for the Food Advisory Committee's advice that there are no consumer safety concerns associated with the use of this pigment in animal feed. I conclude that it may therefore continue to be used in accordance with its long-standing authorisation in Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs.

  We nevertheless propose to seek a reduction under the Directive to the maximum permitted level (MPL) for use of the substance in feed for laying hens. The levels used are, for technological reasons, far below the current MPL.

  I also intend to ask the new Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs, when it is established, to consider whether, despite the lack of current safety concerns, it would be prudent to monitor the degree to which this colourant is used in the future.

  Finally, I note that the FAC wishes to review the need for labelling of animal products coloured in this way. I believe this is an important matter for consumer information and I look forward to receiving its advice in due course.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Caribbean Banana Producers
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposals she will be making during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union to safeguard the interests of Caribbean banana producers; and if she will make a statement. [35760]

  Clare Short
  Proposals to revise the EU banana regime to bring it into conformity with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruling and at the same time to provide assistance to traditional African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) banana producers have been prepared by the European Commission and are currently under discussion by Member States.

  As a leading advocate of the legitimate interests of those developing countries in the Caribbean who have traditionally supplied the UK market, the Government intend to play a major role in developing a solution to the problem that meets our obligations to both our traditional suppliers of bananas and the WTO. The UK is well placed to do this as it currently holds the Presidency of the EU.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her policy towards the European Commission proposals for a new agreement on development partnerships with the ACP. [35727]
  95
  Clare Short
  The Lomé Convention has been an important basis for trade, development and political relations between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries of the alliance for over 22 years. The current Lomé Convention expires in 2000, and the Government hope that, during the UK Presidency, the EU's negotiating mandate for the successor arrangements will be agreed. The Commission's proposals provide a very good basis for discussion. They contain much the Government agree with, including a commitment to the international poverty eradication emphasis on partnerships and a simplification of the range of aid instruments.

  Trade is the most difficult and complex area. The challenge is to design arrangements which will support the integration of the ACP economies into the world economy. The Commission has proposed a 5 year roll-year of current preferences from 2000–05, followed by either Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) or integration into the Generalised System of Preferences, with a special window for the least developed. The Government welcome the roll-over period, but wish to see greater emphasis on enhancing the Generalised System of Preferences, in order to promote a genuine alternative to FTAs for the non-least developed ACP countries.

  European Development Fund
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funds her Department has committed to the eighth European Development Fund; and if she will make a statement. [35724]

  Clare Short
  My Department committed 1.63 billion ecu (£1.08 billion at the current exchange rate) to the eighth European Development Fund. The resources will be used to promote development and poverty eradication in the 71 African, Caribbean and Pacific States with which the EU has aid, trade an political relations under the Lomé Convention.

  Lomé IV Convention
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to those European Union Member states who have not ratified the current Lomé IV bis Convention. [35726]

  Clare Short
  I am very concerned by the delay in the ratification of the Mid-Term Review of the Lomé IV Convention. The issue has been raised by the UK, as Presidency, at working level meetings in Brussels and my officials and I will continue to press those Member States who have yet to ratify the Review to do so as soon as possible.

  China
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is giving the People's Republic of China; and if she will make a statement on the amount of funding provided. [35729]

  Clare Short
  In 1996/97 (the latest year for which complete statistics are available), total British assistance to China came to some £32 million. China has about a third of the world's poorest people and a good record of pro-poor growth since the start of the economic reforms 96
  in 1979. We have a substantial co-operation programme. Priority sectors are education, health, the environment and economic and administrative reform.

  Belarus
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is giving to Belarus. [35730]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development's programme of bilateral assistance to Belarus is channelled via the Know How Fund. We expect expenditure in this financial year to be approximately £800,000. The Department is also contributing to the EU's 5 mecu programme for the development of civil society.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Foreign Policy Centre
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when and by whom he was invited to be the President of the Foreign Policy Centre, 29 Tufton Street, London SW1P 3QL. [32857]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I was invited to be President of the Foreign Policy Centre in June 1997 by the Directors of the Centre.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 March 1998,Official Report, column 276, on Indonesia, what assessment he has made of the Indonesian Government's implementation of the IMF programme. [35357]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Indonesia has not yet fulfilled all elements of the IMF package. We hope the ongoing negotiations between the IMF and Indonesia reach a satisfactory outcome.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 March 1998,Official Report, column 277, on Indonesia, what assessment he has made of the standard of governance in Indonesia. [35370]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I have nothing further to add to my earlier reply to the hon. Member of 12 March 1998,Official Report, column 277.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 March 1998,Official Report, column 276, on Indonesia, what assessment he has made of the Indonesian Government's response to the British Government's requests that they exercise restraint during periods of civil unrest. [35358]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We continue to follow closely reports of incidents of social unrest in Indonesia.
  97

  Asia-Europe Meeting
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to raise human rights issues at the forthcoming Asia-Europe meeting in London; and if he will make a statement. [35746]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The agenda of the Second Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM 2) will be finalised by the Leaders themselves. We look forward to a wide-ranging, informal and productive discussion. We expect it to touch on human rights. Leaders at the first ASEM in Bangkok made it clear that political dialogue, including consideration of fundamental rights, was one of the key dimensions of ASEM. The successful seminar on Human Rights and the Rule of Law held in Lund, Sweden in December 1997 is an encouraging example of the ASEM dialogue in this area.

  Iraq
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek UNSCOM's permission to publish the names received from UNSCOM of British companies who supplied components of Iraq's(a) chemical and (b) biological warfare programmes. [35849]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Blaeneau Gwent (Mr. Smith), on 16 February 1998,Official Report, column 489.

  Turkey
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation the Government plans to make during the UN Commission on Human Rights meeting in Geneva concerning the current human rights situation in Turkey. [35764]

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of the current human rights situation in Turkey; and what plans he has to express concern about human rights in Turkey in his statement to the forthcoming UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva; [35762]

  (2) what recent representations the Government have made to the Turkish Government on human rights. [35763]

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if the Government will urge the UN Commission on Human Rights to press the Turkish Government to facilitate the visits of, and cooperate with, the Working Group on Involuntary and Enforced Disappearances and the Special Rapporteur on Torture in 1998; [35883]

  (2) if the Government will, in their statement to the UN Commission on Human Rights, urge the Turkish Government to prosecute all those responsible for human rights violations; [35885]

  (3) what proposals the Government intend to make at the UN Commission on Human Rights meeting in Geneva to deal with human rights problems in Turkey; [35886]

  (4) what recent representations the Government have made to the Turkish Government on human rights; [35887]
  98
  (5) what assessment he has made of the current human rights situation in Turkey. [35888]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 23 March 1998,Official Report, column 29.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to encourage Turkey to improve its record on human rights abuses. [35293]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In addition to raising the issue of human rights on a regular basis with the Turkish authorities, we are offering significant practical assistance to help Turkey fully meet its international obligations. This includes the package of human rights projects I announced on my visit to Ankara last October. These projects, involving UK experts, will cover areas such as police training, establishment of a police complaints authority and a network of citizens' advice bureaux, and inter-agency training on women's rights. We remain committed to working closely with the Turkish authorities on such matters.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the linkage between Turkey's application for membership of the EU and its policies towards Cyprus. [35294]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The European Council has agreed that Turkey's application to join the European Union will be judged on the basis of the same criteria as those used for all other applicants. The Council has noted that the strengthening of Turkey's relations with the EU also depends upon other factors, including Turkey's support for negotiations under the aegis of the UN on a political settlement in Cyprus on the basis of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the risk that(a) light weapons and (b) armoured vehicles exported to Turkey could be used for internal repression. [35884]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  All licence applications for the export of conventional arms to all countries, including Turkey, are considered against the criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26–29. A licence will not be issued if there is a clearly identifiable risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression or international aggression.

  Armenia
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Armenia. [35756]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We enjoy excellent relations with Armenia. A British Embassy opened in Yerevan in July 1995 and we hope to increase the number of staff later this year. Although UK exports to Armenia increased 86% from 1996 to 1997, we are not satisfied with the relatively low level of trade and the DTI continues to encourage more British companies to export goods and services. In January this year, the Embassy held a very
  99
  successful British Week, which coincided with a small trade mission. As well as providing substantial humanitarian aid, a programme of technical assistance through the Know How Fund has operated for a number of years.

  Algeria
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts his Department has had with organisations within Algeria which campaign for human rights. [35705]

  Mr. Fatchett
  During the EU mission to Algeria in January, my Troika colleagues and I met with the Human Rights Observatory's Director, with whom the British Embassy in Algiers has regular contact. In the course of its operation in Algeria, the Embassy has contact with a number of organisations which work across the spectrum of human rights, including women's issues and counselling for victims of terrorism.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent progress has been made towards a peaceful settlement in Algeria. [35709]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There have been no large-scale terrorist attacks in Algeria since the end of Ramadan, although sporadic killing continues. Hope for progress towards a peaceful settlement rests with furthering of the democratic process. The Algerian Government have already made some progress in this area, but we believe that the further strengthening of democratic institutions, supported by increased transparency and openness, offers the greatest chance of bringing peace.

  Venezuela
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what negotiations are in progress with the Venezuelan authorities concerning an extradition treaty between Britain and Venezuela. [35868]

  Mr. Fatchett
  It is not our practice to comment on whether extradition treaties with other countries are under discussion.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to visit Venezuela. [35870]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he is considering for an exchange of prisoners between Britain and Venezuela. [35869]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have no plans for an exchange of prisoners. We are, however, seeking to negotiate a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Venezuela. I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to his question on 5 February 1998,Official Report, column 752.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the British Ambassador in Caracas last visited Mr. Loseby and Mr. Miles. [35873]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our Ambassador in Caracas has not visited Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby. They were last visited, by the Deputy Head of our Embassy, on 19 January.
  100

  Israel
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the number of UN Security Council Resolutions of which Israel is in breach; and what issues they cover. [35970]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There are over 200 UN Security Council resolutions concerning aspects of Israel's dispute with its neighbours. These are publicly available. We continue to support them. We believe that the framework for negotiations laid down at Madrid and Oslo, based on these resolutions and the principle of "land for peace", offers the best prospect of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Private Prisons
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are made for trades union representation in each of the private sector prisons; what arrangements are planned for future private prison projects; and if he will make a statement. [32576]

  Ms Quin
  Trade union representation at privately managed prisons for both custodial and non-custodial staff is a matter for their employer, subject to the law governing trade union recognition, and to section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  Premier Prison Services, which manages Doncaster and Lowdham Grange prisons, have works councils elected by staff.

  At Altcourse, Buckley Hall and the Wolds prisons, staff may join the APEX Partnership, which is recognised by Group 4, the contractor. The APEX Partnership is a sister union of the General Municipal Boilermakers and Allied Trade Union.

  At Pare prison, managed by Securicor, there is a staff association.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners per 1,000 population there are in England; and what assessment he has made of the factors underlying the differences in the number of prisoners per 1,000 population in(a) England and (b) Scotland. [35193]

  Ms Quin
  The latest available provisional information is for 1 September 1996 and shows that in England and Wales there were 1.07 prisoners per 1,000 population compared with 1.15 in Scotland. Within the sentencing framework set by Parliament, who is sent to prison and for how long is a matter for the courts. Different legal systems operate in England and Wales and in Scotland. The respective sentencing framework of each legal system may be a contributory factor in the difference between the countries in the number of prisoners per 1,000 population.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether(a) local probation officers and

  101
  (b) social workers will be involved in the supervision of young offenders sentenced to a period at a secure training centre; and if he will make a statement. [35342]

  Mr. Michael
  Until such time as the proposed Youth Offending Teams are in place, supervision of those juvenile offenders subject to the secure training order will be the responsibility of Directors of Social Services. In practice, this will mean that supervising officers are mainly social workers but it need not preclude the involvement of probation officers in appropriate cases where inter agency youth justice teams are already in place.

  Supervision will be carried out in accordance with procedures set out in a National Standard which sets out the objectives of supervision and the requirements for the involvement of the supervising officer throughout the sentence.

  Firearms
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many cases of compensation for handguns under (i) Option A, (ii) Option B and (iii) Option C are currently outstanding in the Northumbria Police Area; [35373]

  (2) when he expects all claims for compensation for handguns under options (i) A, (ii) B and (iii) C to have been completed in the Northumbria Police Area. [35374]

  Mr. Michael
  At 20 March, over £480,000 had been paid in compensation to 704 claimants in Northumbria, mainly under Options A and B of the compensation scheme. 132 claimants from Northumbria registered on the Firearms Compensation Section (FCS) computer system have not yet received payment and a proportion of around 3,500 claims not yet registered will also be from Northumbria. In addition, 412 Northumbria claimants have outstanding claims under Option C of the compensation scheme, the great majority of which will have already received a payment under Options A and B.

  The FCS expects to complete all payments under Options A and B of the large calibre handgun compensation scheme by about the end of May, and the aim is to complete most, if not all, payments under Option C by the end of the year.

  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received from(a) the police and (b) other organisations on black powder guns; [35375]

  (2) what proposals he has to alter legislation regarding black powder guns. [35376]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government have received representations on black-powder guns, that is to say muzzle-loading guns using black powder as a propellant, from the Association of Chief Police Officers and from the Muzzle-Loaders Association of Great Britain. The Home Office has met representatives of both these bodies to discuss the proper regulation of shooting clubs at which muzzle-loading guns are used.

  At present, the Government have no plans to introduce any further legislation on firearms controls but will keep under close scrutiny the way in which muzzle-loading weapons are used.
  102

  Prisoners (Mental Health)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people with psychiatric health problems are currently being held in prison cells. [35538]

  Ms Quin
  Studies conducted for the Prison Service by the Institute of Psychiatry have indicated that a psychiatric diagnosis, including substance dependency or abuse, could be given to nearly 40 per cent. of the sentenced prison population of England and Wales and some 66 per cent. of remand prisoners. This would suggest that around 20,000 sentenced and 8,300 remand prisoners have some kind of mental disorder.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision is made for mental health care for people in prison. [35539]

  Ms Quin
  Procedures are in place to identify prisoners who need in-patient treatment for mental disorder and to effect their transfer to a psychiatric hospital. The care and treatment of mentally disordered prisoners who do not require in-patient treatment in hospital is generally undertaken by prison healthcare staff or by visiting National Health Service specialists, either on a sessional basis or in some cases as part of a contracted-in comprehensive psychiatric service.

  Under-age Drinking
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what strategies his Department is following to tackle the problem of alcohol misuse amongst young people. [35292]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 7 July 1997,Official Report, column 362, and 9 December 1997, Official Report, column 503. The Ministerial Group will be meeting in the autumn to review progress.

  Wormwood Scrubs Prison
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the recent reports he received from the Board of Visitors of Wormwood Scrubs Prison. [36042]

  Ms Quin
  It is a matter for Boards of Visitors at each prison establishment to decide whether they wish to publish their Annual Report to the Home Secretary. The Board at Her Majesty's Prison Wormwood Scrubs published their 1997 report on 19 March 1998. I have arranged for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library.
  103

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what external legal advice he has taken on the National Lottery's television Dreams Game in which one draw qualifies participants for participation in a further draw; and if he will make a statement. [34426]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 13 March 1998]: None. Under section 6 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, the Director-General of the National Lottery is responsible for licensing new National Lottery games. The BBC Governors are responsible for ensuring that all programmes broadcast on the BBC are in line with their Royal Charter and Agreement and Producers' Guidelines. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the BBC chairman asking him to confirm that the new National Lottery programme does indeed comply with these obligations.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of the sums allocated by the Sports Lottery Fund has been allocated to Wales. [35579]

  Mr. Banks
  Under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, 20 per cent. of the proceeds for good causes goes to sport. 5 per cent. of this is distributed by the Sports Council for Wales. So far, this has made available over £51 million pounds for sports projects in Wales. In addition, the Millennium Commission has awarded £46 million to support the new national stadium in Cardiff.

  Subject to approval by Parliament, the National Lottery Bill will reduce the percentage allocation to sport to 16 per cent., but there will be no reduction in the £1.8 billion originally forecast to be raised for sport by 2001. The percentage of this for Wales will be unchanged.

  Ministerial Offices
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what were the total costs incurred between 1992 and May 1997 in establishing ministerial offices for the Department of National Heritage at 2 Cockspur Street. [34481]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 13 March 1998]: The total costs incurred by my Department from 1992 to date are set out in the following table.

  Refurbishment of Ministerial offices

  Year

  Redecoration and furniture

  Provision of new facilities

  Total

  1992–93

  —

  —

  0

  1993–94

  —

  —

  0

  1994–95

  19,574

  28,150

  47,724

  1995–96

  —

  —

  0

  1996–97

  —

  —

  0

  1 April 1997 to date

  27,180

  17,002

  44,182

  Hospitality
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list planned expenditure on hospitality for April and May, indicating the date, location and purpose of each event. [35114]
  104
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  No major events are planned for April and May. It is not, however, possible to provide a comprehensive estimate for total expenditure on Ministerial hospitality as the majority of events and meetings will not be finalised until nearer the time.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to extend the scheme of concessionary television licences to housing association properties housing both qualifying and non-qualifying residents. [35837]

  Mr. Fisher
  The Government have no plans at present for any changes to the concessionary television licence scheme. However, the Government's Agreement with the BBC provides for a review of future funding arrangements prior to March 2002. We shall conduct that review in good time to allow decisions to be taken before then. It will include a detailed consideration of licence fee concessions.

  British Tourist Authority
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the (i) location of, (ii) running costs of, (iii) salary costs of and (iv) number of staff based at the head office of the British Tourist Authority, the percentage of staff based in(a) head office, (b) London and (c) Scotland and the percentage of salary and running costs incurred in (1) London and (2) Scotland. [36105]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The head office of the British Tourist Authority is located in Hammersmith, London. Its head office running costs in 1996–97 were £10.2 million, including salary costs of £4.7 million. There are 194 posts at the BTA's head office, which equates to 44% of the Authority's total staff. BTA staff based in London (at its head office and the British Travel Centre in Regent Street) represent 47% of total BTA staff—the remaining 53% being based in BTA offices in 37 countries around the world. London based staff account for 39% of the Authority's salary budget. The BTA has no offices, and no staff, in Scotland.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of the British Tourist Authority in Scotland. [36106]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  Under the Development of Tourism Act 1969, the British Tourist Authority (BTA) is responsible for marketing Britain overseas. This responsibility covers Scotland, and the Chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board (STB) is a member of the Board of the BTA. The Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland) Act 1984 gave overseas marketing powers to the STB.

  The BTA has offices in 37 countries around the world, and in all of these it promotes and provides information about Scotland to potential visitors. The STB works directly with the BTA in a more limited number of markets and the two Boards work closely together in planning campaigns each year in these markets. A new protocol is now being drawn up between the BTA and the other national tourist boards to strengthen and formalise inter-Board co-operation.
  105

  Boiling Road School (Playing Field)
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make representations to Bradford Metropolitan District Council not to sell off a section of the Boiling Road School playing field in Ilkley for housing development. [25639]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 12 February 1998]: I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State currently has no powers to intervene in the disposal of school playing fields owned by local education authorities (LEAs), unless pupils would no longer have access to the minimum areas prescribed in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996. During the Commons Report stage of the School Standards and Framework Bill, an amendment was accepted which will, when enacted, prevent local authorities from disposing of school playing fields without the prior consent of the Secretary of State. In the meantime, the Government expect local education authorities to take fully into account the sporting and recreational needs of local schools and communities before disposing of any playing field.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Paramilitary Activity
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have died in Northern Ireland as a result of alleged paramilitary activity since the 1994 ceasefire; and which organisation is thought to be responsible for which deaths [33323]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 March 1998]: The table lists the murders as a result of paramilitary activity since 1 September 1994 until 1 March 1998:

  Organisation

  Number

  Loyalist

  33

  Republican

  26

  Note:

  Attribution figures may be subject to change in the event of further information becoming available.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish a list of non-departmental public bodies(a) she has abolished since 1 May 1997 and (b) she has established since 1 May 1997; and what are the planned annual running costs of those that have been established since 1 May 1997. [34825]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 17 March 1998]: The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  (a) The Northern Ireland Citizen's Charter Advisory Panel was disbanded in May 1997.

  (b) The Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland (CRENI) was established in June 1997 and came into operation in August 1997. Estimated running costs in its first full year will be some £277,000.

  106

  Flagged Herds
  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the prospects for farmers with flagged herds. [33759]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 19 March 1998]: The Government are aware of the difficulties being experienced by farmers with flagged herds. The Export Certified Herd Scheme [which has now been approved in Brussels] will help to some extent as the reference to "holding" will be changed to "herd". The Date Based Export Scheme, which is also under discussion in Brussels, should be of some further help. The Department of Agriculture will also be reviewing the flagging system, in consultation with the industry, when the ECHS is up and running. My officials are keeping in close contact with representatives of the flagged procedures to explore what other means may be available to help them.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will ask the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Talks Process to prepare and present a statement for the 23 March session of the talks outlining the extent to which he is satisfied that the International Commission's criteria for a parallel track approach has been met by all parties at the negotiating table. [35658]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]: I do not intend to make any such request. The procedural motion agreed in the talks on 24 September 1997 makes provision for regular plenary meetings to enable the participants collectively to review progress across the entire spectrum of the negotiations and to consider whether the necessary confidence and momentum towards agreement is being maintained.

  Privy Council
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what functions the Northern Irish Privy Council currently performs. [35596]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]: None. The Northern Ireland Privy Council no longer has any functions and, under the NI Constitution Act 1973, no further appointments may be made to it.

PRIME MINISTER

  Political Honours Scrutiny Committee
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes he has made in the composition of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee. [36244]

  The Prime Minister
  Members are traditionally Privy Counsellors who are not members of the Government. I have appointed the right hon. Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde to be a member of the Committee in place of Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos who has resigned. She joins Lord Pym (Chairman) and Lord Thomson of Monifieth.
  107

SCOTLAND

  Employee Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost of employee travel on office business, broken down into(a) fuel allowances, (b) unproductive time during travel, (c) other costs related to car transport and (d) costs related to public transport, for (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96, (iii) 1996–97 and (iv) 1997–98. [32447]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: The information sought is not all available. The information given relates only to travel on official business by staff of The Scottish Office:

  (a) No fuel allowances are paid.

  (b) No central record is kept of time spent travelling, whether productive or unproductive.

  (c) Car hire and fleet car running costs for 1996–97 and 1997–98 (11 months) are £537,855 and £434,826 respectively.

  (d) Official travel costs incurred in using public transport for 1996–97 and 1997–98 (11 months) are £1,952,125 and £1,904,759 respectively.

  Comparable figures for 1994–95 and 1995–96 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department will have introduced resource accounting in time for its use in the Scottish Parliament's first budget. [34939]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]: The Scottish Office will produce "dry-run" resource accounts for the year 1998–99 and fully audited and published resource accounts for the year 1999–2000.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to tighten the rules governing waste disposal in Scotland. [35191]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Activities involving the disposal of waste are subject to control under the amended EC Framework Directive on waste. The waste management licensing system established under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, as amended, are the main means by which the requirements of the Framework Directive have been transposed into national law. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency, as regulator, enforces the Regulations.

  The Government will review the current exemptions from licensing for waste recovery by landspreading in the light of research currently under way. The research is expected to be completed by the end of April.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 1998,Official Report, columns 451–52 on Dounreay, by what means the Health and Safety Executive undertakes its regulatory role in respect of possible hazards to workers
  108
  and members of the public from work carried out on the site of Dounreay, with particular reference to the accumulation and storage of radioactive waste. [36142]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Before anyone, other than the Crown, can use a site for the purpose of installing or operating a nuclear installation as defined in the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (as amended) they must be in possession of a licence granted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Dounreay is such a site and a licence has been issued to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

  The Nuclear Installations Act provides HSE with the power to attach conditions to a licence which are in the interests of safety. The Act also gives HSE the power to attach conditions which it sees fit with respect to the handling, treatment and disposal of nuclear matter. Through such conditions, HSE regulates the management of radioactive waste on licensed nuclear sites. This includes the generation of wastes, on-site storage of raw and treated wastes, on-site transport, waste processing and long term storage of waste and spent fuels, which are all integral parts of nuclear site operations licensed by HSE.

  Student Fees
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to assist students over the age of fifty years by means of(a) grants and (b) the waiving of fees; and if he will make a statement. [36110]

  Mr. Wilson
  Students currently in full-time higher education who were aged over 50 at the start of their course are eligible for free tuition and a means-tested grant towards their living costs; that will continue for the duration of their continuous programme of study.

  Those aged 50 and over who begin courses in the academic year 1998–99 will be eligible for a maintenance grant at a reduced rate for that year only. Under the arrangements which will apply to new entrants to higher education from 1998–99 onwards, all eligible students, irrespective of age, will also be entitled to receive means-related help towards the contribution to their tuition costs.

  We have no plans to extend the eligibility for loans to those aged 50 and over for 1998–99, but we intend to review the position for 1999–2000 and subsequent years when maintenance grants will no longer be available.

  Student Awards Agency
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings of the committee set up to review the work of the Student Awards Agency for Scotland have taken place; whether the committee has recommended an increase in(a) staff and (b) funding; on what date the findings of the committee will be published; and if he will make a statement. [36111]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Steering Committee which has been established to oversee the Review of the Student Awards Agency for Scotland has met on three occasions. The Committee will be meeting again to consider the report of the Review and what conclusions and recommendations it wishes to make. I expect to receive the report during April and will arrange for its conclusions to be made
  109
  public as soon as possible thereafter. I cannot at this stage anticipate the Committee's conclusions although I am aware that it has taken a close interest in resource issues.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 16 December 1997,Official Report, column 131, if he has made a decision on whether to implement the Garrick recommendation to establish a Scottish forum for higher education. [36112]

  Mr. Wilson
  The decision is set out in the Government's response to the Garrick Report, which was published on 25 February 1998. My answer of 25 February 1998,Official Report, column 273, indicated that copies have been placed in the libraries of both Houses.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Leghold Traps
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact of the GATT on the EU ban on the import of furs from countries using leghold traps. [34798]

  Mrs. Roche
  The EU ban on the import of furs from countries using leghold traps has not been challenged under GATT rules.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to commission independent research into the consequences for business and public services of the need for computer systems to be millennium compliant. [27878]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Ministerial Group chaired by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is gathering information and consultants may have a part to play in advising the Government.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when she last met a Treasury Minister to discuss the costs of millennium compliance in her Department; [32355]

  (2) when she last met the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to discuss her Department's progress towards millennium compliance. [32354]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: A Ministerial Group on the Millennium Date Change, chaired by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, has been set up. A Ministerial sub-Group, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has also been set up to discuss aspects of millennium compliance relating, inter alia, to Government Departments. Ministers from this Department and the Treasury attend meetings of both these groups.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to wind up Action 2000; and if she will make a statement. [35102]
  110
  Mrs. Roche
  Don Cruickshank has been appointed as Chairman of Action 2000 until 31 March 2000. I expect that there will continue to be a need beyond 1 January 2000 to provide advice to businesses which have failed to act in time, or whose actions have not proved to be completely successful, but it is too early to predict how long this requirement might last. I urge all businesses to decide now what steps they need to take and act without further delay.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on the costs of the use of mobile telephones. [30191]

  Mrs. Roche
  Ministers take advice from the Director General of Telecommunications on questions relating to the provision of telecommunication services, including pricing. The Director has recently referred the prices of calls to mobile phones to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received on the impact of the GATT on EU animal welfare directives. [34797]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have received representations from several animal welfare organisations, including, most recently, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the International Fund for Animal Welfare and Compassion in World Farming.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will raise the issue of the effect of the GATT on EU animal welfare directives during the World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference in Geneva in May; and if she will make a statement. [34796]

  Mrs. Roche
  The European Communities' final position for the World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference in May is still under internal EU discussion.

  Ethical Investment
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice on ethical issues is available from her Department to individuals, organisations and companies considering trade or investment projects in(a) Algeria, (b) North Korea, (c) Burma, (d) Indonesia, (e) Libya, (f) Colombia, (g) Syria, (h) Iraq, (i) Saudi Arabia and (j) China. [35045]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Department, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, provides advice on all aspects of doing business overseas, including relevant export controls and any commitments made by HMG regarding the application of the controls to the particular country concerned. Detailed advice on the political situation in a country is provided by the FCO. The Department works with the FCO and the Department for International Development to encourage all British companies to set the highest ethical standards when trading overseas.
  111

  Waste Reduction
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent initiatives have been taken under the auspices of the Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme to provide educational and technology support materials to assist companies to reduce costs through waste reduction. [35757]

  Mr. Battle
  The Environmental Technology Best Practice programme is continuing to encourage companies to reduce their costs and improve their competitiveness through waste reduction and improved environmental performance. The programme provides case studies of firms already engaged in waste reduction or other cost saving environmental good practice, benchmarking studies using environmental performance guides to enable companies to compare their performance, and guides to help companies adopt better environmental practices which reduce their costs.

  In addition to numerous articles in trade and other media, since 1 May 1997, the programme has published 51 case studies, environmental performance or benchmarking studies, and guides to good practice; held 40 workshops, seminars and site visits for industry participants; responded to almost 25,000 calls to the Environmental Helpline (a freephone inquiry service); given counselling visits to more than 250 small enterprises; and added the engineering and ceramics sectors to its main themes on waste minimisation and cleaner technology and its focus on volatile organic compounds and the foundries, metal finishing, textiles, printing, paper and board, chemicals, glass, food and drink industry sectors.

  This year, the programme will expand further its specific areas of interest to include the plastics sector and packaging.

  The programme is also working with trade, local business support organisations and other intermediaries to disseminate waste minimisation and clean technology information to companies. In Wales, for example, the programme is working closely with the Welsh Business and Environment Campaign.

  Environmental Technologies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives her Department has taken to promote markets for British environmental technologies(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) abroad. [35754]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government fully recognise the enormous potential of the UK environmental industry to create jobs, win exports and protect the environment. Support for the industry is provided through the Joint Environmental Markets Unit (JEMU). On 18 March, at a launch event I attended with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, we published JEMU's business plan for the next three years, setting out how JEMU will be working with the industry to pursue its mission"to nurture the development of a strong, competitive and world-class UK environmental industry capable of competing successfully in the world market place".

  The Business Plan details planned activities under eight main objectives—activities designed to raise the profile of the industry both at home and overseas. It indicates
  112
  that JEMU will be focusing attention on a number of key areas including export promotion in selected overseas markets, and also sets out the range of support services available to the industry across government.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will ask the Council for Science and Technology to investigate the technical, economic, environmental and security status of plutonium used as a nuclear fuel. [35759]

  Mr. Battle
  There are currently no plans for the Council for Science and Technology to investigate the technical, economic, environmental and security status of plutonium. However, as the re-launched CST deliberates upon its future work programme, it will be open to the Council to consider this issue. It is for the owners of spent nuclear fuel, including plutonium, to choose their preferred management options subject to meeting the necessary environmental and regulatory requirements. It remains the responsibility of the Government to ensure that all civil plutonium continues to be subject to rigorous physical protection measures and safeguards in accordance with international non-proliferation obligations.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what environmental appraisal will be undertaken to assess the environmental implications of her reviews of(a) renewable energy and (b) utility regulation. [35636]

  Mr. Battle
  Environmental considerations are an integral part of the continuing reviews of renewables and utility regulation. One of the stated aims of the Renewables Review is to consider the potential contribution which new and renewable energy technologies can make to meeting future greenhouse gas reduction commitments and the terms of reference of the Review of Utility Regulation include consideration of changes to the system of utilities regulation to ensure regulation which promotes the Government's objectives for sustainable development and the environment. The need for, and nature of, specific environmental appraisals will depend on the final outcomes of the reviews.

  Plastics (Recycling)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the recent report of Valuplast on the extent of recovery and recycling of plastics. [35758]

  Mr. Battle
  I am aware of a number of reports and presentations by Valuplast in recent months concerning the UK's recovery and recycling of plastics. I believe that these show steady growth, but that industry investment will be needed to achieve the targets in the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997.

  Supermarket Mergers
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will introduce additional controls on the mergers of supermarket companies; and if she will make a statement. [35947]
  113
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Where a merger falls to be considered under the Fair Trading Act 1973, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will decide, in the light of the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, whether or not to refer it to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. My right hon. Friend has said that she will refer mergers primarily on competition grounds. Each case is considered on its merits.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the sensitivity of manufacturing output to exchange rate changes. [35659]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]: The Department keeps up to date with published research on factors affecting the performance of manufacturing industry. Its evaluation of this work is reflected in advice to Ministers.

  Ultra-low Sulphur Diesel
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the availability of ultra-low sulphur diesel; if she will estimate the number of retail outlets where the product is currently available; and what is the difference in retail price between ultra-low sulphur diesel and standard diesel road fuel following the Budget Statement. [35713]

  Mr. Battle
  I expect the availability of ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel to increase following the changes in the levels of excise duty announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget of 17 March. My Department does not collect specific data on the number of outlets retailing this fuel; however, most current retail suppliers of ultra-low sulphur diesel are supermarkets and it is estimated that there are about 270 retail sites where this fuel is available. The setting of retail prices for fuels is a matter for the fuel suppliers.

  Enemy Property (Second World War)
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to publish the report on British policy towards enemy property during and after the Second World War. [36382]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I am pleased to announce that the Government will publish the joint DTI/FCO report on the history of enemy property on 3 April.

  Directors' Details
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about her Department's consultation exercise on the requirement for companies to file their directors' and company secretaries' home addresses and other particulars at Companies House. [36381]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have considered the responses to my Department's consultative document very carefully. I have decided that the requirement for companies to file their directors' and company secretaries' home addresses, as well as their directors' nationalities and business occupations, at Companies House should remain.
  114
  I am conscious of the concerns of those companies that wanted to be able to keep home addresses off the public register on grounds of either security or privacy. However, such concerns would be impossible to allay completely. The particulars of existing directors registered at Companies House are now in the public arena and it would not be possible to prevent access to that information from company information providers other than Companies House. I have also had to consider the views of those organisations that expressed concern over the need for directors to be accountable to their shareholders and creditors. Keeping home addresses off the public record would make it more difficult to locate directors and easier for directors to avoid creditors and to perpetrate fraud. It would also be more difficult to find out whether directors had been associated with companies that had failed or had been made bankrupt in the past.

  I have also decided that the requirement for companies to file directors' other directorships at Companies House should be revoked. A computerised register of directors which provides full details of other directorships was set up by Companies House in 1991. Repealing this requirement will relieve companies of an administrative burden but will not result in any reduction of information on the public record.

  I will bring forward regulations revoking the requirement for directors' other directorships to be included in companies' annual returns later this year. Revocation of the requirement for companies to record directors' other directorships in their own registers and to send details to Companies House both on incorporation and when there are any changes will require primary legislation which will be introduced when parliamentary time allows.

  Debt Conversion
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Export Credits Guarantee Department expects to complete its review of its debt conversion scheme. [36380]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The review is now complete. The Government have concluded that the Scheme as operated between 1992 and 1997 did provide significant benefits both to the debtor country and to the UK taxpayer and that these benefits could be further enhanced by some small improvements. A revised Scheme is therefore being relaunched and ECGD is, from today, able to consider offers to purchase rescheduled debts owed by up to 32 countries.

  Under the revised Scheme ECGD will, as before, be able to receive an immediate cash benefit for debts rescheduled through the Paris Club arrangements. The purchaser of the debt will be repaid by the debtor country in local currency subject to the funds being invested in a suitable project in that country. As a result, the debtor country benefits both from being able to convert a hard currency obligation into a local currency debt and from securing additional investment.

  During the period when the earlier Scheme operated, ECGD sold some US$133 million of debts to a number of organisations investing in a range of projects, including in the fields of education, agricultural rehabilitation and healthcare.
  115
  The improvements to the Scheme involve certain administrative changes, notably the requirement that the potential purchaser should pay a commitment fee to secure the purchase price and exclusive negotiating rights for specific debt for a given period.

WALES

  Asbestos-related Deaths
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many asbestos-related deaths there were in Wales in 1997; and what was the corresponding figure for the previous year. [34876]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The latest available information from the Office for National Statistics for the number of registered deaths from asbestos-related illnesses of residents in Wales is 66 in 1997 (provisional) and 54 in 1996.

  Health Promotion
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of NHS expenditure was spent on health promotion in Wales in each of the last three years; and what is the estimate for the current year. [35519]

  Scheme

  Voluntary organization

  Amount of funding in 1997–98(£)

  Amount of funding in 1998–99(£)

  Shoreline project (hostel for heavy drinkers), Cardiff

  Wallich Clifford Community

  75,457

  75,457

  Bond Board, Swansea

  Barnados

  22,501

  21,231

  Rough sleeper survey, Caerphilly

  Shelter Cymru

  1,200

  —

  Direct access hostel, Rhyl

  National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO)

  24,000

  24,000

  Outreach worker, Gwynedd

  Cywaith Joseff

  4,350

  18,180

  Rooflessness survey and provision of advice services, Pembrokeshire

  Pembrokeshire Action for Single Homeless

  11,250

  15,000

  Direct access hostel, Swansea

  Swansea Cyrenians

  68,363

  68,363

  Support worker for young people leaving care, Swansea

  Cymdeithas Caer Las

  5,706

  5,706

  Rooflessness survey and provision of services for rough sleepers, Vale of Glamorgan

  Llamau Housing Society

  15,819

  63,276

  Direct access hostel and resettlement worker

  Wrexham Action Trust Christians for the Homeless (WATCH)

  968

  24,000

  Income advice to rough sleepers, Cardiff

  Cardiff Move-On

  4,835

  —

  Health care to rough sleepers, Cardiff

  Cardiff Move-on

  4,660

  —

  Drop-in day sessions at Night Shelter, Rhyl

  NACRO

  3,000

  —

  Update rough sleepers survey and provide pilot drop-in service, Gwynedd

  North Wales Housing Authority

  1,500

  —

  Production of handbook of services for homeless, Gwynedd

  Arfon Single Homeless Group

  3,926

  —

  Outreach worker for rough sleepers, Swansea

  Swansea Cyrenians

  4,500

  —

  Multi-disciplinary outreach worker, Swansea

  Cymdeithas Caer Las

  7,254

  —

  116
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The percentage of NHS expenditure on health promotion in the last three years is shown in the table. Figures for 1997–98 are not yet available.

  Year

  Percentage

  1994–95

  0.54

  1995–96

  0.53

  1996–97

  0.50

  Source:

  Annual accounts and financial returns of health authorities, special health authorities, NHS Trusts, district health authorities and family health service authorities for 1994–95 to 1996–97.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what projects are being pursued to help reduce the number of homeless people in Wales; what sums have been allocated to them in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [35575]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Welsh Office has allocated the following amounts to projects in 1997–98 and 1998–99:
  117

  Scheme

  Voluntary organization

  Amount of funding in 1997–98(£)

  Amount of funding in 1998–99(£)

  Building to provide facilities for rough sleepers, Swansea

  Cymdeithas Caer Las

  28,500

  —

  Resettlement worker for rough sleepers, Swansea

  Cymdeithas Caer Las

  4,634

  —

  Support to allow a cafe for rough sleepers to open longer hours, Swansea

  Elim Church

  1,350

  —

  Pilot youth drop-in scheme and single person housing project, Wrexham

  Caia Park Partnership

  19,800

  —

  The programme is currently targeted at schemes to help prevent or alleviate Rough Sleeping

  The following organisations also receive funding towards their running costs:

  Organisation

  Amount offunding in1997–99(£)

  Amount offunding in1998–99(£)

  Cymdeitas Caer Las

  129,670

  133,300

  Shelter Cymru

  95,792

  98,475

  Welsh Women's Aid

  80,279

  82,525

  National Assembly
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is(a) taking and (b) planning to take to ensure that the National Assembly has sufficient translators and translating equipment available from its establishment. [35585]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have asked the Welsh Language Board to give consideration to the provision of resources for translation in the Assembly. I am also seeking the advice of my Advisory Group in relation to the Assembly's bilingual operation, and arrangements for translation will be considered in that context.

  Government of Wales Bill (Environmental Appraisal)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what environmental appraisal of the Government of Wales Bill has been produced; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [35643]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  None.

  The Bill does, however, require the National Assembly for Wales to have regard to the principle of sustainable development in exercising its functions.

  Cash Limit
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he is proposing to make to the voted and non-voted cash limits for his Department and the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales for the current financial year. [36303]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The cash limit on class XIV, vote I will be reduced by £2,000,000 from £52,712,000 to £50,712,000 as a result of lower than expected claims for farm and conservation grant schemes.
  118
  The cash limit on class XIV, vote 3 will be increased by £2,400,000 from £441,438,000 to £443,838,000. This increase will cover the higher than expected expenditure on the Central Government Roads maintenance budget.

  The cash limit on class XIV, vote 6 will be reduced by £400,000 from £9,405,000 to £9,005,000 mainly as a result of fewer than expected nursery inspections.

  The local authority capital cash limit (WO/LACAP) will be reduced by £5,540,817 from £433,362,000 to £427,821,183; the Housing for Wales cash limit (WO/HFW) will be increased respectively by £5,540,817 from £70,335,000 to £75,875,817. This transfer of resources from the local authority capital cash limit to the Housing for Wales cash limit is in respect of work undertaken by Housing Associations on behalf of local authorities.

  None of these changes adds to the overall level of Public Expenditure.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what provision will be made in respect of Britain's role in Europe in the Millennium Experience. [31648]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Millennium Experience will enhance Britain's image and standing internationally and within Europe, and will attract millions of visitors from Europe and beyond.

CABINET OFFICE

  HRH Prince of Wales
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will list the occasions on which he has met His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, indicating the purpose of each meeting. [35933]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have had no official meetings with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.

  Blood Sports
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what representations he has received on Government policy towards blood sports. [35934]
  119
  Mr. Mandelson
  Government policy on blood sports is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and any representations that I receive on this subject are passed to his Department.

  Broadcasters
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what meetings he has had with BBC executives since 1 January. [36183]

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio when he has met(a) Mr. Rupert Murdoch and (b) representatives of News International; what was the purpose of such meetings; and if he will make a statement. [35957]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I meet representatives of the BBC and other broadcasters on a regular basis in the course of my duties.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance has been issued in relation to Benefits Agency involvement in police road blocks; and if she will make a statement. [33599]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Tackling fraud is central to rebuilding integrity in, and commanding public support for, a modern security system. The Government welcome properly conducted multi-agency initiatives which have a valuable role to play in countering abuse. Questions on Benefit Agency operational matters are the responsibility of the Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Alan Beith, dated 23 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about guidance issued in relation to Benefits Agency (BA) involvement in police road blocks. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  Comprehensive guidance was issued to staff on 4 September 1995 and provided precise instructions concerning the procedures and conduct for fraud staff taking part in multi-agency road stops initiatives.
  The main issues covered within the guidance, refer to the criteria which should exist if BA staff are to participate in police road blocks. The instructions advised staff of the types and format of questions which can be used, the procedures to be followed where suspicion exists, any powers which staff can employ, types of clothing and identification, as well as the procedures for informing the driver of their rights.
  These instructions were updated during February 1997 and will be incorporated into the Fraud Investigators Guide, which will be issued to staff at the start of the next financial year.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of people with ME applying for disability living allowance have been successful as(a) first time claimants and (b) reassessed claimants in the last (i) year and (ii) two years. [33710]
  120
  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with further details.

  Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Stephen Hesford, dated 23 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding what proportion of people with Myalgic Encephalitis (ME) have been successful in applying for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) as (a) first time claimants and (b) reassessed claimants in the last (i) year and (ii) two years. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  Comprehensive information is not available in the format requested. However it is estimated on a 5% sample basis, that the number of people with ME, or other chronic fatigue syndrome, who have been successful is as follows:

  Number of first time customers

  Number of reassessed customers

  1.12.95–30.11.96

  1,480

  850

  1.12.96–30.11.97

  1,320

  500

  Due to the small numbers involved in this assessment, the figures are subject to relatively large margins of error.

  I hope you find the reply helpful.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were his reasons for withdrawing and subsequently reinstating disability living allowance for Mrs. G. Archer of 7 Queen's Road, Brixham; and for what reasons the core component of the allowance has not been reinstated. [35435]

  Mr. Denham
  The Benefit Integrity Project aims to ensure that those in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) are entitled to it. While it is right to check that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit, we are determined that those checks should be undertaken as sensitively as possible. Also, that we should ensure all decisions taken as a result of the Project are right. We have, therefore, acted to introduce an extra safeguard to improve the quality of, and confidence in, benefit decisions made by the Project.

  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 23 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the reasons for withdrawing and subsequently reinstating Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for Mrs. Archer of Brixham; and for what reasons the care component of the allowance has not been reinstated.
  On receipt of, the completed Benefit Integrity Project questionnaire, further medical evidence from Mrs. Archer's General Practitioner (GP) and a Benefits Agency Medical Officer, the Adjudication Officer's (AO's) opinion was that the customer's condition had improved and Mrs. Archer was subsequently notified of this decision.
  Following the application made by Mrs. Archer to review her entitlement to benefit, a different AO requested an Examining Medical Practitioner (EMP) report. This, together with a further letter from the customer's GP and previous evidence, showed that Mrs. Archer did satisfy the conditions for the higher rate mobility component. It would appear that the original AO had misinterpreted the evidence given by the GP in connection with the customer's

  121
  mobility, and the higher rate mobility component of DLA was reinstated. However, the AO reviewing the case decided there were insufficient care needs to qualify for any rate of the care component. Therefore this was not reinstated.
  All claims to benefit are decided by AOs who are statutory office holders. They are required to make impartial decisions based on the application of the law to the facts of the individual case. It is the AO's responsibility to consider whether a decision can be made on the available evidence, or whether further information should be obtained from the customer, the customer's doctor, or whether a doctor from the Benefits Agency Medical Services should be asked to examine the customer.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the Luton, South constituency have been(a) disallowed benefit and (b) received increased benefit as a result of the Benefit Integrity Project. [33957]

  Mr. Denham
  The Benefit Integrity Project aims to ensure that those in receipt of DLA are entitled to it. While it is right to check that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit, we are determined that those checks should be undertaken as sensitively as possible. Also, that we should ensure all decisions taken as a result of the project are right. We have, therefore, acted to introduce an extra safeguard to improve the quality of, and confidence in, benefit decisions made by the Project.

  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Riggs to Ms Margaret Moran, dated 23 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning how many people in the Luton South constituency have been (a) disallowed benefit and (b) received increased benefit as a result of the Benefit Integrity Project. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  The information is not available in the format requested. The database of casework has not been designed to extract information geographically during the project. To do so would necessitate high cost and disruption to the processing of ongoing casework. However, once the casework has been completed a full evaluation of the data is planned to provide a geographical analysis.
  As at 31 January 1998, 54,839 cases nationally have been examined as part of the BIP. Of the total cases dealt with 1,299 have had their benefit increased, 42,730 have been unchanged, 6,884 have had their benefit reduced and 3,926 have had their benefit stopped. The total includes 10,811 renewal cases; of which 334 had their benefit increased, 5,601 remain unchanged, 2,907 have had their benefit reduced and 1,969 have had their benefit decreased.
  A monthly statistical report can be found in the House of Commons library.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the amount of state benefits paid out to injured claimants, which was recovered by the Compensation Recovery Unit from successful defendants during each of the last three years. [34133]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of the Compensation Recovery Unit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  122
  Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Phil Willis, dated 23 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what was the amount of state benefits paid out to injured claimants which was recovered by the Compensation Recovery Unit from successful defendants during each of the last three years. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.

  The information requested is shown in the table below:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Amount recovered

  1995–96

  135.1

  1996–97

  145.5

  1997–98 (to 28.2.98)

  153.0

  Note:

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

TREASURY

  Vitamin B6
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have died from overdoses of vitamin B6 since July 1997. [33516]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Tredinnick, dated 24 March 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on how many people have died from overdoses of vitamin B6 since July 1997.
  Based on provisional 1997 data, there have been no deaths certified as due in part or whole to vitamin B6 overdose in the period July to December 1997.
  Data for 1998 are not yet available.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will include on his website the numbers of all premium bonds where prizes are unclaimed. [34742]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls with the responsibility of the Chief Executive of National Savings. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Peter Bareau to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 24 March 1998:
  Thank you for your question about publishing on the Internet the numbers of all Premium Bonds where prizes are unclaimed.
  Premium Bond holders do not have to claim their prizes - National Savings automatically writes to all winners. However, there are cases where Premium Bond holders move house and forget to notify National Savings of their new address. In these cases National Savings endeavours to find their new address. If not found after 18 months, the winning Bond numbers are put on to National Savings' "unclaimed prize" list and published in the Supplement to the London Gazette, which is updated quarterly. Copies of this publication are held at main post offices in the UK.
  There is no limit for recovering these prizes - National Savings will always honour payment when the Premium Bond holder's new address is established.

  123
  To offer better customer service and convenience, National Savings is now planning to include a searchable database of these unclaimed prizes on its new Web site. The new site is currently being developed, and it is hoped that it will go live in May 1998.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the value of unclaimed premium bond prizes(a) by English county and Welsh and Scottish unitary authority and (b) in total; and how much of this total accrued in the last 12 months. [34746]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls with the responsibility of the Chief Executive of National Savings. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Peter Bareau to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 24 March 1998:
  Thank you for your question about the value of unclaimed Premium Bond prizes. The information you requested is set out below.
  National Savings current computer systems can not provide a breakdown of unclaimed Premium Bond Prizes by individual English counties, or Welsh and Scottish Unitary authorities. However, the information is available by region and is set out in the following table:

  Region

  Total Value (£)

  Avon Dorset Glos Somerset Wilts

  720,000

  Bedfordshire Cambridgeshire

  270,000

  Berkshire Bucks Oxfordshire

  550,000

  Channel Isles Cornwall Devon

  360,000

  Cheshire

  300,000

  Cleveland Cumbria Durham North Tyne andWear

  530,000

  Derbyshire Staffordshire

  290,000

  Essex

  440,000

  Foreign Addresses

  960,000

  Hampshire Isle of Wight

  440,000

  Herefordshire Shropshire Worcs

  190,000

  Hertfordshire

  310,000

  Kent

  410,000

  Isle of Man Lancs Merseyside

  1,100,000

  Sth Humberside Leics Lincs Notts

  480,000

  Greater London

  3,800,000

  Norfolk Suffolk

  260,000

  Northamptonshire

  98,000

  Nth Humberside Yorks (Nth Sth West)

  830,000

  Scotland

  1,100,000

  Surrey

  430,000

  Sussex (East and West)

  430,000

  Northern Ireland

  210,000

  Wales

  600,000

  West Midlands Warwickshire

  690,000

  Total value of unclaimed prizes

  15,800,000

  Premium Bond holders do not have to claim their prizes— National Savings automatically writes to all winners. However, there are times when Premium Bond holders move house and forget to notify National Savings of their new address. In these cases National Savings endeavours to find their new address. If not found after 18 months, the winning Bond numbers are put on to National Savings' "unclaimed prize" list and published in the Supplement to the London Gazette, which is updated quarterly and is held at main post offices in the UK.
  The total unclaimed prizes accrued in the last 12 months is £1.2 million. Because of the 18 months before a prize is deemed "unclaimed", this relates to prizes drawn during the period August 1995 to August 1996.
  Over the 40 year life of the Premium Bond Scheme, the total value of prizes paid out has been £3.9 billion. The current amount unclaimed represents less than half of one per cent. of that total.
  124

  Taxation
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of his proposal to alter the basis on which members of professions are taxed on their incomes on(a) members of the Faculty of Advocates and (b) solicitors' firms in Scotland. [34607]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 18 March 1998]: The Inland Revenue Press Release issued on 22 December invited comments on the proposals to withdraw the cash basis practices available to professional businesses. The purpose of consultation was to enable those affected to voice their concerns and to help the Revenue to make a better informed assessment of the impact of the proposed change on different sectors. The Inland Revenue has received a large number of responses and I myself have received many. The Inland Revenue and I have also had meetings with representative bodies, including the Law Society, the Law Society of Scotland, the Bar Council, and the Faculty of Advocates.

  Following the consultation, the proposal was refined and developed, and a number of modifications to the original scheme were announced in the Budget. An Inland Revenue press release on Budget Day set out the revised proposal.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received since 22 December 1997 concerning the alteration of the basis on which members of professions are taxed on their income; and which of these expressed opposition to the proposed changes. [34608]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 18 March 1998]: We have received a large number of comments and representations on the proposal to withdraw the cash basis practices. Many of these expressed concerns about the effect of the proposal on professions.

  Following the consultation, the proposal was refined and developed, and a number of modifications to the original scheme were announced in the Budget. An Inland Revenue press release on Budget Day set out the revised proposal.

  Historic and Religious Buildings
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of VAT income from repairs to historic and religious buildings in each of the last three years. [35569]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]: No such estimate has been made.

  Third World Debt
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many responses he has received to date from the Christian Aid Campaign on Third World Debt; and how much money has been received by his Department in furtherance of the campaign. [35652]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]: Since January 1997, the Treasury has received some 7,000 letters and postcards on Third World Debt. This includes over 1,600 postcards that have been received in response to the Christian Aid Campaign on Third World debt.
  125
  The total amount of money that has been received from the public towards reducing the debts of poor countries is over £6,300. We have arranged that this money be used to help write off the debts owed to the UK by Tanzania.

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Finance Bill will be published; and if he will make notes on the Bill's clauses available to hon. Members as usual. [36194]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Finance Bill will be published on Wednesday 8 April. Explanatory Notes on the Bill's clauses will be placed in the Vote Office and the Libraries of both Houses that day. Members of the public will be able to obtain copies of the Explanatory Notes from the Treasury; these will also be available on the Treasury's Internet site (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk).

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the final outturn for 1996–97 for(a) each running costs limit and (b) the Ministry of Defence's operating costs limit. [36302]

  Mr. Darling
  The final outturn for 1996–97 for each running costs limit and the Ministry of Defence's operating costs limit is shown in the table.

  £000

  Outturn 1996–97

  Gross running costs limits

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  507,744

  Department for International Development

  56,744

  Intervention Board

  57,410

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  317,861

  Department of Trade and Industry (including ACAS)

  383,837

  Office of Fair Trading

  17,855

  Office of Telecommunications

  9,069

  Office of Gas Supply

  10,490

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  13,675

  Department of Transport

  389,182

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising

  7,048

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  7,321

  Department of Environment

  220,902

  Health and Safety Executive

  156,808

  Office of Water Services

  9,287

  Home Office

  1,787,053

  Charity Commission

  20,283

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  426,447

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  18,674

  Public Record Office

  22,225

  Crown Prosecution Service

  221,322

  Serious Fraud Office

  9,976

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  25,812

  Crown Office

  43,357

  Department for Education and Employment

  1,279,193

  Office for Standards in Education

  28,649

  Department For Culture, Media and Sport

  29,005

  Office of the National Lottery

  1,880

  Department of Health

  274,804

  Department of Social Security

  3,161,873

  Scottish Office

  332,309

  General Register Office for Scotland

  6,617

  Scottish Record Office

  4,973

  Scottish Courts Administration

  40,854

  Welsh Office

  70,865

  Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales

  2,974

  126

  £000

  Outturn 1996–97

  Northern Ireland Office

  788,006

  H. M. Treasury

  52,179

  Customs and Excise

  733,948

  Inland Revenue

  1,683,828

  Department of National Savings

  177,909

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  7,639

  National Investments and Loan Office

  1,183

  Office for National Statistics

  98,607

  Office of Public Service

  81,846

  Cabinet Office

  40,673

  Security and Intelligence Services

  402,797

  Privy Council Office

  2,435

  Net running costs limits

  Wilton Park (FCO)

  930

  ADAS Agency (MAFF)

  5,650

  Central Science Laboratory (MAFF)

  0

  Veterinary Laboratory Agency (MAFF)

  0

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate (MAFF)

  0

  Central Services (DTI)

  0

  National Weights Measures Laboratory (DTI)

  0

  Radio Communications Agency (DTI)

  0

  Vehicle Certification Agency (DoT)

  80

  QE II Conference Centre (DoE)

  4,687

  Building Research Establishment (DoE)

  3,850

  Health and Safety Laboratory (DoE)

  -5,105

  Ordnance Survey

  9,476

  Forensic Science Service (HO)

  -1

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency (DCMS)

  0

  NHS Estates Agency (DoH)

  -490

  Information Technology Services Agency (DSS)

  0

  Valuation Office Agency (Inland Revenue)

  -7,703

  Paymaster Agency

  -1,247

  Customer Funded Services (ONS)

  1,043

  Government Actuaries Department

  414

  Civil Service College (OPS)

  -163

  Security Facilities Executive (OPS)

  0

  Recruitment and Assessment Services (OPS)

  246

  Occupational Health and Safety Agency (OPS)

  -583

  Operating Costs

  Ministry of Defence

  16,665,747

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what role the CBI and trade unions have played in the New Deal. [33950]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Effective local partnerships are essential to the success of the New Deal. Employers and trades unions clearly have an important part to play. The CBI and the TUC have encouraged their members to be involved fully in local New Deal arrangements.

  In addition, my officials and I have held regular meetings with the CBI and trades unions. The New Deal Task Force itself contains two members of the Executive Council of the TUC and Sir Peter Davis, the Chairman of the Task Force, has also recently met John Monks. Sir Peter Davis and other members of the Task Force are members of the CBI President's Council.
  127
  The CBI, TUC and individual trades unions have expressed support for the New Deal and have made a valuable contribution to its development.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of the number of people in the Beckenham constituency who will be eligible for the New Deal. [34718]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have placed in the Library a list of the client planning assumptions for each New Deal unit of delivery which the Employment Service is using to plan provision for young unemployed people aged 18–24. The table shows that the planning assumption for the Croydon and Bromley unit of delivery, which includes the Beckenham constituency, is that 2,619 young people could be eligible to join the New Deal in 1998–99.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place in the Library a copy of the KPMG study of partnerships on Pathfinder areas for the New Deal. [36089]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have placed in the Library a copy of the KPMG Report.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will publish his response to the New Deal Task Force's, proposals on objectives for the New Deal. [36090]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Within the next two weeks, I will place a copy of my response in the Library.

  Sixth Form Colleges
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received concerning the equity of funding between continuing sixth forms in secondary schools and sixth form colleges. [33994]

  Dr. Howells
  We have received representations from individual college principals and on behalf of the Hampshire Principals Group.

  Date of closure

  School

  Successor schools

  31 August 1983

  Monkhopton CE Aided Primary

  31 August 1984

  Richards Castle County Primary

  31 August 1984

  Morton CE Controlled Primary

  Pant Bryn offa

  31 August 1984

  Porthywaen CE Controlled Primary

  31 August 1984

  Llanymynech CE Controlled Primary

  October 1984

  Marton CE Controlled Primary

  31 August 1985

  Chapel Lawn CE Controlled Primary

  31 July 1987

  Apley Park Secondary

  31 December 1987

  Teagues Bridge Junior School

  Teagues Bridge Primary School

  31 December 1987

  Teagues Bridge Infant School

  31 August 1988

  Coton Mount Infant School

  Greenfields

  31 August 1988

  Lancasterian County Primary School

  31 August 1988

  St. Michael's Street County Primary School

  31 August 1988

  Acton Burnell Primary School

  31 Augist 1988

  Ightfield C of E School

  31 August 1988

  Fitzalan School

  The Marches

  31 August 1988

  Crosewylan-Oswestry School

  31 August 1989

  Lyneal C of E (Controlled) Primary School

  31 August 1989

  Stirchley County Middle School

  Stirchley County Primary School

  31 August 1989

  Brookside Middle School

  Brookside County Primary School

  31 August 1989

  Hollinswood County Middle School

  Hollinswood Junior School

  31 August 1989

  Hollingsworth First

  Hollingsworth Infant School

  31 August 1989

  Brindleyford First

  Brindleyford Primary School

  128
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out the formula for funding sixth-form pupils(a) continuing in the sixth forms of secondary schools and (b) transferring to sixth form colleges at age sixteen. [33996]

  Dr. Howells
  Maintained schools receive funding for sixth form pupils on the basis of a formula devised by the LEA as part of its Local Management of Schools (LMS) scheme. Under LMS arrangements, the bulk of funding is allocated on the basis of pupil numbers. In most cases this funding is weighted for age, with other factors to provide additional funding for schools in particular circumstances. In a small number of cases, LEAs also allocate different levels of funding to reflect the costs of particular courses undertaken by sixth form pupils. Funding for sixth form colleges is allocated through the funding methodology employed by the Further Education Funding Council. Each student attracts a number of units for the college, reflecting in particular the course being followed by the student. The college also receives units for providing the student with appropriate pre-enrolment guidance and for the student's eventual achievement.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will review the funding of sixth forms and sixth form colleges. [34026]

  Dr. Howells
  Funding for post-16 education is being considered as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review. It is expected that announcements will be made in the summer or the autumn.

  School Closures
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the schools which closed in Shropshire in each year since 1979. [34260]

  Mr. Byers
  Since 1983, the earliest year for which we have information available, the schools which have closed in Shropshire (excluding special schools) are listed in the table. Some schools have closed to reopen as an amalgamated school: some have closed to facilitate a change in age range. In such cases the successor schools are shown.
  129

  Date of closure

  School

  Successor schools

  31 August 1989

  Holmer Lake First

  Holmer Lake Primary School

  31 August 1989

  Randlay First

  Randlay Primary School

  31 August 1989

  Stirchley First

  Stirchley Primary School

  31 August 1991

  Bayston Hill County Infant School

  Bayston Hill Longmeadows Primary

  31 August 1991

  Bayston Hill C of E Junior School

  31 August 1991

  Hopesay Parochial Primary School

  St. Laurence's CE (VC) Primary

  31 August 1991

  St. Laurence's C of E Infant School

  31 August 1991

  Stockton Norton C of E Primary School

  31 August 1992

  Ellerdine County Primary School

  31 August 1992

  Rodington C of E Primary School

  31 August 1992

  St. Peter's C of E Primary School

  31 August 1993

  Coreley C of E Primary School

  31 August 1994

  The Down Primary School

  Brown Clee

  31 August 1994

  Ditton Priors C of E Primary School

  31 August 1994

  Burwarton C of E Primary School

  31 August 1994

  Berrington C of E Primary School

  31 August 1994

  The John Hunt School

  The Sutherland

  31 August 1994

  The Manor School

  1 September 1996

  Ford C of E Primary School

  Trinity

  1 September 1996

  Wattlesborough C of E Primary School

  1 September 1996

  Yockleton C of E Primary School

  Mature Students
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will introduce measures to help students over the age of 50 years by(a) the provision of grants, (b) the waiving of tuition fees and (c) extending the upper age limit of eligibility for student loans; and if he will make a statement. [36077]

  Dr. Howells
  Full-time students currently in higher education who were aged over 50 at the start of their course are eligible for free tuition and for a means tested grant towards their living costs and will continue to be so for the duration of their courses. Those aged 50 and over who begin courses in the academic year 1998–99 will also be eligible for a grant at a reduced rate for that year only.

  Under the new arrangements applying to entrants from 1998–99 onwards, all students, irrespective of their age, will be eligible to receive means-related help towards their contribution to tuition costs. We have no plans to extend the eligibility for loans to those aged 50 and over for 1998–99, but intend to review the eligibility requirements for 1999–2000 and subsequent years when grants will no longer be available. The recent consultation paper on lifelong learning, "The Learning Age", invited views on extending loans to those in their early 50s who wish to enter higher education, for example, to retrain following redundancy. Final decisions will be taken in the light of the responses to that consultation.

HEALTH

  Acute Hospitals
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role he proposes for GPs and other primary carers in determining the local operation of acute hospitals. [34384]

  Mr. Milburn
  The White Paper The New NHS sets out our approach for modernising the National Health Service and for providing integrated primary and community health care services which will influence local acute NHS Trusts.
  130

  Burns and Plastic Surgery Facilities
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of existing burns and plastic surgery hospital facilities within the Hillingdon, South West-Hertfordshire and Brent and Harrow health authority areas. [34385]

  Mr. Boeteng
  The Mount Vernon and Watford Hospitals NHS Trust provides plastic and burns services for these areas. A review of these services is being undertaken through joint working with the NHS Executive's regional offices and affected health authorities. Further discussions will shortly confirm a model of care, and criteria against which options for the future provision of services would be assessed. Full public consultation will take place on any significant service reconfiguration.

  Learning Disability Services
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to raise standards in learning disability services. [34386]

  Mr. Boateng
  There is a substantial programme of work in progress including: a report drawing out the lessons from a Social Services Inspectorate inspection of learning disability services last year and a follow up to good practice guidance on health services for people with learning disabilities called 'Signposts for Success' issued in January 1998.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he intends to take to improve the recruitment and retention of nurses and midwives. [34388]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government are employing a twin strategy to deal with the growing workforce demand by increasing training levels and investing in initiatives to improve the recruitment, retention and return to practice of trained staff, including flexible and family-friendly ways of working.
  131
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what strategies are in place to improve the recruitment and retention of nursing staff at NHS trusts. [34405]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are employing a twin strategy by increasing training levels and investing in initiatives to improve the recruitment, retention and return to practice of trained staff, including flexible and family-friendly ways of working. A resource pack has been sent to all trusts to help local managers develop and expand their recruitment and retention programmes, using the momentum built up by the current £1.2 million nursing publicity campaign.

  Health Service (London)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of the review of London's health service. [34389]

  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the findings of the independent review panel, led by Sir Leslie Turnberg, and the Government's response, on 3 February 1998,Official Report, columns 843–58. We have accepted all the review panel's recommendations. This marks the beginning of a ten-year programme of modernisation for health services in London, which will deliver tangible benefits to patients, year by year.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to raise standards in primary care in London. [34391]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have accepted the recommendation of the independent review panel, led by Sir Leslie Turnberg, that there should be systematic progress in developing primary care in London. This will form part of a ten-year programme of modernisation for London's health services which will deliver tangible benefits for patients, year by year.

  The starting point for making improvements is the White Paper, "The New NHS" and the vision it sets out for primary care development, organisation and management.

  Distinction Awards Scheme
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to eliminate racism in consultants' merit awards. [34390]

  Mr. Milburn
  Action being taken this year includes better data, better monitoring of outcomes, and better representation of ethnic minority consultants on awards committees. I will be meeting the Chairman and Medical Director of the Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards shortly to discuss what more might be done.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to support day centres provided by the voluntary sector for mentally ill patients. [34392]
  132
  Mr. Boateng
  We support the provision of day centres and have provided the Mental Illness Specific Grant which enables local authorities to fund a wide range of social services for mentally ill people. Many day centres are provided in partnership with the voluntary sector.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to improve the mental health of young people. [34395]

  Mr. Boateng
  The key to improving the mental health of young people is preventing problems from developing in the first place. Good mental health is one of the targets in our public health green paper "Our Healthier Nation". We intend to ensure the development of parenting skills and parent support, foster high quality pre-school education and, within our "healthy schools" initiative, seek to promote emotional and physical well being among young people.

  Berkshire Health Authority
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which financial year he estimates Berkshire health authority will reach its proposed funding target under the weighted capitation formula. [34393]

  Mr. Milburn
  We aim to make progress each year. The pace of change depends on the overall level of resources for the National Health Service and the circumstances of all health authorities.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to improve the health of people from ethnic minority backgrounds. [34394]

  s Jowell
  The Department is seeking to ensure that the needs of black and minority ethnic groups are fully integrated into the mainstream of service provision. This is an important part of the Government's programme to tackle inequalities and covers public health and health services, employment and social care issues. Ministers have asked for targets to be set and achieved within given time frames to embed ethnic minority health in the policy and service delivery areas.

  Local Health Service Planning
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's strategy for involving the public in planning local health services. [34396]

  Mr. Milburn
  Rebuilding confidence in the National Health Service as a public service that is accountable, open and shaped by public views is one of our essential tasks. "The New NHS" White Paper sets clear requirements for public accountability and involvement to be met locally in a variety of ways as implementation of the White Paper proceeds.

  Prescription Fraud
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to reduce prescription fraud. [34397]
  133
  Mr. Milburn
  On 7 January, we announced a comprehensive programme of action, which includes plans to create a specific criminal offence of prescription charge evasion, improvements to prescription form security, the establishment of a hotline and internet websites for reporting suspected fraud, and the forthcoming appointment of a Fraud Supremo to spearhead this initiative.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to reduce hospital waiting lists. [34398]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave earlier today.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money will be given to the North Essex Health Authority in 1998–99 to reduce hospital waiting lists. [35932]

  Mr. Milburn
  On 18 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1290–304, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that £417 million of the extra £500 million for the National Health Service announced in the Budget will be for the NHS in England. Of this amount, £320 million will be targeted specifically at cutting waiting lists in England. Health authorities will be notified about their allocations shortly.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much new investment in health has been secured since 1 May 1997 through the private finance initiative. [34399]

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much new investment has been secured since 1 May 1997 through the private finance initiative in health. [34406]

  Mr. Milburn
  £360 million of new capital investment has been secured through the private finance initiative since the 1 May 1997—£340 million as a result of 4 major schemes achieving financial close at the following National Health Service trusts: Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust; Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS Trust; Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust and South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust; and approximately £20 million through small schemes reaching financial close.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the long-term costs of private finance compared with Government borrowing on hospital expansion programmes. [34387]

  Mr. Milburn
  To be approved, a Private Finance Initiative contract must offer better or comparable value for money to the publicly funded alternative.

  Cosmetic Surgery
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the regulation of private cosmetic surgery. [34401]
  134
  Mr. Boateng
  Since the beginning of the year, we have received seven letters and hon. Members have asked six Parliamentary Questions relating to the regulation of private cosmetic surgery.

  Health Service Reforms (NHS)
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to involve frontline NHS staff in health service reforms. [34402]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service White Paper The New NHS: Modern, Dependable (Cmd 3807), published on 9 December 1997, makes clear our commitment to work closely with all those involved in implementing the changes needed to ensure a health service fit for the next century: NHS staff, users and carers, and partner organisations.

  Further emphasis is given to this commitment by the establishment of a taskforce to explore new approaches to staff involvement and identify how frontline health service staff can work with local managers to shape new patterns of healthcare. The 13-strong panel which includes a porter, nurses, doctors, managers, a national union officer and representatives from outside industry will report to Ministers in the autumn.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the role of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the NHS. [34403]

  Ms Jowell
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will give a new coherence and prominence to information about clinical and cost-effectiveness. It will develop and disseminate clinical guidelines based on relevant evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness so as to inform decision making and support evidence-based practice in the National Health Service. We will be consulting on the Institute's role and responsibilities over the coming months.

  Haemophiliacs
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of haemophilia sufferers to discuss their concerns. [34404]

  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health met the Haemophilia Society on 10 September last year.

  Health Authority Boards
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of appointments to health authority boards which remain outstanding for the most recent period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [34407]

  Mr. Milburn
  As at 12 March 1998, there were vacancies for 1 chairman and 38 non-executive members on health authority boards. We will shortly be considering recommendations from National Health Service regional chairmen for filling these vacancies and the 302 vacancies which will fall due on 1 July 1998 when the terms of office of the present incumbents come to an end.
  135

  Suicides
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he intends to take to reduce the number of suicides among young people. [344081

  Mr. Boateng
  Action is already being taken on a number of fronts including the pilot of a telephone helpline for young men who may be experiencing distress; restrictions on paracetamol and aspirin pack sizes and improvements in warnings about the effect of overdose; increasing public awareness and understanding about mental illness; educating health and social care professionals about depression; audit of serious incidents and the dissemination of findings; and improving primary and secondary mental health services.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review whether ambulance services should be permitted to prioritise calls within the 999 service; and if he will make a statement. [34117]

  Mr. Boateng
  The widely supported prioritisation of 999 calls is intended to improve response times to life-threatening calls, while maintaining the present standard for other less immediately urgent cases. A research evaluation is under way to test whether this initiative is successful in improving outcomes for patients. We have no present plans for a review.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the infant mortality rate in(a) London and (b) the rest of the United Kingdom. [35411]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 20 March 1998]: In 1996, there were 6.4 deaths of children aged under age 1 per 1,000 live births in Greater London as compared to 6.1 in the United Kingdom. The Green Paper, Our Healthier Nation, sets out our proposals for tackling these inequalities in health which will be informed by the independent inquiry into inequalities in health, led by Sir Donald Acheson.

  Health Service Bureaucracy
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets he has for redirecting funds from NHS bureaucracy into patient care. [34400]

  Mr. Milburn
  The White Paper The New NHS sets out a programme of action to sweep away the bureaucracy of the internal market. Over the lifetime of this parliament, £1 billion that would otherwise have been spent on bureaucracy will be released for patient care.

  Under-age Drinking
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies his Department has conducted to discover whether a link exists between under-age alcohol consumption and the(a) incidence of teenage pregnancies and (b) spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. [35291]

  Mr. Boateng
  None.
  136

  Prescription Charge Exemptions
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of introducing exemptions from prescription charges for people with chronic heart conditions requiring treatment by drugs. [35972]

  Mr. Milburn
  No such estimate has been made.

  National Health Service Centre for Coding and Classification
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to regularise the extra-statutory payments position in relation to the NHS Centre for Coding and Classification following the recent National Audit Office report. [35855]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department has already regularised the position using delegated authority.

  Health Authority Auditors
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the names and addresses of the(a) internal and (b) external auditors to (i) the Trent Regional Health Authority between 1990–91 and 1995–96 and (ii) Leicestershire Health Authority from 1995–96 to date. [35856]

  Mr. Milburn
  The names and addresses of the external and internal auditors for the Trent Regional Health Authority and Leicestershire Health Authority were:

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  External Auditors 1990–91 to 1995–96

  District Audit (formerly known as the District Audit Service)

  Lake House

  Acorn Business Park

  Woodseats Close

  Sheffield S8 02B

  Internal Auditors 1990–91 to 1995–96

  Up to 31 March 1995 this function was carried out in-house

  From 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996 the service was purchased from:

  Sheffield Health Authority

  5 Old Fulwood Road

  Sheffield

  South Yorkshire S10 3TG

  Leicestershire Health Authority

  External Auditors 1990–91 to 1995–96

  District Audit

  2nd Floor

  1 Friarsgate

  1011 Stratford Road

  Solihull

  West Midlands B90 4BN

  Internal Auditors from 1995–96 to date

  Shires Audit and Management Services (Leicestershire Health Authority)

  Enklon House

  92 Regent Road

  Leicester LE1 7PE.

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

Indonesia
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their aid policy towards Indonesia, given the growing economic and political uncertainty there.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Indonesia is not one of the poorer countries which are the focus for this Government in seeking to eliminate poverty. Our aid programme will concentrate on developing partnerships to improve forest management, with increased emphasis on poor people, on assisting labour organisations and on supporting NGOs in East Timor. Indeed, the Department for International Development has today announced its first major funding of a development project in East Timor. We have urged the Indonesian Government to implement in full the reforms agreed under the IMF package so that financial instability is ended and its impact on Indonesia's poor is minimised.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am grateful for the last part of the Minister's Answer. Is he aware that during the past two months price increases and inflation have risen by as much as 15 per cent. a month and that the poor are particularly affected by those increases? Do the Government intend to support the IMF's austerity measures, including more price increases? In order to compensate for that, do the Government have plans for Indonesia to return to a poverty-focused aid programme?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, our basic approach to the financial crisis in Indonesia is the same as that of the IMF. Indonesia needs to respond to the financial crisis and implement agreed reforms. They include ending uneconomic projects and monopolies which distort the economy and restructuring affected banks. Otherwise, the recent achievements in reducing the number of people living in poverty will be reversed. We believe that the IMF package, if properly implemented without favouritism, will maintain the progress which Indonesia was making prior to the current financial crisis. However, that requires an effort of will by the Indonesian Government.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minster agree that the biggest problem facing Indonesia is its government? There is a likelihood that increased aid will make the ruling political clique richer, but not do very much for the poor.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are serious problems about the way in which Indonesia is governed and about
1086
its economic management. The IMF package, supported by Her Majesty's Government and other major western governments, should provide a more stable outcome which will benefit all elements of Indonesian society. If that is not implemented, there is a serious problem of increased poverty, rather than the reverse, in Indonesia. We would address that issue in those circumstances, but at present the main responsibility rests with the Indonesian Government.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in view of the fact that poverty is driving more and more small Indonesian farmers into clearing more and more of the rain forest by burning it down, will the Minister tell the House whether within the Government's aid programme there is specific provision for encouraging substantial and sustained agriculture rather than the slash and burn which is today destroying huge areas of the Indonesian forests?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes, one of the first priorities I mentioned was improved forest management, including the area around the forests. In addition, Indonesia has experienced one of the worst environmental disasters in terms of the haze arising in that area following the disastrous forest fires which are not yet eliminated. The European Union is looking at ways in which it can help Indonesia to tackle similar environmental disasters. In developing the DfID's future forestry programme, we will seek changes in policy and management of forestry areas which presently oblige people to clear forest areas in such disastrous ways. Those changes will be part of our programme and the EU programme.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, are the Government continuing to permit the sale of British arms to this corrupt dictatorship?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the sale of arms to Indonesia and to other regimes was covered by the announcement of the Foreign Secretary in July. We did not think it legal or practical to end supplies under contracts already entered into. However, the new criteria, in line with our ethical foreign policy, will apply to all future applications for export licences to Indonesia.

Nazis' Victims: Restitution of Assets
2.40 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made with regard to the restitution of assets to victims of Nazism in Britain.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, on 3rd April the Government will publish a joint report from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the history of the enemy property. The Government will announce their response at the same time.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer, especially for telling us that this important report will be published at last. Does he

1087
accept that the purpose of this operation is to seek, even at this late date, some measure of restitution and justice for victims of Nazism—Jewish and non-Jewish—including the heirs of people murdered by the Nazis, all of whom placed their assets in this country for safekeeping and many of whom have received nothing? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will set in motion a swift and honourable response to the report in order to provide compensation and restitution, recognising not least that if they do not do so Britain's good name will be put in dire disrepute?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, when we debated the matter on 18th February 1 said that this is an honourable and decent Government which will act in an honourable and decent way. Nothing has happened since then to make me change my view. The Government's response to the research is a matter for the President of the Board of Trade and will be announced when the report is published on 3rd April.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in that debate on 18th February, in responding to my suggestion that the United States were being more liberal in dealing with the assets of the victims of Nazism, he drew a comparison saying that by 1953 the United States had returned only 15 per cent. of assets applied for whereas the United Kingdom had refused only 13 per cent. of applications for compensation? Will the Minister confirm the accuracy of that statement?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for that question because it gives me the opportunity to correct a point of detail in the response that I gave. The noble Lord is quite right. In that debate I said that by 1953, the United States Administration had released money to only 15 per cent. of applicants. In fact, documents indicate that by 1953 assets returned to "persecutees"—their word, I assume, for victims of Nazism—amounted to some 15 per cent. of the total vested assets released. However, the documentation makes clear that that figure is at best a guess and should be treated with some caution.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that no one, least of all Her Majesty's Government, should profit from any kind of criminal activity? In view of that and the fact that the Minister has full confidence in the honour of his Government, which I should not dream of questioning, can he not say at the very least that that money will not be transferred to the Treasury, because the owners deposited it for safekeeping in very tragic circumstances? At least the heirs, or people who could reasonably have been expected by the owners to have inherited those assets, should in fact do so. Is it not a fact that events of tragic proportions deserve compassionate responses which do not necessarily follow the rule book?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that the matter deserves very
1088
sympathetic treatment. However, the problem is that there are no assets remaining. All the assets have been distributed. That is the crux of the problem. If there were assets remaining to be distributed, the Government would be trying to find the owners. But in fact all the assets have been distributed.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could enlighten my darkness. I should like to know how he manages to reconcile the action of the Government in encouraging the Nazi Gold Conference and creating a research paper but saying in the last debate that, when that research paper is published, they will be deciding not what to do but whether to do anything. In the light of what is owed to the people who thought they had safe haven here, does he find that credible, or is that after all either a research or a media exercise? I find it very difficult to understand.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, it is certainly a research exercise. I can only repeat what I have said already. I have every confidence that the Government will treat this matter in a decent and honourable way. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade will make her announcement on 3rd April.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I recognise how hard my noble friend Lord Haskel has worked to secure a just outcome to all this. Will he confirm that the assets are in fact in the Consolidated Fund, or at least the equivalent of those assets? Perhaps I may tempt him to a further indiscretion. Has the Minister seen a copy of the report and could he offer us something of the flavour of its contents, or does it have to remain a closely guarded secret for the next 10 days?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I can confirm that a small amount of assets were returned to the Consolidated Fund. The Government have made a commitment to deal sympathetically with any claims to those assets.
As regards the report, I have seen a draft copy of it. The content of the report is rather mixed. It gives a detailed account of how the Custodian of Enemy Property took control of assets and how they were released after the war. But it recounts some extraordinary insensitivities immediately after the war, which are most regrettable. However, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, attempts were made to put right those insensitivities. That culminated in a letter, which is in the report, dated 15th May 1951 from Mr. Sidney Silverman, Member of Parliament, to Arthur Bottomley, who was then the Secretary of State for Overseas Trade. In that letter, Mr. Sidney Silverman stated that some of those insensitivities had been dealt with.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, when this matter arose before, I asked where the assets were. If they are in the Consolidated Fund, does the noble Lord agree that that is irrelevant to the question of fair restitution, because it is no answer? Is he satisfied that

1089
the machinery for investigating a legitimate claim is sufficient and fair and is being operated in a reasonable way? How is it being done?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, on 22nd April 1988, a statement was made in another place by Mr. Butcher, who was then at the Board of Trade, in reply to a Written Question from Mr. Richard Page on that point. The Government gave an undertaking that the small amount of money which was paid to the Consolidated Fund would be paid to any claimants. The Government have broadcast to the best of their ability the details of the transfer. In order to assist in that matter, they are publishing, on the internet, it is hoped by the end of next month, a list of some 20,000 names of people and companies whose records remain at the Department of Trade and Industry as having assets received by the Custodian of Enemy Property. It is hoped that that may jog memories and people may be able to make a claim.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, in view of the Minister's answer to my noble friend, can he say whether legal remedies will be available for those unfortunate people who have suffered unfair treatment?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I imagine that there are legal remedies if a proper claim can be established. However, there are great difficulties involved in establishing a legal claim for something that happened many years ago and where records are very sparse and thin.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the Minister remember the injunction which the noble Lord, Lord Janner, gave him; namely, that this is a matter of honour? From the Minister's replies, I fear that a comprehensive document, replete with historical instances, will appear in April and that very little will be done as a result.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to have confidence that the Government will do the right thing.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House how much money was put into the Consolidated Fund? Further, can he say how much was paid out, or used by way of set-off with eastern European countries, when the Government well knew that people in those countries would not make their claims against their governments because they would be sent to the Gulag and that, if they did make such a claim, they would get nothing? My noble friend the Minister has been good enough to say that there will be an honourable and decent response to the report. However, can he anticipate any such honourable and decent response which does not mean the return of assets to those who own them?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, in our debate on 18th February I gave details of the amounts of money involved. It is quite a complicated matter and I am not sure that I should give a response now because it would take quite some time. However, I undertake to write to the noble Lord on the matter. I should add that if any
1090
noble Lords wish to know the details, they have only to read the Hansard report for 18th February, which contains detailed information.

Teenage Pregnancies
2.51 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the fact that more than half the children born in the city of Dundee in 1996 were born to unmarried mothers gives them cause for concern.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, in 1996, there were 875 new-born children in Dundee born to unmarried parents—that is, 50.6 per cent. of all live births. Some 80 per cent. of births to unmarried parents in 1996 were, however, jointly registered by both parents. Health statistics show that while the rate of teenage pregnancies in the Tayside Health Board area, which includes Dundee, is high compared with the rest of Scotland, there has been a small but steady fall in the number of such pregnancies in the area. Nonetheless, teenage pregnancies generally speaking are a cause of concern. Addressing the issue across Scotland as a whole has been given priority in the recently published Green Paper, Working Together for a Healthier Scotland.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, if I may say so, it does not really answer the Question, which relates particularly to the institution of marriage in the context of the births in Dundee, and also more generally. Does the noble Baroness agree with the view expressed in an article in the Independent on Sunday two days ago, which was an analysis of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget and was summarised in the following quotation:
"Mr. Brown's message was that Government is a bystander when it conies to love, marriage and divorce … For a poor woman now the only safe marriage is with the state"?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we cannot allow for every spin that newspaper reports put on the Budget. Indeed, I saw many headlines about the Chancellor of the Exchequer being the friend of the family and about it being a family-friendly Budget. As my right honourable friend made clear in his Budget Statement, the Government know that families are the bedrock of a stable and healthy society. The Budget proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer seek to ensure that women get a fair deal from the state and that women's choices, as well as men's, are dealt with fairly in both the tax and the benefit systems. That poses no threat to family formation.
The Government's primary concern is with the stability of relationships where children are involved. They recognise the evidence which shows that two parents offer the best prospects for their children and that this stability is often most easily found in marriage. However, it is important to recognise that the Government cannot, and should not, force couples either

1091
to marry or to stay together. As I said, the Government place considerable value on the family; indeed, we see it as our duty to support and nurture its role. But that is not to deny that there are strong, mutually supportive family relationships outside marriage.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, in view of the rather remarkable statistics revealed in the Question, can the Minister tell the House to what extent the figures for Dundee are consistent with those for the country as a whole? As regards the answer that the noble Baroness has just given on the Budget, surely it is the case that the Budget actually restricts the married couple's allowance. Is that not bound to be a deterrent to those who may wish to marry?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, I can tell the House that health statistics show that, in 1996, Tayside had a 52.1 per cent. rate of conception per 1,000 female teenage residents against a Scottish average of 41.9 per cent. In other words, the answer to the question is that the figures are higher than those in the rest of Scotland. Regarding the noble Lord's second point, the answer is no. I am afraid that the noble Lord is mistaken; that is not the effect of the Budget.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those of us on these Benches are not happy about the Government's apparent neutrality over the institution of marriage? We speak from these Benches not just for all the Christian Churches but for all the main religions in stating that the institution of marriage is vital not just to the nurture of children but also to the stability of society as a whole. Will the Minister do her best to ensure that the Government make a commitment by introducing practical measures to support the institution of marriage?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I repeat what I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his Budget Statement that this Government know that families are the bedrock of a stable and health society. We see the family as the essential unit of social stability, which should, therefore, be supported as far as possible by government policy. I do not believe that to be neutrality. Moreover, it is most important for us not to get this out of perspective. Out of 16 million families in this country, four out of five are headed by a married couple. After Denmark and Portugal, the United Kingdom has the highest marriage rate in the European Union. I believe that that shows that marriage is alive and well in this country.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does the Minister agree that deliberate teenage pregnancies might be discouraged if the donees were to be given vouchers rather than monetary benefits?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: No, my Lords; I do not agree with the noble Lord. Indeed, I am not quite
1092
sure what point he is trying to make by using the word "deliberate". As I said, teenage pregnancies are a big problem for all of us and they cause us great concern. However, through the Scottish Office in Scotland—which, after all, is the subject of the Question—the Government are involved in various projects regarding sex education and other measures to try to discourage teenage pregnancies. But I shall not take up the time of the House by listing some of them.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that another important aspect of this whole area is suitable sex education in schools and the availability of family planning facilities and advice? Can my noble friend tell me whether or not these are readily available in the Dundee area?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that important point. The Scottish Office offers general guidance on family planning and sex education and looks to health boards and education authorities to devise strategies best suited to their own needs for implementing that. In 1998–99 the Health Education Board for Scotland is undertaking a project to encourage and promote family planning, including appropriate use of contraceptives and sexual behaviour. In Dundee the Cornerstone Project is a city centre, drop-in facility for young people funded jointly by Dundee City Council, Dundee healthcare and the Scottish Office, providing facilities and services for counselling and advice about contraception.

British Steel Corporation
3 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have had any discussions with the British Steel Corporation concerning the current exchange rate and its effect on exports.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, the Government have a continuing dialogue with British Steel at many different levels. This ranges widely over current issues, including the exchange rate and export related matters.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, will the Minister remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the concerns over unemployment levels that may arise later this year? Will he bear in mind that British Steel has already halved its capital expenditure from £400 million per annum to £200 million, and that, overall, manufacturing industry feels it is bearing the brunt of anti-inflation measures yet it employs 4 million people and a further 4 million indirectly? Does the Minister consider that the fiscal measures contained in the Chancellor's Budget are sufficient to stave off further cuts in investment, job losses and factory closures?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, British Steel is engaged in a long-term programme to ensure cost and

1093
efficiency improvements so that it continues to be one of the most effective and efficient steel producers in the world. As regards the wider issues, the difficulty was that this Government inherited an accelerating exchange rate because action which ought to have been taken earlier had been deferred for electoral purposes. We believe that is one of the most important reasons for ensuring that the Bank of England takes over objective control of that issue, free of political considerations. I believe that is the appropriate way to proceed to ensure that we have a stable economy, low inflation and therefore in the medium and long term a much more stable rate of exchange.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that while the present problem relating to the exchange rate may be unavoidable, the difficulties experienced by British Steel and by the engineering industry in particular will be exacerbated if unfair competition continues in the EU, especially from Germany and Spain? My noble friend will be aware that the Council of Ministers established a monitoring committee to consider the matter. Will he consider the work of that committee and perhaps ensure that a report on its activities is circulated widely?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, of course we are deeply concerned about unfair competition. But one has to establish as a matter of proof that the competition is unfair and that it would be appropriate therefore for action to he taken at European Union level to deal with that situation. The Government, of course, take into account evidence that we receive from time to time, but much of it is generalised and does not constitute a convincing reason for seeking a remedy at European Union level. We must reject trade protection because often flimsy reasons are advanced for it which do not in the long term protect our economy.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will my noble friend inform the House what further information is required by Her Majesty's Government as to the existence or otherwise of subsidised steel in the case of Germany?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is an example of what I mean. That is a generalised allegation that steel is being subsidised and that that situation ought to be condemned by the competition authorities in the European Commission. If substantive evidence is forthcoming, this Government will have no hesitation in acting. We have already referred a number of complaints to the Commission from time to time, and latterly the question of coal from Germany.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Lord indicate to us the Government's latest estimates of the outturn of visible trade for this year, and to what extent that could have been affected by the present level of exchange rates?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is much too early to do that. The statistics that we shall ultimately produce
1094
will depend on many other matters—for example, the downturn in south-east Asia and problems regarding the fluidity of the situation in the Soviet Union and its impact upon Germany. There is an amalgam of reasons which constitute the possibility of a downturn in trade. However, exports overall have held up remarkably well.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there are any strong economies that have weak currencies?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is a good point. I have often prayed in aid the fact that Germany has over the years—despite, until recently, the high level of the mark—been able to capture export markets. Japan has done likewise. That demonstrates the importance of productivity, which has been too low in this country over many years. It also demonstrates the importance of quality, quality control, quality of after-service and delivery on time. All these are factors which contribute to the success of exports. There is undoubtedly at present a high quality level in British exports.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Data Protection Bill [H.L.], have consented to place their prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 7 [Right of access to personal data]:
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 8, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (4),").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 5. This is a technical amendment. Clause 7(8) requires data controllers to respond promptly to subject access requests. Clause 7(4), read with Clause 7(5), makes provision for the postponement of that duty, at least in part, in some circumstances. Where some of the information sought by the data subject is withheld on the grounds that it would identify a third party who has not consented, the obligation to disclose promptly applies only to the rest of the information. This amendment makes it clear that Clause 7(8) has to be read subject to that special provision.
Amendment No. 2 is also in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. This government amendment comes before your Lordships' House with the unusual recommendation of being designed to reverse an amendment which we brought forward at Committee stage and which was agreed by the House at that time. The issue is whether or not companies should benefit from the right to claim compensation for breach

1095
of the Bill's provisions. It is an area in which the directive has set us a difficult puzzle, and we are trying hard to get it as right as we can.
Article 23 of the directive requires us to provide that "any person" who has suffered damage as a result of contraventions of the data protection regime shall be entitled to compensation from the data controller in question. As your Lordships are aware, we had originally reflected that requirement, in Clause 11, with a reference to an entitlement for "individuals". It seemed to us at the time that that was a fair interpretation of the effect we were required to achieve. It was subsequently drawn to our attention, however, that that could lead to some perhaps surprising results. So we reflected with some care on that reference in the directive to "any person" and concluded, on balance, that the right thing to do was to use the same word in Clause 11. That had the effect of admitting companies into the class of persons who would be entitled to claim damages. That appeared to us at the time to be a more generally consistent approach, and one which was recommended to your Lordships at Committee stage.
However, subsequent reaction to the amendment of the Bill has not, on balance, been favourable. It has now been represented to us with some force that the result it produces may in fact be disproportionate. It can create an open-ended liability for data controllers of a potential range which we think, on reflection, may not be the best answer to the question of risk allocation in this area. We do not think that such a result is required or intended by the directive; nor, we have concluded, do arguments for consistency outweigh these disadvantages.
It seems to us, on reflection, that to restrict the availability of compensation to natural persons—"individuals"—is entirely consonant with the stated objectives and the language of the directive taken as a whole, and is in general the better solution. It does sometimes happen that first thoughts are the best after all. The Government have now said to your Lordships' House on many occasions already during the passage of this Bill that we are trying to make the best fist of it that we can. We have listened carefully and open-mindedly to what has been said to us on this matter, and we have come to a revised view. It is on that basis that the present amendment comes before your Lordships today, on which I invite the House to accept the merits, on balance, of making the return journey to the original wording proposed by the Government for Clause 11.
The third amendment in the group is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. I shall wait for the noble Lord to speak to it before I respond to it. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am sure that there is good reason why the amendment has been grouped with the two amendments to which the noble and learned Lord has spoken. I cannot think of the reason, but I am happy to speak to my amendment.
I tabled the amendment to reflect concerns expressed to me last week by the Law Society. Clause 30 of the Bill, in so far as affected by the amendment, provides
1096
exemptions from the subject information provisions of the Bill for bodies exercising regulatory functions designed to protect the public against, as stated in Clause 30(2)(a)(iv),
"dishonesty, malpractice or other seriously improper conduct by, or the unfitness or incompetence of, persons authorised to carry on any profession or other activity".
It is clear to the Law Society that it will be protected by the exemption provisions when it processes data about the alleged improprieties of admitted solicitors. What is less clear is whether the exemption extends to data processed in respect of trainee solicitors. Those are persons preparing for admission as solicitors. The Law Society regulates and sets standards for them. A trainee solicitor, under the supervision of an admitted solicitor, provides valuable legal services to the public. Trainee solicitors are a valuable legal resource. It would be both anomalous and to be regretted, and not at all in the public interest or in the interests of trainee solicitors, if the Law Society were not to have the same protection from the subject information provisions of the Bill in respect of trainee solicitors as it has in regard to admitted solicitors.
It is unclear to me whether trainee solicitors are,
"persons authorised to carry on any profession or any other activity",
within the meaning of the Bill. Is a trainee solicitor carrying on a profession? The expression "carry on any profession" is susceptible to various meanings. The amendment would put the question beyond doubt. It would also operate for the benefit of other professions which may be similarly affected.
Having heard what I have said, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will either accept my amendment or be prepared to say that he will bring forward a suitable amendment in another place in due course.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the position as regards the amendment to Clause 11. I understand the reasons given by the Minister for seeking to substitute an individual for a person, a corporation—a body of that kind—in seeking compensation. But what troubles me is how one links this to the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 of the convention guarantees the right to personal privacy against unnecessary interference. Case law makes it clear that it protects companies as well as individuals. If through data processing there is then a breach of the corporate rights of an organisation and it suffers direct damage as a result, it is also clear under the human rights convention that it is entitled to an effective remedy in domestic law under Article 13 of the convention.
I appreciate that when the Human Rights Bill comes into force it will require this Bill to be read in accordance with the convention if possible. But it is obviously more desirable that Parliament should state the law of the land clearly in this Bill rather than the courts having the obligation of interpretation to make the Bill fit with the convention.
My worry about the proposed amendment to Clause 11 is that it will remove the compensatory remedy where the victim is not an individual, and will

1097
therefore give rise to a mismatch, not between the Bill and the EC directive directly, but between the Bill and Articles 8 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In making up my mind about the amendment I shall be grateful to know whether the point has been considered, and what assurances the Government can give the House as to whether or not there is a mismatch.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, may I be allowed to support what the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, said in regard to Amendment No. 5? He covered the ground so fully that it is unnecessary for me to say any more.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, which my noble friend Lord Mishcon, supports. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having given my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn notice of his intention to propose the amendment, for having explained its purpose to him in advance, and for having explained it clearly again.
As the noble Lord made clear, in essence he wants to ensure that the subject information exemption in Clause 30 applies not only to qualified professionals such as solicitors, but also to those being trained for a profession. The argument is that the exemption needs to be available for trainees, too, since they are subject to similar rules of propriety of conduct, competence, and so on.
I have considerable sympathy with this objective. I wonder, though, whether the amendment is needed. The exemption in the relevant part of Clause 30 currently applies to,
"persons authorised to carry on any profession or other activity".
In the first place, I think there is nothing to limit the reference to "any profession" to persons of a particular current status in the profession. Many professions include junior training—or one might say novice—grades which are fully regulated but confined to limited roles. I refer to pupil barristers, or those who used to be called articled clerks. Such regulation seems to me to be integral to protection of the public in respect of persons authorised to carry on any profession, whether by such persons in their present or future capacity. If there is any room for argument about that—which I do not think there is—it must in any event be removed by the Bill's reference to "other activity". I think, therefore, that the Law Society regulation is designed to protect the public in respect of persons authorised to carry on any profession or other activity within the meaning of Clause 30. The same arguments are likely to apply to trainees for other professions.
I certainly understand the noble Lord's concern. I am willing to have another look at this matter, to see whether the position could usefully be clarified, which, with the greatest respect to him, I am not sure his amendment will necessarily do. However, he spoke to it in such a way as to indicate the concerns that we should consider. I shall certainly do so. The amendment goes
1098
much too wide, and I cannot advise the House to accept it. However, I am very willing to re-examine this subject.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord moves on from that point, perhaps I may thank him for his reply. It will save time, and I shall now not need to move my amendment formally. I am glad to hear that he will have another look at the legal points at issue and I am sure that the Law Society will do the same. In the meantime, I am most grateful for his remarks.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, to turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, the answer is this. Our focus in drafting the amendment has been too exclusively on the directive; it has not focused on the interaction between that and the European Convention on Human Rights. It seems to me appropriate, in the light of what has been said, that we should go away and consider the position. I ask the House to agree to the amendment; however, I wish to make clear that we will consider the point that the noble Lord made, which has not yet been considered in detail.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am very grateful for that generous reply. No one, in good grace, could possibly do other than accept it with gratitude. Perhaps I may merely make one point, to which I shall return later. The European Convention on Human Rights is embedded in European Community law. When interpreting the EC directive, the Luxembourg court as well as national courts have to keep their eye on the Convention as well as on Community law. Therefore, while we have in mind the directive throughout these debates, to quote the marvellous metaphor of the Lord Chancellor, the Human Rights Act will make our legal system point towards magnetic north—magnetic north being Convention rights, which are paramount. Therefore, as legislators, we have to try to make the statute fit the directive and the Convention. I am most grateful that this matter will be considered.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 8, line 26, leave out ("A person") and insert ("An individual").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 3, I should point out that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 4.
Clause 28 [Crime and taxation]:
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 18, line 8, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment relates to Clause 28(4), referring to wide-ranging secondary legislation powers given to the Secretary of

1099
State in order to subvert crime and to enforce powers of taxation. It is a very wide-ranging clause indeed. The Data Protection Registrar states, in a letter that she sent to me on 18th March, that Clause 28(4) is unprecedented and that,
"Exemptions under this broad heading have been case by case".
She adds that,
"No other enforcement body internationally has asked for broad based exemptions".
She goes on to point out:
"Clause 28(4) takes away protection given by the 1984 Act".
With that in mind, I have placed two amendments before the House today. The first, to which I now speak, seeks to follow the line of the Data Protection Registrar and to remove Clause 28(4) completely. Perhaps I may briefly seek to justify that; first, on the basis that the Government, when in opposition, called secondary legislation—to quote from Mr. Derek Fatchett, now a Member of the Government—
"one golden, malevolent thread running through our constitution, … the transfer of prerogative powers from the Crown, not to the House, not to Parliament, but to the Executive".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/94; col. 112.]
He went on to say:
"It is revealing that a Government should have the arrogance to ask for such powers. It would be even more revealing if a Parliament—this Parliament"—
he was referring to 1995—
"agreed to grant Ministers those powers".
Later, during debate on the same Bill, the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, on 23rd May 1994, he repeated, at col. 114, a commitment given earlier that,
"no incoming Labour Government will use the powers, because … the powers are an abuse of the House of Commons and give too much power to the … Executive".
He made the further point that,
"The Labour Party oppose in principle the use of order-making powers to repeal primary legislation".
I have no doubt that that is why the Labour manifesto of 1997 stated,
"Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in government and defective power decisions".
I would not wish to see the new Government fall into that pattern of activity so early in their time of responsibility. It is against the philosophy of New Labour, as I understand it.
To turn to the detail of the clause, it justifies its existence on two important government arms: first, the police, and secondly, the Inland Revenue. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the police do not wish to have this wide-ranging power. Indeed, they have stated to me that they would rather that it was not available to them.
I have in front of me a letter from the chief constable who is the chairman of the ACPO Working Group on Data Protection, the police body on data protection, in which he states:
"The Police Service is not seeking wider exemptions from the legislation and neither have we made any representations to the Home Office on such matters. It would not be in the interest of the Police Service".
In other words, the police comply with the 1984 Act. They have a good professional relationship with the Data Protection Registrar. They have managed to maintain public confidence in an area of great sensitivity; namely, electronic data holding in the modern era. Their behaviour has been exemplary, and they do not wish that public confidence to be shaken by any well-meant but inherently clumsy attempt to give them wide-ranging powers that they do not desire. Their view is that blanket provision such as this is a step too far for any public body. They wish exemptions to be kept to a minimum, they are knowledgeable about using the new technology and feel that public confidence in the police would be shaken if they were given Clause 28(4) powers. I am grateful to be able to lay a part of that letter, which is already in the public domain, before the House.
Secondly, I turn to the question of the Inland Revenue, on whose shoulders therefore this clause must now rest for its inclusion in the Bill. Here I suggest that the Inland Revenue, if it seeks this broad exemption, should surely not wish to have it placed in front of your Lordships in this hole-in-the-corner method. If this is not a Henry VIII clause then surely, from the way in which such clauses were debated by the Labour Party in the other House while I was in the other place, at least it is a "White Queen" clause. Henry VIII, when he said, "Off with their heads", did it; the White Queen merely said rather loudly, "Off with their heads, off with their heads", and perhaps not so many people suffered. Either way, it is a secondary legislation power. If new large powers are needed by the Inland Revenue, noble Lords should be convinced that there is no proper Inland Revenue legislation under which they could be debated.
As the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General said in the previous debate on this Bill, we are in an era where the Inland Revenue's future is unknown. That future may, of course, be less unknown since the Chancellor's speech, with insurance being twinned with Inland Revenue computer systems. Undoubtedly, many more changes lie ahead very soon.
However, is it right that the Inland Revenue, with these changes coming to its work, should be authorised by ministerial order alone to remove from Parliament the capacity to debate such matters and for us to be the judges as to what is right and proper in terms of Inland Revenue special provisions in the electronic era?
Before I sit down, perhaps I may pick up a challenge that will immediately be thrown at me that it is an affirmative order and that we can debate it. When on an affirmative order I raised an important point just before Christmas about EU database protection, I was subsequently informed that 13 minutes was far too long. I am asking should wide-ranging, blanket Inland Revenue powers which take away rights of individuals already given under the 1984 Act be trimmed down to such a narrow window of democratic opportunity? I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we debated this amendment at both Committee and Report stages of the Bill. At Committee stage I added my name to the

1101
amendment by the noble Baroness. Our first debate was largely after the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee, which stated that it thought that the powers in Clause 28(4) would be "impossible to justify". Those were their words. The Government listened to that concern and came forward with an amendment that dealt with the problem to a degree, but not entirely. It softened the blow, if I could describe it that way. But at the same time, the Government then came up with many other reasons why this draconian power was necessary.
Throughout the progress of the Bill, on this side of the House we have never been entirely convinced by the necessity for those powers. At Report stage we also debated the present Amendment No. 4, which is grouped with Amendment No. 3, moved by the noble Baroness. That amendment did not delete subsection (4) but sought to amend it in a way that we on this side of the House thought might be more acceptable to the Government.
At that stage, the noble and learned Lord gave reasons why the Government did not want to accept that amendment, which is Amendment No. 4. His main argument was that the Government would lose the flexibility to deal with new developments. That was not a convincing argument against the amendment. It may be that deleting subsection (4) is going slightly too far, but we are not happy with the subsection. The noble and learned Lord must accept that unless he is prepared to consider Amendment No. 4 by the noble Baroness, we would support her in deleting subsection (4) so that the Government could go back, consider the matter more carefully and come up with better drafting.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for returning to the subject of Clause 28(4). In effect, at this stage we are debating two amendments. The first would remove subsection (4) altogether and the second would leave it in place purely for tax and related purposes and exclude the reference to crime and the prevention of crime. That neatly crystallises the two big remaining issues concerning this subsection: namely, should it be removed altogether? Do we need it for any department's purposes? Secondly, if, as the Government have argued, it is required for Inland Revenue reasons, should our order-making power also embrace other departments in the area of crime and offenders? I will deal with those issues in turn.
First, does the Inland Revenue need this power? I remind the House that without the Clause 28(4) general exemption, as opposed to case by case exemptions, the Inland Revenue and hence honest taxpayers would suffer losses with information being revealed to suspect taxpayers about the nature and origin of material passed to the Inland Revenue by third parties such as banks and retail businesses and about the revenue's risk rules and scores under the new self-assessment tax system. The Inland Revenue would also be unable to receive information disclosed voluntarily; for example, by retailers helping them to identify potential ghosts and moonlighters.
1102
Since our debate at Report, the noble Baroness was kind enough to have a meeting with my noble friend Lord Williams and myself. I know also that she has been in contact with the Data Protection Registrar who is quite naturally concerned that we should minimise exceptions to the normal data protection law mechanisms. Since then, the Home Office has had joint discussions with Inland Revenue colleagues and representatives of the registrar.
Those discussions have been very valuable in further isolating the operational issues at stake and the extent to which there might be scope to meet them through other data protection law mechanisms. We have reached no firm conclusions, but both the Inland Revenue and the Data Protection Registrar's staff have agreed to explore a number of points further. Between them these bear on both of the principal mechanisms at stake, the subject information provisions and the non-disclosure provisions. I would very much like those issues to be explored further before the Government reach a view on whether any modification to Clause 28(4) is possible.
I should stress that this process is without commitment on either side. The Data Protection Registrar's staff have not dropped their general concerns about Clause 28(4), to which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, gave voice in this debate; nor have the Government conceded that its scope can be reduced. We need to look further to see, with good will, what can be done. I am asking for that work to be done quickly so that there can be no delay in reporting back in another place and, in due course, bringing any appropriate fresh proposals back before the House.
I turn now to needs which may arise beyond the Inland Revenue's. The Government have been entirely open about it. At present—and this confirms what the noble Baroness said in relation to the police—the Inland Revenue is the only department which has sought an exemption. But one can imagine similar circumstances arising elsewhere. I note that ACPO's data protection committee has confirmed that it does not seek an exemption, but the police are not the only ones who handle data concerning crime, offenders and taxation.
I also have to say, with respect, that it would be unreasonably optimistic to think that whenever a future need arose there would be other convenient legislation, whether originating in Europe or elsewhere, going through Parliament, whose scope could accommodate data protection amendments. It does not work like that. Opportunities to amend data protection law in practice arise only rarely.
However, there is something more we could do now. Hitherto, we have frankly been loath to ask other departments whether they can foresee a need for a similar exemption because the very question might stimulate over-cautious responses. However, I think we have gone beyond the point of such niceties. The Home Office will now approach other departments generally, making clear the arguments put in this House for restricting exemptions of this kind and asking whether they have any other clear cases for exemption and if so what are their operational needs. If there are any other such cases, the Government would explain them in

1103
another place, and subsequently in this House, to bring out why we need the general order-making power. If there are no other such cases, we will look seriously at an amendment to restrict the scope of subsection (4).
I hope that the House will accept that this is a genuine offer to look again, dealing with both issues raised by the two amendments. Having made our further inquiries, we would come back to Parliament to explain the nature, if any, of our need. Pending that further work, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments at this stage in the expectation of further information and assurances in due course.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may put to him a question and ask him to respond briefly. He has made a very genuine offer, which is not surprising because we know that the Data Protection Registrar is concerned about these powers and that the police do not want the powers and now we understand that the Inland Revenue is concerned about these powers. He has made a very genuine offer to look at the issue again, but of course with no commitment. Indeed, he cannot, as it were, bind his colleagues in another place.
The difficulty I have—I accept the reasonableness of the noble and learned Lord's argument and his genuine offer—is that if the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment the Bill will then go to another place. If the Government look at the issue and decide, for whatever reason, that they do not wish to alter the clause as it stands the Bill will not necessarily come back to this House and your Lordships will not have an opportunity to ask the Government here in this House why they changed their mind or why they did not change their mind. In those circumstances, it would seem to me reasonable if the noble and learned Lord were prepared to accept the amendment, or one of the amendments, along with his commitment to look at it again. That would ensure that the Bill would come back to this House after it had been in another place and your Lordships could then address the issue, listen to the, I am sure, reasonable arguments from the Government and hear the full consideration that they had given to this issue.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General has yet sat down; but if he has not yet sat down, perhaps I may supplement that question by a further one. The noble and learned Lord has already indicated in the context of an earlier amendment that the European Convention point has not been directly focused upon, for reasons I understand. Can he tell the House whether the effect of Clause 28(4) as it stands, authorising a possible breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by authorising a disproportionate interference with personal privacy, has been taken into account; and if not, whether the Government have it in mind that that too should be taken into account in considering this matter?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the answer is that I had not sat down. In response to the noble
1104
Viscount, Lord Astor, what I have said to the House the Government will do involves in good faith both discussing the matter with the Inland Revenue and the Data Protection Registrar to see what can be done in relation to the Inland Revenue aspect and also making inquiries of other departments to see whether any other department wants it. I am not sufficiently experienced in the procedures of the House to comment on what he said the procedures are. However, assuming that what he said is correct, it seems to me that the House has to rely on the Government's good faith in doing that which they have said they will do. I respectfully suggest that there is no reason why the House should not rely on the Government's good faith in this respect. If the results of the investigations and the talks bear fruit we will then bring forward the appropriate amendments in another place. If they do not bear fruit, we will explain why not at an appropriate point to both another place and to this House.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble and learned Lord again. If he goes for that process, which I accept is a quite reasonable process for the Government to go through, and finds that the Bill goes to another place and is unamended, your Lordships' House will not have an opportunity to see the Bill again. That is the point I was trying to make. I fully accept the genuineness of the noble and learned Lord's offer and the Government's commitment. However, the point I am making is that without a peg on which to hang a debate so that the Bill can come back, your Lordships may not be able to have such an opportunity.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as far as a lack of a peg is concerned, there would plainly be the opportunity to explain to another place if the conclusion were reached that no such amendments were to come forward. As far as concerns this place, again, I am not sufficiently experienced in the procedures of the House to indicate whether or not an opportunity could be given for us to report back to this House as to why it was—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is a general noise that suggests that there would not be that opportunity. It all seems to come down to the fact that the House has to rely on the Government's good faith, which the noble Viscount has indicated he quite rightly accepts. I earnestly suggest that that is the right course to take in that respect. We will look at it. But it is up to the noble Viscount whether he accepts that or not. I would strongly suggest that he does.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked whether the European Convention on Human Rights would be breached. That would not depend on this power; it would depend on any order that was subsequently made under it, assuming it remained unamended. At that stage consideration would be given to the question of the

1105
relationship between whatever order was produced and the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply. Going back, if I may, to the question raised by the noble Viscount, the problem is that unless one of these amendments is accepted by the House, and fully accepting the Government's good faith in every respect, there may be a problem. Let us suppose, hypothetically, that the Government decided that they were right in the first place and that no amendment should be made in another place, there would then be no mechanism when the Bill came back to this House because another place would not have disagreed with a decision taken by your Lordships' House. That is why, in effect and in the most charming way, the noble and learned Lord is asking the House to accept not only the Government's good faith, but whatever decision they reach, subject to another place. That does not seem to be a satisfactory position to be in.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, after the position has been so clearly explained to me by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, after the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has explained it, after the growl from the House and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, nodding so enthusiastically that they could only be right, I have accepted and understood finally what the procedural position is. I also accept, on the basis of what everyone has told me, that if we in good faith decide that we will not bring forward any amendments there will be no opportunity in the context of this Bill for the matter to be debated again by this House, though of course the matter could be raised by other means; for example, by an Unstarred Question relating to the issue. There is no growl of dissent to that suggestion!
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has put his finger on it. One does have to accept the Government's good faith and accept it on the basis that if we do not bring forward an amendment in the context of this Bill there can be no debate. But, again, I would earnestly suggest in relation to this Bill that in the context of a government who are listening, who are genuinely trying to improve the Bill and who have brought forward amendments at the suggestion of Members of the House, the correct course is to rely on the Government, recognising that there will not be another opportunity for debate if your Lordships take that chance.
Earl Russell: My Lords, of course we accept the noble and learned Lord's word unreservedly. But would it be a correct understanding of his word that he has not said he will do something; he has said only that he might do something?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with respect, that is a most accurate account. I have said that we will look at something. I have made no commitment on behalf of the Government to come back with any amendment. Therefore, it is perfectly possible, on the basis of what I have said, that we will not come back
1106
with any amendment. That is a perfectly accurate account of the matter. But surely it must be better, when we are looking at it in good faith, for us to do it on that basis rather than putting the matter to a vote, as that would sour the perfectly friendly and constructive approach that has so far prevailed in relation to this most excellent series of debates. I am surprised that everyone laughs when I say that.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, before the Solicitor-General sits down, perhaps I can take him away from the Primrose Farm and the happy debate on mechanics and back to the hard graft, the coal face, which is what this Bill is all about.
Does the noble and learned Lord accept that in his explanation of why he wishes me to withdraw my amendment there is an inherent contradiction? On the one hand, he said that the Government have not conceded that the clause needs altering and, on the other, he stated that if no other department wishes to use the clause it will be restricted. In other words, the noble and learned Lord has not conceded that the clause needs alteration but will now do a wide-ranging, Star Wars-type search around the globe to see whether by any chance anybody happens to want it. It is rather like a Christmas present that nobody has picked up. Does he accept also that he has not offered any recognition of the police position by even giving a guarantee that he will withdraw from the Bill that part of it that relates to crime?
I feel that the noble and learned Lord's offer is rather like a Trojan Horse. Can he reassure me about that?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have said that, after what the noble Baroness described as a Star Wars trawl around other departments, if nobody else wants the clause we will look seriously at an amendment to restrict the scope of subsection (4).
I can take the matter no further. I accept what the noble Baroness said—which is a repetition of what everybody else said—and I am making no promises in relation to what, if any, amendment I may come back with. It would be wrong for the House to amend the Bill simply with a view to making sure that the matter can be debated on another occasion. That is what appears to be in the minds of those who tabled the amendment.
I will not assist my case by repeating it. I shall be deeply sorry if those who have until now been so co-operative and received their reward think it appropriate to put the matter to the vote.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. It is a pleasure to work with him on this important piece of legislation. However, I feel that I need to help him out of his difficulties. Since the Data Protection Registrar stated on 17th March,
"It remains my view that Clause 28(4) should he deleted";
since the Chief Constable of Police in charge of data protection for the entirety of the police in England and Wales believes that the clause should not include them; and since so far the Inland Revenue has given no good

1107
cause to include the clause, other than enforced subject access, on which we could have another debate if we so wished, I feel sure that the Solicitor-General will feel a lot more comfortable if the clause is in the wastepaper basket where we believe it belongs.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I can say that she should not divide the House simply to make me feel more comfortable. It will make me feel more uncomfortable.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, sometimes the medicine tastes a little sour but the illness is then cured. I am sure that in the privacy of the Lobby the noble and learned Lord will come to see, not the error of his ways, but the error of the Inland Revenue's tempting efforts to draw him down the road of secondary legislation in a way which is antipathetic to the Government whom he so well represents at the Dispatch Box in your Lordships' House.
I feel that I need to test the opinion of the House to see whether it agrees with myself and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.
3.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 134; Not-Contents, 99.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dholakia, L.

Ailsa, M.

Dilhorne, V.

Aldington, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Dowding, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Astor, V.

Elles, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Avebury, L.

Erne, E.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Erroll, E.

Bath, M.

Exmouth, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ezra, L.

Beloff, L.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Bethell, L.

Forbes, L.

Brain, L.

Gainford, L.

Bridges, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Geraint, L.

Butterworth, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Cadman, L.

Goodhart, L.

Calverley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carlisle, E.

Grey, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Hampton, L.

Chesham, L.

Hamwee, B.

Clancarty, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Coleraine, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Coleridge, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Craigavon, V.

Henley, L.

Crook, L.

Hothfield, L.

Cross, V.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L

Dahrendorf, L.

Hylton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Inglewood, L.

Denham, L.

Jacobs, L.

1108

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Jopling, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Razzall, L.

Kitchener, E.

Redesdale, L.

Knollys, V.

Rees, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Layton, L.

Rochester, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L. [Teller.]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Romney, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Russell, E.

Ludford, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Sainsbury, L.

McNair, L.

St John of Bletso, L.

McNally, L.

Sandford, L.

Maddock, B.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Stair, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Stockton, E.

Marlesford, L.

Strange, B.

Marsh, L.

Swinfen, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Teviot, L.

Middleton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Morton, E.

Thurso, V.

Mountevans, L.

Tordoff, L.

Moyne, L.

Vivian, L.

Newby, L.

Waterford, M.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Weatherill, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Wharton, B.

Norrie, L.

Wigoder, L.

Northesk, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Norton, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Ogmore, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hardie, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Haskel, L.

Barnett, L.

Hayman, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Berkeley, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Blease, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Blyth, L.

Hoyle, L.

Borrie, L.

Hughes, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Burlison, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Islwyn, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Chapple, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Kennet, L.

David, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dixon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Donoughue, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Molloy, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Monkswell, L.

Gallacher, L

Montague of Oxford, L.

Gilbert, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Glenamara, L.

Nicol, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Orme, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Gregson, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

1109

Prys-Davies, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Puttnam, L.

Stallard, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Rea, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Richard, L.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Turner of Camden, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Whitty, L.

Simon, V.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.3 p.m.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Regulatory activity]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 31 [Journalism, literature and art]:
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 19, line 19, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall not speak to this amendment for long but I request a small hearing from your Lordships' House. I want to revisit briefly the fact that Clause 31(1)(a) embraces such a wide range of persons that it could be said to undermine to a significant extent the function of the legislation. I seek a definition in this context of the words "journalist", "journalism" and "publication". I suggest that because the word "publication" means "showing a document to another person" and because the word "journalist" has never been defined by statute, it is possible to argue that this clause, which expands the exemption from journalism to include literary and artistic material, will provide a valuable shield to those who gather and hold information for purposes other than those for which the legislation is intended.
I ask first whether the Solicitor-General will look again at the exemption because the wording used is so broad that I believe it will have the capacity in the modern world to bring in other classes of people and undermine the legislation significantly.
Secondly—I raised this point earlier—I want to revisit the concept of accuracy and to remind the noble and learned Lord that no duty of accuracy is imposed by law on print journalists and that the Press Complaints Commission code of practice does not provide an effective remedy. Indeed, it is not even a quasi-judicial procedure. In those circumstances, I can see no logic in exempting the print media from the obligation of accuracy enshrined in the fourth data protection principle. It would readily be possible to amend Clause 31(2)(a) by bracketing the fourth principle with the seventh. The noble and learned Lord knows that I have raised the issue of the necessity for accuracy in the print media previously, but I believe that if an amendment similar to this could be made in the other place it would introduce a new right which could be of considerable value to ordinary citizens.
Finally, the balance between privacy and freedom of expression has been tilted profoundly towards the media, in this case print journalism, as the remainder of the media are already covered by the Broadcasting Act 1996 and by the earlier radio and television legislation. I remind the House that in the United Kingdom there is no right of privacy and that the exemption therefore is not a counterweight against the right of privacy in favour of a proper balance being struck for freedom of information; it is merely a heavyweight against the citizen. Indeed, other European Union nations have a right of privacy. There is a written constitutional right of privacy and therefore the balance that is supposedly struck here is no balance at all. It is a heavy thump against the rights of the individual.
At Second Reading I mentioned that I hoped that, despite the plethora of knowledge now collected about everyone globally in the electronic media, we could create an oasis of privacy for individuals by the mechanism of this Bill. This clause is such a sweeping exemption for the media that it takes away the fragile and existing rights which, slender as they are, will be demolished by this new right which was not contained in the Data Protection Act 1984. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the insertion of the word "necessary" into the language of Clause 31 is an entirely understandable proposition. As the noble Baroness lucidly explained, the amendment is motivated by a proper concern to achieve maximum fidelity to Article 9 and to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, it is a proposition the logic of which we find to be more apparent than compelling. I shall seek to explain why we do not consider it appropriate to agree to these amendments. I am speaking now to Amendments Nos. 6 to 10 which at the moment are grouped. The noble Baroness has in effect spoken to Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 which are grouped with Amendments Nos. 7, 9 and 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. It is Amendment No. 6 that has been moved. These amendments have been grouped together. If we are to consider them together perhaps I should speak immediately to Amendments Nos. 7 and 9. I shall not speak to Amendment No. 10 because that raises a different issue about legal certainty. I shall turn to that separately later, if that is for the convenience of the House.
I rise to support Amendment No. 6 and speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 7 and 9. I should like to take a few moments to deal with this matter because it has not been dealt with previously at any stage of the Bill. I suggest that it is our duty to do our best to ensure that the Bill properly implements binding European law, including the EC directive. If and to the extent there is a failure to give domestic effect to European law that will lead to legal uncertainty and unnecessary litigation in our courts. That may be litigation before both European courts. On a worst case scenario failure to

1111
implement the directive properly could give rise to a claim for damages against the United Kingdom with the British taxpayer having to foot the bill.
The task is made more difficult for your Lordships by the tortuous structure and language of the directive and the Government's desire to avoid legislating in a way that arouses hostility from the media. I am concerned that Clause 31 as it stands fails properly to implement binding European legal principles as regards the exemption for journalism, literature and art. Amendments Nos. 7, 9 and 10 seek to ensure that the exemptions for the vital right to free expression of the media and the public satisfy the European principle of legal certainty—that is Amendment No. 10, to which I shall turn later—and can be properly balanced against the right to individual privacy using the European "pressing social need" test of necessity which includes the vital European legal principle of proportionality.
In Grand Committee on 25th February the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, rightly referred to,
"the need to avoid unnecessary infringement of privacy".—[Official Report, 25/2/98; col. CWH 96.]
He referred to the well-known Strasbourg case law. Unfortunately, Clause 31 does not embody that test of necessity to which he referred nor to the effect of the Strasbourg case law.
The directive's preamble makes clear that the object of national laws on the processing of personal data such as this Bill is to protect fundamental rights and freedoms, notably the right to privacy recognised in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It also states in the preamble that the approximation of national laws must not result in any lessening of the protection that they afford but, on the contrary, must seek to ensure a high level of protection in the Community. The directive's preamble also states that the processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism or literary or artistic expression, in particular in the audio-visual field, should qualify for exceptions—I quote the key words—
"in so far as this is necessary to reconcile the fundamental rights of individuals with freedom of information and notably the right to receive and impart information, as guaranteed … in Article 10 of the European Convention [on Human Rights]".
I emphasise the word "necessary", echoing the test of necessity in Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention, to define the extent of exceptions that may lawfully be made to the rights to free expression and personal privacy. Perhaps I may be forgiven for taking time on this matter. Article 9 of the directive states that member states shall provide for exceptions or derogations for the processing of personal data carried out solely for journalistic purposes for the purpose of artistic or literary expression only if they are necessary to reconcile the right to privacy with the rules governing freedom of expression.
Article 9 uses the key tests of objective necessity to justify any exemption of the media from their obligation to respect personal privacy when obtaining, using or publishing personal data. The directive is made within the framework of the European Convention on Human
1112
Rights that binds all member states. I repeat that the right to free speech under Article 10 of the convention is subject to exceptions that are sufficiently precise to comply with legal certainty and which are necessary to protect, inter alia, the right to personal privacy guaranteed by Article 8. Similarly, the right to personal privacy guaranteed by Article 8 is subject to exceptions that are sufficiently precise to comply with the principle of legal certainty and which are necessary to protect, among other things, free speech under Article 10.
A balance must be struck and maintained in the end by the courts between the conflicting rights based on the test of necessity and proportionality. I would be surprised if the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General disagreed with any of that. If he does I am sure that he will tell us. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights also makes it quite clear that protection under Article 10 of the convention of the role of the media as investigative journalists, purveyors of information and as public watchdogs on matters of public interest is essential to a healthy democratic society. The Strasbourg court has emphasised that people in public life cannot use the right to personal privacy to prevent or inhibit the media from communicating matters of legitimate public interest and concern to the public.
But the European court has also made it clear that the right to free expression is not absolute. It must be balanced using the test of necessity and proportionality against the right to personal privacy. For its part, in Luxembourg the European Court of Justice has made it clear, too, that when interpreting European Community law, including directives, regard must be had to the principles in the European Convention on Human Rights governing free speech and personal privacy. My concern is that Clause 31 as it stands unamended authorises interference with the right to personal privacy by the media in breach of the directive and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The media exemption in Clause 31(1) relates to all of the data protection principles apart from the seventh principle; that is, the right of access to personal data under Clause 7; the right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress under Clause 9; the right to rectification or destruction of inaccurate data under Clause 12; and the rights in relation to automated decision-taking under Clause 13. The media exemption in Clause 31(1) also applies to sensitive personal data, for example about an individual's physical or mental health or his or her sexual life.
In view of the sweepingly broad scope of the media exemption it is very important to scrutinise with particular care the limits placed on the exemption in Clause 31 and the safeguards against the misuse of personal data. In my opinion, the safeguards contained in Clause 31 fail to satisfy the vital European principles of proportionality and legal certainty. Perhaps I may go through them in turn. Clause 31(1)(a) provides that to be within the media exception the processing must be undertaken with a view to the publication by any person of any journalistic, literary or artistic material. That merely establishes that the data processing must be done for journalistic, etc. purposes and not for a collateral purpose.

1113
Clause 31(1)(b) provides that the data controller must reasonably believe that, having regard in particular to the general importance of the public interest in freedom of expression, publication would be in the public interest. Of course, the data controller is not an independent person but a person who alone, jointly or in common with other persons in the media organisation—say, the Independent. Sunday Times, Daily Telegraph or Daily Mail—determines the purposes for which and the manner in which personal data are obtained, stored and published. All that Clause 31(1)(b) requires is that the data controller should have a reasonable belief that publication of the personal data would be in the public interest having regard in particular to the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression.
Clause 31(1)(b) does not require the data controller to have a reasonable belief that publication would be necessary in the public interest to protect the rights of the media and those to whom they publish to freedom of expression, but merely that he reasonably believes that publication would be in the public interest. The data controller does not have to believe that the harm done to the data subject's right to personal privacy, whether because of the unfair and unlawful way in which the data had been processed, or because of the inaccuracy or outdated nature of the data, or because of the damage or distress caused to the individual, outweighs and is disproportionate to the public interest in free expression. Still less does the data controller have to show that his belief is objectively justified in accordance with the well-known principles of the European convention and Community law.
I turn then to the third limb, which is Clause 31(1)(c). That requires the data controller to have a reasonable belief that in all the circumstances compliance with that provision—that is, with any of the provisions protecting personal privacy covered by the exemption—is incompatible with the special purposes; that is, incompatible with the purposes of journalism. Once again, there is no requirement that the data controller's belief should be that it is necessary and proportionate to invade the individual's right to privacy in the interests of the conflicting right to free expression.
Clause 31(3) provides that, in considering whether the data controller's belief that publication would be in the public interest was or is a reasonable belief, regard may he had—not "must"—to his compliance with any code of practice. As it stands, that is no real safeguard but a thing written in water. There is no requirement that there should be a code of practice. Even if there is a code, there is no requirement that the code should include the test of necessity to justify the interference with the right to personal privacy. The Press Complaints Commission's current code does not include a test of necessity. By contrast, the Broadcasting Standards Commission's code is stronger in requiring a privacy infringement to be justified by an overriding public interest in disclosure.
The codes are not to be legally binding under the Bill. Nor is there any obligation for the courts to have regard to the codes in deciding whether the data controller's belief is a reasonable belief. I shall return to Clause
1114
31(3) under Amendment No. 10. The present amendments to Clause 31(1)(b) are most modest. The amendment leaves intact the concept that it is for the data controller to form a reasonable belief, but it requires the data controller to have a reasonable belief, not just that the publication of personal data is in the public interest, especially of free expression, but that it is necessary in the public interest; in other words, the amendment requires the data controller to have a reasonable belief that the obtaining, storing or publishing of personal data is necessary in the interests of free expression and does not involve a disproportionate interference in the right to personal privacy.
In my view that is the minimum—I emphasise "minimum"—needed if Clause 31 is properly to implement the directive and properly to comply with Article 8 of the convention. It is less satisfactory in some respects than my noble friend's amendment, but it is better than the illusory safeguards contained in Clause 31 as it stands. It probably does not go far enough, because, unlike my noble friend's amendment, it does not import the test of objective necessity required by the convention.
In a case in which I had the privilege of acting for the Sunday Times many years ago, the European Court made it clear in the thalidomide judgment that the adjective "necessary" does not have the flexibility of words such as "reasonable". If the Government will not accept my noble friend's amendment, I hope that they will accept my modest amendment on the basis that half a loaf is better than no bread.
Curiously enough—this is a matter that I am sure will concern the media—the Government's indication of the amendments they propose to introduce to the Human Rights Bill in another place in the interests of free speech and of the press, which are modelled on this Clause 31, are likely to authorise unnecessary prior restraints on free speech for the very same reason that Clause 31 is likely unduly to authorise unnecessary interference with personal privacy. In each case, the vice is the same—a failure to introduce the principle of necessity and proportionality as the touchstone for determining whether interferences with the fundamental human rights are justifiable.
The print media and the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, are in my view profoundly mistaken, hilariously profoundly mistaken, ironically profoundly mistaken, in welcoming the Government's declared intention to amend the Human Rights Bill in that way. An amendment modelled on this Clause 31 will make it easier to obtain privacy injunctions against the media than is permissible under Article 10 of the convention. The press is being hoist with its own petard. It would have been much wiser to have heeded the wisdom of the Data Protection Registrar, Elizabeth France, and to have accepted the well-modulated tests in Article 8 and Article 10 of the convention as the basis for Clause 31, while leaving the Human Rights Bill well alone.

1115
I apologise for having taken so long to explain the matter, but, if I am right, Parliament is being asked to authorise legislation which does not do the job that it was designed to do, which is to implement the directive and convention law properly.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, at the heart of this debate is whether we have complied with our obligation under the terms of the directive. Article 9 of the data protection directive provides:
"Member States shall provide for exemptions or derogations from the provisions of the relevant Chapter for the processing of personal data carried out solely for journalistic purposes or the purpose of artistic or literary expression only if they are necessary to reconcile the right to privacy with the rules governing freedom of expression".
The amendment moved by the noble Baroness merely says, in effect, "chuck that into the Bill without amendment, and leave everybody else to sort it out". The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, says, in effect, that in determining whether the balance is in favour of freedom of expression, consider whether it is reasonably necessary in the public interest to publish. He suggests that the way we deal with the problem is to raise the concept of publication that is "necessary" in the public interest. Those are the two propositions that we have to address this evening.
I should say at the outset that the Government are unreservedly committed to full and proper implementation of Article 9, and I believe that we have achieved that. As has been pointed out this afternoon, this is a provision of pivotal importance. It is the point of confluence of two fundamental rights which naturally proceed in different directions—the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression. As my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said in Grand Committee, the essential thrust of the directive, and the Bill, is in the direction of the protection of personal information privacy. But the extent of that tendency is inherently limited by the requirements of freedom of expression. Article 9 expressly allows member states to acknowledge those limitations by providing exemptions in favour of the special purposes, but only, as has been clearly explained this afternoon, if they are necessary to reconcile the right to privacy with the rules governing freedom of expression.
Article 9 does not provide a simple answer to the problem of reconciliation. It does not attempt to. There is no reason to believe that there is a single right answer to the problem of reconciliation. It is much too complex and multi-faceted an issue for that. By that I mean, if we assume that every state is introducing protection legislation, it is inconceivable that the Community has it in mind that every state will pitch the reconciliation at the same place.
Member states are afforded, as one would expect, a margin of latitude by Article 9, as indeed they are under the convention itself, to come to their own judgment as to what is necessary to reconcile those two fundamental rights and to give proper expression to them in national legislation. This is plainly not a case where a copy-out
1116
solution can be made to work. By "copy-out" I mean to put into the terms of the Bill the wording of Article 9, which is the intention of the noble Baroness's amendment. The data protection regime is an extremely detailed network of private rights and public regulation. We are plainly called upon to give a satisfactory detailed, clear and faithful expression to the policy set out in Article 9 as the only realistic means of incorporating the reconciliation it speaks of in our Bill.
We have not ducked the issue of coming to a view on what and when exemptions are necessary to reconcile information privacy with freedom of expression. We cannot duck the issue. We have identified the provisions of the Bill from which we think exemption will at least potentially be necessary, about which there appeared to be no debate. We have identified three elements, all of which are necessary before any exemption may be relied on. In other words, we have decided to tell the citizen what elements must be made out before the balance is tipped in favour of freedom of expression. We have not simply used the word "necessity", which would provide inadequate guidance for the individual citizen in determining where the balance is to be struck.
The three conditions which the noble Lord set out in his speech are our interpretation of what is necessary to reconcile privacy and freedom of expression. The exemptions are no less and no more than what is necessary to achieve that reconciliation. The necessary conditions which must be satisfied are mandatory. In other words, all three conditions must be satisfied before one achieves reconciliation or obtains exemption. We are saying that one achieves reconciliation if one is engaged in journalistic, literary or artistic activity, which is the open door in the directive. The Bill states that:
"the data controller reasonably believes that, having regard in particular to the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression, publication would be in the public interest, and…reasonably believes that, in all the circumstances, compliance with that provision is incompatible with the special purposes".
Therefore, the data controller must reasonably believe that it is in the public interest to publish, having regard to the need for freedom of expression, and reasonably believe that compliance with the provisions of the Act is incompatible with the special purposes—journalistic, literary or artistic.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, suggested that we are obliged to require as a prerequisite of reliance on the exemptions that the data controller reasonably believes that publication would be "necessary" in the public interest. For the reasons I have explained, that is not correct. In our view, the fact that the three requirements are mandatory is enough to indicate where the balance is to be struck.
As to whether the amendment would be an improvement, which is the second limb of the noble Lord's argument, we have great difficulty with the concept of "necessary" publication. When is the publication of an individual story "necessary" in the public interest? That is the question posed by his amendment. It is difficult to conceive of a "necessary" publication in isolation from the more general requirements of freedom of expression. The Bill explicitly directs particular attention in this context to

1117
the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression. This gives the weighting which we believe is required by the reconciliation of the rights to privacy and freedom of expression by suggesting that there is a general sense in which publication per se is an exercise of freedom of speech in which there is a general public interest.
The public interest in privacy is signalled loud and clear throughout the Bill, and some restoration of the balance in the present context is, we believe, necessary. So if a data controller reasonably believes that publication would be in the public interest, having regard to the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression, we believe that to be a proper and sufficient expression of one of the conditions for reliance on an exemption.
We do not believe it appropriate to introduce the concept of "necessary" publication in individual cases. There is a sense in which an individual publication is hardly ever necessary in the public interest. There is a sense in which, as a particular example of a general rule about freedom of expression, it will almost always be necessary in the public interest; at any rate, if the publication itself has that quality. We do not see how this could work satisfactorily and we do not believe that we are required by our international obligations to include this idea.
With the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, we reject the idea that it is required by Article 9 because we believe that by imposing the three mandatory conditions we have struck the balance to which we are entitled under Article 9. We further believe that we would not improve the Bill by introducing the concept of "necessary" publication in the public interest because—and again I say this with the greatest respect—it is difficult to apply and may mean everything or nothing. We respectfully submit that it is not a helpful way of amending the Bill.
We believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness provides the system with no assistance whatever in seeking to reconcile the balance in the context of a Bill which is determined to lay down detailed provisions as to how data protection is to operate in this country. Therefore, we do not regard her amendment as either appropriate, necessary or helpful and I invite the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to withdraw their amendments.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may make two brief points. We on this side of the House entirely accept his argument and would not support the amendments. Indeed, perhaps they would have been better debated in Committee because the issue is complicated. I believe that Amendment No. 7 in particular does not work at all.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanations. He used the phrase "with great respect". It is an expression which lawyers
1118
use to each other when they are at their most adversarial. I have the greatest respect for the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General—
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. As this is Third Reading, there is only the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, to reply.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I thought that we were debating all three amendments together. I must necessarily move my amendment and deal with it separately, if that is the pleasure of the House. I had thought that it was more convenient to deal with the matter in this way, both of us indicating whether we wished to move the amendments. If that is for the convenience of the House, I can deal with it briefly.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, will the noble Lord move his amendment later?
Lord Bridges: My Lords, perhaps I may make a brief comment on the debate so far—
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am afraid that it is for the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, to reply.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General for his comments on my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 19, line 25, after ("be") insert ("necessary").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment at some length. Perhaps I may be economical and deal simply with the points that have been raised. First, the principle of proportionality is a general principle of Community law. The test of necessity must be read in context, and under the convention and the directive it is necessary for the courts to weigh competing public interests and rights using the test of necessity. The defect in Clause 31 as it stands is that it does not provide the courts with the proportionality criterion, but leaves the whole matter to the reasonable belief of a member of the media organisation, the data controller. Therefore, the Bill as it stands at present does not provide the necessary legal standard which is required both by European Community and European Convention law.
If we leave the Bill in that way, the misfortune is that it will be litigated upon. The first case in which a newspaper is alleged to have intruded upon personal privacy in data processing—where the data controller says that he has a reasonable belief and where an attempt is made to challenge that belief—will be based upon the proposition that this Bill does not implement properly the directive or the European Convention on Human Rights.
When the Human Rights Act comes into force, the courts will be obliged to construe the Data Protection Act, if they possibly can, so that it is compatible with

1119
Articles 8 and 10. It is not good enough for us to leave this Bill to be made sense of, if I can express the matter in that way, under the Convention and the directive by a process of judicial interpretation if we are able to use language in the Bill which achieves that result.
At present, the media are under the totally false impression that having secured Clause 31, which is a virtually open-ended exemption, that is where the matter will end. In that, they are completely mistaken because if I am right in my opinion about the European law, it will be entirely open to a data subject to rely upon Article 8 of the Convention and the principle of necessity and proportionality, of course having regard to the particular context. That context is the importance of freedom- of speech. But the importance of freedom of speech is not an absolute concept.
We shall say au revoir to this Bill; it will go to another place; and if the Government do not think again and I am right, the only beneficiaries will be the members of the legal profession. They will find themselves involved in complicated litigation because the Government have not wished to write on the face of the Bill that which is required by European law.
I am concerned that our statutes should be enacted properly in accordance with European law. In the light of that, and not, if possible, have to be interpreted by the courts to put them right under European law, that I very much hope that even if the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General is unwilling to accept my amendment, he will be sufficiently open-minded to say that he will reconsider the point when the Bill travels to another place to see whether there is not some way of writing into the Bill the European test of necessity and proportionality instead of leaving it to the personal but reasonable belief of a member of the media organisation, with all the litigation which will follow as a result. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have obviously heard and will consider with an open mind what the noble Lord has said. However, the Government's present view is that Clause 31 does effectively comply with the obligation under Article 9 and that it is both in compliance with the law and the best way of dealing with the matter.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, does he accept that the courts will have to apply the proportionality principle in interpreting Clause 31 and Article 9 of the directive and the European Convention on Human Rights?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, if the courts apply Clause 31 in accordance with its terms, they will be acting in accordance with the provisions of Article 9 which, in its turn, involves compliance with the Convention.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am most grateful. I am reminded of the story of the father with
1120
the naughty daughter who gets lost in the middle of the city. She keeps saying, "Daddy, daddy, where are you?" "Shut up", he explained. It seems to me that in the nicest possible way, the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General has not really answered my point. In spite of my criticisms, he simply said that the Government are satisfied that somehow there is compliance with the tests of proportionality and necessity which, as I say, is not the same as reasonableness.
This is not a matter to be tested by political muscle or numbers. I very much hope that it will be reconsidered. If it is not reconsidered in Parliament, it will surely come to be considered in our own domestic courts and in the European courts. That is my prediction. For the reasons I have given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 19, line 39, leave out ("may") and insert ("must").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with a wholly separate and important matter. Its purpose is to ensure that the very broad media exemption in Clause 31 satisfies another European legal principle; that is, the principle of legal certainty. Both under Community law and Convention law, the principle of legal certainty requires that the effect of legislation must be clear and predictable for those who are subject to it.
In its landmark judgment in the Sunday Times thalidomide case, the Strasbourg court decided that to satisfy the requirements of legal certainty, the law must be adequately accessible. That means that the citizen must be able to have an indication that is adequate in the circumstances of the legal rules applicable to a given case. The legal rule must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct. He must be able to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in all the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail. Those consequences do not have to be foreseeable with absolute certainty, but they must be foreseeable with reasonable certainty.
As the Bill is currently drafted, determining whether the media exemptions in Clause 31 do or do not apply depends largely on whether the data controller's belief is a reasonable belief that the intrusion of a data subject's personal privacy is in the public interest. Clause 31 is without standards. It does not provide reasonably foreseeable criteria as to when the media are or are not immune from liability. Therefore, on its face, it fails to satisfy the requirements of legal certainty because neither the data subject nor the media can reasonably foresee in what circumstances a belief will or will not be regarded as reasonable. In particular, as I have pointed out already in relation to the earlier amendments, Clause 31 is flawed because it leaves out the proportionality principle.
Clause 31(3) provides that in considering whether a data controller's belief that publication will be in the public interest was or is reasonable, regard may be had to his compliance with any relevant code of practice designated by order of the Secretary of State.
If the code of practice is reasonably precise, and if it contains the proportionality criteria that the interference with personal privacy must be necessary, I accept that that will satisfy the European principle of legal certainty provided that the individual and the media know that the criteria will apply.
But as Clause 31(3) stands at present, it does not require regard to be had to the data controller's compliance or failure to comply with the code of practice. In my view, that combination of a failure to prescribe the criteria in the code on the face of the Bill and the failure to require regard to be had to the criteria prescribed in the code of practice, together with the absence of any requirement that the code of practice should contain the test of necessity, create a serious risk that the statutory scheme will fail to satisfy the principle of legal certainty. If that happens, it violates Community law as well as Convention law.
Neither the data subject nor the media, including data controllers, will be able reasonably to foresee with sufficient certainty whether the obtaining, storing or publication of personal data will or will not breach the right to personal privacy embodied in the Bill because of the vagueness of the statutory criteria and the absence of any obligation to comply with the code. That is why I seek to make a one-word change, and to substitute for the word "may" the word "must" in Clause 31(3) so as to require regard to be had to the code in deciding upon the reasonableness of the belief. That is a most modest change and one which would do no violence to the structure of the clause or of the Bill. Indeed, it would go some way to ensure at least the certainty that what is in the code will be had regard to in deciding upon the reasonableness of the belief of the data controller. I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General will, in a fit of characteristic generosity, feel able to accept my modest amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord suggests that instead of the courts having the option to have regard to the code, they should in every case be obliged to do so. We believe that the approach now followed in the clause as presently drafted is the better one. It gives the courts flexibility. As my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said in Committee, in response to a similar amendment—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Surely the term "to have regard to" gives quite sufficient flexibility.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords. If we say that the courts "must" have regard to it, then, in every case, they would be bound to look at the code and consider whether they should weigh it in the balance as regards the facts in the particular exercise of discretion.
1122
In Committee, in response to a similar amendment tabled in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said that compliance with codes will not always be relevant. It is only one factor among others that may need to be taken into consideration. Much will depend upon the circumstances. The position, for example, may be crystal clear without the need to consider compliance with a code. It is the Government's view that leaving the matter to the courts to decide is the right approach, and that the clause as it stands is satisfactory. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I do not understand the Minister's reply to the points that I have raised as regards meeting the problem. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, indicated in his intervention, there is nothing in my amendment to require the courts to do more than have regard to the code. That is a perfectly normal provision which is found in all Bills that have codes of practice. Indeed, it is normal to use the word "shall" or the word "may".
Where the code is relevant—and it is bound to be relevant if there is code of practice in the area—I do not understand why the citizen, the data controller and the media should not he in a position to be sure that the code will be had regard to. That would at least give some reassurance to citizens as to the standards which are to be applied. If the matter is left entirely discretionary, coupled with the vagueness of the primary legislation and the fact that we are wholly in the dark as to what the codes will contain, or whether in fact codes will be prescribed, we will still have the vice of legal uncertainty.
I have made my points, although they do not seem so far to have impressed the noble and learned Lord. Again, all I can say is that it will make a lot more work for lawyers, but I do not think that it will make good law. I very much hope that the matter will be further considered, together with what I said about press injunctions on the Human Rights Bill, which are the other side of the coin. Having got nowhere this afternoon on this Third Reading stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Information notices]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 24, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert—
("(b) reasonably requires any information for the purpose of determining whether the data controller has complied or is complying with the data protection principles,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 16. In Grand Committee the noble Lord, Lord Norton, expressed concern about the usefulness of the commissioner's power to issue information notices in what was then Clause 41. The noble Lord was concerned about two things: the right of appeal, which the notice attracted; and the fact that the commissioner had no power to seek a warrant while an

1123
appeal was before the tribunal. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said that we would look at the noble Lord's concerns.
On Report, the Government brought forward an amendment to deal with the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, about warrants. I made clear then that that amendment was an earnest of the Government's commitment to try to find other ways of making the information notice a more useful instrument for the commissioner, without making it unduly restrictive of data controllers' freedoms.
The present amendments are an attempt to do just that. They complement the government amendment made on Report, and complete the package of improvements to what is now Clause 42. Their effect is to broaden the second of the grounds on which the commissioner may issue an information notice. The amendments do not alter the first ground, which applies where the commissioner has received a request for her to make an assessment. The change is to the second ground. At present this allows the commissioner to issue an information notice where she has reasonable grounds for suspecting a breach of the data protection principles.
The Data Protection Registrar—who will, of course, in due time become the commissioner and need to exercise this power—strongly believes that those grounds are much too restrictive. She thinks that they offer the commissioner very limited opportunities to seek the information which she needs to carry out her functions under the Bill effectively. The registrar believes that the commissioner will need a wider information notice power if she is to be able to carry out those functions properly.
The Government have been rightly cautious in approaching the matter. The case for wide regulatory powers needs to be made. The powers must be consistent with and proportionate to the activity being regulated. The regulation of data protection is unlike most other types of regulation which, by and large, affect limited sectors. Data protection knows no sectoral boundaries: it applies to all organisations, in whatever sector, which use personal data. The case for rigorous scrutiny of the powers available to the commissioner is therefore particularly strong.
The Government have given very careful consideration to this matter in the light of the registrar's concerns. We believe that there is a case for giving the commissioner the wider powers to seek information which the registrar has identified. That is the purpose of the amendments. They allow the commissioner to issue an information notice where she reasonably requires information for the purpose of determining compliance or non-compliance by a data controller with the data protection principles.
The Government have not thought it right to go beyond this and change the grounds of appeal as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in Grand Committee. There is a need for checks and balances. With a wider power to compel information, the case for an appeal right becomes stronger rather than
1124
diminishing. We believe it necessary to retain the appeal arrangements as one of the necessary checks and balances.
Both in Grand Committee and on Report, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, sought to build a further balancing mechanism into the clause. He wanted to amend the clause to require the commissioner to seek the information she needs by informal means before being able to issue an information notice. We debated those amendments fully on the earlier occasions, and I do not want to rehearse further the arguments against the approach that he favoured.
However, I have had the benefit of some helpful comments from the Data Protection Registrar. She tells me that it has always been the practice of the registrar to seek good relations with data users and to try to achieve the resolution of problems by agreement. As data protection commissioner, she would expect to adopt the same approach to her use of the new information notice. She believes that this notice should be a valuable extra means of implementing data protection; but she expects that, in the typical case, there will, first, be an informal approach to seek co-operation and obtain information. I hope that that statement of the registrar's position reassures the noble Viscount and other Members of the House.
Clause 42 raises important issues. We have discussed them at some length both in this debate and on earlier occasions. The Government believe that the amendments they now propose, which have been drawn up in the light of that earlier debate, represent a necessary and important improvement to the Bill. I commend them to the House.
Before I sit down, I believe I said that I would also speak to Amendment No. 16. However, that amendment is tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, and has been grouped with the government amendments. I do not know whether the noble Baroness wishes to move her amendment in the light of what I have just said. I shall wait to see what she decides. In the meantime, I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I would not wish the Solicitor-General to believe that I had an obsession with Clause 28 and therefore I shall not move my amendment when we reach it.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for introducing government amendments that go a long way to address the concerns that we raised at earlier stages of the Bill.
Lord Norton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his kind words. This amendment goes a long way to redress the balance that the commissioner will need in order to enforce the regulations and codes of practice. The amendment completes the package. To replace

1125
"reasonable grounds" with "reasonably requires" goes a long way to redress that balance. I welcome the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 12 and 13:
Page 24, line 17, leave out ("the suspected contravention") and insert ("to compliance with the principles").
Page 24, line 24, leave out from ("Commissioner") to end of line 26 and insert ("regards the specified information as relevant for the purpose of determining whether the data controller has complied, or is complying, with the data protection principles and his reasons for regarding it as relevant for that purpose.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 50 [General duties of Commissioner]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 29, line 6, leave out from beginning to ("after") in line 8 and insert ("Where—

(a) the Secretary of State so directs by order, or

(b) the Commissioner considers it appropriate to do so, the Commissioner shall,").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 14, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15, 17 to 20, 24, 25 and 32 which are grouped with it. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 improve the drafting of Clause 50(3)(a). At present there is a slight ambiguity in the wording. It is not clear whether "he" in line 8 is the Secretary of State or the data protection commissioner. The amendments make clear that it is the latter. I await the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, on Amendment No. 17. I beg to move.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, Amendment No. 17 in my name, which is grouped with the amendment we are discussing, is simply a matter of good housekeeping. I move it on behalf of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, who apologises that, regrettably, he is unable to be present today. He pointed out on Report that Clause 65 contains a table cross-referencing the various expressions used in the Bill. With the acceptance of the Government's amendments at Report stage, the expression "data subject notice" was added to the face of the Bill without any corresponding reference being added to Clause 65. In the interests of tidiness and in a spirit of helpfulness I suggest it would be sensible that this is done. I have it in mind that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, indicated at least some sympathy with this proposition at Report stage. I hope that the Solicitor-General may be able to assist me.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords, I am afraid not. I understand why the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, has proposed this amendment on behalf of his noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, who, unfortunately, is unable to be here today. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, mentioned this point on Report in connection with the amendments to Clauses 9, 10 and 13 which the Government brought forward on that occasion.
1126
My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn promised to write to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about the matter, and he has done so.
When the same expression is used on several occasions to mean the same thing, it does, indeed, generally make sense to define it in one place and refer subsequently to that definition. This is the approach which is taken in this Bill. Clause 65 is a convenient index of those "defined expressions". But the term "data subject notice" is not a "defined expression". It is not used on several occasions to mean the same thing. As I have said, the term is used in three places in the Bill: in Clauses 9, 10 and 13. Each of those clauses confers a different right on the data subject; and each of them provides for the data subject to send a notice in writing to the data controller in the exercise of that right. These "data subject notices" do not mean the same thing, interchangeably, in each case. They are about different rights. They must contain different particulars. They are not, therefore, defined in the same way each time. There is no cross-reference outside the terms of each individual clause. So "data subject notice" is not a suitable candidate for the Clause 65 definition.
The use of the "data subject notice" in the three clauses in which it appears is no more than a narrative convenience in drafting terms. It saves a few cumbersome back-references. But it is actually quite important to distinguish between this and a "defined expression" with a particular general meaning. "Defined expressions" are useful devices but can be potential traps for the unwary. A check with Clause 65 will tell you whether any expression has a special meaning which may not be apparent from its immediate context. Clause 65 will tell you where to find that special meaning. It is important not to confuse that key function by including terms which do not properly fall within that category. I invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment in due course.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 29, line 12, at end insert—
("(3A) The Commissioner shall also—").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 65 [Index of defined expressions]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [The data protection principles]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 43, line 26, at end insert ("or by failing to give a notice under subsection (3) of that section").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. These amendments make technical provision consequential upon changes which were made to Clauses 9, 10 and 13 at Report stage. Changes to Clauses 9, 10 and 13 introduced a

1127
requirement for data controllers to respond in writing within 21 days to a data subject's notice of objection to processing under each of the clauses.
As the Bill stands, there is some provision for individuals to bring court action in respect of a data controller's failure to give the notices in question. But the changes were not carried through to the commissioner's enforcement powers. The present amendments remedy that. They make a failure by a data controller in each case to give the required notice a breach of the sixth data protection principle and therefore something in respect of which an enforcement notice can be issued by the commissioner.
I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24 which is grouped with the amendments I am discussing and which I did not discuss earlier. This amendment puts right an error. It is Section 159, and not Section 158, of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which should be referred to in the provisions which relate to the commissioner's finances.
I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 25 to 32 in this group. This group of amendments is intended to clarify elements of the transitional provisions which were added to the Bill on Report. They are technically very complex and I will not weary your Lordships with a detailed explanation. In essence they are tidying up a few loose ends in the relationship between registration under the Data Protection Act 1984 and notification under the Bill. They also clarify the provision for transitional relief from the preliminary assessment requirements of Clause 21. They make no changes to the policy which my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn explained to the House on Report. Their purpose is to give better effect to that policy. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
Page 43, line 28, at end insert ("by failing to give a notice under subsection (2) of that section, or").
Page 43, line 29, at end insert ("by failing to comply with a notice given under subsection (1) or (2)(b) of that section or by failing to give a notification under subsection (2)(a) of that section or a notice under subsection (3) of that section").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 44, line 18, leave out ("in force") and insert ("enforceable").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, throughout the passage of this Bill multinational companies, whether British or American, have expressed concern about the regulation of data transfers between the United Kingdom and the United States under this Bill. In accordance with the EC directive, the Bill requires that there be an adequate level of protection when personal data are transferred to countries outside the European Community. Although the United States regulates data privacy under a number of state and federal laws, there is no general federal data protection law comparable to those in the European Union.
In these circumstances the required level of protection will often depend, at least in part, on particular arrangements between data controllers in this country and the companies to which they transfer data, for example in the United States. Such arrangements may include provisions under which the US transferee is required to comply with codes of conduct or other statements of data protection rules consistent with those imposed on data controllers in this country.
This amendment provides that such arrangements will be given due consideration in determining whether an adequate level of protection is provided. The initial determination whether the level of protection is adequate will be made by the UK data controller, subject to scrutiny by the data protection commissioner.
I moved similar amendments at both Committee and Report stage. We have had an ongoing debate with the Government. The noble and learned Lord has listened carefully to our concerns and has helpfully allowed me to draft a new and more acceptable amendment in consultation with his officials at the Home Office. I am extremely grateful to him and to them for their help. I hope that this amendment will therefore find favour with the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, these amendments relate to the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Economic Area.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has explained the purpose of the amendments. Both in Committee and on Report he brought forward amendments to this same broad effect. We said then that the Bill as drafted fully allowed for a finding of "adequacy" in the circumstances about which the noble Viscount was concerned. But we fully recognised the importance which the noble Viscount attached to the issue underlying his amendments. On Report my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn therefore said that the Government would look carefully at the points raised by the noble Viscount to see whether any useful clarification could be made.
I should perhaps remind your Lordships that the proposition is that contracts in appropriate cases should be capable of contributing to a finding of adequacy for the purposes of Schedule I. As my noble friend said at Report stage, we are happy to accept that proposition. We believe that the Bill as drafted already provides for that. But we have reflected on the noble Viscount's arguments as to the merits of further clarification. We have concluded that they are persuasive. I believe that the amendments he proposes would improve the Bill in the respects with which he is concerned and I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Viscount that the Government can accept them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 44, line 19, after ("territory") insert ("(whether generally or by arrangement in particular cases)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Conditions relevant for purposes of the first principle: processing of any personal data]:
Lord Norton Lord Norton moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 44, line 41, at end insert ("and has not withdrawn that consent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is a simple expansion on a right that has been implied in previous discussions. It relates to Clause 9, the right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress. If the data subject has given his consent, it has always been made clear that consent could be withdrawn, although it is by no means certain. My amendment is simple. It allows the data subject to withdraw that consent, and in that way have a right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this amendment arises, as the noble Lord said, out of our recent exchanges about the extent of the right to object to processing in Clause 9. But it raises questions about the giving of consent by data subjects, and the subsequent withdrawal of consent, which go wider than that.
When we looked at Clause 9 at Report stage, I was happy to confirm to the noble Lord the general rule that consent given under the first paragraph of Schedule 2 could he withdrawn at any time. That remains the case. I am not persuaded that putting it on the face of the Bill adds anything at all in this respect. If a data subject has withdrawn his consent then, as I say, from that point he cannot be taken to be giving his consent to the processing in question.
The issues of what properly constitutes consent and of when consent can be said to have been withdrawn are, as I may have observed to your Lordships before, matters of general law with which the courts are very used to dealing on a case by case basis. We think it preferable to rely on that general law rather than seek unnecessarily to prescribe special rules for the purposes of the Bill, which might well have a confusing effect. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Norton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [The Data Protection Commissioner and the Data Protection Tribunal]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 49, line 13, leave out ("158") and insert ("159").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Transitional relief]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No, 25:
Page 56, line 43, at end insert—
("Exemption from section 21
11A.—(1) During the first transitional period, all processing which was already under way immediately before 24th October 1998 is exempt from section 21.
(2) Where, on 24th October 2001, section 21 first applies to any processing which was already under way immediately before 24th October 1998, subsection (5) of that section shall have effect in relation to the processing with the omission of the words from "and either" onwards.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Schedule 12 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 26 to 32:
Page 62, line 26, leave out ("sub-paragraph (2)") and insert ("sub-paragraphs (3) and (3A)").
Page 62, line 30, leave out ("sections 16(1) and 21(5)") and insert ("section 16(1)").
Page 62, line 30, after second ("the") insert ("registration period or, if earlier, 24th October 2001.
(1A) In sub-paragraph (1) "the registration period" means the")
Page 62, line 42, at end insert—
("(3A) If a data controller gives a notification under section 17(1) at a time when he is exempt from section 16(1) by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), he shall cease to be so exempt.").
Page 63, leave out lines 1 to 10 and insert—
("(5) Notification regulations under Part Ill of this Act may make provision modifying the duty referred to in section 19(1) in its application to any person in respect of whom an entry in the register maintained under section 16 has been made under sub-paragraph (4).
(5B) If a person is exempt from section 16(1) by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), he is also exempt from section 21(5). except in relation to processing in respect of which he is obliged, under notification regulations made by virtue of section 19(1) or sub-paragraph (5), to give a notification to the Commissioner.").
Page 64, line 48, leave out (" 40") and insert ("41").
Page 65, line 3, leave out (" 40") and insert ("41").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to the amendments already. With the leave of the House, I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn very much regrets that he is unable to be here this afternoon to make his concluding remarks on the Bill. Pressing government business has taken him overseas. He has, however, asked me to convey his own personal thanks for and appreciation of the constructive and courteous way, with the exception of this afternoon, in which noble Lords in all parts of the House have contributed to the debates that we have had on this Bill.

1131
It falls to me therefore to offer the Government's valedictory remarks. I do so with a great deal of pleasure, since I have thoroughly enjoyed the debates which we have had both in Grand Committee and in this Chamber. Like my noble friend, I am deeply appreciative of the positive spirit in which the debates have taken place.
Although its subject matter is, to some, rather dull, this Bill is very important. It gives effect to this country's obligations under European Community law. It provides important rights for individuals. It affects the vast majority of organisations, big and small, throughout the country. It is broad in its scope, technical in its substance, and intricate in its detail. Those are all reasons why this Bill needs detailed and careful consideration. I believe that in its passage through this House it has been given the careful attention it deserves, save in respect of the amendment this afternoon.
In his opening remarks on Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn made clear that the Government would approach the Bill in a non-partisan way, and be very receptive to suggestions for improvement, provided that they were consistent with the Government's overall approach. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Government have indeed been open and responsive.
Important amendments, reflecting views expressed from all parts of the House, have been made to the Bill. There have been important changes to the provisions on individuals' rights in Part II; to the exemptions in Part IV and Schedule 7—although I recognise from our debate on Clause 28(4) there are clearly issues between us still on that.
As a result of the efforts made by this House, I believe that the Bill is now much improved. But I recognise that there are a number of points still outstanding, including Section 28(4).
A significant change made by this Bill is to introduce data protection controls over certain manual records. Defining which records are caught has proved to be very tricky. We have made some small changes in an attempt to clarify matters. But I know that some Members of the House still have reservations. This is an important definition and I certainly do not rule out the possibility that the Government might wish to return to it in another place.
I also regret that we have not been able to bring forward proposals for dealing with enforced subject access. As I said on Report, the issues are complex, and I am afraid that we still have not been able to resolve all the problems. Again, we shall come back to this at a later stage.
My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn also undertook on Report to deal in the Bill with the question of ethnic monitoring, in response to an amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. My noble friend said that he hoped we might be able to deal with the matter on Third Reading but stressed that time might be against us. I am afraid that that has proved to be the
1132
case. But I can assure the House that the Government will bring forward the necessary amendment in another place as soon as we can. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. (Lord Falconer of Thornton).
Viscount Astor: My Lords, on this side of the House we are extremely grateful for the way in which the noble and learned Lord and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, dealt with the Bill. They certainly listened to our arguments, considered them carefully and accepted a number of amendments, for which I am extremely grateful.
It was a rather complicated subject. I was supported by my noble friends Lord Northesk, Lord Skelmersdale, Lord Teviot and Lord Chelmsford. I think that we have improved the Bill. As the noble and learned Lord said, there are issues that will be considered in another place which we were unable to deal with. We shall have the opportunity to deal again with Clause 28. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that we shall do so in as constructive a manner as I hope we have dealt with the Bill as it passed through your Lordships' House.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General for this opportunity to wind up the Bill on its way to another place. I am particularly grateful to him and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for the way in which they have enabled me to discuss the matters I wished to raise with officials as well as with themselves.
I am grateful to the Home Office team led by Mr. Graham Sutton, to the Data Protection Registrar, Mrs. France, and her staff, particularly her deputy, Mr. Aldhouse, and to police Chief Constable Burrow and his colleague, John Black—all of whom the Ministers were comfortable that I should talk to in an attempt to improve the Bill.
I have been met, as indeed we all have, by an impressive range of official talent and expertise. That has been matched at least by the variety of expert opinion that noble Lords have brought to our debates on the Bill. They have been led, primus inter pares, by two Ministers who have addressed a Bill whose purpose was to harmonise the data protection principles and practices, often in opposition, of a number of different EU member states, and to reach a common position. I suggest that the Minister succeeded in reaching an uncommon position of shared political purpose, at least between his party and my own, and from time to time between all three main parties to improve the Bill and not to indulge in trench warfare. This is a Bill in which the devil is in the detail. Ministers are to be highly congratulated on enabling the passage of so complex a piece of legislation to go so smoothly and so well.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, perhaps I may take up a moment of your Lordships' time to thank the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General for providing us in this Bill with an index of defined expressions. I refer to Clause 65. This is a device of great value to the reader. It helps to make a long and complicated Bill so

1133
much more user friendly than it would otherwise be. As noble Lords will know, Clause 65 tells the reader at a glance whether a particular expression has a special meaning, and, if so, where that meaning is to be found. There is no need to grub around in order to find it.
Indexes of defined expressions were at one time uncommon, despite the assistance which they can render to the reader. Things have now changed. Indexes are becoming far more common in appropriate places. There are presently three Bills going through the other place, all of which contain an index of defined expressions: the Government of Wales Bill, which has 35 defined expressions; the Scotland Bill, with 44; and the school standards Bill, with 58.
There is a fourth Bill which has just left this House, the Competition Bill, which has 59 defined expressions but no index. However, at Third Reading the Minister stated that he intended to ask the draftsman to reconsider his previous advice that the Bill should not contain an index.
I venture to express the hope that every Bill will be considered on a case by case basis to decide whether an index of defined expressions will or will not make the Bill more user-friendly. I am grateful for the opportunity to ventilate once more this important aspect of helpful legislative drafting.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I wish to add a few words to what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman. Whether the inclusion of an index of defined expressions is a good or bad thing is a matter upon which not all draftsmen are agreed. Obviously, an index will not be needed in every case. I have certainly found that in long and complicated cases an index is an invaluable tool. I had a good deal of experience of long and complicated Bills when I sat as chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. Whatever else may be said about the matter, it seems to me that an index of defined expressions can do no harm.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I should like to add my expressions of gratitude for the most considerate and helpful way in which the Government Front Bench and their officials have dealt with the passage of the Bill through this House—even in the context of Clause 28. The matters with which we have attempted to get to grips in recent weeks are exceedingly technical and complex. Put simply, computers, let alone issues of data protection, are not everyone's cup of tea. I am conscious, too, that the urgency of enacting the Bill by the deadline of 24th October this year, taken with the multiplicity of other measures with which it is currently involved, has imposed the added constraint of an unenviable workload on the Home Office. Nonetheless, I am tempted to suggest that the co-operative approach that has been engendered in relation to this Bill is of considerable credit not only to all involved but to the House as a whole. I thank the noble and learned Lord, and in his absence the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and their officials for that.
Quite deliberately I chose not to pursue the concerns that I raised on Report via the mechanism of amendment at Third Reading. Aside from any other consideration,
1134
I am unconvinced that the Bill as it stands would respond well to any such attempt. However, my concerns remain, and perhaps I may take this opportunity to touch upon them.
Noble Lords will recall that, in the context of Clause 8 and the credit reference industry, I touched upon the apparent public policy shift away from the provisions of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act to a more rights-based regime, as espoused by this Bill and the Human Rights Bill. In this relatively narrow area, there remains a measure of concern that the Data Protection Tribunal enforcement notice, which has operated satisfactorily for a number of years and which—if I may borrow the words expressed to me recently by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie—exhibited the "wisdom of Solomon", may in some way be summarily superseded by the enactment of this Bill. While accepting absolutely that the noble and learned Lord cannot give any guarantees on the point, I nevertheless hope that he may be able to give some reassurance to the industry that there is no inevitability attached to that, and that there is some hope that the terms of the enforcement notice will persist for the time being.
Turning to Clause 10 and the concerns of the direct marketing industry with respect to opt-out tick boxes, perhaps I may, with the leave of the House, read out the text of a commitment that I have received from the Direct Marketing Association. I believe that the noble and learned Lord has also had sight of a copy. It states:
"The DMA undertakes to provide in its Code of Practice that any written notice by a data subject under Section 10(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998, other than a notice using or forming part of transactional or other commercial documentation, must be acknowledged by the data controller in writing to the data subject as soon as is reasonably practicable.
"In the case of a notice using or forming part of transactional or other commercial documentation, the data controller must take such steps to comply with the requirement under Section 10(1) as he considers appropriate to ensure that no such further processing for the purposes of direct marketing in respect of that data subject is undertaken by the data controller subsequent to the completion of the commercial arrangements, eg: fulfilment of order, to which the documentation relates.
"The DMA also undertakes to use its very best endeavours to persuade other organisations operating relevant Codes of Practice, eg: the Committee of Advertising Practice re the British Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion, to include similar provisions".
I very much hope that, in the light of that, the noble and learned Lord, while giving no guarantees as to the outcome, might be prepared to concede that this is an issue to which the Government will be prepared to give further consideration as the Bill makes its way through another place.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I wish to add my thanks. The Bill's passage has been a very happy experience. I originally wrote, "pleasant and useful"—which I repeat.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, suggested, following Report, that I met with his officials and should include anybody that I liked to bring along to a meeting. That meeting took place and was on the whole very satisfactory. If I did not get a green light on one point, I certainly had an amber one. My concern remains, but as a result of the meeting I hope it will be possible in

1135
another place to devise a form of words which will allow, for example, a solicitor to continue to seek beneficiaries of wills by searching through many kinds of records which contain personal data. There are plenty of other examples which I shall not go into now.
In addition, I hope that the Secretary of State will soon issue an order, as is provided under Schedule 3 to the Bill, endorsing the safeguards which record offices habitually impose on personal material. Such an order would help to reassure depositors of their right to go on depositing non-public records in record offices. It would authorise the latter to process new insertions of such material, all of which are tightly hedged by the Bill.
Finally, I should emphasise that no attempt is being made to seek new powers. Archivists and record users are simply trying to preserve long established practices which are incidentally affected by the Bill. I thank the Minister and also the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General for their earlier assurances that such was not their intention. I am optimistic that they and their officials will be able to overcome the remaining problems.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think this is neither the time nor the place to embark on the debate again. Perhaps I may make two points, the first on the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, about the concerns of the direct marketing sector and the changes to be made to Clause 10. If I understand him correctly, the concern is that the requirement for controllers to respond to every written notice they receive is simply unworkable in respect of "tick-boxes" and similar notices, and it may well work against the interests of the data subjects. The noble Earl quoted the text of an undertaking which the Direct Marketing Association would be prepared to make, were the statutory requirement to be reconsidered.
During the passage of the Bill we have not been shy to acknowledge that we may not always have got everything absolutely right the first time, or even the second time. We have been very willing to respond positively to the legitimate anxieties of those affected by the Bill. The amendment which the Government proposed to Clause 11 earlier this afternoon is an example.
I have taken careful note of the points about direct marketing made by the noble Earl. We shall look very carefully, in consultation with the representatives of the direct marketing sector, at their proposal for dealing with the matter in question by means of a code of practice. Our minds are certainly not closed and if we feel that improvements can be made, we shall return to the matter in another place.
As regards the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, I am glad that he found that the meeting with the Home Office officials helped clarify a number of matters. As he said, one or two points are still outstanding. We are looking carefully at them and will get back to those whom he represents about them as soon as we can.
1136
I wish to make two final points. First, perhaps I may echo the sentiments expressed on all sides of the House about the quality of the official team led by Mr. Graham Sutton. They made a real contribution towards making the Bill as good as it is. I also wish to say how grateful my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn and I have been for the positive and helpful way in which all the debates have been conducted. We are particularly grateful to the noble Viscount. Lord Astor, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, for the constructive spirit in which they have approached the Bill from the Front Benches opposite. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
5.32 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Meaning of "the Treaties" and "the Community Treaties".]
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, moves his amendment, I should mention that there are no copies available in the Printed Paper Office of the Amsterdam Treaty. It is very difficult to follow the Bill without it. I had temporarily to borrow a copy but I hope that more will made available before long.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may add to what my noble friend Lord Renton said. I believe that he will find in the Printed Paper Office an excellent publication called: The Treaty of Amsterdam in Perspective. It is from the British Management Data Foundation. Although it is not the document to which my noble friend referred, it is an extremely useful version and it has the great advantage of having the original Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act amalgamated into one column. Then across the page, there is the Maastricht Treaty in the next column and in the final column the amendments made at Amsterdam which we are now considering. In my view, it is the only publication in which one can follow the relentless march of European integration. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Renton: I believe that it is essential that we should have the principal document in front of us.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
("() Article I, other than paragraph 11 (Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters)),").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4, standing in my name, has been grouped with a number of other amendments which I shall not read out. The groupings on the Bill have been difficult, but, as I have already said, the amendment I am moving has been grouped with other amendments and new clauses to enable the Committee to have a full and structured debate on justice and home affairs. It would have been more convenient if we could have discussed the subject in four distinct sections: police and judicial co-operation, extension of the European Court of Justice jurisdiction, harmonisation of judicial procedures and Europol. That cannot be done formally through the groupings.
However, due to the good offices of the usual channels, official and unofficial, and the good work of the clerks in the Chief Whips' Office and the Public Bill Office, the groupings have been set out in a way which makes the Bill more understandable and will make our proceedings easier to follow. I am extremely grateful, as the Committee must be, to all those who have been involved in what I believe is quite a unique occasion for groupings.
The implications of this part of the Amsterdam Treaty are wide and serious. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that one needs the document. I am surprised that it is not available in the Printed Paper Office and I hope that it will soon be there.
Amendment No. 4 deals specifically with provisions on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. That is under revised Title VI, a new title which has been created because free movement of persons, asylum and immigration, have been transferred to Community competence under a new Title IV which will be discussed in later amendments. The new Title VI,while retaining its inter-governmental character, would, as I understand it, move closer to Community arrangements. Indeed, Article 29 states that member states will cease to be key players. Perhaps I may read paragraph I of Article 29:
"Without prejudice to the powers of the European Community, the Union's objective shall be to provide citizens with a high level of safety within an area of freedom, security and justice by developing common action among the Member States in the fields of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and by preventing and combating racism and xenophobia".
It is absolutely clear that the European Union believes that it is a Community competence. Indeed, when one goes through the list of where co-operation is to take place, it is very long. I am afraid I shall have to read it. First, racism and xenophobia; terrorism; organised and other crime; trafficking in persons; offences against children: illicit drug trafficking; illicit arms trafficking; corruption and fraud. That list covers virtually everything—all crime, organised or otherwise, small time and large scale, as well as specifically listed crimes
1138
which presumably are of a different order of heinousness, if I can put it that way, since they are mentioned separately in the treaty.
Indeed, a new and separate offence is being eased into British law by this Amsterdam back-door. It is called "racism and xenophobia". That is a dangerous importation into our law. For example, noble Lords present here today may have heard people like me being described—because we take a different view of the European venture (or perhaps I should say "adventure")—as "xenophobes". That is extremely dangerous. All we may have done is criticise some aspects of the European Union. Is it to be a crime to say that one does not like the way the Germans do things? Are some of the remarks that the French make about the British or anybody else to become criminal? It seems to me that it is an unreconcilable importation.
I am surprised that our great British press has not picked up on that point. As it is developed—as it surely will be—the press will have to be extremely careful in what it says. There will be no more headlines, "Up yours, Delors", in the Sun. It may well be caught under this section of the Amsterdam Treaty.
Freedom of speech is under constant threat. We know that, and this new offence-in-waiting will constitute a new restriction which will go wider than the proper curtailment of the right verbally to abuse people of different ethnic origin or to incite violence against them, and we should be extremely careful about this item being imported into our law without Parliament being aware of what is happening.
We should be told exactly what the co-operation between the police and other enforcement authorities means. What will it involve? What are the limits of competence? What restrictions will there be on such co-operation, and what is the supervision and control method to be used to ensure that police forces and other enforcement authorities do not overstep the mark and indeed operate against the laws of individual nations?
New Article 30 provides for this enlargement of police co-operation to take place on a wide basis and will allow Europol a greatly enhanced role in the investigation of crime and joint operational action across national boundaries. There is no question in my mind that what is proposed is an embryo European FBI. If anybody doubts that, let me quote from an article in the European Journal by Mr. Torquil Dick-Erikson who said,
"In the February 1997 issue of The European Journal, I reported on an article by Helmut Kohl in an Italian newspaper, in which he stated that the way to build the European currency … was, first of all, the configuration of Europol into becoming a European Police Bureau with operational competences".
Does anybody wonder why people are worried? I know that I shall be told that I am worrying unduly, but we must listen to what people say; we must read what they say and, when we have read what they have said, we must believe that they mean it. When Herr Kohl talked about Europe and operational competence he meant what he said.
The European bureau of investigation will be operating outside the control of Parliament. Parliament will have no say in what is happening. Indeed, it may

1139
be outside the control of the Government themselves; we do not know because we are not told. Will those activities of Europol and other organisations be subject to judicial review? If those involved in it do anything wrong such as beating people up, will it be possible for the Police Complaints Authority to investigate them? Those are subjects which are important and questions which must be answered.
New Article 31 deals with judicial co-operation in criminal matters involving issues under five separate headings. It will be interesting to see what they are and have them on the record. Article 31 says:

"(a) facilitating and accelerating cooperation between competent ministries and judicial or equivalent authorities of the Member States in relation to proceedings and the enforcement of decisions;

(b) facilitating extradition between Member States;

(c) ensuring compatibility in rules applicable in the Member States, as may be necessary to improve such cooperation;

(d) preventing conflicts of jurisdiction between Member States;

(e) progressively adopting measures establishing minimum rules relating to the constituent elements of criminal acts and to penalise in the fields of organised crime, terrorism and illicit drug trafficking".

That is quite a list and we are entitled to a full explanation of what it means and to what extent our own laws and judicial proceedings will have to be changed. We are not told. Indeed, we do not know whether our whole system of justice is being gradually undermined to be replaced by a continental co-ordinated system of law. For example, paragraph (c) says,
"ensuring compatibility in the rules applicable in the Member States".
What does that mean? Paragraph (d) talks of,
"preventing conflicts in jurisdiction between Member States".
That could go extremely wide. Let us hear what it actually means. What does "adopting common minimum rules and penalties" mean? It is going to be extremely difficult to co-ordinate or adopt common minimum rules or penalties without altering great rafts of our statute law. Indeed, where does the common law come in all that?
Those are important and vital matters which need to be explained. How will extradition work? Last week we heard the decision of the Home Secretary not to extradite Ms. McAliskey. Will it be possible, under the co-operation rules, for him to take what many felt was a political decision not to extradite a specific person to Germany or any other country where a crime is said to have been committed? We need to know all these things. These are matters of huge importance to the British people yet they were bulldozed—I use that word advisedly—through the House of Commons on a guillotine.
Lest people should think I am exaggerating the dangers, let me refer them to new Article 32, which states:
"The Council shall lay down the conditions and limitations under which the competent authorities referred to in Articles 30 and 31 may operate in the territory of another Member State in liaison and in agreement with the authorities of that State".
Again, there is no sense in which Parliament will be involved; it is government which will be involved. Although this is under the co-operation pillar rather than under the Community pillar, these things have a habit of growing and growing and eventually resulting in the complete and utter sidelining of Parliament. So it is not national governments, let alone national parliaments, which will decide the limitations of these police and judicial matters and the conditions and limitations under which the competent authorities, including the police, can operate in this country; it is the European Council. This European Conglomerate and not the British Government will be deciding what can and cannot be done.
It will, as I have emphasised, be able to act without Parliament's knowledge or approval. Indeed, my worry about this whole title is that police and judicial matters are being removed from any kind of real democratic control. Article 36 will set up a co-ordinating committee of senior officials to advise on police and judicial matters. I should like to ask my noble friend this question. Will this be a kind of European Association of Chief Police Officers? I should like a reply to that question because many people, including myself, are suspicious of the activities of the Association of Chief Police Officers in this country and would be even more suspicious of such an organisation on a European scale. And of course the Commission is to be associated with this title, as it is with everything else.
I really am extremely concerned about the way power is slipping away from representative bodies like Parliament. That is why I was extremely worried that the Minister without Portfolio, Mr. Mandelson, threw some doubt on the future of representative democracy. I have to tell the Committee that I have grown up with representative democracy, which has served us well over a long period of time, and I sincerely hope that it will not be undermined by the provisions of this treaty.
I hope other noble Lords will deal in depth with the extension of ECJ jurisdiction, which is dealt with under new Article 35. Indeed, it has been held by some that Article 35.6 will have the effect of completely undermining the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
Finally, there is new Article 39, which gives the European Parliament a role in this new title, Title 6. It does not give this Parliament any role but it gives the European Parliament a role. That is why I am very concerned that once again we are having through this treaty creeping competence and that this title will be eventually absorbed into the European Community complete with qualified majority voting on important and vital matters of our people's freedom.
New Clauses 48, 49, 52, 53 and 54 attempt to give our own Parliament a role under this section of the Amsterdam Treaty, but I shall leave it to other noble Lords to elaborate on that aspect. This new title is a dangerous and unwarranted extension of European Union competence and impinges on the United Kingdom's standing as an independent self-governing nation as well as introducing new concepts to our law and giving foreign police forces the power to operate in

1141
Her Majesty's realm without the knowledge or consent of her Parliament. I ask your Lordships to support the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I warmly support the amendment. We have to be very careful indeed. The treaty proposes, without defining them well, various steps which are steps in the direction of integration within the European Union. The articles to which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has referred are somewhat vaguely worded. Perhaps that it is the intention, but we should be very careful about where they may lead.
One could make a rather long speech analysing the matter. I cannot do so because I do not have a copy of the treaty. I had to borrow one from the noble Lord opposite. I am grateful to him for that. The points that we have to bear in mind in particular are these. First, I refer to co-operation between the police forces of the various territories within the European Union. We already have Interpol, which has done great work for many years and has intensified its work in Europe since we joined the Community. I do not know of any particular reason why the present arrangements, which are helped by modern apparatus of various kinds, need to he intensified constitutionally. If they are to be, we should be told in what way it should be done. But I do not see the need for it.
As for judicial co-operation, we must bear in mind that the Union at the moment consists of 15 different countries with 11 different languages and at least half-a-dozen types of legal system. We know from our own experience within the United Kingdom that if one has different legal systems one must have separate judicial systems. For example, under the Act of Union Scotland kept its own judicial system and still has it; and woe betide us if we in England and Wales try to interfere with the Scottish judicial system. The courts in England and Wales and in Scotland have always been very careful and circumspect about not trying to interfere with each other's methods of reaching judicial conclusions. So when we find that there is to be co-operation between judicial systems we need to bear in mind that there are different systems of law which need different judicial systems, and we must not thrust one upon another. It is clear from the articles which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggests should be left out that there is a danger of that happening.
Perhaps I may go into one piece of detail which is very significant. I took a careful note of it when I had the treaty in front of me. I refer to Article 11, Title VI. There is also something described as an article, but it should be a kind of sub-article; namely, K.6 paragraph 2(b). I shall leave out any irrelevant words. The words that matter are these, "The Council"—that is the Council in Strasbourg, which is an administrative body,
"may adopt … decisions for the purpose of approximation of the laws and regulations of Member States".
I shall repeat that:
"may adopt … decisions for the purpose of approximation of the laws and regulations of Member States".
What does that imply? What would happen as a result of that?
1142
Under the original Treaty of Rome the six members who signed it said that they should assimilate their laws, but before we entered we said that we could not possibly accept assimilation with all the laws of the six countries which have entirely different systems from ours. Theirs was based on Roman law. Perhaps the Scots would have found it a little easier, but we really could not assimilate our laws. So the Treaty of Rome was amended under the treaty by which we joined. Assimilation was replaced by harmonisation.
Now there is a duty to harmonise the laws of 15 different countries, with 11 different languages and half-a-dozen different types of legal systems. The lawyers in the Commission have found that an almost impossible task. In the autumn of 1995 I attended the conference of the European Law Association, which is not confined to lawyers of the European Union, but includes others from other European states as well. The then head of the legal department of the European Commission, Herr Rolf Wegenbauer, who is a very able German lawyer and who, by the way, spoke beautiful English, said that the task had become impossible and that there needed to be fewer and better laws within the European Union.
Is the adoption of decisions for the purpose of approximation of the laws and regulations of the member states going to lead to fewer and better laws or to more laws and more confusing laws? We are getting into a terrible state. I do not understand the situation in our Foreign Office and with those Ministers who have responsibility. I suppose that they are pushed along so far and so fast with all the problems that arise, that somehow or other their minds have not been applied to the practicality of harmonisation. Now we have this further factor of approximation.
We need to be very cautious indeed about this. I hope that the Government will take on board the things that have been said by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the comments of other noble Lords who I hope will support him in the debate on this amendment.
Before I conclude, I wish to welcome the information that has been put before us. I have been in the House nearly 20 years, but I do not know what this splendid piece of paper is called. It lists the grouping of amendments. For the first time it shows what the groupings refer to. Under the title, "Justice & home affairs" there are listed all the amendments which the noble Lord is asking to be taken into account in moving Amendment No. 4. The list then sets out, "Police & Judicial Co-operation". But I must point out that when we come to Amendment No. 52 we are warned that we shall be dealing with "Harmonisation of Judicial Procedures". How on earth are we going to do that throughout the European Union?
6 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: When we come to consider these amendments it is very important to do so in their proper context. I remind the Committee that Article 6 of the Treaty of European Union, as amended in Amsterdam, provides that the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human

1143
rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, which are principles common to the member states. The same article goes on to oblige the Union, which includes the institutions in Brussels to respect fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the member states as general principles of Community law. So one sees at the very outset that this is a union which is founded on respect for human rights, liberty, democracy, the rule of law and the over-arching European Convention on Human Rights.
I mention that because it is something to which all the national courts, parliaments and governments are and must be committed. It is something which the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg must take into account in protecting the rights of the citizens of Europe against the misuse of power.
It is made clear that the principle of subsidiarity is to apply and that power is not to be exercised at any greater level than is necessary to secure good government. When one turns to the provisions to which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has drawn attention, under Title VI: namely.
"on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters",
I suggest that they are serving a very important practical purpose. Criminality transcends national frontiers. To combat criminal wrongdoing and to deal with matters such as extradition and problems of conflict of jurisdiction between members states, requires trans-national rules and principles. One of the important purposes of Title VI is to provide a workable framework within which the national authorities are able to co-operate on judicial and other levels.
Therefore, it seems to me to be in the national interest of this country, as of the other member states, that there should be common action on police co-operation and judicial co-operation. I have not understood anything in the speech made by the noble Lord to suggest that common action and common co-operation are not necessary.
As regards the European Court of Justice, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, will remember, I am sure, that he, like me, had the privilege of serving on the IGC Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Tordoff. After sitting for many months taking evidence, we came to the unanimous conclusion, to which the noble Lord was party, that a strong and independent court of justice is an essential part of the structure of the European Union. We went on to say that we agreed with those witnesses who stressed the important role of the court in the consolidation of democratic structures and upholding the rule of law in the European Community. We rebutted the criticisms of judicial activism that had been made of the Luxembourg court, pointing out that we found, on the evidence, those criticisms to be wholly unfounded.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Will the noble Lord give way? I believe that when we discussed this matter, I put in my reservation that since I did not believe at all in
1144
the European Union, I did not believe that the European Court of Justice should have any jurisdiction in this country.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am not dealing with the individual reservations of any particular noble Lord, but with the unanimous conclusion that was reached by the committee, having taken evidence that the European Court of Justice had done a good job, had not usurped its powers, had acted within its jurisdiction and was vital to the maintenance of the European rule of law. One cannot have European co-operation—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble Lord said that there was a unanimous decision but my recollection is that no vote was taken, and it was therefore nem. con.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Very well, I accept that the noble Lord may have had his reservations, but the point that I am making is not to pin liability on the noble Lord with regard to inconsistency—a great philosopher once said that consistency was simply the mark of narrow mindedness, so I do not criticise the noble Lord in any way for any inconsistency—my point is simply that we sat for months, heard evidence and came to the conclusion that the criticisms levelled at the door of the European Court of Justice were ill founded. That was the report that we gave to the House.
I do not see how one can have transnational co-operation, whether under the third pillar or the first pillar, in police and criminal matters (with judges and members of the police service) without the safeguards needed by the judiciary—both the national judiciary and the European judiciary. What is admirable about the scheme in the treaty is that for the first time it incorporates standards of human rights, gives the power and the duty to the courts (the national courts and the European Court) to safeguard those rights, and ensures the necessary co-operation across frontiers by police services and judges in combating serious crime and in promoting decent principles of expedition and the like. For those reasons, it seems to me, with the greatest of respect, that the real objection (which is the basis of these amendments) is not to a particular form of the treaty but to the European Union itself. That is why I am firmly opposed to this amendment and to anything like it.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he not agree that one problem is that not everybody agrees about what constitutes fundamental freedoms, which is essentially a vague concept? Indeed, not everybody would agree on a precise definition of "democracy". There are those on the continent and, indeed, in this country, as the noble Lord well knows, who do not believe that the first-past-the-post system is democratic. Might we not find proportional representation of some sort foisted on us by the European Court as a result of this treaty?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I agree, of course, that slavish uniformity is to be deplored and that each society is entitled to maintain its own legal system,

1145
values and democratic traditions. They are part of the common heritage that we share with other members states. Nothing in the treaty requires slavish uniformity. It insists upon subsidiarity. It respects legal and other traditions, but it lays down common principles and a common framework within which one can operate. There is ample scope for diversity, provided that the basic principles are observed. However, if we are to look beyond the frontiers of this country and co-operate with our neighbours, we need a transnational system which respects subsidiarity and diversity while maintaining the essential principles of European society as a whole in the interests of us and our fellow citizens.
Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord in this way: we are called citizens of Europe as well as citizens of this country. We are all entitled to equal protection of the basic rights guaranteed by, for example, the human rights convention whether we are in this country or any other member state. The bodies that must guarantee those rights are all three branches of government in this country and those across Europe.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My name has been put to several amendments in this large group, so I rise to support them. If passed, their general effect would be to spare this country from Title VI or the new Articles 29 to 42 of the treaty, which are largely new provisions governing police and judicial co-operation on criminal matters, as so excellently exposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
It is hard to read these clauses and not appreciate how far and how fast the European Union is moving to full judicial and political integration. These articles seem light years away from the referendum campaign of 1975, when we were assured that we were voting on whether or not we wanted to stay in the Common Market and that no conceivable loss of our national sovereignty was at stake. It is not hard to imagine the effect on the British people if these articles had been put in front of them at that time with the warning that they were just around the corner.
The same effect on the British people would have been achieved if the Maastricht Treaty had been put in front of them, but, alas, we are no longer debating that treaty now. The European "salami slicer" (to use the famous description coined by my noble friend Lord Tebbit) has moved on—and what juicy slices of our national sovereignty continue to fall from its relentless blade with this Treaty of Amsterdam! Of course, as usual, the Euro-language in which it is couched remains opaque to the point of obfuscation, but we only have to look back to see where we thought we were at the various stages of our weary European journey to know now that the signposts painted and erected by our politicians—of both main parties—were always misleading. We should now know that all roads, in the end, lead to the ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe, as clearly set out in Article 1 of the treaty, whatever contrary gloss our politicians of the day may contrive to put on the clauses concerned. So it is with these articles and so, no doubt, it will be with the present Government's answers this evening.
1146
If the Minister does not agree with me, can he show me how these articles and the rest of the amendments agreed at Amsterdam do not contribute to that ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe? Indeed, can he give me any example where amendments to the Treaty of Rome do not take us towards political union? When do they ever go in the opposite direction? If the Minister is good enough to attempt to reply to this question this evening, I hope that he will not say, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, implied, that subsidiarity has done anything to preserve our national independence because clearly it has not, as we shall see when we come to its place on the Marshalled List. The trouble with subsidiarity always was, and still is, that it refers to areas which do not fall within the exclusive competence of the Community, and it is the Community which takes the decision as to which those areas are.
It is against that depressing background that I enter the detail of some of these clauses and put a few questions to the Minister. First, let us look at the first paragraph of Article 29, where we see that the Union's objective—always remembering, alas, that we form part of that Union—is now, among other things, to prevent and combat racism and xenophobia. I gather that the earlier drafts of the clause placed racism and xenophobia in the criminal category, to be dealt with by the proposed vastly expanded Euro-police force. But in the end those sins got let off criminality and are now merely to be prevented and combated. So, may I ask the Minister exactly how we are to combat xenophobia, and what the penalties will be for its perpetration?
I think I understand the crime of racism, which I am sufficiently mundane to see quite simply as a breach of our own race relations legislation—and quite right too. But xenophobia may be more interesting. Can the Minister tell me exactly what xenophobia is? As the European superstate continues to gather substance and, in effect, pretends to its own bogus nationality, my worry is that it will come to regard those of us who wish instead to see a Europe of democratic nations freely trading together as xenophobic.
If I dare to look forward to the day when we have a Europe of nations without a European Parliament, Commission, Council of Ministers or European Court of Justice—if, in short, I see the Treaty of Rome as a colossal mistake for the peoples of Europe, whom I love—does that make me, or might it make me, a xenophobe? If so, what penalty may be in store for me? I urge noble Lords not to dismiss my dream as entirely fanciful.
The ill-fated project of European economic and monetary union, when it collapses, may well have an unravelling effect on the Treaty of Rome. The European Union's unattainable ambitions towards enlargement, when they fall into disarray, as they surely will, may compound this effect. In those circumstances, a very large number of the people of Europe may then stand back and take an objective look at the bloated and misguided bureaucracies in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg. They may ask themselves: what on earth is the point of them all? If I and others reply that there is not any point at all and that the concept of the Treaty of Rome became redundant when the Berlin Wall came

1147
down and when the economies of Europe drowned themselves in their own red tape, will we be in breach of Article 29? I look forward with interest to the reply of the Minister.
My second question is perhaps easier. In Article 29 the European Union bravely sets out to combat fraud, which appears to be making off with about 10 per cent. of its budget each year. I ask the Minister what importance is at present attached in Brussels to the several excellent reports on fraud in the Community by your Lordships' Select Committee. Is there any sign of acceptance of your Lordships' concept of truly independent auditing and reporting of public expenditure on the British model, perhaps with auditors supplied by the donor countries? I put it to the Minister that the British presidency should give us a good opportunity to push these suggestions to a fruitful conclusions; or will the Minister tell us that there is still not the will in Brussels to cut this huge cancer out of the decaying European body politic?
Incidentally, I have to remind the Minister that your Lordships' Select Committee did not attach much priority to a souped-up Euro police force in the fight against fraud, but I fear that it will have become part of the justification for what is now proposed. Furthermore, it is hard to see why all the plans put forward by these clauses could not be achieved by intergovernmental co-operation instead of by expansion of the Treaty of Rome. Here I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
Thirdly, can the Minister explain what Section 4 of Article 34 means? The Minister will remember one of the questions put to him by my noble friend Lord Renton, with which I associate myself. I ask the question because Section 2 of that article seems to imply that, acting unanimously, the Council may—the word "may" may be significant—do certain important things such as adopt binding framework decisions for the purpose of approximation of the laws and regulations of the member states, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out. But Section 4 says that for procedural questions the Council shall act by a majority of its members; in other words, no longer by unanimity. I would have thought that most of the objects of Article 34 could be described as procedural questions. It would be good to hear the Minister confirm that unanimity and therefore our veto really do apply to all the plans emerging in Article 34.
Finally, can the Minister say anything about the Corpus Juris which I understand is the Commission's detailed but as yet unpublished plan for a single inquisitional system of criminal justice throughout Europe? Apparently, this plan was revealed to a selected audience in San Sebastian in Spain in April 1997, with its first phase covering only crimes against the EU budget. But the President of the European Parliament has said since that the intention subsequently is to extend it to all areas of criminal activity. If that were to happen it would sweep away our system of common law, habeas corpus and trial by jury. Can the Minister bring us up to date with this plan? Can he also assure
1148
us that it will never be the outcome of these articles which these amendments so prudently seek to remove from the treaty?
I fear that the Minister will in good faith give us just those assurances. But, seeing the way the salami-slicer has gone on slicing over the years and seeing it run smoothly through these articles, I trust the Minister will understand if some of us are unable to believe him and wish to support these amendments.
Lord Moynihan: I preface my opening remarks on this amendment by saying that, although there is no doubt that the measures contained in Title VI address issues of high domestic political sensitivity, including the operations of police and customs authorities and the criminal justice system, the Official Opposition are supportive of some of the general principles behind this part of the treaty which concern police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. My right honourable friend the former Home Secretary, Michael Howard, had a significant hand in the genesis of some of these measures a number of years ago.
We on these Benches support any reasonable measure that is intended to search out, combat and remove the malignancy of international and organised crime. One of the great challenges that we face today is the fight against terrorism, organised crime, drugs and arms trafficking and illegal immigration. These activities respect no national boundaries, border controls and checks or customs laws. If they are to be effectively addressed it must be done on a multinational basis. Over the past five years we have seen greatly increased co-operation between the law enforcement agencies of member states thanks to number of specific agreements. The convention establishing Europol is one example. Europol was set up to provide a sophisticated facility for exchange and analysis of criminal intelligence. The Customs Information System Convention is another example by which a pooled database of anti-trafficking intelligence has been set up to make it harder for criminals to exploit differences in the legal systems of member states.
While I am in agreement with my noble friend and a number of noble Lords who have spoken so far this evening, in particular my noble friend Lord Renton, there cannot be and should not be any question of supra-national solutions being imposed on member states in these areas—hence the third pillar originally introduced by Title VI of the Maastricht Treaty, which is subject to unanimity, where member states co-operate on an intergovernmental basis within a single institutional framework. Under this title the role of the Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice was strictly limited.
The creation of a new Community title that we are considering this evening for the free moment of persons, asylum and immigration, as I have described, has necessitated this debate because it constitutes a major overhaul of the justice and home affairs pillar. Four of the areas dealt with under that title will be transferred to the new title and therefore to Community competence. Although this pillar retains its intergovernmental character, it is of great concern that it moves closer to

1149
Community arrangements and that the difference between the pillars is slowly but surely, and ever more, significantly being eroded. Such changes in the nature of the third pillar involving a much greater role for Community institutions raises real difficulties of principle.
That is why I have tabled Amendment No. 8 to highlight my main concerns on Article K.7, which is new Article 35 of the Treaty of the European Union. That explicitly involves the European Court of Justice in the third pillar, undermining the valuable intergovernmental structure agreed at Maastricht and Article K.2, which empowers Europol personnel to join national policing operations in a support capacity. Potentially that could represent a step in the direction of a European police force in a country which, as my noble friend has pointed out, does not even have a British police force but a number of regional ones.
I turn, first, to the important question of the ECJ. I have tabled new Clause 44, which provides for delay to the Bill's enactment until the Attorney-General is able to give specific legal advice on the extent to which provisions in Title VI of the treaty of the EU on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters extend the jurisdiction of the European Court, to highlight our concerns about the extension of the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
The new clause provides also for a report based on the Attorney-General's advice, which will be laid before, and, indeed, approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. I have already raised the concern that the Amsterdam Treaty does much to undermine the pillared structure agreed at Maastricht as Article K.7 explicitly involves the ECJ in the justice and home affairs, or third, pillar. I shall not repeat the arguments that I have used in defence of the valuable distinction achieved between super-national and intergovernmental sections. Suffice it to say that Article K.7 encroaches upon the intergovernmental structure agreed at Maastricht under which the question of the jurisdiction of the ECJ was to be left open.
As I understand it, Article K.7 provides for the ECJ to have jurisdiction; to give preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation of decisions and on the interpretation of the conventions established under Title VI on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters and on the validity and interpretation of the measures implementing them. Those will apply to each member state only if and when that state has accepted the jurisdiction of the ECJ and has made a formal declaration to that effect.
In making such a declaration of acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction, the member state must specify that it applies to courts or tribunals where in that country there is no further judicial appeal and where such a court, in coming to its judgment, considers that it needs the ECJ's ruling, or that it applies to all courts which invite the ECJ's ruling in that way.
Although the ECJ does not have jurisdiction to review police operations, nor does it have jurisdiction over the action of member states in the maintenance of their law and order systems and in the safeguarding of internal
1150
security, it will have jurisdiction over the legality of member states' actions or decisions on grounds such as lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the treaty or of any ruling of law relating to its application, and the misuse of powers. It also has jurisdiction to rule on a dispute between member states if such a dispute is not settled within the Council within six months and to rule on a dispute between member states and the European Commission.
The changes that I have described represent a significant extension of the ECJ's jurisdiction. In another place the Government have described such extensions as modest. I should welcome the Minister's comments on the criticism that the modesty of this measure will depend upon the extent to which conventions, rather than framework decisions, are used in the future and the extent to which member states are willing to opt in to ECJ competence in framework decisions.
Furthermore, in the area of police and judicial co-operation I should like to establish who is the final arbiter in any dispute over the interpretation of that area of the treaty. According to Article K.7, it appears that the ECJ's decisions will now override those of the Home Secretary and the British courts. Will the Minister give details of the extension of the Court's jurisdiction, and will he say how they will affect our law, both civil and criminal?
Lord Renton: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me: his argument would be strengthened immensely if one were to bear in mind that for years the ECJ has had to incur great delay in making its decisions because of the volume of work put upon it. With the large increase in its jurisdiction which is now proposed, the delays will be even greater.
Lord Moynihan: As always when my noble friend intervenes, he strengthens the point that I am making, and has done so considerably on this occasion. I shall come to certain examples which bear testimony to the point that my noble friend has made. In the context of the point that I am making, which, as I have said, is admirably reinforced, it is important that we have details from the Minister as to the extensions of the Court's jurisdiction as they impact directly on our civil and criminal law, and an assurance that it is intended that the Government's view that the pillared approach at Maastricht—this is the important point behind my argument—is worth defending and that the ECJ's jurisdiction will not be extended into other pillared areas.
I accept that some Members of the Committee may find that the present encroachment of jurisdiction appears to be marginal. Nevertheless, many Members of the Committee fear that that represents not just something that is substantial but something which is potentially the thin end of the wedge. I seek the Minister's assurance that the Government are cautious about the implications of that extension of the role and

1151
powers of the ECJ and that the Government will oppose any attempts to extend its jurisdiction further into other pillared areas.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am not following the arguments, and that must be my fault. Will he indicate whether his position is that some body other than the ECJ should settle disputes about what the treaty means when there is a clash of arguments? If so, what is that body to be? It was his government in 1971, when we were negotiating entry, who signed the Rome Treaty that gave the ECJ the jurisdiction to decide what the treaty means so far as concerns this country. Is he suggesting that when there is a conflict of jurisdiction or interpretation there is some body other than the ECJ which should decide?
Lord Moynihan: I am sorry that the noble Lord has not followed my argument. I was looking specifically at the proposals within the Amsterdam Treaty which go further than the measures to which he referred. For example, I focused upon Article K.7 where, to date, the Home Secretary and the British courts have the ultimate word over policing matters and judicial co-operation. We are seeking clarification from the Government. That is my purpose this evening in what I hope the noble Lord will accept is a complex area of law. I am seeking clarification that that has not changed and that it is not the case that the ECJ's decisions—not least, for example, in police and judicial co-operation—will now override those of the Home Secretary and the British courts.
On the question of reform of the ECJ, I should like to draw the Committee's attention to new Clause 48 which calls for a resolution on a motion relating to the reform of the enforcement of Community laws—
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps my noble friend will give way for a moment. I am trying to follow this argument, which I accept is extremely complicated. If police and judicial affairs come in any way under the Treaty of Rome, will they be subject to the ECJ? Do we want that to happen or not?
Lord Moynihan: I have a great deal of sympathy with the point raised by my noble friend. That is precisely why I raised with the Minister tonight the question of whether he is in accordance with your Lordships' view on the issue. I believe that the extensions go much further than he has considered. The Government's position is that these are merely marginal changes, but I would argue that they are fundamental and far reaching. With the limited powers at my disposal, I was trying gently to encourage the Government to be clear about how they see the extension of the powers and the implications for the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I have a great deal of sympathy with the point raised by my noble friend.
One of the difficulties of grouping together so many vitally important issues is trying to cover as many as
1152
possible as briefly as possible and to lay out the Opposition's concerns. Perhaps I may attempt to make progress by moving to new Clause 48 and the reform of the European Court of Justice. It calls for a resolution on a Motion relating to the reform of the enforcement of Community laws before the Act can enter into force. The amendment refers in particular to four areas: the limitation of the retrospective application of judgments of the European Court of Justice; an internal appeals procedure; national time limits on the implication of directives; and limitation of damages payable by Member states.
Suffice it to say, those were all eminently sensible proposals for a reform of the European Court of Justice tabled for discussion by the previous government at the inter-governmental negotiations. However, the opportunity to examine the role of the European Court of Justice at Amsterdam was completely lost. These extremely important areas required a detailed consideration and review. That opportunity was lost at Amsterdam. Tonight I am seeking to obtain an explanation from the Minister of why that was the case.
The debate on the reform of the European Court of Justice should have nothing to do with divisions of principle over the European Union of the future and with arguments and beliefs for and against a federal Europe or a Europe of nations. Clearly, common rules require a supreme authority to interpret them and it is clearly in the interests of the European Union in certain areas to have a strong, effective and independent court to ensure the even application of Community laws and to prevent the abuse of power by Community institutions. For example, it would be impossible in British law to have a single market in the European Union without trading taking place on a fair basis and without the nations being subject to the same obligations and specifications, including open access to markets and freedom from state subsidy, if there were no means of enforcing the rules.
It is for that reason that the European Court should remain a guarantor of the single market. In the UK, we bind ourselves by the rule of law and our treaty obligations and we are entitled to expect that others will do likewise. That is why we in this country go to the European Court often with persistence and why we win most of our cases when we do so. We would have no redress against claims of unfair trading, breach of treaty obligations and so forth if the status of the European Court of Justice were diminished.
There were important reasons why the European Court of Justice was set up in 1952 and I do not need to rehearse for your Lordships the importance of the Court. My concern tonight with the Bill and the treaty is that the European Court of Justice should remain within the remit given to it by member states and not exceed it. There is increasing concern that the ECJ's interpretation of laws sometimes seems to go beyond what the participating governments intended in framing those laws, that the ECJ has on occasion exceeded its

1153
competence and has started to adopt its own political agenda. In recent years, there have been judgments which have given cause—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am sorry to interrupt and I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Can he quote a single example so that the Committee knows to what he is referring? The IGC Select Committee examined all the examples that were given and found that not one justified that kind of criticism of the Court. Is there a particular judgment to which the noble Lord would wish to draw the attention of the Committee where in his view the court exceeded its jurisdiction?
Lord Moynihan: The noble Lord will be delighted to learn that I am about to turn to specific examples for his consideration in this context. Suffice it to say that even my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke is very much of the view that the court's judgment is often rendered unpredictable because it is usually required to interpret treaties, regulations and directives which have been carelessly drafted and to a large extent—and that is partly in reply to the noble Lord's intervention—my right honourable friend sees that is the cause of the politicisation in some of its determinations.
In order to try to satisfy the noble Lord on this subject, perhaps I may give the example of the fishing quota. Surely it is wrong that there should he fishing quotas designed to guarantee a reasonable return for local fishing communities while at the same time there are treaty provisions on non-discrimination which render such quotas unenforceable. Surely, to give another example, it is wrong that the health and safety policies are often so loosely drafted that they can permit the drafting of social policies by the back door, evading the unanimity requirement. That was the point made by my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke.
Perhaps I may go into detail on the example of the fishing quota dispute. Recently, the European Court of Justice ruled that Britain could not reserve its fishing quota for its own fishermen. When Britain gave up its exclusive right to fish its waters, it did so in return for a guaranteed quota of the total stocks. For that remaining quota to be fished by foreign vessels flying British flags of convenience undermines the basis of the fishing agreement. But the court ruled—and the court ruling is important in this context—that the Merchant Shipping Act, which was designed to return to the intention of the treaties by requiring British registered vessels to be largely British, was illegal. Do the Government believe that such decisions were wrong? If so, why did they not press for the reform—and this is my central point on the amendment—of the institution which gave rise to them?
It was for those reasons that the previous government placed such emphasis on the reform of the workings of the Court. And it was for those reasons that the previous government tabled a package of measures aimed at improving its effectiveness and curtailing any possibility of political bias at the inter-governmental negotiations. Without such reforms to improve its workings, disproportionate judgments threaten to bring the Court's reputation into disrepute.
1154
From these Benches, we wanted to strengthen the ability of the Court to limit the retrospective nature of its judgments. For example, constant challenges have been made to the European Court about the scope and incidence of our VAT, because whereas in this country we have imposed limits on how far back in time such claims may extend, in the ECJ judgments might be awarded undoing the imposition of VAT all the way back to the introduction of VAT. Clearly, several countries risk billions of pounds of damages. I would welcome the Minister's view on the assertion of the former Chancellor that, based on his expert knowledge of ECOFIN, the finance ministers were enthusiastic about limiting the scope of the Court's judgments. I have quoted a classic example of that.
We also sought to introduce a principle that a member state should be liable for compensation only in cases of serious and manifest breaches of its obligations. We wanted national time limits to be respected when people brought actions before the European Court. We wanted an internal appeals procedure. We wanted streamlined procedures for the rapid amendment of EC legislation which has been interpreted in a way which was never intended by the Council. And we wanted an accelerated procedure for time sensitive cases.
Those reforms cannot and should not be pigeonholed into Eurosceptic or Europhile boxes. This was not an attempt to reduce the legitimate authority of the European institution. Instead, it was an extremely constructive approach to improving the functioning of that same institution and to ensuring that it avoids disproportionate judgments which threaten to bring its reputation into disrepute. I hope that the Committee will agree that they were comprehensive and sensible proposals which would have streamlined the court and eliminated many of its most glaring flaws without affecting its position as supreme guarantor of the treaties.
That constructive approach was totally abandoned by the Government who signed a treaty which has done much to extend the remit of the court and nothing to reform it. I ask the Minister why the Government did nothing to reform the European Court of Justice at the Amsterdam summit.
Instead, the Government abandoned the previous government's constructive proposals to improve the workings of the court and agreed to an extension of its remit into the third pillar, undermining the intergovernmental pillar system. Does the Minister believe that there is a case for the reform of the European Court, including limiting the retrospective nature of judgments? If the Government believe that there is a case for such a reform, why was nothing done?
In Committee in another place the Minister apparently gave a reason when he said:
"I assure the Committee that there was no question of our European partners agreeing to the proposals made by the previous government to limit the retrospective effects of the court's jurisdiction".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/12/97: col. 227.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I apologise for interrupting yet again, but there is no one here really to speak for the European Court of Justice in order to answer some of the noble Lord's points.

1155
I take the two examples which the noble Lord has given so far. First, in relation to the Factortame fishing case, the European court was doing no more than deciding that there was discrimination based on nationality contrary to the clear words of the Treaty of Rome in discriminating between British and Spanish vessel owners.
The second example was in relation to limiting the temporal effect of the court's judgments. Is the noble Lord aware that the Luxembourg court has developed an extremely fair and careful doctrine which is that it will limit the temporal effect of its judgments of its own motion where to do otherwise would damage the legitimate expectations of those concerned? Therefore, for example, in the Barber case, because no one expected the court to decide that there was unlawful sexual discrimination in the pensions field, the court was careful to limit the temporal effect of its judgment and provide that it would apply only prospectively. It does not do that in cases where the member state has been at fault and knowingly at fault and has failed properly to implement Community law. Therefore, it is quite right that the temporal effect should not be limited.
Is the noble Lord aware that the court itself developed those careful principles and the IGC committee of this House found that entire approach to be fair and not to be criticised on any reasonable basis?
Lord Moynihan: I should be more than prepared to enter into a debate with the noble Lord on the two cases which I raised. I have learnt very early in my career in this Chamber that one does not give examples without undertaking a sufficient degree of research in order to debate on a reasonable basis points which are likely to he made during interventions in Committee.
But that is not the point I am making. I do not seek that anyone should make a contribution in this debate on behalf of the European Court of Justice. I am seeking to question the Government as to why the proposals which we put forward prior to the last election (about which there is widespread agreement in this Chamber) to reform the European Court of Justice, were ignored, were not tabled and were not debated.
I used my examples not to become involved in a detailed consideration of individual cases but as examples of the problems which exist, which need to be confronted and which should have been addressed by the Government when it came to their consideration of this treaty.
As I mentioned to the Committee, the Government's view was that they would never have achieved agreement on those issues so they did not debate them. That is not a satisfactory explanation when every single one of the proposals that I have mentioned this evening—an internal appeals procedure, a procedure for the rapid amendment of EC legislation and a national time limit—was abandoned at Amsterdam. We have never heard from the Government why they did not press for reforms to deal with significant flaws in the working of the European Court of Justice.
1156
I believe that it demonstrates a very serious weakness on the part of the Government that none of the arguments for reform was advanced. If the Government thought that the reforms were sensible measures, I should have hoped that they would give due consideration to supporting them. But if they did not think that they were sensible measures, then it is important for it to be clear to this Committee why that was so. They really should not use the excuse that there was little support for such reform at the IGC.
That may give rise to grave criticism—and it is not the first time in Committee that I have raised this issue—that they are attempting to mask a fear of isolation in Europe; that they are only too ready to pursue the line of least resistance; and that they are unwilling to stand up for our interests and win round our partners by advocacy and argument. That is particularly unedifying in a Government who are only too happy to reap the rewards of a previous government's preparedness to be isolated when the occasion demanded—as indeed as it did demand, for how else did they secure the opt-out from the single currency?—but lack the courage and conviction to do likewise. That is the point and that is the thrust behind the amendment which I have tabled and the important issues which Members of the Committee have raised during the debate.
I have attempted to answer some of the interventions and I am conscious that we have all too little time this evening to focus on the harmonisation of judicial procedures and Europol. Therefore, I crave the indulgence of the Committee for two minutes to touch on the critically important question of the powers of Europol.
They are covered in Article K.2. This article provides for common action in the field of police co-operation and judicial co-operation in criminal matters and sets a series of targets to be achieved within five years to facilitate the work of Europol. Again, although it is fair to say that from these Benches, we are broadly supportive of some of the general principles behind this part of the treaty and as our record demonstrates, we support any reasonable measures intended to crack down on crime, there are some questions which must be asked on that issue and which I hope the Minister will be able to answer.
The previous government were proud to have agreed measures on common action against international terrorism; on proposals for fighting drug addiction and drug abuse, as well as joint surveillance operations which resulted in major drugs seizures; we were proud to have signed the fraud convention on measures to combat fraud against the financial interests of the Community; and we were proud to have played a key role in the establishment of Europol. At a time when Germany and France held completely different views about Europol's nature and were at an impasse, the former Home Secretary helped to bridge those differences and brought the two countries together.

1157
However, there are fears, which have been expressed by Members of the Committee that Article K.2 may be a step in the direction towards the creation of a European police force, and I would like a reassurance from the Minister that this is not the case.
Article K.2 empowers Europol personnel to join in national policing operations in a support capacity. This is certainly a significant change, which introduces the concept of granting legal immunity to a whole new class of people from overseas who are operating here. It is hardly surprising therefore, that there is concern over the precise legal ramifications of this change.
What will be the status of those Europol personnel who join in national policing operations in a support capacity? How, and to whom, will they be accountable? Could the Minister give a clearer idea of the type of activities in which such Europol officers will be involved? Will they have diplomatic immunity and will that cover all those activities, and in what circumstances is it likely to be waived? What should a British individual do if he has a complaint about the activities of a Europol officer? Is it the case, as Article 38 of the convention states, that the remedy would lie,
"through action against the Member State in which the damage occurred, in the national courts"?
It provides that if damage is caused to an individual as a result of incorrect data processing by Europol—for example, if false information by Europol led to a British force detaining a person in London—the legal redress would be through action against the member state in which the damage occurred, in the national courts.
Therefore, if I were a British citizen whose reputation had been damaged or who had been arrested or falsely imprisoned as a result of a mistake or a misunderstanding or because someone erroneously gave the police the wrong information, is it the case that I would have to sue the member state,
"in which the damage occurred",
wherever that may be?
I should also like to ask the Minister about the declaration on Article K.2, which establishes that,
"action in the field of police co-operation under Article K.2, including activities of Europol, shall be subject to appropriate judicial review by the competent national authorities in accordance with rules applicable by each member state".
Does the reference to Europol here mean activities carried out by national authorities on behalf of Europol? How would judicial review touch directly on the activities of Europol in the UK?
I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give a satisfactory response to the question about the legal redress for citizens who are aggrieved. I hope that he will also be able to provide some clarity about the scope and status of the operations of Europol officers. From these Benches, we would welcome more details on the limits of the scope of activity over the next five years; we would welcome more information on legal immunity; and, finally, we would welcome more details on the legal implications and ramifications of Article K.2. Indeed, we would welcome more details about how the process will work in practice.
7 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, many noble Lords have already mentioned the fact that there are already different judicial systems in various countries of the EC. However, we also heard from my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch that there is a corpus juris, albeit limited in effect to start with, which is already being prepared or, indeed, has been prepared. When responding to the debate, can the Minister confirm my impression that, under Article F.1, we could be forced to change our judicial system to a new system suggested by either one third of member states or by the Commission? I believe that to be an extremely important point. Although there may be close similarities between the judicial systems of the majority of the other states within the EC, it is only the Republic of Ireland and England and Wales that have a totally different system of law; indeed, that also applies to Scotland to some extent.
I have attached my name to Amendment No. 53. While I support in general all the amendments in the group, I should like especially to speak to Amendment No. 53 because it deals with Europol, which has already been mentioned several times this evening. It is possible, therefore, that I shall repeat some of the arguments that have been put forward, but I hope not to bore your Lordships in that respect.
Article 10 of Title III of the European convention gives authority for the European Police Office—in my parlance, the EC police force—to open files on victims of crime, on witnesses and on anyone that it thinks may be able to provide information; and to keep those files, with no suggestion that they will ever be closed. It is a very wide power—indeed, almost like those of a police state.
As I understand it, Europol officers will not be compelled to testify in court, so their evidence may not be tested by cross examination. I also understand that they will be immune from prosecution for,
"acts performed by them in the exercise of their official functions".
This means that their co-ordinator can protect his staff if they abuse their powers or leak classified information, possibly for political purposes. Europol appears to be turning into a European federal bureau of investigation, with undefined powers to participate in police operations and launch investigations. It will operate in an institutional twilight zone beyond full control of democratic forces—possibly out of any real control. It seems to have great powers with little or no accountability.
At present, Europol officers cannot make an arrest, search a house or confiscate property. However, under the Amsterdam Treaty, that power is given to them after a five-year transition period. They will then be able to take part in joint operations which, as I understand it, will include armed assaults. Will they need licences for their weapons in this country'? Will they need licences to import them? I ask those questions because those officers are not members of any of our police forces, or of our Armed Forces.

1159
This appears to me to be the first step towards a European police force. Is that the Government's intention? After all, they have entered into the Amsterdam Treaty and they want it ratified. What will Europol's powers be after the five-year period? For example, will its officers be able to tap telephones? Further, will they need a court order to do so? Will they have the same powers as a constable in this country?
I understand that the director of Europol will answer in camera to a management board under the Council of Ministers and that the general oversight will be an internal matter. That hardly strikes me as satisfactory. Will Europol be subject to judicial review? Where is our parliamentary control over this body which in five years, if not sooner, will operate without proper control in the United Kingdom?
Finally, I turn to a point that has already been raised. Will the Minister please define xenophobia, as mentioned in Article 29? Given the European Union's propensity to call all its opponents "xenophobes", should I look forward to a late night visit at some time from Europol officers?
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that to accept that police co-operation and judicial co-operation should be lumped together and dealt with as one, as the treaty does, is to fall into a trap. Police forces of friendly nations do co-operate and have always done so, both in Europe and elsewhere in the world. Indeed, the police forces of not so friendly countries—that is, countries that may be at loggerheads with one another—normally, and more often than not, also co-operate because it is in their mutual interests to do so. Hence, no new principle is being introduced here, although it is possible to argue, as many of us do, that no additional powers are needed.
However, judicial co-operation is another matter altogether. As a layman, I hesitate to try to follow in the distinguished and experienced steps of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, but, as I understand it, the judiciary of any normal self-governing nation state is, and should be, self-contained and independent, based on that nation's jurisprudence and cultural traditions. This does not apply only to self-governing nation states but also to the separate states and provinces of the United States, Canada and Australia where the judiciary in different states or provinces can approach similar cases in different ways.
The citizens of no continental nation have the benefit of habeas corpus or trial by jury. So far as I am aware, no continental nation has unpaid lay magistrates. Many of these countries require the imposition of minimum sentences for certain offences. We in this country impose minimum periods of disqualification for certain grave motoring offences. I played a small part in getting the minimum period raised from 12 months to two years for causing death by dangerous driving. If the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is present, he may remember that. However, minimum periods of disqualification are a very different matter from stipulating minimum fines and—this is even more the case—minimum periods of imprisonment.
1160
I am not arguing that our way is the only way of doing things and that it is necessarily better in every instance than the continental way. Intelligent men and women of goodwill speaking in good faith can legitimately hold different views on this. That is all the more reason why we should be permitted to continue doing things in our traditional way, and they should be permitted to act in their not quite so traditional way—I believe their system has existed for no more than 200 years—if they so choose, without trying to harmonise the incompatible.
Speaking earlier this evening, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, indicated he believed that the principle of subsidiarity would protect our essential judicial independence. One would like to think that this would be so, but so often in the past subsidiarity has turned out to be a paper tiger against those pushing for more and more integration.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The Committee will have noted that the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the Bill states,
"The amendments to the existing Community Treaties resulting from the Treaty of Amsterdam will modify the objectives and activities of the Communities and thus will have implications for the Community Budget".
I make the initial observation, "You can say that again". It is of course quite clear, on reading through the various activities which are discussed in the treaty itself and which are laid down in precise terms when it suits, that there will be a significant amount of expenditure resulting from the Treaty of Amsterdam. I know full well that in the very next sentence the Government assure us in their explanatory memorandum that this will be within the existing limits laid down at Edinburgh and modified only slightly to deal with very small contingencies that have arisen since.
But one must be singularly unaware of the way in which the Community's budget is dealt with if one fails to realise that as a matter of course the Commission always contrives to arrange money under various headings which it has no intention of using at all, and which at a later stage it can transfer to other parts of the budget upon which it wishes to spend money but which it does not disclose at budget time. This is common practice in the Community. I have no reason to suppose that it has changed since I dealt with the European budget.
It is quite clear—even within this specific section which is dealt with at pages 16 to 21 of the Treaty of Amsterdam—that there is quite a large number of activities to be dealt with. Article K.13 deals with the financial part of it, paragraph 2 of which states,
"Administrative expenditure which the provisions relating to the areas referred to in this Title entail for the institutions shall be charged to the budget of the European Communities".
Paragraph 3 states,
"Operational expenditure to which the implementation of those provisions gives rise shall also be charged to the budget of the European Communities, except where the Council acting unanimously decides otherwise. In cases where expenditure is not charged to the budget of the European Communities it shall be

1161
charged to the Member States in accordance with the gross national product scale, unless the Council acting unanimously decides otherwise".
Paragraph 4 states,
The budgetary procedure laid down in the Treaty establishing the European Community shall apply to the expenditure charged to the budget of the European Communities".
The budgetary provisions are quite clear. However, where the money is to come from is not equally clear.
It is remarkable that in the proceedings so far in Parliament, including those in another place, the budgetary implications of this treaty have not been discussed at all, even at Committee stage. There is a curious reluctance—apparently shared by both the political parties and indeed the third, and possibly also the Independents—to discuss the budget. In fact the 1998 budget went through on the nod in another place. It was passed at about 10.30 at night without much trouble.
If I may say so, it does not lie in the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to protest at the vices of Her Majesty's present administration because under the government of the noble Lord the United Kingdom accumulated a deficit of no less than £30 billion in their contributions to the European budget. So far the Government have not endeavoured to achieve a deficit year after year on that basis. Nor has the country been impressed by it, because the budget simply has not been examined. It arrived too late to be dealt with by the Commons Select Committee on budgets. It arrived too late for it to be considered in a Select Committee in this House. That is surely quite remarkable.
I can understand a certain reluctance on the part of a new administration to get involved in assessing budgetary costs relating to an extremely complicated treaty. They must have noticed by now that the Commission is up to its old tricks once again. It is the oldest device in the world of a bureaucracy so to deluge its political masters, or alleged masters, with material that they cannot possibly cope with it. We know perfectly well that large numbers of Ministers never read the Treaty of Maastricht at all. I am bound to say that I do not remotely accuse my own Government of not reading the treaty; I am sure they have read every line of it and understand every line of it. However, they are under pressure. It is not only the Government that have been put under pressure by legislation of this kind. If the Committee re-reads it—I am sure it has read it already—it will find that it is tremendously complicated. Indeed, I suggest that the Select Committee has barely had an opportunity to read it. In another place the Select Committee on European Legislation is itself already under pressure. It was under pressure before this Government ever came into office. I have before me a document dated 19th March which relates to arrears of business in the Select Committee on European Legislation. I have examined it. I find that no fewer than 136 replies are still required by the Select Committee from various government departments. They go back to 1993 and 1994. In addition, the committee has another 40 or so documents before it, some without an explanatory memorandum, which it has to consider.
1162
I note that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office still has a lot of information to give to the Select Committee going back to 1994.
If the Select Committee in the Commons is that pressed, how can we get anyone to consider the mere financial implications? It simply will not do. It is not as though those who make inquiries do not have their difficulties in getting information not only out of the Commission but also out of the Government. Because of a question about which I have given advance notice to the Government recently, I hope that I shall obtain information from the Government. But such is not the case with the Commission.
A Member of the European Parliament, Mrs. Caroline Jackson, questioned the Commission. Her political persuasion is PPE, but there is general sympathy across the House on these Questions. I make no point about her party political persuasion; it is roughly the same as those of noble Lords opposite. Mrs. Jackson asked:
"According to the Economist of 18 October 1997, the European Commission was unable, at a recent meeting of ECOFIN, to give figures for net contributions to the EU budget for each Member State. Given the importance of this subject, and the high degree of public interest in it, will the Commission now take the opportunity to publish the list of net contributions to the EU budget for each Member State, using the latest available figures"?
The MEP was exercising her undoubted right to obtain information from the Commission which would enable her to judge in her own mind the political priorities to be accorded to the expenditure running through the Community Budget. In order to determine the fairness of it, the contributions, net or otherwise, made by member states are of great interest to her. Surely she was entitled to a reply. Indeed, one of the first things that the present Government did was to publish those comparative figures for the year 1995. One has since been able to obtain figures, by methods of calculation which are not entirely unknown to your Lordships, for the 1997 sum.
However, let us listen to what the Commission said to this Member of the European Parliament which, if I correctly interpret the mood of Members of your Lordships' House, is held in high affection by many Members. In its reply, the Commission said:
"In a paper forwarded to the ECOFIN Council (a copy is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's secretariat) the Commission explained the reasons why it does not produce estimates of budgetary positions for the Member States.
"To recapitulate, the Commission contends that budgetary flows do not capture all the benefits from membership of the Community. Community membership, which gives rise to financial and non-financial advantages as well as obligations, has a non-budgetary dimension the importance of which dwarfs the budgetary dimension"
—all £30 billion of it since 1975.
"For example, the benefits from the pursuit of common objectives, such as trade liberalisation and European economic integration, cannot be evaluated in terms of budgetary flows alone. Moreover, flows from the Community budget invariably benefit not only the recipients but other Member States in the form of return flows. Typical examples are structural funds and external expenditure, where the implementation of projects often gives rise to purchases of goods and services from other Member States.
"Furthermore, there is no single definition of a budgetary balance. This inevitably makes possible the design of various methods of approximating the net budgetary benefits from membership of the

1163
Community, and the choice of particular method often reflects the desire to highlight a particular point of view or to defend a specific issue. In view of these difficulties, the Commission neither produces nor does it endorse any particular method of calculating the Member States' budgetary positions".
Is that not charming? Despite that, possibly by an oversight, the Commission eventually published the budget for 1998 in the Official Journal. That has enabled figures to be worked out. I have no doubt that the Government will provide the figures in response to my question.
I have dealt with this issue during debate on this amendment because it has not been dealt with elsewhere. There has been no discussion in Parliament of the 1998 EU budget. There has been no discussion as regards those states in deficit and those in surplus. It is high time that these matters were addressed. They should be addressed in the spirit with which almost everything that happens in politics is pursued, in particular where the Commission is involved—the expenditure of money. A democratic government ordinarily provides, and should provide, for the public scrutiny and accountability of those who spend.
The matter is raised on this amendment because at this stage there is no other point at which it can be raised. I shall therefore spare noble Lords the repetition of the issue on every amendment in the hope that my words about the Community budget, upon which I have ventured to address the House on many occasions, often with its support, still apply; the dominant consideration must be the financial expenditure involved by the British taxpayer who so far has had a very raw deal out of his association with the Community.
Lord Whitty: I beg to move that the debate on Amendment No. 4 be adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Whitty: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not later than 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

The Role of Grandparents
7.30 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what importance they attach to the role of grandparents in delivering their commitment to high quality, affordable childcare for all.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a truism to say that our society has gone through enormous changes in the past two decades. I am sure that none of us wants to look back; none of us wants to put the clock back. We must look forward. But in doing so, surely we must be concerned to ensure that vulnerable groups have not suffered, and are not suffering, from the changes that have taken place.
I wish briefly to refer to three of those changes. The first is the change to the extended family. As I shall show using statistics, the extended family is by no means dead. But it has changed its shape. That was particularly drawn to my attention by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, who was very sorry not to he able to be present this evening, but unfortunately he had to be abroad.
The noble Lord has pointed out that the extended family has narrowed horizontally, in that there are fewer siblings—fewer brothers and sisters are being born—but it has extended vertically, because people are living longer and having a longer active life, and in some cases taking retirement earlier. Today, there are 9 million people over retirement age; 29 per cent. of the adult population are grandparents.
The second change I wish to mention relates to the nuclear family. Fewer people are marrying and more are divorced. I shall not bore the House with the gruesome statistics. More fragile partnerships are being formed. It is important to note that 1.7 million lone parents are looking after children today, of whom two-thirds have at some time been married. It is worth noting that only 4 per cent. of them are aged under 20. One-third of all children will spend part of their childhood in a lone parent family.
The third point to which I want to draw attention is the change in the role of women in the family. Either because they wanted to, or because they have had to, many women have become providers as well as mothers. Today, more women go out to work than do not. In the past 30 years, the labour market participation rate of women with dependent children has risen from 30 per cent. to 70 per cent., and the Government are aiming for many more to follow them.
How do these changes affect vulnerable groups? Let me turn first to children. After shelter, food and clothing, the most important need of children is time—committed, loving adult time. Parental time is precisely the commodity which is in short supply as a result of the social changes that I have mentioned. Here, I divert slightly from the main line of my argument in order to make this point. Young children especially need dedicated time. Most authorities now agree that, if a child is to succeed in school, it needs to enter school with an appropriate level of emotional and social maturity, with the necessary self-confidence to enjoy learning and to succeed. Those qualities are built up in the home during the pre-school years. Sitting in front of the television all day, as, sadly, some young children do today, will not achieve that result. Older children, too, need support from parents and other adults. It has been shown that the single most important factor in success at school is parental involvement.
So where can that time be found? Who has the time to spare? The answer must be, in many cases, grandparents. Grandparents are retiring earlier and remaining active longer—what is now called the third age. Many grandparents want to help their children and grandchildren. They will willingly do so, and, if they can, they will do so at no cost to either the parents or the taxpayer.
The proof is that many are already doing so. A recent survey by Age Concern showed that 92 per cent. of grandparents have regular contact with their grandchildren; 47 per cent. babysit or offer childcare to their grandchildren. Sally Greengross, the director general of Age Concern, said in introducing the report:
"We found grandparents to be still very much part of the family".
The Government have so far chosen to solve the problem of providing care and dedicated time for children principally by throwing money at the matter, by providing a universal professional childcare service subsidised by the taxpayer. I do not for a moment deny that there is a need for a very considerable expansion in the professional childcare service. However, I cannot help wondering, if we rely entirely on that route, whether we shall not run into very great trouble, or else astronomically high cost to the taxpayer. A shortage in the supply of qualified childcarers, and pressure of demand, will force costs up. It takes a lot of money to buy the quality of care that most parents or grandparents are prepared to give.
I therefore proposed this short debate in order to urge the Government, in addition to providing professional childcare, to consider mobilising, enabling and supporting the enormous resource of goodwill represented by grandparents, who do have, if they want to, time, love and experience to offer to their grandchildren. If the Government were to take the view that this proposal was worth looking at, it would reduce costs to the state (funded childcare); it would give a fulfilling life role to many older people; and of course, grandparental care would be of enormous value in enriching the lives of children.
I now wish to turn briefly to a few of the things that the Government could do to help. The first is to bring about a change of heart. The Government ought to be leading the nation into recognising that the philosophy with which we have lived for several decades now—it has been termed the "me first" generation—is not working. "No man is an island". For people to live together, there must be a structure of interdependence and responsibilities as well as rights. The extended family is a key unit in that community of human beings.
The second thing that the Government ought to do is recognise and celebrate the important role that older people in general, and grandparents in particular, have to play. In this context, perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to Grandparents' Day, which Age Concern has declared for 27th September.
Then there are more practical things that might be done. For effective grandparental care, proximity is essential. Grandparents cannot support parents effectively unless they live nearby. It is rather like the Division Bell. Ten minutes' walking time is about the maximum time for effective grandparental care. It would not be difficult for local authorities to pay attention to that need when allocating public housing or making recommendations to housing associations as to the allocation of their housing resources.
Singapore does it. There, as soon as people retire, if they are in public housing, they are moved to an apartment or flat adjacent to or near to one of their
1166
children. Of course, in Singapore grandparents are expected to help with the childcare and the children are expected to look after the grandparents. I am not suggesting that the Government should go that far.
There was an extraordinarily innovative scheme invented by Nicholas Stacey, when he was head of social services for Kent. It was to have granny flat portacabins which could be winched into the garden by helicopter and connected to the services so that the mutual support services could be available. When granny died, the portacabin could be winched out and moved to another garden.
There are interesting features in the design of public housing which should be considered while the houses are being built. We should encourage planners to think in terms of providing a mixture of accommodation.
Employment is another matter. It is important to encourage employers to be sensitive to older people's needs as they reach retirement age so that they may be able to care for their grandchildren.
There are also financial considerations. At present 86 per cent. of children who are looked after by grandparents are cared for free. That represents an enormous subsidy to the taxpayer. If we could increase the number of grandparents able to give that kind of care, we would save an enormous amount of money. Is there a case for help for grandparents who cannot do without it so that they can have a little assistance, perhaps a tax credit, small capital grants for improvements or help with transport where proximity is not possible? Alternatively, should grandparents be eligible for the childcare subsidy? After all, why not? Why should grandparents be discriminated against? Perhaps grandparents should go through training. The question I wish to ask the Minister is: will they get credits for experience or will they have to sit through the same classes as a 16 year-old?
Most mothers prefer care by grandparents. They can offer continuity over a long part of the child's life, its childhood. This is particularly important where a family is breaking up or there is dysfunction in the family. A 1997 survey by the Children's Society showed that 78 per cent. of children considered their grandparents as important figures in their life. I hope that the Government will take seriously the potential of mobilising the extended family, especially the potential for supporting the role of grandparents, encouraging them to give help, time and care as well as motivation to their children.
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about the role of grandparents could not be more timely, following last week's Budget. The Government aim to make thousands of men and women better off through the new child care tax credit system. That will enable more families to afford childcare, thus enabling more parents to return to work.
However, that assumption rests on four principles, the first of which is the desirability of unemployed people returning to work, for example those with children.

1167
Secondly, the availability of suitable work for them to do. Thirdly, the provision of adequate support services to free them to do the work. Fourthly, the existence of a reward structure to make their work worth while.
The Government may well feel that they have addressed the reward structure, but I suspect that the desire to work and the availability of suitable work is still uncertain. My concern tonight is with the development of support services. The tax credit system will help many, but that is only one aspect of support. Another, I humbly suggest, is the wider family and, in tonight's context, the role of grandparents. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, 92 per cent. of grandchildren have regular contact with their grandparents.
The Government have clearly confirmed their wish to strike the balance between work and family responsibilities. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor spoke of the wider family and specifically mentioned the role of grandparents. That role is a special one which sometimes requires a direct "hands on" approach when grandparents have fully looked after their grandchildren. But for most it is an indirect way in which grandparents give their love and support, visiting them, listening to them, guiding them, giving them a sense of belonging to a wider family, participating with them in sharing school and sport and sharing other gifts, helping them overall with the teaching of life skills and the ability to learn to live and work together. At the end, there is the hope that those children will grow up in full independence and with good moral standing.
That support relays ideals and aspirations in an often uncertain world; it gives closeness and stability. That is especially true, when, sadly, break up of marriage occurs and the children are pulled between parents and often deserted by one or the other. How crucial is that wider stability at such times?
At later stages in childhood, as children grow up, grandparents act as an anchor, the person to whom grandchildren turn to bounce off ideas and question the reasonableness of problems. I suspect that grandparents often hear the words "It isn't fair". Access to grandparents cannot be underestimated; boys as well as girls will seek their guidance. In a previous debate, my noble friend Lady Macleod highlighted the importance of the male role model for children, particularly for those in single mother families. That importance cannot be stressed enough. It is interesting that some primary schools are making a move to encourage men to come and act as mentors to support that role.
The family unit is an important one and we believe that it should be encouraged. The Budget has given assistance to unmarried couples rather than married ones, where the married man's family allowance has been cut. That seems a retrograde step when we should be seeking to strengthen the family unit.
Bearing all that in mind, I ask the Minister whether the Government might consider ways in which grandparents could be dealt with, tax-wise, in the same way as other child minders. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, put forward that suggestion. I understand
1168
that at present grandparents rightly do not require any qualifications to look after their grandchildren. But in the same way, nor are grandparents able to receive any tax relief or financial support. A possible unintentional consequence of the new system could be that the state might end up subsidising people, supplanting the care that is now provided for nothing. Grandparents could find that their access to their grandchildren was reduced and that those close bonds evaporate.
Families today have become fragmented. Many live at great distances from their children and grandchildren, but a proportion still live near enough to help directly. That is why I posed my question to the Minister. Caring within families is not simply about a grandparent/grandchild relationship. It stretches much further. In caring for the younger generation, the grandparents feel that they are valued and intrinsic members of the family. In reverse, their sons and daughters are confident in the knowledge that their parents, probably retired, are not remote or lonely but are kept very much in touch with everyday life and family matters. People today are living longer. Whereas I had only one grandparent alive, and he died when I was four, that would be an exception today. Three and in some cases four generations are still living and provide an important network of care within their community.
It is natural and desirable that all should be able to play their part in raising the next generation—not to interfere, but to be there, giving valuable support. I hope that the Government will have a change of heart. Grandparents are a most valuable resource and the Government should do more to recognise that.
7.48 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Northbourne in his suggestion that the Government should take seriously the role of grandparents in the provision of childcare, which is becoming increasingly important with the Government's new policies.
It is difficult to take grandparents seriously because the conventional image of grandparents is of funny little old people sitting side by side, smiling benignly when their grandchildren romp around them from time to time. Some grandparents may live up to that conventional stereotype, and they can be tremendously supportive. Indeed, if they still have their wits about them they may be useful in providing childcare, in helping children to read and other such supportive activities. But I should like briefly to concentrate on a different kind of grandparent.
I want to concentrate on what may be a numerically small class of grandparent but one that is of vast importance. I refer to the parent—usually the mother—of a young person, possibly 16 or 17 years old, who has become pregnant and decided to keep the baby. The grandparents of the baby are probably only in their 30s or 40s and may still have children of their own younger than the young mother. They will almost certainly be working people. I suggest that the Government consider giving such grandparents the regular kind of support that the mother can obtain.

1169
It is paradoxical that, increasingly—as in the education Bill—parents are being held responsible for their children while they are still at school and are compelled to take on that responsibility. However, when a young person who may still be at school or in further education has a baby, the parents are no longer held responsible. I believe that the parents should still be expected to take responsibility for the girl and her baby; the odds are she will be a single mother. What is important is that the young girl who had the baby must be able to go back and complete her education; to take on further education; to be able to enter an apprenticeship or undergo training of some kind so that she will be able, under what is now strong pressure, to enter the job market. With the proper educational background she will be able to obtain a respectable and worthwhile job which will eventually help her to bring up her child.
I believe that a way should be found for grandparents of such young mothers to take on the responsibility of the child to enable the young mother to go back into education. It will make an enormous difference both to her prospects of obtaining a job and to her child in receiving a proper, intelligent upbringing. There is a great deal to be said for housing arrangements whereby care by the grandparents can be made easier. If a grandmother is prepared to devote herself to looking after the baby of a young mother, she should be deemed to have a dependant living in her home, even if the baby goes back at night to the mother's home. That would be of great value in helping a young mother to receive further education.
I urge the Government, committed as they are to continuing education, to consider the plight of young parents who have no chance to complete their education. Of all those who could help a young person in that situation, the grandparents are the best placed. That will not be possible unless financial arrangements are made whereby the grandmother can take over—almost as a surrogate mother—the care of the child, even if the care only takes place during the day. I believe that there are many women in their 30s and early 40s who are in that position and would willingly take on that responsibility if it was made financially feasible for them to do so.
If that happened, all the other benefits would accrue that have been mentioned such as the continuity in the case of the breakdown of a marriage or where a mother may drift from one relationship to another, resulting in a disruptive home life. Continuity would be assured, and we have good evidence that children who are excluded from school or who play truant are, to a large extent, the children of disrupted and disadvantaged backgrounds. We should concentrate on the role that grandparents can play to enable such children to have a proper chance and overcome their social disabilities.
7.56 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for introducing the Unstarred Question this evening. Following the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, I should like to give an
1170
illustration, though it does not necessarily relate to a teenage mother. It is a story told to me this weekend by one of my daughters relating to an acquaintance of hers.
A young woman had a child by an unknown man. Subsequently she married a different man and the married couple then had two more children. There were then three children in that family group. The women left her husband and three children to move in with another man, by whom she is now pregnant with a view to having a fourth child.
Obviously the father who had been deserted by the mother had a problem in looking after the three children. The husband was responsible—two were his and one was not. The solution that they reached was that the mother's mother—the grandmother—gave up her work to look after the three children. I call that a valiant move on her behalf. Clearly it would be a help to that family if financial aid were available for that grandmother who has given up her paid employment in order to create a full-time home for those three young children.
There is great value in the role of grandparents for both their children and their grandchildren. Grandparents will often offer stability, patience, a sense of history and the sense of family that parents, in their rush for life, may not be able to give. The gifts of experience and time available often accrue to grandparents much more than to parents.
There is tremendous value in grandparents living nearby for mutual support. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, that is much more the trend in the East, where there is mutual support; grandparents look after grandchildren and grandchildren also look after grandparents. There is a great deal of danger in the mobility of employment that exists—less now than 10 years ago—which involves social fragmentation, and that is a great shame. Many older people feel that they do not see the qualities of life, youth and unconditional love that grandchildren can offer to grandparents. There is tremendous value in their role.
Secondly, grandparents can teach community and moral values, which again may be eluding the present parental generation. Grandparents have so much more experience of life. They have had an extra generation to acquire that life experience. Grandparents themselves need to muster compassion and courage to bring the different generations together. They are the people who can do it. Grandparents can bring all three and, as someone has already said, sometimes four generations together to avoid the polarisation of families which is such a sad trend today. It is great when grandparents can look beyond their own interests in order to keep the family together.
For instance, I have been told that in Pakistan they have a joint family system in which everyone, young and old, aunts and uncles, grandparents and grandchildren, belongs to a highly interdependent community and every member has a role and place. There is always a sense that one is inextricably connected to each other. That is my vision of what a family should be.

1171
With this interdependence one avoids the lonely grandparent and one also avoids the unsupported parents and grandchildren. I do not think necessarily that grandparents should sit on top of the nuclear family all the time but they should be available. My own two grandsons live about 20 minutes away from us. It is wonderful. Sometimes we can be free of them but sometimes we love having them. They are coming to stay for a week before Easter, which will be a great experience for us. I hope it will also be for them. They will probably be more spoiled by their grandparents than they are by their parents. It is great having them with us.
Lastly, grandparents need to be told that they are valued and important. The Bible gives us all strength to say this because the Bible stresses time and again the immense value of generational integration. Part of this country's Christian heritage is that family integration. I would plead not only for occasional cash help for grandparents where it is needed but also for the Government to say, "Grandparents, come out of the woodwork. We need you. You are important".
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, it has now fallen to me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, not only on having the luck to bring his Unstarred Question before us this evening but also on the figures he has given us, which I did not know about and perhaps other noble Lords did not know of them, either. It was a most interesting speech and I learnt a lot from it.
One has to ask oneself: is grandparenthood a privilege or is it just luck? Not every married couple wants children, and not every married couple can have children if they want them. So, as a grandparent, one is perhaps in the lap of the gods. My interest—one has to declare it in the House now—is that I am a step-great grandmother, which makes me feel very old.
This Question asks the Government what they intend to do about their commitment to affordable child care. We all know that care is very expensive and for a child it is also a very responsible job. Do grandparents come into this picture? They probably love their grandchildren and would like to look after them while the parents are at work; or perhaps they feel that they have done enough when bringing up their own children, who are the parents of their grandchildren.
The question also arises as to who will pay for the care and what calibre the carer shall be—whether the carer would be allowed to look after more than one child or whether the local authority or a member of the ever-increasing number of quangos will take it upon themselves to see that all was well. We have had some disastrous results which have been reported in the press recently. Those have often proved to be the fault of local authorities. Perhaps at such times grandparents can step in and bring a measure of hope for the grandchildren.
As I see it, the grandparent is a shoulder to cry on, a person who can be trusted with secrets, an older and wiser person, a person who can and does reprimand with
1172
well chosen words when it is needed, and above all by example show the precious grandchildren that life can be tough but it can also be fun.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I entirely follow the spirit of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in asking his Question, although for a moment I had an alarming picture of my mother-in-law being winched into the garden in a Portakabin, which I think would cause her as much distress as perhaps myself.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, very properly reminded us that it cannot be right to stereotype grandparents. I have no clear recollection of my grandparents and I suppose that for my early life the thought of grandmothers at least was rather like those formidable characters who appeared in the Giles' cartoons. A practice in family law has taught me that there are all sorts of grandparents, many of whom have a great deal to offer. It is in that context that I wish to make a few remarks because very often grandparents are of most value to a family when things go wrong.
In passing the Children Act 1989, Parliament took a considered decision not to give any particular status to grandparents but to allow them a way in which they might participate in care proceedings, with leave of the court, if matters reached that stage. On balance, I suggest that decision was correct and that it has worked well in practice. It has ensured that grandparents with something useful to say or something useful to offer will be heard by the court, either as an actual party to the proceedings or at least as a witness. The courts are astute to ensure that grandparents are not treated separately as represented parties in litigation if their interests in that litigation are the same as those of the parents themselves. But even those grandparents who are less obviously involved should normally have a reasonable opportunity to express a view, directly or indirectly, to the court.
Outside the legal process the official guidance for social workers under the Children Act provides that possibilities for a child to be cared for within the extended family should have been investigated and considered as an alternative to the provision of accommodation by the responsible local authority. However, even when it has become necessary for the responsible authority to arrange provision of accommodation, placement with a relative will often provide the best opportunities for promoting and maintaining family links in a familiar setting.
Apart from the placement of children, there is a duty under the Children Act to promote contact between children in care and their relatives unless it is not reasonably practicable or consistent with the welfare of the individual child. In practice, social workers are usually only too relieved to find that there is a grandparent who is ready, willing and able to assist. But as Professor June Thoburn points out in her book on child placement, one of the legacies of the Colwell report and the report into the death of Tyra Henry, has been a sense of unease about placements with relatives. In any case there has to be a realistic assessment of the

1173
grandparents' insight into what has gone wrong in the past and of the grandparents' ability to protect from future harm. It is a sad fact that sometimes the more extreme the mistreatment of the child or the risk to the child from the parent or parents, the more unwilling the grandparents can be to accept the position or to accept the need for vigilance.
The reality is that when family relationships break down or when local authorities have to intervene, there are, at one end of the scale, grandparents who are quite excellent at picking up the pieces, keeping open lines of communication and looking after the children either for short-term respite care or for longer-term periods. Professor Thoburn refers to research findings that placements with relatives are among the most successful, giving a child a greater sense of permanence than with other foster parents. But at the other end of the scale grandparents can make bad situations worse by interfering and being over-partisan and hostile. This adds more strain and complication and can de-stabilise placements of children, for example, with conventional foster parents.
Further, one cannot escape the fact that poor parents themselves tend to have had poor parents, and that child abuse in its different forms is all too often repeatedly inter-generational. But it is too easy to forget that family breakdowns involving children do not just affect the parents but often affect loving and anxious grandparents.
If I may remain with the legal context, but in the international setting, I recently read that the rights of children to preserve their identity was first expressly enshrined in the United Convention on the Rights of the Child as a result of the Argentinian initiative to prevent repetition of events in the so-called, "Dirty War" when some 170 children disappeared. Most of the 49 children who were traced, whether dead or alive, were traced by the brave group known as the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo.
Nearer home, a recent decision of the English High Court has recognised that grandparents can acquire rights of custody under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. Last but not least, there is the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 of which provides for respect to family life. Marginal cases on Article 8 have attracted adverse comment and publicity, which is unfortunate. But the fact is that it reflects the point that Article 8 is concerned with some broader concept than the so-called conventional nuclear family. Indeed, in the leading case Marckx v. Belgium, the court at Strasbourg held that family life in the conventional context, included ties between grandparents and grandchildren since such relatives may play a considerable part in family life.
I have concentrated on the legal aspects of the rights and responsibilities of grandparents and the role they play in proceedings before our courts. I am conscious that this debate has occupied a wider range than the narrow concerns of a lawyer. Reference was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for example, to the importance of children, particularly in one-parent situations, to have a male role-model. That was a
1174
valuable point. There is of course a gender consideration here because where the burden does fall on grandparents more generally it means a burden on the grandmother who may well have sacrificed her own career to bring up her own children and who may again sacrifice an opportunity to return to work when she has to look after her own parents or her parents-in-law. But as is obvious from this debate, a further burden may still arise if the grandmother has to become, in effect, the surrogate mother.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, referred to the position of the relatively younger grandmother looking after her daughter's child who had a baby at a young age. At the other end of the spectrum I suspect that we may well have problems with the increasing prevalence of delayed child bearing, meaning that in some respects the grandparents may become more aged. A problem may arise in that situation. It is clear that there are problems ahead and that they are not easy to assess or predict. I look forward to the Minister's response.
8.16 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, like other speakers in this debate, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for tabling this Question. It raises a lot of very important issues. Families are the fundamental social unit in our society. I believe that every speaker in this debate has stressed that. They provide mutual support and self-fulfilment to individuals, as well as a strong basis for care and learning. Upholding and strengthening stable family life are the most effective means of bringing up our children and shaping the values of future generations. It is in this context that the Government want to do more to promote the best possible outcomes for our children by developing a national childcare strategy that will help parents balance family and working life.
The strategy is about making sure that children have good quality care which will enable them to thrive, with stimulating activities to help them develop and learn, and opportunities to mix with other children so that they can gain the social skills that they all need. All this will help them have a good start in life and be better prepared for performing well at school. The contribution of grandparents is vital to this aim.
The Government believe in supporting all families, whatever form they may take. We cannot ignore that social trends in deferred marriage, lone parents, separation and divorce mean that there is no longer a single typical family structure. Last week's Budget announcement set out how we intend to support families, through, for example, the new Working Families Tax Credit, which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned. But it is no less important for children to know the love and affection of their grandparents, as it gives them a sense of wholeness by knowing their roots and gives them a link into the past. This link must be maintained, whatever happens to the family, for it is of benefit to both the child and the grandparent. I know that, speaking from experience. We recognise that attitudes have changed, and indeed the world has changed. Multi-generation families in Britain

1175
also need to adapt to changing personal relations and lifestyles. As a part of that process, we want to encourage grandparents to play their part in children's lives. We also want to emphasise their value as sources of care and support to their families.
In that context, I very much agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, that we should salute grandparents and cherish the role that they play in their families. That is why we gave a commitment in our education White Paper, Excellence in schools, that we would encourage the involvement of grandparents in children's learning. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to that.
To that end, we have been working with Age Concern to provide supportive mentoring for children from responsible older people. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, mentioned that not all older people are grandparents, but many older people who may not have grandchildren might like to be involved in such mentoring schemes. This year we have given Age Concern a grant for a feasibility study to test the possibility of extending its "Trans-Age" grandparent mentoring scheme to secondary schools. Depending on the outcome of the study, we will be prepared to consider making further funding available towards the costs of pump-priming a pilot project for secondary schools. Such programmes provide the opportunity for older people to enrich their own lives and at the same time those of young people. That is a most important combination. By contributing and sharing their life experiences, listening, caring and becoming a child's special friend, older volunteers can often provide a stability that might be otherwise lacking.
I did not know that Age Concern was introducing a "Grandparents' Day" and that it will be on 27th September. That happens to be my birthday, so perhaps I can have a double celebration this year of "Grandparents' Day" and my birthday with my grandchildren, although I have a horrible feeling that the Labour Party conference might get in the way!
We must remember that many grandparents also work and that they may not always be available to carry out the full-time care to which some speakers have referred, but that does not stop them playing a role in providing their grandchildren with love and perhaps a little part-time care. We must also remember that some grandparents may be looking after great-grandparents—not great-grandparents like the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, because she certainly does not need any looking after, although some great-grandparents may.
Many significant social changes have taken place which affect the way in which we live now. There are increasing opportunities for grandparents to be involved with their families when they retire early, and more people have been retiring early in recent years. With healthy life expectancy increasing, there is a greater chance of any child having an active grandparent than was the case for the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, spoke about family breakdown and child abuse. He referred to children in care and the possible role of grandparents in placements.
1176
He rightly said that it is important that realistic assessments should be made, and are needed, before such placements are made, but loving grandparents can sometimes rescue children from the most terrible situations.
There is also an important role for grandparents as childcarers as part of the national childcare strategy on which we plan to launch a Green Paper after Easter. The aim is to have a range of good quality, affordable childcare provision in every neighbourhood, meeting the needs of the child, providing choice for parents and supporting the informal childcare sector. We recognise that many parents would prefer to leave their children with a close relative when they are not looking after them themselves. Grandparents often play a major role in the provision of such childcare within the family. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, referred to that in the context of very young single mothers.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked whether grandparents who were being trained for childcare would be given credit for experience. I am sure that any sensible training scheme would do that.
The 1994 British Social Attitudes Survey found that 75 per cent. of mothers used informal care for some of their childcare provision. Out of this 75 per cent., 62 per cent. of mothers used relatives, including grandparents, to provide childcare, while a further 13 per cent. used either friends or neighbours. It is right that parents should have this choice; and the national childcare strategy will not discourage these childcare arrangements. We do not want to fix something that already works. But we must also recognise that this choice unfortunately does not exist for many families where no grandparent is available to support their children by looking after their grandchildren.
As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, more and more women are working. Over 70 per cent. of the female population are economically active and the percentage is increasing. This is creating a greater need for childcare, especially where both parents are working. Four out of five non-working mothers in the UK say they would go out to work if they had the childcare of their choice. A quarter of mothers who work part-time say they would increase their working hours if they had the childcare of their choice. That is why we made a manifesto commitment to develop a national childcare strategy.
We have already set out the measure of importance we attach to delivering the strategy by committing £300 million to expand out-of-school childcare over the next five years to help up to 1 million children. From April the expansion will start with additional funding made available to the out-of-school childcare initiative. For 1998–99, this means that funding has more than doubled and will create 20,000 new places. The initiative has already created some 80,000 places.
Also in 1998–99 we will extend pre-school places and out-of-school care for four year-olds and expand the provision of childcare in FE colleges. That is important to the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, because young mothers need to continue their education and training.

1177
The strategy will also provide support for those such as grandparents who look after children at home. We want to improve the skills of all who work with children, not just those in formal settings. For parents and grandparents who want to look after their own children, we want to make sure they have access to support and information to help them in this role. They will be able to choose to participate in local care activities, such as play groups, toy libraries and One O'clock clubs and to have access to other services which might be provided. We also want to try to encourage employers to have more family-friendly policies and we are taking a variety of initiatives in that respect.
To conclude, despite the range of public policies, the primary role for bringing up children rests with their parents, supported by their wider family, friends, neighbours and the community. The parental role, that of the extended family and that of the wider community are vital in identifying problems and providing the first resource for intervention. Nothing that government do should undermine that. We want to encourage working together to build strong communities with integrated services towards a socially integrated society which is inclusive rather than exclusive. We want to emphasise the nurturing role of families in the upbringing of children and the important ripple effect this has—one family more confident, secure, able to cope, reaching out to others to form the basis of developing a caring community. That is very precious and it is something that we must preserve.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
8.30 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1: Amendment No. 4.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: In speaking to Amendment No. 4, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 54 standing in my name. I speak also to the judicial and political elements and the extension of the ECJ into our common law, in particular how the ECJ affects the UK's common law. My contribution may be something of a curate's egg. I have received some advice from an eminent QC. No doubt those parts of my speech that are good will be those provided by that eminent QC, but I assure the Committee that most of this contribution is my own. Article 33 (formerly Article K.5) was not to affect the exercise of responsibilities of member states regarding the maintenance of law and order and internal security. Now under Article 32 (the revised K.4) the Council shall lay down conditions under which competent authorities may operate in the territory of another member state. Who are they? Under Articles 30 and 31 (formerly K.2 and K.3) they are the police, customs and specialised law enforcement services. Under Article 30(2)—the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, may be aware of this—Europol will have the right to interfere in the investigative actions of the competent authorities of member states. That will not be subject to judicial
1178
review. If the drive for greater integration is inspired by the need for a single area of freedom and security it is the freedom of entry that carries the greatest risk, because it allows the free movement of illegal immigrants around Europe while members of our Commonwealth require EU visas to enter the country.
Additionally, the new and rewritten articles of Title VI place more emphasis on the leadership, guiding role and activities of the Community and less on the initiative of member states. This is intended to strengthen the powers of the Community in operating and developing common action. The role of Europol in co-ordinating and co-operating among the member states has been formalised in the treaty. We do not want that. Under Article 34 (originally K.6 or K.3(1)), we were to collaborate in informing and consulting. What is wrong with that? Now we have Article 34(2), (3) and (4), all of which conspire to interfere by adopting framework decisions. We are to have judicial co-operation and harmonisation. How are we to harmonise Greek law with UK law? It just is not on. Neither of them can be harmonised with ECJ law, so the whole matter is a farce. It is for the Commission and the ECJ to decide on these points, but how can they? Title VI omits the opening words which include a reference to home affairs. Is this not indicative of the presumption that home affairs are the province of the European nation and its government-to-be—that is, the Commission? The omission removes what might have been an inhibition, in the opinion of the eminent QC to whom I have already referred, on the inclination of the ECJ to construct interpretations of the Rome treaties in a progressively integrationist manner, as has already been suggested.
These changes mark another step towards treating the Court as the supreme court and what Commissioner Fischler described as a new nation that would be born when EMU and the single currency were in place. He was reported in The Times on 27th February as saying that the Euro would then set the scene for the Commission to take on the role of a national government. This is a threat to our own legal system. We do not want the Commission to take on the role of government, having stolen the powers and attributes of national governments and transferred them to institutions that are answerable to the Commission.
In contrast, at Amsterdam there should have been a reduction of the powers and functions of the Court. Instead, the treaty is developing the Community's character as a state rather than as a partnership of nations. Article 35 gives the ECJ the right to make preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation of framework decisions by virtue of a declaration in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Here we have the long arm of ever-deeper unionisation working away to eliminate the nation state. Perhaps the use of the word "unionisation" here is remarkable. We are returning to the 19th century system of Napoleonic edicts which translated themselves into the republican diktat and the dictatorships of the 20th century. It has all happened before and we see it developing again before our eyes with an awful sense of inevitability.

1179
The vast mass of the British people are sublimely unconscious of what is happening to them. They cannot tell without unravelling the drawstrings. Indeed, the ECJ's control of our legal system is an ever-tightening knot, and the whole of Article 35(1) to (7) pulls the strings ever tighter.
To whom is the ECJ responsible? There is no authority except the Council, who are bound on all occasions to consult an unelected band of bureaucrats whose sole objective is to preserve their authority over member states and deny their national identity. Your Lordships ask in their prayers to put behind them their partial affections and conduct their business under the authority of the Sovereign to whom they have sworn allegiance. But we are not the elected body of Parliament. We can only refer legislation back to the elected House of Parliament. It is they who should decide our laws and preserve our basic rights under the common law of the land. By contrast, the Commissioners are equally sworn to deny all partial affections to their home countries but are required simply to press for ever deeper and wider union with no responsibility to anyone and no recourse to national governments, elected or otherwise.
It is a truism that we are an island race on the edge of Europe. We differ from its other nations in the institutions, laws and practices that we have developed and spread throughout the world and which have been tested over hundreds of years and not found to be wanting. They are in place today throughout the great commonwealth of nations of which we are such a proud member. How can we rationalise or harmonise our legal system with that of the Greeks? Their legal system is not one that has any sense of democracy about it. In contrast, Continental governments and their peoples in general do not have our inherited attitudes towards the importance of government in Parliament and the role of the national Parliament as the true and only lawmaker. It is the common law that grants us our freedom without the restriction of a written constitution that dictates what we may do and places upon us the onus of proof of our innocence when denounced. That is the opposite of our freedoms under common law. Are we to lose that precious jewel that has been handed down to us and developed since Magna Carta?
The British public is unaware of the import of all that is in the Amsterdam legislation which is the fruit of the IGC, appointed to confirm the Maastricht Treaty. It does more than that: it goes ever deeper into our lifestyle. There has been no clear explanation of the extent of the constitutional revolution that is taking place within the framework of the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty, and the Treaty of Amsterdam.
It is for that reason that I have tabled the amendment calling on the Government to report the extent of the loss of rights that the British public is suffering from its common law and will suffer in the future when it finds that our immemorial rights have been traduced by a bunch of unelected bureaucrats.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, at his quickness in seizing the moment. I apologise to him for having leapt up before him out of order. I welcome the fact that he spoke to his amendment, but that is about as far as I can follow him, as he will understand.
I shall return to the broad thesis of this whole group of amendments, and say a few words about some of the main issues that we are discussing. I shall keep my remarks brief, because there has already been—I welcome it—a detailed and long debate. One response to the noble Earl is that common law is one of the traditions that the ECJ takes into account. There is specific reference to common law as one of the parts of the traditions upon which European democracy is based.
The Greek Government might be rather resentful about being described as not a democracy, given that they are normally regarded, in the Athenian Republic, as being the very cradle of democracy, although there have admittedly been some lapses from that situation over many centuries.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: The noble Baroness is kind to give way to me. Their current law has nothing to do with Athenian law which originated 2,000 years ago. They are a totally different bunch of bureaucrats.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I shall not pursue the matter much further, except to say that Greece has a recognised system of elections and of passing power from one party to another, although we may not find it perfect in all respects.
First, I was sad to hear the noble Lord. Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and some other Peers, make some fun of the references to racism and xenophobia in Title 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Article 6A, for which Her Majesty's Government fought hard in the negotiations, extends one of the areas where the Treaty of Rome was singularly successful; that is to say, action against discrimination on gender grounds to discrimination on religious, racial and other grounds. That is right and proper, and should be part of the basic principles of the EU.
I, for one, greatly welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, and what Her Majesty's Government did in ensuring that that article found its way into the new treaty. There is a great deal of work to be done. The British Government can give some good examples. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, perhaps with something else in mind, referred to our anti-discrimination legislation. That is a useful model which can be extended to other parts of Europe, not forgetting that we are looking at a Europe which will be enlarged shortly, where problems of racism and xenophobia are real, and where it is very important indeed to establish exactly what the principles upon which the EU is based happen to be.
Secondly—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before the noble Baroness moves on to her second point, perhaps I can say that I do not think that I did poke fun either at racism or xenophobia. I thought that I made it clear that I took racism extremely seriously, but that I thought that the crime of racism was adequately covered by our own Race Relations Act. I suppose, in the background, I do not really see the point of European interference in British race relations legislation.
As to the alleged problem of xenophobia, I merely asked the Minister to tell us what it is, and how we are to combat it, and what the penalty might be for perpetrating it. I await, with great interest, the noble Lord's reply. I really would not like to be accused of not taking these problems seriously when they exist.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I fully accept what the noble Lord has said. It is interesting that he and I see this in opposite ways. I see this outcome, which was supported by Her Majesty's Government, as precisely a way in which our own practices might be extended more widely within the EU. The noble Lord sees it as a way in which the EU might interfere with us.
If one looks at the treaty and the way in which the articles are expressed, it is clear that it is unlikely to apply in any negative way to us. It will be the basis of extending non-discrimination to those places where there still is discrimination—and, alas, that remains the case.
I turn, secondly, to what I thought was one of the flaws in some, at least, of the amendments in the group, although I acquit the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, of it because he made it plain that the Conservative Opposition believe that there has to be closer co-operation to deal with organised crime, smuggling, the drug trade, terrorism, and a whole range of new challenges which would have been unfamiliar a generation or two ago.
I shall give just one example. To save time, I will limit myself to one example. It is the recent discovery by the Italian police, on a tip-off from part of the Mafia which had broken away from the Mafia, of radioactive uranium rods being smuggled into the EU. That is as serious, in its way, as the warning we have been given about the possibility of anthrax entering countries not well disposed towards Iraq. It shows the scale of what organised crime will now engage in, and how reluctant it is to accept any limitations to the areas in which it is willing to make money, and the extent to which that is now reaching global levels.
Indeed, Members of the Committee will remember that only two days ago the British Government agreed with the Thai Government to take steps to limit sex tourism, which indicates the areas in which we are now living and working. That is why close co-operation is essential. Her Majesty's Government are right to say that there must be close co-operation—all the more
1182
given that the Schengen Agreement has removed internal borders from the bulk of European member states.
We are just living in the past if we believe that we do not need close co-operation of that kind. Within the scope of that close co-operation, Her Majesty's Government have gone a long way to ensure that virtually every framework agreement and operational agreement is based upon unanimity. That is further than we on these Benches believe it probably appropriate to go, given the scale of the challenge; but no one can challenge the Government in terms of their protection of the UK Government's position in a situation where, I repeat, it is crucial that there can be joint operations, as criminals move people and goods rapidly from one country to another.
The third point concerns the extension of the ECJ's powers. They are limited powers. I do not believe that there has so far been any satisfactory answer to the question posed by my noble friend Lord Lester to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan: "Well then, who else is supposed to resolve disputes between member states and the Commission and member states? Who else is supposed to rule on the legal standing of framework agreements as, by the nature of a framework agreement, although it is unanimous, one cannot expect member states to accept the jurisdiction of any one of their courts?" They will only accept the jurisdiction of a court that includes them all within the EU.
It is merely to live in a world of unreality to suppose that one can do without an interpretation of whether such framework agreements fall within the terms of the title itself, and, beyond that, of the treaty. I can see no other jurisdiction that will be appropriate. Indeed, again from these Benches we should say that Her Majesty's Government have given the most limited extension of European Court of Justice powers that would be compatible with any kind of title of intergovernmental co-operation.
I have one question which I should like to ask the Government. I ask them to confirm what I believe to be correct; namely, that the European Court of Justice cannot go beyond those two issues which I have described—framework agreement interpretation and the resolution of disputes—to the area of preliminary rulings unless the Government specifically ask it to do so in a declaration.
From these Benches, we believe that that is a mistake and that it will involve more time and a greater use of resources than is really necessary if the courts seek a preliminary ruling. But I must say on behalf of the Government that they have leaned over backwards in the direction of sovereignty of the nation by saying that we shall not even seek preliminary rulings which would, therefore, be guidance to our own courts. Our own courts would have to resolve those matters on their own.
I turn now to Europe. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, much of what he said I found to be thoroughly logical and sensible, but at one point I broke away completely from what he said. The noble Lord and one or two of his noble friends, indeed, in somewhat troubling terms, raised the issue of Europol's

1183
powers. We have every sympathy with people who are concerned to set against the powers that Europol may have and develop once the convention is fully in force a desire to protect the liberties of individuals. But let us be direct about that. It was the previous government who accepted Europol; who accepted Europol complete with its immunities and privileges. It was the present official Opposition who, in the House of Commons on 19th January, voted against a specific Liberal Democrat amendment calling for those immunities to be limited to the same position as that of the British police. The official Opposition voted against that amendment which was intended to provide the very protection about which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has spoken.
Finally—and one must put this clearly on the record—the official Opposition, at the time they were in government, deliberately made a decision to allow no appeal by an individual to the European Court of Justice against an action by Europol which was believed to go beyond the proper powers of Europol. I presume that they did that with their eyes open.
In other words, they were so much more concerned about extending in any way the powers of the European Court of Justice that they chose quite deliberately to put at risk the rights of the individual. I give one example. If an individual found himself beaten up by Greek policemen and he, being a British citizen, then sought redress, there would be no redress through the British courts, nor through the European Court of Justice, which has been specifically barred from that role by the former government. The redress would have to be sought in the Greek courts.
For the life of me, I cannot see that that is a more effective protection of the rights of the individual than to allow the European Court of Justice to protect that individual by extending its powers in limited ways in relation to human rights and Europol. I do not expect the Government to agree with me, but I expect the official Opposition to recognise that their position is illogical, inconsistent and simply does not hold together on that issue.
Finally, I turn to the position which has been taken with regard to Amendments Nos. 44 and 48 in particular. We can see a strong argument for there to be detailed reports to the British Parliament on issues concerning that title. But the longest step towards some kind of more effective form of national parliamentary scrutiny has been taken in the past few weeks by the Government.
In particular, I refer to the memorandum from the Home Office to the Modernisation Committee of another place which indicates that it will accept the idea of the so-called scrutiny bar to agreements, decisions and so on arising under Title VI. That is a long step in the right direction. It does not go as far as we on these Benches would like it to go because we should like to see a more extensive system of national parliamentary control with regard to both the so-called intergovernmental pillars. But it is essential to say—and we commend the Government on that—that they have taken steps which have not been taken for many years past to strengthen the system of parliamentary scrutiny within this Parliament.
1184
At the bottom of the whole argument about that title of the European Treaty of Amsterdam lies the issue of how to make accountable intergovernmental agreements. It is absolutely crucial, in an area where civil liberties are very much at risk, that we should do so.
Lord Shore of Stepney: I believe that I am the llth Peer to rise to address the Committee on this group of amendments. I should say straight away that of the 10 or so contributions that we have had so far, I find myself in considerable agreement with at least eight, but not wholly persuaded at all by the contributions which have come from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
In particular, I congratulate my noble friend who opened the debate on the scope of his remarks which have laid out the territory. I congratulate him also on the many interesting questions that he has raised. I am certainly greatly impressed by the contributions which have come from all sides of the Committee. They have probed and worried, very properly, and have raised questions which were not properly answered in the other place. Those questions will come to haunt governments and the people of this country if they are not dealt with adequately at this stage.
In particular, I should say to the noble Earl that I agreed so much with what he said about the wider matters—the common law, habeas corpus and the unwritten constitution. Those are great treasures which we have inherited. When I hear people talk about the rebranding of Britain as though all of that did not matter a damn I feel nothing but rage.
We have some reason to be protective of what we have and what we have inherited. To a great extent, it underlies this debate and, indeed, many other debates as well. There are those who do not share that view about our achievements or our inheritance. There are those who are anxious to give up, to merge, to surrender and to abandon—in the belief that they are doing what? They are creating not a European nation but a European state. It is not the ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe but the ever-closer union of the classe politique. That is what it is. The sooner we wake up to that reality, the better it will be.
I do not have a great deal to say because so much has been said so well already. But I believe that a little bit of background would be helpful to those who seem to me to have treated part of this discussion as though it were entirely a matter of the juridical business of interpreting the law and so on. A little bit of background would be helpful and I hope to supply it very briefly.
We are discussing the future of the third pillar. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out, rightly, that it is the erosion of the third pillar which really underlies so much of this debate.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the Amsterdam Treaty brought for the first time the European Union into the areas of home affairs and justice and into foreign and security policy, to which we may turn later. It was deliberately constructed as a separate pillar outside the purview of the main structure of the Rome Treaty as

1185
amended by the Single European Act and so forth. It was to be outside; it was to be inter-governmental; implementation was to be by co-operation between member states, which would at most reach conventions. I am not certain who adjudicates the conventions, but that is not the essence of the issue. There are many conventions in international law and we find ways of arbitrating them when disputes arise.
The purpose was to be quite separate. I recall the then Prime Minister, John Major, returning from the long negotiations at Maastricht and proclaiming that it was game, set and match because Britain had secured an acceptance that the important areas of home affairs, civil and criminal law, and so forth, should remain outside the normal treaty arrangements. By that, we mean outside the procedures of the Commission proposing, the Council of Ministers voting and the European Court of Justice in the end adjudicating. That was not to be part of the issues which affected Pillars 2 or 3.
The then Prime Minister claimed that victory because during the course of the Maastricht negotiations he had met very strong pressures from the federalist enthusiasts on the European continent who had been constantly trying to extend the scope of the Community, the Union, to cover ever larger areas of the affairs of the member states. I am afraid that that is a fact of life. Of course, the fact that they did not win at Maastricht did not mean that they abandoned the project; they simply prepared for the next round. They had already written into the Maastricht Treaty that there would be a revision, a further go, of their Articles n and b of the treaty. And so it came about.
We then had a further IGC, which concluded with the Amsterdam Treaty. In that treaty they tried—and their fingerprints are all over it—to erode the separateness of Pillars 2 and 3 and to nudge them, to push them, to trundle them into the coverage of Pillar 1 and the main Rome Treaty.
Unless we begin to understand that, we shall not have a sensible debate, nor will we have a sensible response. However, I am sure that my noble friend who is to reply from the Front Bench is fully aware of what it is all about. and of the history of the treaties, and needs no instruction on the matter. I am sure that he will therefore choose his words carefully because he knows very well what the intent has been. What is still somewhat uncertain is how far the Eurofederalists and Europhiles succeeded at Amsterdam. That requires a great deal of serious thought and probing of the words of the treaty. Much of it has already taken place. My noble friend already has an enormous number of questions to answer precisely because of the uncertainties as to how far the pillar has been eroded.
I have two queries to put to my noble friend. I am aware that we are dealing with the proposals for common action in judicial co-operation in both criminal and civil matters. The two are included. There is an interesting reference in the treaty which I must bring to your Lordships' attention. Some noble Lords referred to articles by their revised treaty numbers. I shall refer to articles in the unrevised treaty numbers. Whereas
1186
some noble Lords quoted Articles 100 and so forth, I am afraid that I shall quote Article 73 from m to z, or whatever, as well as other related matters.
Article 73m begins with the words:
"Measures in the field of judicial co-operation in civil matters having cross-border implications, to be taken in accordance with Article 73o and insofar as necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market, shall include".
There is then a whole list of issues, including improving and simplifying and promoting the compatibility of the rules applicable in member states concerning the conflicts of laws and jurisdictions. That long list of issues is most important but ill defined, as noble Lords have pointed out.
The governing words in the article are:
"Measures in this field … having cross-border implications, to he taken in accordance with Article 73o".
I am surprised that Article 73o has not featured a little more in the debate so far.
Article 73o is a bit of a mystery. Article 73o, paragraph 1, begins by stating:
"During the transitional period of five years following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Council shall act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission or on the initiative of the Member State and after consulting the European Parliament".
That is the language and institutions of Pillar 1. Yet we had the list of subjects in Pillar 3—the judicial civil co-operation with cross-border implications—without a word or apology brought back into Pillar 1. That is in the first five years—
Baroness Ludford: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I believe that we are discussing the inter-governmental part of the treaty, Title VI, relating to police and judicial co-operation. I believe that the noble Lord is referring to the Community pillar, Title ILIA, which the UK will not be part of. Therefore, perhaps it is logical that no one has spoken of Article 73o and we shall discuss those matters later in the debate.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that partial correction. However, there is an interconnection, which I clearly spelt out. That interconnection begins with Article 73m and then defers directly to Article 73o.
I have dealt with Article 73o(1)—namely, the transitional period—but what about the period when that comes to an end? Paragraph (2) reads in a very puzzling way. After this period of five years, it says that,
"the Council shall act on proposals from the Commission; the Commission shall examine any request made by a Member State that it submit a proposal to the Council".
It then goes on to refer to the Council "acting unanimously". So we have unanimity in a transitional period and, apparently, unanimity in voting in the post—transitional period. I should like to establish, first,

1187
whether that is correct. If it is, what is the difference between the transitional period and the period that follows after five years?
I believe that we get some idea about that from reading the rest of paragraph (2) of Article 73o, which says that,
"the Council, acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament, shall take a decision with a view to providing for all or parts of the areas covered by this Title to be governed by the procedure referred to in Article 1896"—
that is, I believe, the co-decision procedure, which covers qualified majority voting, and so on, tooing and froing between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, but perhaps my noble friend will confirm that—
"and adapting the provisions relating to the powers of the Court of Justice".
I am sure that my noble friend has mastered the complexity of these texts, but I have not. Indeed, I find myself bewildered; I do not know what they are talking about here. At any rate there must be some difference between the transitional period and the post-transitional period, although both of them seem to be well within the territory of their own treaty and the first pillar.
That is my first range of questions for my noble friend the Minister. I shall not pursue others very much further. I have tabled Amendments Nos. 52 and 53, which I suppose I should speak to formally. However, I shall deal now with Amendment No. 53, which relates to Europol and especially the references to Europol in the treaty provisions of Articles K.2 and K.4. Article K.2 deals with common action in the field of police co-operation and, again, gives us a great range of activities that other noble Lords have already commented upon. Precisely what the powers of Europol are I do not know. I should certainly welcome any information that my noble friend the Minister can give us when he responds.
However, we are dealing with Europol and the second or third pillar—I forget which one. I draw my noble friend's attention to Article K.4, which simply says:
"The Council shall lay down the conditions and limitations under which the competent authorities referred in Articles K.2 and K/"—
which are, basically, the police authorities—
"may operate in the territory of another Member State in liaison and in agreement with the authorities of that State".
That seems fairly clear; indeed, there has at least to be an agreement. But it would be most interesting to know the thinking of Her Majesty's Government on the matter. Do they not see that very considerable problems could arise if the "competent authorities" from other states were allowed to operate in the territory of the United Kingdom? They really must give us some guidance in that respect.
I shall conclude by saying that the amendments I have tabled have emphasised most strongly the need for reports to be made. Frankly, I do not expect my noble friend to answer the battery of searching questions that have been put to him tonight. Nor do I think, with the best will in the world, that we shall be given all the answers even in correspondence because much of this
1188
concerns decisions that have yet to be taken and practices that have yet to be adopted. It will take quite a while to unfold. That is why we emphasise, in the two amendments to which I have put my name, the need for reports. We need reports on the whole range of matters which we have discussed today. Those reports need to be presented to both Houses of Parliament. Before any implementing decisions are taken, they need the consent of both Houses.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As befits—
Baroness Ludford: I thank the Minister for giving way. I was not quite quick enough in rising to my feet. I wish briefly to make a few remarks. My noble friend Lady Williams said that the difference between those who spoke this evening who view the European Union as an opportunity, and those who view it as a threat has been particularly evident. Some speakers perhaps do not quite fall into either category. However, I believe that there is something of a gulf here. I do not aspire to having a complete meeting of minds. I believe that part of that difference is due to differing attitudes to the sharing of power. Some of us believe that by sharing power and by pooling sovereignty in the European Union we gain opportunities and we make concrete progress. However, others see it as a loss. We believe that you win some and you lose some, but that on the whole you win more than you lose.
I believe it was the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, who referred to a threat to national identity. I believe that one of the things that is to be welcomed in the Treaty of Amsterdam is precisely the new provision which states that the European Union will respect the national identities of member states. That provision did not exist before. I refer also to the protocol on subsidiarity. However, I do not wish to dwell on it as we shall have a later opportunity to discuss it. These are matters which make clear what the European Union is not, as well as what it is. They are entirely welcome matters to us on these Benches because, contrary to occasional charges, we do not want a centralised superstate. We want a body where powers are clearly identified and located and a body which is subject to the rule of law and to democratic controls so that we all know where we are. We do not want to see some agglomerate pooling of powers which overwhelms individuals. But unless it is clear that we are sharing powers, there will not be a meeting of minds. We on these Benches welcome—
The Earl of Clanwilliam: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. My concern is whether we shall retain the common law, and whether the European Court of Justice will uphold the common law of the United Kingdom in its judgments. If it does not, it will be unjust.
Baroness Ludford: It is essential—and, on the whole, it is achieved in the European Union—to make clear what powers are being allocated to the European Community and the European Union and what powers

1189
are not. I referred in that connection to the subsidiarity protocol. My party would like to see that protocol go further down the chain, if you like, towards regional and local levels to make it clear that power should stay at the lowest feasible level and be raised only when it is necessary. As my noble friend said, the European Court of Justice is being given powers in precise and limited areas. There is no overarching and overwhelming allocation of competence and jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice; it is precisely defined.
We on these Benches welcome the reform of the remaining third pillar. Later we shall discuss freedom of movement and border controls and therefore I shall not discuss those matters now. The substitution under the remaining third pillar of framework decisions, which are likely to be more frequently adopted than conventions, is something we welcome. We welcome the extension of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. As my noble friend said, we might have preferred that extension to give an opportunity to individuals through Article 177 references, but I suspect that we shall be disappointed on that score.
We also welcome the fact that the European Parliament is to be consulted on these matters. It will not have a legislative role—it will not be able to make amendments or be required to give consent—but it will have a consultative role. We would like to see co-operation between the European Parliament and national parliaments because in third pillar matters national parliaments have an important role to play in scrutinising proposed conventions and framework decisions. There needs to be liaison respecting the proper roles and not mutually infringing each other's competencies as between national parliaments and the European Parliament.
With reference to at least two of his amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, mentioned reports. We welcome that. What we do not support is requiring the ratification of the treaty to be dependent on receipt of such reports. However, his aim is to increase transparency and accountability. Our Ministers in the Council need to keep this Parliament better informed of the progress of matters. My noble friend referred to the memorandum. While improved scrutiny is proposed, I believe that only the final texts of framework decisions are to be made available. It might be helpful to have earlier texts of drafts. It has been a point of contention in the past that Members of Parliament and Members of your Lordships' House are not kept sufficiently informed of the evolution of texts.
We welcome any action which increases information and transparency while not wishing to delay ratification. We very much hope that the UK can ratify the treaty before the forthcoming European summit.
I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. When referring to the European Court of Justice, he talked about poor drafting of European Union decisions making the work of the court more difficult. Attention needs to be given to that. Drafting of Community legislation is often sloppy. When I worked
1190
in the Commission and the Secretariat-General, and attended meetings of Council of Ministers, I was often surprised by the way in which a new clause was drafted in corridors and became a clause in a directive. I believe that this matter needs greater attention. While we on these Benches are enthusiastic supporters of European integration, we do not accept uncritically poor or sloppy standards of legislation or procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to the European budget. By resisting the operational expenditure under the third pillar being chargeable to the European Community budget, I wonder whether we would deny ourselves opportunities. For instance, if we were to manage to save money on, let us say, the common agricultural policy, the Union might wish to mount a big exercise against illegal importation of drugs. It would be extremely complicated to have a common operation where the financial burden had to be charged to all the different member states' budgets. It would be more convenient to put the burden on the Community budget.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Is the noble Baroness aware that in any one financial year covered by the European budget, the European Commission submits on average between 100 and 120 transfers between one budget title and another, virtually without any query or explanation, and without any interest by both Houses of Parliament here? That has opened up the immediate opportunity—I can assure the noble Baroness that it is taken advantage of virtually every time—to transfer expenditure between titles exactly as the Commission wishes without giving any indication as to what those transfers are really for.
Baroness Ludford: As I indicated earlier, we on these Benches are not defenders of poor practice. I urge the European Parliament, which has the major scrutiny role on the European Community's budget, to do a better job. It is by pushing for high standards all the time in democratic and judicial scrutiny that we can improve matters, not by refusing to make progress.
Finally, on the matter of Europol, it was the previous government who signed the Europol convention which declined to give the European Court of Justice any jurisdiction. As my noble friend pointed out, the Official Opposition did not support the Liberal Democrats' amendment in the other place to counter the immunities for Europol. I believe that the way forward is to strengthen judicial and democratic scrutiny and not to resile from important progress in combating crime, the illegal importation of drugs, terrorism, and other matters, where it will be the citizens of the European Union who will benefit.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This has been, quite properly, a wide-ranging debate. I say "quite properly" because of the very large number of amendments that have been considered during the course of this lengthy debate. The focus has been on the changes made within

1191
the third pillar. It used to be called the Justice and Home Affairs Pillar, and has now been renamed by Amsterdam, under new Title VI, as,
"Provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters",
to reflect its revised and more focused content.
It is important that we emphasise from the very beginning the word "co-operation". This is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, a pillar which could justifiably invoke the words, "supra-national" or "imposed", or any words of that kind. There is no extension of Community competence involved in this pillar. Where we come to the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Shore—and I shall certainly answer those—they are under freedom of movement; they are under the parts of the old justice and home affairs pillar which are specifically transferred to the first pillar. My understanding is that our agreement is that we shall deal with that when we deal with the group of amendments starting with Amendment No. 14. I shall answer my noble friend at length when we come to that amendment. The scope of the interventions has quite properly gone wider. I therefore want to address in turn the distinct issues involved.
First, I turn to the broad question of the changes to the scope and objectives of the pillar as well as the new decision-making procedures which Amsterdam introduces. Perhaps I may say again to my noble friend Lord Shore that he is anticipating further changes that may come after Amsterdam rather than the changes that are actually introduced by Amsterdam.
Psychologically, I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend. I would draw the analogy of a planning application. The applicant wants to do something to which you object. You object, and it is turned down. But once it is turned down, that is not the end of the matter. The applicant comes back with a slightly modified application. He goes on, until he obtains something which may still be objectionable to you but which actually gets past the planning authorities—and it all seems to be one-way. As I say, psychologically, I understand what my noble friend is saying. I know that he fears, as do many noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, not what is on the face of the Amsterdam agreement but what they believe may follow from it. I think much of what they fear is what they believe to be on the face of the Amsterdam agreement and is not. However, I hope that I shall be able to deal with that during the course of my remarks. What I cannot do is deal with their fears as to what might follow in future. That is not properly the subject of this Bill or of these amendments.
I wish to start by making two key points. First, the UK is committed to improving co-operation among EU member states in the fight against drugs, crime and racism. I believe, from listening to the remarks made, that that interest is widely recognised in this House. The fight against crime and drugs is a key element in the whole programme of the UK presidency of the European Union. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, was quite right to give a practical up-to-date example of the discovery of uranium rods in Italy as
1192
showing the necessity for increased vigilance and increased enforcement activities on crime, which inevitably crosses national boundaries. Equally important—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Will the noble Lord give way? He touched on a point that I made and no doubt the whole Committee is in agreement with what the noble Lord said. The question is: do we need the Treaty of Rome to pursue that collaboration?
9.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope to show that although the changes proposed here are limited, as has been said, they are valuable and worthwhile changes. I would not leave that point without returning to it later in my remarks.
The second point I wish to make is that the main forum for the co-operation is and will remain the third pillar and the distinctive nature of the pillar is unchanged. Governments will co-operate with each other on the basis of unanimity and outside the Community framework. In other words, although the Community institutions will have a role which is carefully defined in each case, those fields will remain intergovernmental.
Within that framework, some useful changes have been made and I should like to set them out as briefly as I can. Although the scope of the third pillar is reduced by the transfer of immigration, asylum and civil judicial co-operation to the Community pillar—and we will come back to that when we debate Amendment No. 14—it will, for the first time, provide a framework for common European Union action against racism. The Government welcome that.
I have been asked to define "xenophobia", as if it were an appropriate thing for a spokesman in your Lordships' House to do. I have no difficulty in defining "xenophobia". It is hatred of people from other countries. But I do not think that would go down well in legal terms. The point is—and I say this to my noble friend Lord Stoddart and the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen—it is not necessary for me to define "xenophobia". First, there has to be a unanimous decision by the Council—perhaps I may finish my sentence.
Lord Swinfen: In regard to xenophobia, is the Minister telling the House that the Government have signed a treaty of which they do not know the meaning?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I thought I was giving way to a serious intervention. I am trying to explain, as seriously as I can, on a serious issue, that action on xenophobia requires, first, a unanimous decision by the Council; and, secondly, United Kingdom legislation. Therefore, any definition of xenophobia which is to be used in this country will be defined in United Kingdom legislation. It will be arrived at by parliamentary counsel and debated by Parliament. It is not appropriate for a definition to come from me now.
Lord Monson: I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for giving way. I hope that he will agree that

1193
this intervention is a wholly serious one. Both racism and xenophobia are emotions, not actions. How can legislation be framed against emotions like fear, suspicion or whatever?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The legislation will, of course, be framed as is legislation on racism in this country already under the Race Relations Act. It will be framed in terms of offences which fall under the heading of racism or xenophobia.
Lord Swinfen: I was about to rise at the same time as the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches. The Minister said that xenophobia would be defined by Act of Parliament in this country. That was quite clear. What happens if it gets a different definition under laws made in other countries of the European Community? Then we do not have an agreement on the treaty. It is quite possible that there could be differences of opinion as to the meaning.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The law of this country will apply in this country and only the law of this country will apply in this country. Another improvement is that a wider range of legal instruments will be available. A new instrument, the framework decision, will be able to enter into force much more quickly than conventions. That will mean that the people of this country will be able to benefit from the effect of third pillar co-operation much more quickly than before. Framework decisions will not have direct effect and must be agreed by unanimity. That brings me to the whole raft of points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Pearson, and others.
The point about framework decisions is that they are decisions of the Council and not decisions of the courts of this country. The European Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over the courts in this country. When the noble Lord, Lord Renton, refers in horror—I believe I am right in describing his reaction—to the phrase, "approximation of laws and regulations", I can assure him that unanimity is required; that the procedural questions to which he referred—or it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—are really procedural questions. They are concerned only with the procedures within the Council; for example, the order on the agenda or how the closure is to be taken. On these substantive issues there must be unanimity. Changes in the United Kingdom law—I say this in capital letters—can only be made by this Parliament. That is my answer fundamentally to the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, though I shall return to his other points if I have another opportunity.
A third change is the limited extension of the role of the institutions. The European Court of Justice's jurisdiction will extend automatically to dispute resolution and an optional preliminary rulings jurisdiction for those that want it—and only those who want it. The Commission, as well as member states, will have the right of initiative and the European Parliament will be consulted as a matter of course before measures are adopted, as well as being kept regularly informed of discussions.
1194
In case anybody's hackles rise in regard to the European Parliament, I shall say something about the role of this Parliament before I sit down. But I cannot leave that point without referring to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in his references to Article F.1. He asked whether we would be obliged to change our judicial system by means of Article F.1. The answer is a straight no. The article deals with persistent and serious breaches of fundamental rights set out in Article F. There is no question of that being applied to a judicial system and any decision under Article F.1—the so-called sanctions clause—can be taken only by unanimity less the member state concerned. I can therefore assure the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that his fears about Article F.1 are unfounded.
These changes are modest. I know that in some ways the Liberal Democrats feel that they are too modest. But they are welcome. They will increase transparency, consistency and accountability within the third pillar, yet without prejudice to its intergovernmental character and the need for member states to retain their national freedom in the area.
I turn to criminal judicial co-operation—an issue which greatly exercised the noble Lord, Lord Renton. As under Maastricht, criminal judicial co-operation in the framework of the Treaty of Amsterdam will take place on the basis of unanimity. European Union measures affecting the way that the criminal justice systems of member states operate and the way that they co-operate with each other will not be able to be adopted unless all member states agree. That, as I hope noble Lords will agree, is as it should be. Indeed, if the United Kingdom wanted to adopt such measures, it would need primary legislation. They would not be covered by the 1972 European Communities Act.
The Amsterdam provisions on criminal judicial co-operation illustrate the areas in which member states are expected to co-operate within the criminal judicial sphere. That is an advance on Maastricht and a welcome one. The Government are committed to close co-operation with our EU partners in the fight against crime. The common agenda which the treaty sets out to that end will give focus and impetus to the efforts of member states.
Useful work is already being carried out in the third pillar on criminal judicial co-operation. Important new conventions have been signed which, on entry into force, will help member states work together to fight fraud and corruption. A major new convention on mutual legal assistance, which will help our law enforcement and prosecuting agencies overcome existing obstacles to taking evidence in other member states, is under negotiation. It is important that this work should be able to continue in an intergovernmental framework. Amsterdam provides for this.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart queried the co-ordinating committee which is referred to in Article K.8. The committee is not a committee of chief police officers; it is Home Office officials and their equivalents in justice departments in other member states. But in any case, even if it had been chief police officers, its duties—because it already exists—are quite

1195
limited. It produces opinions for the attention of the Council and it helps in the preparation of Council discussions. But it has no decision-making powers.
I turn now to civil judicial co-operation. Under the Amsterdam arrangements, certain forms of civil judicial co-operation considered necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market will move into the Community pillar—we shall therefore discuss them later on—while all forms of criminal judicial co-operation remain in the intergovernmental third pillar. Under the terms of Protocol No. 4 we will not be bound by any new Community measures on civil judicial co-operation except where we choose to be so bound. We have in the past co-operated effectively with our EU partners in both the first and third pillars in the area of civil judicial co-operation—for instance, in the area of mutual recognition of judgments—and we want to continue to be able to do so whenever this is in our interests.
Lord Shore of Stepney: In this area of civil judicial co-operation, I well understand that parts of the treaty and the protocols that relate to free movement of people and border controls are brought within the treaty except in so far as we have protocols exempting us. But can my noble friend explain why the references are made under Article 73m, which is about judicial co-operation, referring directly to Article 73o, which is where the Community procedures take place? It seems to me that all those matters of judicial co-operation, quite apart from matters relating to free movement of people, immigration and so on, are brought within the scope of the first pillar.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can certainly confirm that there are proposals in the Amsterdam Treaty which transfer certain forms of civil judicial co-operation to the first pillar and to what is now called Title IV. But is it not better if we keep to the division that we have deliberately made of the subject matter of amendments and try to deal with the third pillar now and then deal with my noble friend's questions properly at the appropriate time when we are considering all the issues of freedom of movement under the heading of Amendment No. 14?
I turn now to Europol and it is appropriate that I should do so as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is with us again. I can certainly confirm what he said and what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said, that the Europol Convention, which was ratified in the UK in December last year, was agreed by the previous government. I can indeed pay tribute to Mr. Michael Howard for his involvement in that process. Europol has not yet been fully established but its forerunner, the Europol drugs unit, which is up and running and is based in The Hague, already provides useful assistance to national police forces. Let me make it clear that Europol is not irresponsible. It is responsible to the Council of Ministers.
The Government attach great importance to Europol which will be able, for the reasons that have been made clear, to play a key role in helping European law enforcement agencies to work together more effectively
1196
to make Europe a safe place for our citizens. Europol will give national law `enforcement agencies prompt and reliable access to the intelligence that they need to be able to deal effectively with cross-border crime. It will thus add real value to investigations.
Although I am unable to enter into full debate on the Budget with my noble friend Lord Bruce because there are no amendments in this group which refer to it—anyway, there was a fire at the Treasury this afternoon which prevented us getting up-to-date information from it—it seems to me at any rate that the likelihood is that the total cost of criminal investigation in Europe will be less as a result of co-operation between police forces than it would have been if we had been forced to rely on ad hoc arrangements case-by-case between national police forces.
I come now to the issue which has raised a great deal of concern this afternoon and this evening. Once it is up and running, Europol will not have any operational powers. I say that, first, to my noble friend Lord Stoddart. Europol staff will not have powers to arrest people or to initiate investigations independently. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that it will not carry firearms. It will not engage in phone tapping. It will only operate on the territory of a member state with the agreement of that member state and in a support capacity. As a result, the accountability of Europol will be through the accountability which already exists for the police forces of member states.
It is true that some people would like Europol to take a more operational role in future. They would like it to be what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, calls a European police force. That is not the view of the British Government. Such a role could only be granted to Europol if all member states, including this country, were content. The Amsterdam Treaty does not confer any new powers on Europol. Its provisions in Article K2(2) in particular envisage a developing role for Europol in support of the law enforcement agencies in member states, but one which will develop within the scope of the convention and on the basis of unanimous agreement at every stage.
Naturally, member states, if they chose at some future point to conclude a new Europol convention, could confer powers on Europol which go beyond the scope of the existing convention. But as with any new convention it would need to be agreed unanimously by the Council and subsequently be ratified by the member states. I realise that I did not spell out the extent to which Europol in its support role would be accountable through the national police force. In response to specific questions that means that these operations would be subject to the authority of the Police Complaints Authority and ultimately judicial review.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised questions about the privileges and immunities protocol.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: The Minister is clearly outlining how much help the Europol system will be to British police in their duties in the

1197
United Kingdom. Can he also tell the Committee how much they will be hampered by our lack of involvement in the Schengen information system?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Clearly, because we have not signed up to the Schengen acquis, the information that will be provided as a result of that will not be available to us. So there must be a significant diminution. But we have to balance that against the fact that it is universally recognised across all political parties that this country wants to keep its border controls. We are in a peculiar geographical position which enables us to keep our border controls in a way which Continental European countries would find difficult. That is the trade-off that we have to make.
I move now to the privileges and immunities protocol, because that is part of the Europol debate. The privileges and immunities of Europol staff are set out in a protocol to the convention which was signed in June 1977. It provides that if Europol's role were ever extended beyond the scope of the Europol convention, to which I have already referred, the question of privileges and immunities would necessarily have to be reviewed. The protocol was debated on a Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty at the end of last year. As the protocol was debated in both Houses, Parliament has had an opportunity to debate the status of Europol staff. If it is any consolation to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I advise him that those privileges and immunities are no different from those of employees in any other international organisation.
I turn now to the European Court of Justice. The Treaty of Amsterdam provides for certain extensions in the jurisdiction of the ECJ. They are limited extensions. Indeed, for the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, they are extensions which are too limited. I recognise and respect that. Article K.7 gives the Court preliminary rulings jurisdiction for those member states which choose to accept it. It gives the Court jurisdiction over certain disputes between member states and between member states and the Commission. Where the Court already has jurisdiction in the third pillar, the treaty gives additional jurisdiction to ensure that the actions of the institutions respect fundamental human rights. It gives jurisdiction to review the legality of collective acts of the Council—I stress "of the Council"—in the third pillar. Finally, the Court is given a role in ensuring the proper operation of third pillar flexibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked whether Article K.7 overrides the Home Secretary or the UK courts in police and judicial matters. Several other noble Lords made the same point. First, Article K.7(5) makes it clear that the ECJ has no role to review the validity or proportionality of operations carried out by the police or other law enforcement services or the responsibility of member states to maintain law and order. So that is a whole raft of worries that can be unequivocally put on one side.
Secondly, Article K.7 allows national courts to refer to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling, but only when a member state accepts that process. I must make it clear that the United Kingdom will not accept that process.
1198
The remaining extensions are limited in scope. They relate to resolutions of the sort to which the previous government agreed. I refer, for example, to the 1995 Customs information system convention. They relate also to determining the validity of framework decisions and decisions taken by the Council. Again, I stress "not by member states" and only in the case of actions brought by a member state or the Commission. That seems a very unlikely contingency.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked us to be cautious in all our considerations on this main objective. From what I have said, I think that he will agree that we have been extremely cautious. Some would say that we have been excessively cautious. I stress again that our main objective at Amsterdam regarding the Court was to ensure that it will have no right to rule on cases brought in UK courts on third pillar issues. We successfully achieved that. There is no such right. The preliminary rulings jurisdiction in justice and home affairs will apply only to those members states which choose to accept it—and the United Kingdom has no intention of doing so.
I cannot leave this subject without referring to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, about corpus juris. That report was produced by a group of academics. It has never even been considered by the institutions of the European Union, let alone approved by them, and I have no indication that it will be.
It is true that the introduction of a free movement title will entail a new role for the court in this area. It will have a full role to play as in other areas of Community policy, except that references can be made only from courts of final appeal. The court's jurisdiction will not affect the United Kingdom except in areas where we have chosen to opt in. In the rest of the pillar the jurisdiction of the court is automatically extended in so far as all extensions of EC treaty provisions involve an extension of the role of the court. In total, these are not massive changes. They reflect developments made in European Community policies and provide various sensible mechanisms for a limited role for the court in the third pillar. The UK will not be bound by the preliminary rulings jurisdiction nor by jurisdiction under the free movement title unless we choose to be so bound.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred at length to Amendment No. 48. That amendment was also spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. That amendment has four aspects: first, the limitation of retrospective application of judgments of the European Court of Justice. On all of these aspects the United Kingdom went to Amsterdam prepared to argue the case if it was necessary. However, we encountered two matters: first, a substantial amount of disagreement with us on that subject. That would not be enough by itself. Secondly and much more importantly, we found that the European Court of Justice was already acting on almost all of these points. Certainly, retrospective judgments which potentially could cost large amounts of money might stretch back several years. No such power needed to be written into the treaty because the European Court

1199
of Justice had already exercised such power in several cases, starting with its judgment in Defrenne v. Sabena in 1976.
The second question was one of an internal appeals procedure which would have involved a chamber of the European Court of Justice comprising three or five judges dealing with matters with a right of appeal to the full court of 15 judges. That would have been a substantial increase in the judicial procedures of the court and would have caused additional delay. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has rightly said, cases before the European Court of Justice are already delayed. It already takes 18 to 24 months to go through. On reflection, we thought that to have a subordinate court with a right of appeal could only extend that period.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. Perhaps I may also point out that justice delayed is justice denied.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am happy to add that to my very small collection of legal tags.
The third issue was national time limits on the implementation of directives. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, referred to that. During the Intergovernmental Conference that was clarified in a manner reflecting the previous government's proposal by Advocate General Jacobs in the Denkavit case. The court has since confirmed that opinion in its judgment this year in the Fantask case. Therefore, the previous government's proposal has been rendered unnecessary by the ECJ's own case law.
The fourth aspect of Amendment No. 48 is the limitation of damages payable by member states. During the course of the IGC the European Court of Justice gave a series of judgments which established just such a rule, making the proposed treaty amendment unnecessary. These included the fishing case Factortame III, Brasserie du Pecheur and the British Telecom case in 1996. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will accept that we did not let down his government. The Court itself had achieved the vast bulk of the improvements which they considered to be necessary.
I have a few outstanding points with which I have to deal. The first is the question of the legality of the acts of the Council in the third pillar. The Court's role in reviewing the legality of some acts of the Council, where an action is brought by a member state or the Commission in Article K.7(6) has given rise to much misunderstanding and controversy. The facts are simple. The Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing Council framework decisions and decisions which may be adopted by the Council. I say that as clearly as I can to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
Many of the consequences that some Members of the Committee have seen as flowing from that are just not applicable. It is unlikely that article will give rise to a substantial number of cases before the ECJ. To the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, I say that judgments are not
1200
binding upon the UK courts, because Section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 applies only to the jurisdiction of the Court under Community treaties. The UK will not accept that jurisdiction.
The final point I want to make is about the involvement of Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in particular, referred to that. It is worth emphasising the extent to which we are solicitous of the need in this country—this parliamentary democracy—to be concerned with Parliament. We are committed to keeping Parliament properly informed of and allowing adequate parliamentary debate on all EU business. By tradition, those arrangements for consultation and information are laid down in convention and the standing orders or resolutions of this House and another place.
We believe that that route, with the flexibility it provides, remains more appropriate than a binding commitment by Act of Parliament which many of the new clauses would entail. Extensive arrangements for parliamentary debate are already in place. They include regular debates on EU and wider foreign policy and defence policy issues; regular ministerial appearances before Select Committees; written and oral reports on Council and European Council meetings; and other opportunities to question Ministers and debate topical issues.
We are committed to building on those arrangements as part of our effort to strengthen national scrutiny arrangements and reinforce the role of national parliaments in the EU. As has been referred to, the President of the Council published a memorandum in January setting out our proposals which has been sent to the committee of this House under the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. We await his views with anticipation. Our plans include giving Parliament a strengthened formal role in the scrutiny of third pillar business. I can confirm what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said about the Home Office memorandum.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Would the noble Lord also be good enough to confirm the British Government's continuing commitment to not agreeing any item in Brussels until the scrutiny reserve has been lifted by the Scrutiny Committees of both Houses of Parliament?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to interfere with the procedures of the European Communities Committee. As the noble Lord knows, the committee conducts a sift of papers that come before it. I imagine that it makes a proper distinction—we have the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, with us—between what is important and what is unimportant.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: That is not quite the point that I was putting. The problem has been I think in the past that items have not been arriving in time in national parliaments for the Scrutiny Committees concerned to do their job properly. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has made that point in recent debates. My question was: does the British Government's assurance to Parliament still hold that

1201
they, the British Government, will not agree anything in Brussels upon which the scrutiny reserve has not been lifted by the Scrutiny Committees in both Houses of Parliament, because with the new time facilities which we are being offered by the treaty we hope to have the time to scrutinise all those items properly? I am merely asking whether the Government's previous commitment in this regard still holds force.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may add one other question. I appreciate that there may be circumstances in which it would be impossible to await completion of the scrutiny. However, will the Minister give an assurance that he will do his best to make certain that, wherever possible, texts are put before the appropriate committees so that they can scrutinise them before a decision is made in the Council?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can certainly give an unequivocal assurance to the noble Baroness. As regards the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, he is asking for a commitment which involves two parties: first, the Government and, secondly, the European Communities Committee. Certainly, as far as possible, we shall try to see to it that nothing is implemented until it has been decided by the European Communities Committee, but there may be exceptions.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I fear that that may be a watering down of the existing situation, in which case it would be quite serious.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If it is a watering down, I shall write to the noble Lord on the point. It is not intended to be.
We propose to strengthen the arrangements for reporting to Parliament on Council meetings. We already report on such meetings orally and in writing. We propose more detailed reports in the form of letters to the Select Committee chairmen to ensure that Parliament is better informed.
These proposals, building on existing arrangements, will provide considerable opportunity for parliamentary debate on all European issues, as is witnessed, I believe, by the debate this afternoon.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Will my noble friend confirm that the Government will pay attention to the last report from the House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation, to which I referred and which showed a very large number of communications still due from the Government, which are greatly in arrears? May we have the Minister's assurance that that list will be taken very seriously and that the items in arrears, in some cases for many years, can be disposed of without much further delay?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My noble friend can certainly have the assurance that we treat this matter very seriously indeed.
1202
We have had a good debate and we have aired all the outstanding issues on the third pillar. If I have neglected any points raised by Members of the Committee, I apologise and I shall write to them. In the meantime, I hope that my noble friend will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This has certainly been a long, detailed and well-conducted debate. There have been 13 speakers, including the speech of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I should like to thank every one of the speakers because they have made all or most of the relevant points which should have been made during the debate.
Also, I thank my noble friend for giving so much time and effort to answering the points which were made. I feel quite sure that further questions will arise from his answers but we shall have to come to those on Report.
I really do not believe that the Committee would welcome my replying to the debate by going through all the speeches, remarking upon them all and giving my own views, not at this time of night. Therefore, I shall not do that. However, my noble friend Lord McIntosh said in reply to my noble friend Lord Shore that what we are concerned about is not simply what is in this treaty but what might come later; in other words, we were anticipating further changes but we fear what will come from this particular treaty.
I must tell my noble friend that experience has taught us to be wary of everything which goes on and of every new nuance which emerges from negotiations on matters concerning Europe. We know that the competence of the European Union has grown by a ratchet effect. Those of us who fought the referendum campaign in 1975 remember, for example, that the Government issued a document stating that they had renegotiated the treaty and that one of the most serious effects would have arisen from the desire of people to enter an economic and monetary union. They stated that that had been negotiated away because they believed that it would create difficult economic circumstances and unemployment. Now we know from bitter experience that that had not been negotiated away. We are seeing EMU being foisted on us, if I may put it that way, albeit 23 years later. That is the reason why we are concerned about what happens in respect of the treaties.
My final comment relates to xenophobia. It is important because my noble friend believes that xenophobia means hatred of foreigners. It does not mean only that; it means fear of foreigners, too. Are we to be prosecuted for being afraid of foreigners? Some people are still frightened of the Germans, and with good reason because they experienced some difficult moments between 1939 and 1945 which have remained with them. Perhaps they no longer apply; but, nevertheless, people can be in fear of other people and other countries without them doing anything criminal.
I urge the Committee to think about that. I believe that we must return to the issue on Report, and I believe that at this time of night it would be right for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 5:
Page I, line 12, at end insert—
("() Article I, other than paragraph 10 (Title V of the Treaty on European Union (provisions on a common foreign and security policy and defence identity)),").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 5, I recognise that we are entering an important debate covering a common foreign and security policy. Given the time and the decision to move on to debate these important amendments, which I welcome, I intend to focus my remarks on the common foreign policy, recognising that it is grouped with defence issues. I am sure that we shall return to the subject of defence on the next day in Committee unless unexpectedly your Lordships complete the debate tonight. But that is unlikely.
I have tabled a number of amendments which are grouped with Amendment No. 5 in order to address some of the revisions made to provisions for the common foreign and security policy by the Treaty of Amsterdam. As your Lordships are aware, the CFSP was established by the Maastricht Treaty to build on the process of European political co-operation. From these Benches, we believe that it is strongly in this country's national interests that members of the European Union should speak and act together as much as possible on the world stage in situations where they have shared interests. Wherever possible, a common foreign and security policy should lead from common analysis through common policy to common action. Since the establishment of a second pillar, the co-ordination of foreign policy has had some success. Under the previous government, Britain played a role in a number of effective common positions and joint actions under the CFSP, as well as important work outside these formal instruments.
We are well aware that common positions have covered areas from Angola to the Ukraine. There has also been joint action from the stability pact in central and eastern Europe; on Rwanda; on the delivery of humanitarian aid in Bosnia; on the administration of Mostar; on assistance to the Middle East peace process, including the organisation of Palestinian elections; on election monitoring in Russia and South Africa; and on the promotion of nuclear non-proliferation.
Nevertheless, against that background, I should like the Minister's assurance tonight that, under this Government, the CFSP will never become an exclusive policy which will replace national foreign policy. I am sure that he will give that undertaking or, indeed, if the noble Baroness is to reply, I am sure that she will do so. However, where specific British interests are at stake, it is vital that we retain our freedom of action and that we are not constrained by collective decisions which we do not support. That is why the CFSP was established as a distinct pillar of the structure of the European Union under Title V of the Maastricht Treaty, under which co-operation is intergovernmental and the role of Community institutions is strictly limited. That is why decisions on CFSP should be taken by unanimity,
1204
including those decisions to allow the implementation of measures for specific actions to be taken by majority voting.
Under Article J.3 of the Maastricht Treaty, on the advice of the European Council, the Foreign Affairs Council could decide that some matters should be subjects for joint action. The Foreign Affairs Council was empowered to agree by unanimity that certain decisions with a joint action could, in turn, be decided by QMV. This meant that any single member state could insist that there was not majority voting on a particular subject, and that all decisions connected with a joint action were taken by consensus. We were told that one of the Government's aims at the Amsterdam summit was to retain Britain's veto over issues of common and foreign policy, although I have to admit that the Foreign Secretary's pronouncements on this seemed to be increasingly equivocal as the summit approached.
It is true that the provisions of the treaty mean that the overall strategy on foreign policy issues and the most import decisions of principle—common strategies or general guidelines—will remain a matter for unanimous decision-making in the European Council. So, in that sense, we welcome the fact that the Government have succeeded in their aim. However—and I believe that this is the issue upon which we shall focus in the debate this evening and, indeed, when we return to the matter on the next day of the Committee proceedings—the Amsterdam Treaty contains significant changes to the CFSP decision-making process, by providing for more majority voting in the operation of the CFSP.
Article J.13 provides for subsequent decisions on the implementation of those overall strategies; that is, on the adoption of joint actions. The latter are defined in Article J.4 as,
"[addressing] specific situations where operational action by the Union is deemed to be required".
But that does not apply only to joint actions; indeed, "common positions" are also defined in Article J.5, which says:
"The Council shall adopt common positions. Common positions shall define the approach of the Union to a particular matter of geographical or thematic nature.
We had a fairly lengthy debate on the concept of xenophobia, but I anticipate that many noble Lords will be focused on exactly what we are talking about in the context of a matter being of a "thematic nature". Article J.13 provides for subsequent decisions on the implementation of the overall strategies, which include any other decisions made on the basis of a "common strategy" to be taken by QMV in the Council of Ministers. Given that a common strategy is separate from the principles of, and general guidelines for, the common foreign and security policy, can the Minister define exactly what is meant by a "common strategy", as it is nowhere defined in the treaty? Can the Minister also tell us what decisions it is likely to result in, which we would then have no power to prevent?
We would have no power to prevent such decisions, although it is true that we could abstain. Article J.13, paragraph (1), provides for a constructive abstention

1205
mechanism. Countries who use this mechanism and who make a formal declaration explaining the reasons for the abstention will be able to opt out of the implementation of those decisions, while allowing the majority of countries to press ahead. However, abstainers would also have to accept that the decision committed the Union as a whole and they could not undermine or seek to thwart it subsequently. According to Article J.13, paragraph 1,
"in a spirit of mutual solidarity, the Member State concerned shall refrain from any action likely to conflict with or impede Union action based on that decision".
If past experience has taught us anything, it is that constructive abstention is a tool best used in a "can't, not "won't" situation, when a country agrees with a decision, but for domestic reasons is not able to participate in its adoption. Can the Minister assure the Committee that the Government do not envisage this article being used to persuade a member state against acting in its national interests if it goes against the views of the majority? Can the Minister tell us if constructive abstention is an adequate and appropriate mechanism to deal with real disagreements between countries over foreign policy decisions? If it is not, it would appear that the Euro train will be repeatedly stopped and delayed as its passengers pull the "emergency cord". The Prime Minister is proud of this "emergency brake" mechanism contained within Article J.13, whereby a country will be able to exercise a national veto and prevent a vote being taken, if there are,
"important and stated reasons of national policy"
which cause it to oppose a decision. Can the Minister tell us what will constitute an important, stated reason of national policy, and who will arbitrate on the matter, and whether the action of a member state in this position would be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice?
Furthermore, if a number of other states can achieve a qualified majority on the decision, is it not the case that the adoption of the decision would be regarded as postponed? For the matter could then be referred to the European Council for a decision to be taken by unanimity, which the country in question would have to veto. Given that the number of decisions taken by QMV in the Council of Ministers will ultimately be determined by the number of common strategies decided upon by consensus in the European Council, and by the political will of a particular presidency to try the QMV procedures on decisions of a secondary nature, what vision do the Government have for the practical operation—I am focusing here—of qualified majority voting? Does the treaty text not indicate that the use of the national veto would be seen as a last resort and that countries will not be encouraged to express dissent in this way, even when their national interests are affected?
Let us take an example. Can the Minister tell the Committee what would happen if a decision on a common strategy had been agreed by unanimity to take certain action—against Iraq, to use a still topical example—if then a qualified majority decision was taken that that action should stop short of the use of force? Could such a decision be taken by QMV, so that if this country wanted to use force it would be debarred
1206
from doing so by the qualified majority voting provision? The treaty clearly provides that decisions having military or defence implications will be taken by unanimity. I understand that clearly. Therefore, a decision to use force would certainly be taken by unanimity, but it is not clear whether a decision not to use force could be taken by QMV, in which case a country who thought the use of force was justified would effectively be prevented from acting independently.
We on these Benches do not accept that the previous unanimity provisions for CFSP were a constraint on its development, nor that CFSP has been strengthened by the introduction of voting models which could override the key concerns of member states. If there is no collective will within the European Union to act, it is unwise to try to force action through artificial voting procedures. The member states have already agreed, at Maastricht, that they should not try to stand in the way of a given policy which has majority support. The CFSP will only carry weight internationally if it represents a genuinely common policy and not a majority one.
I therefore would like an assurance from the Minister that the Government agree that the CFSP should be a complement to national foreign policies, not a replacement for them, and that this does not represent a move away from the intergovernmental approach and a true common foreign policy agreed by all towards a common foreign policy agreed by most. Such fears are raised by even seemingly small changes. For example, Article J.1 began in the Maastricht Treaty with the words,
"The Union and its Member States shall define and implement a common foreign policy and security policy, governed by the provisions of this title and covering all areas of foreign and security policy".
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right in Committee to concentrate on the importance of nuances. In the new version, in the Amsterdam Treaty, we lose "and its member states". Those words are now omitted. It is now no longer,
"the Union and its Member States shall define and implement a common foreign policy".
It is,
"The Union shall define and implement a common foreign policy".
It is in order to express those concerns, and to elicit a response from the noble Baroness when she sums up at the conclusion of consideration of these amendments, that I have tabled new Clause 41, which seeks to give Parliament an enhanced role in the consideration of the decision-making arrangements for the common foreign and security policy. I welcome the Minister's comments on these issues and the opportunity to hear the rationale behind the Government's acceptance of these changes to the decision-making procedures of the CFSP.
I turn briefly to the creation of the position of the High Representative of Common Foreign and Security Policy. I congratulate the Secretary-General of the Council of Ministers, Jurgen Trümpf, on his appointment as the High Representative of Common Foreign and Security Policy in accordance with Article J.8. However, I wish to ask to whom he will be

1207
accountable, and what will be his role in promoting decisions where there have been constructive abstentions? The terms of the reference for his office, I hope the Government will agree, clearly need to be carefully drafted to make sure that the high representative is fully answerable to the Council of Ministers and is representing the collective views of member states, not deciding them. Furthermore, when there are constructive abstentions, will those countries going ahead have, for example, access to European Union institutions and funding, which of course are paid for by all member states, even those which abstain?
Again, I shall attempt to be as brief as I can, but there are many issues to be covered under this collection of amendments. Perhaps I may touch on the planning and early warning cell. In the Amsterdam Treaty we see the creation of the planning and early warning cell. I welcome the treaty's provision to set this up under the declaration on the establishment of a policy planning and early warning unit, which I hope will provide improved planning for the CFSP in the form of policy papers, analysis and options for crisis situations. In order to have a more active, effective and coherent CFSP which maintains its inter-governmental character, we need to develop co-ordination between the member states in planning analysis and implementation of common policies. However, I should like clarification from the Minister on the requirement for member states and the Commission to provide,
"to the fullest extent possible, relevant information, including confidential information",
to the unit. What best efforts will be made to prevent leaks of such information? How will this affect our unique shared defence and intelligence arrangements with the United States?
Today the nations of Europe live together in a state of interdependence within a framework of collective standards and disciplines set by a number of international bodies including the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe. No negative connotations should be attached to the possession, and indeed the active promotion, of our national foreign policy interests, even when they quite naturally differ from those of our neighbours. I believe that we have reached a time when the "national interest" can be defined as the collective expression of the democratic process in each of our countries: it represents the guiding spirit of democracy. It is for that reason that our foreign policy should be decided here, with the Foreign Secretary answerable to the House.
Moreover, the CFSP is still a fledgling. Its machinery is still running in. It has much potential and, where it acts with the grain of our national traditions and represents the coincidence of our national interests with those of our European partners, it will succeed. But where the CFSP is forced into the rhetoric of solidarity and unity when, whether for geographical, political or historical reasons, that does not reflect reality, it will surely fail.
For example, can the Minister explain how the Government envisage that Article J.9 will work in the future? That article obliges member states to
1208
co-ordinate their actions and policies at international gatherings to a greater extent than previously, including the requirement that the permanent members of the UN Security Council (for example, Britain and France) must defend the positions and the interests of the Union. But, for example, how should we have fulfilled the requirements of that article during the recent Iraq crisis? In that situation, when we did not always see eye to eye with France on the means to resolve the Iraq crisis, which country would have been deemed to be defending the position and interests of the Union within the Security Council?
No one disputes that close and effective co-operation with our neighbours should be pursued when it is in the interests of the people of Britain, but achieving common positions must not become a goal in its own right. I beg to move Amendment No. 5 standing in my name and the names of other noble Lords.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: First, perhaps I might congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on setting out very clearly the position of his party and asking a series of very important questions about the common foreign and security policy. During my brief remarks, perhaps I might take a somewhat different approach to this issue, and then invite the Minister to adjudicate between those positions—which will not be easy.
It seems to me that the European Union is necessarily the anchor of stability for the whole of the Continent of Europe—a continent that goes beyond the member states of the European Union to include a very uncomfortable, and often very unstable, periphery. We are all very much aware that there is at the present time a critical situation in Kosovo and that there is a very troubling situation in Albania. We are all certainly aware that Bosnia is far from having reached a settled state of mind following the Dayton Agreement. There are many commentators who believe that, once—if indeed it happens in the near future—the NATO force is removed or removes itself, we should quite rapidly move back to a very troubling situation in Bosnia.
For all those reasons, there is another danger as great as that outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan; namely, the danger of not adopting common foreign policy positions. For it is important to say that the European Union is quite widely regarded by those who wish us well, including some of our most prominent allies, as a relatively ineffective form of co-operation between the member states of the European Union.
As some noble Lords know, I have spent a good deal of my life recently in the United States. One of the opinions that has been visited upon me time and again in various seminars and conferences in which I have taken part is the sense on the part of American administrations, and in particular of the State Department, that the European Union is a relatively uncoordinated and ineffective ally. The criticisms addressed to Britain and France over Bosnia reached a very sustained level for a number of years before finally the Dayton agreement was virtually imposed upon an unsettled situation. Even today, the United States has

1209
made it plain on more than one occasion that it would welcome a much more co-ordinated policy on the part of the European Union.
We have the Petersburg declarations. We have the fact that the European Union is by far the main source of aid and economic assistance to the whole of its periphery. That is so, even if we extend it to include a major country like Russia, the Ukraine or the countries that lie in eastern Europe and that are not yet part of the enlargement process. In almost all these areas—and I can extend that to the Maghreb and the Middle East—the European Union is the crucial economic actor.
But that economic influence is not paralleled by political influence in anything like the same way. One has the impression that the European Union has up to now simply not been able to speak with an effective voice. That is a matter of great seriousness, because all around the edges of the European Union are areas of profound and troubling instability, of which the Middle East and the Maghreb are but two further instances.
For all those reasons we have to look at the instrument that is being forged in the treaty and ask whether it is an instrument that could possibly work. I have to say that there are so many ways out of any kind of foreign policy that I do not believe any noble Lord in this House should be in the least concerned about the possibility that a common foreign policy could be imposed. We have constructive abstention under J.13. We have the right to ensure that one will not be part of any joint operation. We have the right to state that for compelling national reasons no qualified majority vote can be taken and the matter must be referred to the European Council and that the European Council must reach its decision by unanimity. Frankly, in a situation of crisis such an elaborate and complex way of reaching a decision is tantamount to reaching no decision at all.
In addition, we have the right of any nation not to take part in a particular operation, to stand outside it. Then there is only the rather minimal requirement that it does not oppose that operation if it finds itself in a minority. If that minority is one-third, then immediately again, even under qualified majority voting, any joint operation can be blocked by that minority. For all those reasons, I am surprised that anyone should be much concerned about what appears to me to be an extremely weak title of the Treaty of Amsterdam. It is a much weaker title, in my view, than a title that concerns internal security and home affairs.
Before I conclude, I once again remind the Committee that we are in an extremely serious situation because of our inability to co-ordinate European foreign policy, even on a basis of limited mutual consensus. Allow me to give one example. In the past two years we have seen in parallel a proposal to expand NATO and to enlarge the European Union. That expansion and enlargement engaged almost all, though not invariably all, the same countries. The Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and others were all involved in NATO expansion and in European Union enlargement. Both of them have set out on that parallel path.
However, I was certainly shocked to discover that there had been virtually no discussion at all between those who led NATO and those who led the European
1210
Union; that the European Union had made assumptions about the financial cost of enlargement—incidentally stringent assumptions—without regard to the cost of meeting the requirements of NATO and NATO had decided to embark upon expansion without even considering the issues of enlargement. It seemed to me that in anything except a calm period, for such a total gap to open up between allies with similar goals was an extraordinary occurrence and could in certain circumstances be a very dangerous occurrence. Even today the joint burden of enlargement and expansion in fragile economies in central and eastern Europe is, in the view of a number of us, considerably greater than they themselves recognise.
In concluding what I have to say, let me draw attention to the downside of a failure to create at least a minimum common policy; to the downside of failure to create a serious dialogue between the European Union and the United States on issues like the expansion of NATO. I hope, in responding, that the noble Baroness will tell us what steps can be taken to strengthen the prospects of European common foreign policy, not least in fields like the Petersberg declaration, which concerns mainly humanitarian issues, and in the complex and largely unsatisfactory inter-institutional agreement about how to finance joint operations, which seems to end in a rather dying form by saying, "If there cannot be agreement, we don't know what to do, except that it cannot be any more than it was last year". That is hardly an adequate base on which to erect a serious degree of common foreign policy.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I have a number of questions to which my noble friend may be able to respond when she replies. The provisions of this amendment deal essentially with pages 11 and 16 of the Amsterdam Treaty. Those paragraphs contain six references to the European Council which, as your Lordships are aware, meets normally twice a year and has a totally different function to the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers is referred to on numerous occasions all the way through the section commencing with paragraph 10.
It seems to me that we need to know whether, in all the instances in which the Council of Ministers is mentioned, the normal rules apply; that the specific circumstances set out in paragraph 10 apply. The Council of Ministers, normally speaking, and under the main treaty, can act only on a proposal from the Commission. Will the Minister confirm whether in any paragraph in this section where the Council of Ministers is mentioned—it is normally referred to as "the Council"—there is any occasion in which action by the Council of Ministers is permitted without being on a proposal from the Commission?
My other point arises in relation to the budget itself. The budget for 1998, I discovered, under Title VIIIa gives a total budget in respect of this specific section of some 20.25 million ecu which at the current rate of exchange of 65 ecus to the pound is £13,000,162, of which the United Kingdom share is £1,842,000. Can the Minister explain just what that sum is for? There does not seem to be anything in the section that would justify

1211
an estimate for the year amounting to 20 million ecus. I wonder where the money is likely to go and whether the Government, in accordance with the meticulous examination which I am sure they carry out of all Community expenditure items, concurred in this item of 20 million ecus. Where and for what in 1998 will it be spent?
10.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have always been brought up to believe that foreign policy exists to further British interests. Any constraints on that must mean that British interests in certain areas may not be pursued as they should be pursued. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that the European Union is a player on the world stage. The only reason why it is a player on the world stage is that this country and presumably other countries channel a lot of their overseas aid through the European Union, where it is laundered and to a very large degree wasted. One of the reasons it has influence is that it has money. It is not because it has better ideas or that its member states act in unison; it is because it has money. That is why the European Union is taken some notice of. However, the interests of this country can only be what is good for its people and its future. I reject any attempt to have that watered down by agreeing a common foreign policy and a common security policy.
What concerns me about the treaty is that, once again, we have Article J.1 saying that the objective is to strengthen the security of the Union in all cases. All reference to member states is gone. Why is that written? Why has all reference to member states gone? Those of us who fear the ratchet effect believe that this is just another step on the road to a fully integrated European superstate. Therefore, we want an answer to the question as to why the reference to member states has been removed.
People may say that we do not trust our own government. I do not. I do not trust any government because they do things which are not always in the best interests of the people they are supposed to serve and therefore should always be under suspicion and their motives should always be queried.
The article goes on to say that we are to decide on common strategies and that we are to adopt joint actions and common positions. We have found a great deal of difficulty in doing that in the past. The reason is, of course, that our interests do not usually coincide with the interests of other countries. Where they do coincide, we are able to co-operate. But what one does not need to be able to co-operate is a treaty of this kind. That is why so many people are fearful of our foreign policy and the future of this country being tied into a treaty which will restrict the actions of a British government on the world stage in many respects.
Some of us also fear that if we progress then we shall lose our place on the Security Council. We are told, of course, that that is unimaginable. But we are often told that things we believe are unimaginable, but they come to pass. I would like to have the absolute assurance of
1212
my noble friend tonight that there will never be any prospect of this country giving up its seat on the Security Council under any circumstances. Those of us who are fearful of what is happening are entitled to receive that assurance and I hope that we shall get it tonight.
The other matter that worries us is what I once described as "this high representative". That is good Eurospeak, is it not? That is what we are now going to have. I suggested last year that the high representative would be the European Foreign Minister. I received a letter from my noble friend Lord Whitty in which he said,
"The High Representative will not be an EU Foreign Secretary. Article J.16 of the Amsterdam Treaty makes clear that the High Representative will be subordinate to Member State Foreign Ministers, and able to act only on the basis of clearly defined mandates from them, with no power to initiate policy".
That sounds quite reassuring. The only problem is that once they get these positions these people describe themselves as something different. For example, I believe that there are 131 EU representatives in various countries throughout the world. Presumably, they are representatives to look after the grants-in-aid to various countries. But they go around describing themselves not as representatives of the EU, but as European Union ambassadors. So how soon will it be before this high representative is describing himself as the Foreign Minister of the European Union? Some of us are very concerned about that.
Time is getting on and I do not want to make a long speech about foreign affairs, although I could very well do so. I could refer to Britain not as a regional power stuck in the backwater of Europe, but as a global power which has responsibilities outside Europe—for example, to our great Commonwealth. We do not want our responsibilities to the Commonwealth constrained by responsibilities that we may have taken on in respect of countries of the European Union. So one could make a great speech about all these things, but I shall not do so tonight.
I can also recall occasions such as the Falklands War, when we got less than good and fullhearted support from our European Union partners or competitors, call them what one likes. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not think that I am criticising her in any way. I just want her to understand the views of those of us who have been around in this business for a very long time. Like my noble friends Lord Bruce and Lord Shore, I have been around it since 1962, so we know what has happened during that period. We were the ones who fought the referendum in 1975. It is because of that experience that we are suspicious of every move that is made forward and of every ratchet that is turned. I ask my noble friend to believe that we are serious about our fears. I hope that she will treat them seriously when she replies.
Baroness Ludford: I have promised to speak for no more than one minute and I shall do so. In speaking briefly to Amendment No. 35, I take the rare pleasure of supporting an amendment in the name of the noble

1213
Lord, Lord Shore, and his colleagues. I refer to the provisions which require reports on the positions taken by the UK and the EU in international organisations. That is a desirable move on which I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurances. Reference has been made to the memorandum on scrutiny from the President of the Council which promises reports from European Union meetings. I am surprised that the provisions do not cover reports on European Council and Council of Ministers' meetings. They could usefully have done so. The memorandum promises a letter to the chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation in the other place. Perhaps the Minister will assure us that parallel reports on European Council and Council of Ministers' meetings will be made to the chairman of the Select Committee on the European Communities in this House.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: One matter which has mystified me, on which I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten me, is how one can have an independent foreign policy if one does not have control of one's own money. One of the effects of being part of the single currency would be that if one wished to carry out an exercise such as the Falklands War, it would at once imperil one's budgetary position under the stability pact. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that she rather despaired of Europe ever putting together a common foreign policy front. If all the countries which are now involved in the single currency chose to step out of line and to join us and the Americans in an exercise such as the Gulf War, what would happen to their budgetary position and how would they be affected by the stability pact? Presumably they would have to get permission from the central bank to overdraw in order to finance their war.
Lord Grenfell: I have two brief points. When I hear my noble friend Lord Stoddart defining the objectives of British foreign policy, I sometimes wonder whether the word "globalisation" has ever managed to force itself into his vocabulary. John Donne would be turning in his grave at the insularity of such a foreign policy. We live in a very interdependent world.
Possibly we can get rid of the strange worry about removal of the words "member states" in many places. As far as I understand it, the word "Union" describes the collectivity of member states. One need look no further than Article A to see that one line among the objectives refers to maintaining and developing the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice. What does "area" mean? It means the member states. I sometimes think that some of my noble friends deserve Oscars for special effects, given the way in which they manage to turn modest mice into woolly mammoths of evil disposition.
Perhaps I may turn to the apparently contentious—although I cannot understand why—issue of the high representative. Perhaps it is a slightly Gilbertian title, but I have heard worse and more intimidating titles than that. After all, the person who will perform this task, the
1214
Secretary-General of the Council's secretariat, has been around for a very long time. That person will effectively replace the past holder of the presidency of the troika. His or her roles are very much circumscribed. That individual will not be anyone of the kind described by some parties in the IGC. Certainly, some wanted a kind of foreign Minister, but that idea was thrown out of the window at the IGC.
The job to be done is very modest but despite its modesty it has great importance, in that it responds to the reality that one cannot always depend on the diplomatic resources of the country holding the presidency to take on all of the responsibilities as spokesperson for the Union. That has been one of the weaknesses of a common foreign and security policy. This represents a modest attempt to try to clear it up.
As a related point, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said he very much hoped that the high representative would reflect the views of the members of the Union. In the past the problem has been the other way round. It has often been the case that when people who have been made special representatives of the EU have tried to speak on behalf of member states they have been placed in a difficulty, as in Bosnia. I heard yesterday from Richard Holbrook that when the special EU representative, Mr. Carl Bildt, saw him, he, Mr. Bildt, found that he had been short-headed, so to speak, by representatives of other member states. They had come to see Mr. Holbrook to inform him that he must not regard the spokesman as representing the views of their countries. That is the problem. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, he got it the wrong way round. EU representatives want to be able to reflect the views of the Union but often they are undermined by individuals.
I beg the Committee not to be scared by the appointment of a high representative. Perhaps we can change the title if that is what scares people, but this is a very sensible step in a modest treaty. This is a pragmatic way to try to improve the running of the machinery of a common foreign and security policy and ensure that the views of the Union and its members are properly represented.
11 p.m.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has drawn the attention of the Committee to one worrying aspect of Article J.1. I cite what appears to me to be another alarming aspect. The Treaty of Amsterdam introduces a new Union objective: to safeguard the common values, fundamental interests and independence of the Union, to which one cannot object, but also to safeguard the integrity of the Union. This is ominous. Why should that be included? To safeguard the integrity of the Union implies that if any one or more member state wishes to withdraw, sanctions, or worse, may be employed against it or them. This may seem fanciful today, but let us remember that up until the middle of the 19th century the United States were always referred to in the plural. The American civil war

1215
was fought essentially to ensure that henceforth the United States would always be referred to in the singular.
Those who are concerned about a common foreign and security policy are generally told not to worry because the Council will make policy decisions only on the basis of a unanimous vote. Normally, when one is deciding issues of major importance to a nation, unanimity means active unanimity; in other words, everyone has to vote positively in favour. In this case, for some reason, Article J.13 states categorically:
1216
"Abstentions by members present in person or representatives shall not prevent adoption of such a decision".
That introduces something new and, as far as I know, without precedent. That, too, is worrying.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that further debate on Amendment No. 5 be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at six minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Local Elections and London Referendum: Guidance to Civil Servants
  Local Elections and London Referendum: Guidance to Civil Servants
  Redbridge and Waltham Forest Health Authority
  Redbridge and Waltham Forest Health Authority
  The Great Exhibition and the Millennium Dome
  The Great Exhibition and the Millennium Dome
  Tobacco and Alcohol Duties
  Tobacco and Alcohol Duties
  ECGD Debt Conversion Scheme
  ECGD Debt Conversion Scheme
  Agriculture Council, 16–17 March
  Agriculture Council, 16–17 March
  Missing Army Weapons
  Missing Army Weapons