Sitting of 19 May 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Investment
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: When he next expects to meet representatives of Scotland's financial services industry to discuss investment. [41250]
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: When he last met the CBI in Scotland to discuss prospects for investment in Scotland. [41256]
    The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I maintain regular contact with Scotland's financial services industry on a whole range of matters. He last met the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland on 30 January when several issues were discussed, including the favourable climate for investment in Scotland.
    Mr. Blunt: Is the Minister aware of weekend press reports showing that Edinburgh is slipping down the league table of European financial centres? Does he agree with the chief executive of Scottish Widows that that will be accelerated if the Government keep giving in to nationalist demands?
    Mr. Wilson: I do not accept either of the premises of the hon. Gentleman's question. The financial services industry in Edinburgh, and the rest of Scotland, is in very good health, and employment has increased since the downturn of 1994. No doubt that will continue. I also have no doubt that a constitutional settlement for the United Kingdom is no threat to the financial services industry. The Scottish financial industry does a high proportion of its business in other parts of the UK, and it has no wish to see those places turned into a foreign country.
    Mr. Lansley: Has the Minister seen the Scottish chambers of commerce report for the first quarter of 1998, which shows a reduction in investment intentions among manufacturers in Scotland? Does he understand that the Government's high pound policy, combined with their
    714
    intention to allow taxes and costs on business to rise, is causing manufacturing investment—the wealth-creating sector of the Scottish economy—to decline?
    Mr. Wilson: Again, the hon. Gentleman has been badly briefed. There is no intention of allowing taxes on business to rise. The chambers of commerce survey shows the rate of growth in Scotland over the past year at its highest level since—again—1994.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: As my hon. Friend knows, 510 jobs are being lost in my constituency following Mitsubishi's decision to close its colour television factory at Haddington—[Interruption.] I wish that Conservative Members would take issues like this seriously; it is a very serious matter for my constituents.
    Following my hon. Friend's visit to Haddington on 6 April—the day of the announcement—can he report on the progress made by the task force in creating new jobs for people in Haddington and in finding new enterprises for the factory that has been closed?
    Mr. Wilson: Mitsubishi's decision was regrettable, but the company had provided employment in Haddington for more than 20 years. The circumstances that led to the announcement related not to the Scottish economy, but to a restructuring of Mitsubishi, which is taking place in several other countries as well as Scotland. We have adopted a task force approach, and that has worked reasonably well so far. According to the latest figures, 35 per cent. of the work force have already found other employment.
    My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) attended a successful jobs fair at the weekend, and a further 50 jobs are in the pipeline as a result of it. We continue to work on finding an alternative use for the Mitsubishi factory. All that has happened in advance of closure, and it is a proper response by the Government and our partners. The situation in Haddington is unfortunate, but my hon. Friend is contributing to a solution.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to something that has had remarkably little notice in the Scottish media—the funding package for the Forth and Clyde canal? Various bodies had put together a substantial amount, but the project was in danger of collapse until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues intervened to ensure funding that will bring jobs to my area and along the length of the canal.
    Mr. Wilson: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to draw attention to an important funding decision—one of several that have been taken in recent weeks, which will have long-term beneficial effects on the Scottish economy. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who played a crucial role in ensuring that outcome, when other sources of funding did not prove as successful as we had hoped. We did the right thing by the project and by the Scottish economy. All that will be good news in the future for jobs and the economic dynamism that will flow from the canal project.
    Mr. James Wallace: Given the importance to the Scottish economy of exporting,

    715
    and especially exporting to Europe, is the Minister aware that some Scottish companies must reduce their prices by 20 to 25 per cent. in overseas markets to remain competitive? How does he see profit being generated to fund future investment in Scotland, including important investment in training and in research and development?
    Mr. Wilson: I am aware of the difficulties that some exporters are facing, and I am aware of the excellent efforts of Scottish exporters to deal with that problem. They are finding it necessary to trim their costs and to compete even more effectively. Despite that, Scottish export records are extremely good and we are continuing to encourage new exporters. The Scottish export campaign that I launched recently aims at getting 500 more companies exporting by the turn of the decade. I have no doubt that we can do that. We must diversify, encourage existing exporters and help far more Scottish companies to overcome the psychological barriers that dissuade them from becoming exporters.
    Mr. John McAllion: Scotland has ambitions to be a world-class competitor in targeted industrial sectors. At the same time, Locate in Scotland has targeted certain industrial sectors for foreign direct investment. What assurance can my hon. Friend give me that those are not the same sectors, and that taxpayers are not being asked to pay out money to attract foreign investment into our country, at the expense of crowding out indigenous companies that we are trying to make into world-class competitors?
    Mr. Wilson: I have repeatedly invited examples of indigenous companies being crowded out by the allocation of money and support—on exactly the same terms, incidentally—to inward investors. I want more Scottish companies to grow and invest, as well as a healthy inward investment sector. We owe the wonderful success of winning the Cadence and Project Alba for Scotland to the fact that we already have a strong electronics base in Scotland.
    All the pieces fit together. The occasional setback to inward investment should be viewed in a mature way. It is not a disaster, and no one should dance on the grave of inward investment because of the occasional setback. Of course there will be setbacks. We are not immune from what is happening elsewhere in the world, but, overwhelmingly, inward investment is a magnificent success story for the Scottish economy. Hundreds of thousands of Scottish families depend on inward investment for their livelihoods and prosperity.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What assurances did the Government give the Scottish financial services sector about the consequences of devolution? Have not the sector's fears been vindicated by the fact that the Scottish National party has overtaken the Labour party in the opinion polls? Now that both of the Government's former referendum partners are actively campaigning for a referendum on the full independence of Scotland, what assurances can the Minister give the financial services sector?
    Mr. Wilson: It would be an extremely odd financial services company in the shrewd business community of Edinburgh that formulated its policies and actions on the
    716
    basis of an opinion poll. Perhaps the Tories think that that is how financial services companies conduct their affairs, but I doubt very much whether it is.
    The assurance that the financial services sector was given, like everyone else in Scotland, was that there would be no differential business taxes within the United Kingdom. That is exactly what it wanted to hear. As I have said already, if the financial services sector in Scotland, which has the vast majority of its business in England, faced a differential tax regime, of course it would take flight. However, it will not face that, because it is within the United Kingdom and that is where it will remain.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Given that some Scottish financial institutions have already located part of their operations in Dublin, does the Minister agree that that is partly because the Irish Parliament has passed some 40 pieces of pro-business legislation over recent years? Does he agree that it would be a good thing if the Scottish Parliament had similar powers?
    Mr. Wilson: I imagine that some companies also have business in Ireland, so it is natural that they would locate some of their operations there. I can only point to what the Government have done in terms of corporation tax. The financial services industry is very happy with the Government's performance. The hon. Gentleman conspicuously fails to address the fact that the majority of business for the Scottish financial services industry is in England. I do not think—and I imagine that the hon. Gentleman agrees—that they would want to see the rest of the United Kingdom become a foreign country, as he proposes.

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: If he will make a statement on hospital waiting lists in the Highland health board area. [41252]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): Highland health board's waiting list at 31 March 1998 was 3,616. More than 80 per cent. of people on the list in Highland are seen within three months.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for that reply and acknowledge the welcome progress that has been made in most areas both in meeting the agreed patient targets that were set between the Scottish Office and the health board and in reducing waiting times. Nevertheless, I draw the Minister's attention to two areas that are causing concern: the waiting time for gynaecology appointments and for orthopaedic out-patient appointments. In both cases, the numbers are falling significantly short of the agreed targets. The Minister has been very helpful regarding the issue of surgical services on Skye and their future provision. Given that the health board is meeting to discuss that matter today, will he—like me—urge it to bear in mind those more disappointing statistics when it comes to deciding on the correct nature and level of future provision for Skye?
    Mr. Galbraith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was a surgeon at the hospital on Skye and I had a most

    717
    splendid time on the island. [Interruption] Thank you very much indeed. The Highland health board is trying to integrate the service in Inverness with that in Skye and to open up the service and expand the range of facilities on Skye. I heartily recommend that, as it will have the added benefit of reducing waiting lists and waiting times in the area. We have allocated £44.5 million to tackling the problems that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted. He has my assurance that waiting lists and waiting times will come down in the very near future.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Regarding hospital waiting lists, will the Minister make a statement about how Government policy is affecting hospital provision in the north of Scotland?
    Mr. Galbraith: That question is very wide and I think that Madam Speaker would be upset if I took too much time to answer it.
    Madam Speaker: I certainly would.
    Mr. Galbraith: I shall highlight only one area. Aberdeen is to have a new children's hospital. That has come about because Government policy has led to co-operation between the trusts. If it were not for a Labour Government, that hospital would never have been built.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: Given the Government's failure to meet the targets referred to by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), who raised this question, given Labour's pledge at the general election that they would cut NHS waiting lists not in the longer term but as a first step, and given that waiting lists in Scotland have increased by 5,000 overall, rather than being disappointed—as he expressed himself to be—is the Minister now ashamed?
    Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that I need to take any lessons about waiting lists or waiting times from the right hon. Gentleman. Under his Government, waiting lists rose month by month and year by year. We shall reverse that trend. In Scotland, we have allocated £44.5 million to tackling that problem. The right hon. Gentleman should be a bit careful about what he says because, when waiting lists are lower than the level that we inherited from the previous Government, I will expect him to come to the Dispatch Box and congratulate us heartily.
    Mr. Ancram: I do not want to give the Minister a lesson in what direction is up and what is down, but the current figures do not seem to match the pledge given at the election. Can the Minister tell the House why the pledge to cut hospital waiting lists was strangely absent from a recent consultative survey issued by the Labour party asking people how they thought that the Government were performing in relation to their pledges? As that has disappeared, does the hon. Gentleman not think that he should do the honourable thing and go, too?
    Mr. Galbraith: I am a bit surprised by the right hon. Gentleman: I thought that he was a bigger politician and would not use such cheap jibes. We have put £44.5 million into waiting lists. We shall get them down until they are lower than the level that we inherited from the right hon. Gentleman's Government.

    Manufacturing
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on the level of business confidence in the manufacturing sector in Scotland. [41253]
    The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I have frequent discussions with many manufacturing firms across Scotland. Underlying business confidence remains strong.
    Mr. Swayne: Does the Minister agree that the problems experienced by Mitsubishi and by Lite-on reinforce the need for Scottish Enterprise and Locate in Scotland to retain their autonomy and not to be subject to empire building by the Department of Trade and Industry, which would run counter to the devolution policy for which we are both such enthusiasts?
    Mr. Wilson: I am astonished to hear such sound common sense from the hon. Gentleman. It is important for Scottish Enterprise and Locate in Scotland to maintain their ability to work so effectively for Scotland. There will be setbacks with inward investment, just as there are setbacks with indigenous companies, but there is a lot more good news than bad, and that will continue.
    Mr. David Marshall: Does the Minister agree that, under the previous Government, Locate in Scotland's record of attracting manufacturing jobs to the city of Glasgow was dreadful, probably directly as a result of the anti-Glasgow bias of Tory Ministers in the Scottish Office? Will he give an assurance that he will make every effort to attract manufacturers to locate and expand in Glasgow and that the previous policy will be reversed?
    Mr. Wilson: I have no knowledge of such a policy having existed. Locate in Scotland does extremely well in bringing companies to Scotland, but the location that a company prefers is very much a matter for the company, so I shall not go down that road. I can speak only for the past year: Locate in Scotland and the Government have done extremely well in bringing extra jobs into Glasgow through inward investment. I intend that to continue and I assure my hon. Friend that there is more good news on the way.
    Dr. Liam Fox: How can any hon. Member or anyone outside the House accept the Minister's assurances on manufacturing when it is technically in recession, inflation is at a six-year high, class sizes are going up, waiting lists are going up and the Scottish nationalists are on the march—all as a result of this incompetent Administration?
    Mr. Wilson: I can only sympathise with the hon. Gentleman on the doom-laden world in which he lives. I assure him that if he comes up to Scotland he will find that quite a lot of things are going very well.

    Land Reform
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: How many responses he has received to his consultation document in relation to land reform in Scotland. [41254]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): So far, more than 300 written replies have been received from individuals and organisations right across the country.
    Mr. Welsh: Has the Secretary of State read the Shelter report on land reform and the housing crisis in rural Scotland? Does he agree that current forms of land ownership block access to and provision of badly needed housing in Scotland's rural areas? What steps is he taking to make available land and homes for Scotland's rural communities?
    Mr. Dewar: I accept that there is a problem and I am aware of the points that have been fairly put by Shelter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a review is going on and a land reform working party is in place and operating. We want the problem to be one of the aspects of the review that is taken on board. I accept that there is work to be done.

    Child Care
    Mr. Russell Brown: What steps he is taking to ensure the continuance of child care provision, following the withdrawal of urban aid funding. [41255]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): As part of our strategy for child care for the financial year 1998–99, we will be making almost £4 million extra available to local authorities to develop and encourage child care in their areas. That could be used, among other purposes, to provide funding for child care projects previously funded through the urban programme.
    Mr. Brown: Today, high-quality child care provision, right across the country, has been announced. Does my hon. Friend agree that what rural areas have not received in the past will come through the actions of the Government? Under the previous Administration, rural areas were sadly neglected.
    Mr. Galbraith: I most certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Today, we launched our child care strategy which is designed to ensure that affordable, accessible, high-quality care is available for those who need it—right across society.
    There is no absolute blueprint because needs differ and provision and diversity vary in rural areas, and it will be for local partnerships to deal with matters. We have put in large extra amounts, starting with £5 million this year, and there will be £50 million for next year. There is also the child care tax credit, which, for Scotland, alone will be an additional £30 million for the sector.
    Mr. Donald Gorrie: Will the Minister consider bringing more Departments together to approach such subjects? This country seems to have the
    720
    fault of isolating individual problems. If we brought together the health service, housing, education, recreation, social work and voluntary bodies, we could deal better with problems than we can by isolating them and having a little fund here and a bigger fund there.
    Mr. Galbraith: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he reads the Green Paper and the child care strategy document because that is exactly what is being done? Why does he think that I am the Minister with responsibility for children? It is because I am able to co-ordinate all Departments. Other parties talk about altering government, but we have produced joined-up government to produce joined-up solutions that result in benefits for the whole of society.

    Lockerbie
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What discussions have taken place between the Lord Advocate's office and the US State Department relating to (a) evidence for the Libyan involvement in the Lockerbie bombing and (b) the reliability of witnesses' memories of the event. [41257]
    The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): It is not appropriate to disclose details of discussions between the office of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and United States officials.
    Mr. Dalyell: Why not? At what level are they having discussions with the Americans?
    Mr. McLeish: In my first response I made it quite clear that we cannot disclose details. The Government position remains that those who are accused of acts of terrorism should not be able to dictate the venue or composition of the court before which they are to be tried. Scotland and the United States have exercised jurisdiction in this case, and Libya should now surrender the two accused for trial in either of those countries, as it is required to do under the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

    Scottish Parliament
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: When he last met representatives of political parties to discuss procedures for the Scottish Parliament. [41258]
    The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I met yesterday representatives of the political parties in Scotland at the third meeting of the consultative steering group on the Scottish Parliament. That group is charged with taking forward consideration of how the Parliament will operate.
    Mr. Robathan: I am glad that the Minister has met the political parties as we proceed towards the Scottish Parliament. The Government have stated that they believe in the Union, but there is a great deal of uncertainty about procedures. Is the Minister not concerned that, given the opinion polls in Scotland, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could end up as Leader of the Opposition in the Scottish Parliament? The Scottish

    721
    nationalists could be the largest party and might use the uncertainty of procedures to undermine the whole business of the Union and the Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman's main question related to the procedures in which we are involved and the relationship with other political parties. The realpolitik in Scotland is that parties are co-operating on a way forward. The consultative steering group is looking at Standing Orders, working methods and procedures. The Scottish people value their Parliament and want it to work for them. The nation does not want the Parliament to work for any political party.
    Mr. John Maxton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for the new Parliament to present a modern, efficient vision of itself in the 21st century? Therefore, can he assure us that there will be no fancy costumes; that in a multi-religious society there will be no prayers; and that modern technology will be used for voting and in many other aspects of the work of that Parliament?
    Mr. McLeish: I do not want to pre-empt the work of the consultative steering group. In a sense, the issues that my hon. Friend raises are the ones which we are tackling. There is no point in having differences between Westminster and Holyrood simply for the sake of difference. We are convinced that this will be a modern substantial Parliament with tremendous law-making powers. The people of Scotland will be proud of it, but, more importantly, we have to make sure that it works properly because legislating will be the essence of the new Parliament.
    Mr. Eric Forth: What constitutional and legislative safeguards are there for the people of Scotland in a one-chamber system?
    Mr. McLeish: As part of the work of the consultative steering group, we are keen to explore that issue, because, in terms of constitutional development in the United Kingdom, the Parliament is a significant step. We are looking at the situation that will arise with a single chamber in the new Parliament. I think that a single chamber will work well, but it requires proper built-in safeguards and proper consultation. I take the right hon. Gentleman's question seriously and I can tell him that we have asked the expert panel that is advising the consultative steering group to look at that issue.

    Land Ownership
    Mr. Michael Connarty: What assessment he has made of the advantages of (a) reforming and (b) abolishing the feudal system of land ownership in Scotland. [41259]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): The Government favour the earliest possible abolition of feudal tenure in Scotland and have asked the Scottish Law Commission to accelerate its review, which will now be completed by the end of this year.
    Mr. Connarty: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Getting rid of this scurrilous system, which is a hangover
    722
    of the feudal relationships that once bedevilled Scotland, is long overdue. He will be aware of the campaign that is run by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), but is he also aware of the campaign that is run by the Association of Retired Persons Over 50 for people in my constituency and others, who have bought their houses in retirement and have a feudal superior who is abusing the right to charge them extortionate prices for repairs and other landlord-based provision? Can my hon. Friend give me an assurance that his revision will deal with that type of scurrilous landlord for ever?
    Mr. Macdonald: I should like to tackle that problem ahead of the Scottish Law Commission final report. As a result of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) raising this issue in the House, the commission was asked to make a report on the specific problem of leasehold casualties. That report was published on 30 April and we are looking urgently at its recommendations and at the possibility of legislation at the earliest possible date.
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Among the various options being looked at by the Government for land reform, will the Minister specifically look at the prospect of introducing a way of freezing controversial land purchases such as Knoydart to allow full investigations into the circumstances before the purchases are finalised?
    Mr. Macdonald: The circumstances around the Knoydart sales certainly raise questions that cause concern to everyone who has the interest of the community at heart. That is exactly why we set up the policy group—to try to find solutions to exactly that sort of situation.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: In his reform, will the Minister ensure that there is a time limit beyond which people cannot go back to revived redundant titles, so that we can avoid people being pressured and indeed ripped off by clever, legally qualified people who have made no contribution to wealth creation, but have robbed people who thought that they had clear title?
    Mr. Macdonald: That is also being looked at as part of the Scottish Law Commission's report. These situations create severe injustices, and the main point of the report is to try to find solutions to that problem.

    Special Advisers
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: If he will make a statement on the employment of special advisers in his Department. [41260]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): All special advisers are employed under the terms and conditions that are set out in the model contract for special advisers, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Grieve: I thank the Secretary of State for that rather bland statement. Would he care to indicate how many special advisers he has and how he envisages that the role of special advisers will develop when there is a

    723
    devolved Parliament in Edinburgh? Will it, because it is an inclusive system, not require the use of political advisers at all?
    Mr. Dewar: It is difficult to envisage a situation in which Ministers, whether they be in this Parliament or in the Scottish Parliament, will not require advice and help in formulating policy. That is the role of special advisers. That is certainly what is done by the three special advisers whom I have in my Department. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three?"] These cries of astonishment suggest, if they are genuine, that Conservative Members are far off the pace. Those people advise me and they do it very well.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Has the Secretary of State considered appointing a personal grooming adviser and, if so, would he make that adviser's services available to all members of the Scottish parliamentary Labour party?
    Mr. Dewar: I do not believe, because I have great faith in my hon. Friend, that there is in that question any implication of criticism of my standards, although I confess that my other good and honourable friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), once confided to me that he thought that, apart from him, I was the worst dressed Member of the House of Commons, but, of course, since I have become a Minister, it is all different.

    Economy
    Mr. Alex Salmond: When he last met the Confederation of British Industry, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Scottish Enterprise to discuss developments in the Scottish economy. [41261]
    The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): My right hon. Friend last met the CBI Scotland on 30 January, the STUC at its annual congress, on 20 April, and the chairman of Scottish Enterprise on 15 April.
    Mr. Salmond: Why did the Minister find himself quoted in the BBC as attacking the Scottish National party for criticising Locate in Scotland about the inward investment setbacks in Scotland over the past few weeks? Can he produce any statement made by the SNP criticising Locate in Scotland? If not, was he misquoted on the BBC, or was he only running at the mouth? Does he understand that it is not Locate in Scotland that we do not think is up to the job, but the Industry Minister?
    Mr. Wilson: Whenever the people of Scotland might be deluded into thinking that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is filling the role of statesman, he falls back into his normal behaviour. If he thinks that name calling is a substitute for policy, he has a personal problem, with which he will have to deal. Instead of asking me such questions, he should speak to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), who is sitting next to him, who will tell him that, on the night of the Lite-On announcement, he called on television for a review of inward investment policy—end of story. However, if the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan would like the video, I am sure I can help him.
    Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: May I welcome the fact that we have the first Government
    724
    ever in the history of the United Kingdom to consider child care as an essential part not only of economic policy but of equal opportunities and children's policy? Will not today's first-ever national child care strategy lead both to more jobs in child care and to opportunities for parents to enter the wider labour market?
    Mr. Wilson: I not only endorse my hon. Friend's comments but pay tribute to the considerable part that he personally played in the origination of that strategy. He is absolutely right that, if people are to be liberated to work, and especially if women are to be liberated to fulfil their potential in education and in the jobs market, it is essential that child care is available. Child care must be integrated with the needs of the individual and be properly resourced, and the Government are doing all of that. Ultimately, the people of Scotland are interested in child care, education, health and housing. It is those great issues on which they vote—not on the juvenile nonsense that we heard a few moments ago from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Minister acknowledge the contribution made to the Scottish economy by the textile sector? When he next meets the STUC, the CBI and Scottish Enterprise, will he undertake to raise with them the issue of creating a strategy for future stabilisation of the textile industry? Will he include in those talks representatives from some of the bigger companies, such as Dawson International? Will he meet those representatives to try to stabilise our current manufacturing capacity, and to help some of the communities built around the textile industry to diversify for the future?
    Mr. Wilson: I fully endorse those comments, as there are difficulties in the textile industry. I should like first to apologise directly to the hon. Gentleman for having to cancel a return visit to the borders, which has been rescheduled for early June. However, as I said, I endorse all his comments and realise the very specific problems that the borders area is currently experiencing. I also agree that we must together take action to try to deal with those problems. There are various employment problems both in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in other border areas, and together we will have to take action to build better prospects.
    Mr. Desmond Browne: My hon. Friend will be aware that, last week, the last shoe manufacturer in Scotland, Clansman Shoes of Kilmarnock, announced short-time working for its 128 skilled workers. The principal reason for the announcement was that the firm's main customer, Hush Puppy (UK) has sought to source its shoes from India. The announcement was made against a background of increasing uncertainty about manufacturing jobs in my constituency. Given the Minister's prompt and effective intervention when 380 jobs were lost, when British Aerospace stopped aeroplane manufacturing in Prestwick, will he consider a similar initiative for my constituency?
    Mr. Wilson: The task force approach has worked well in Prestwick, as it has in Haddington in response to the major job losses, which we discussed. In the short term, I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and the

    725
    local authority. I recognise that there are concerns in some of the traditional industries in Kilmarnock and east Ayrshire, and we shall certainly consider whether there is more that we can do. Let us take it one step at a time; have a meeting to discuss the problems; and see where we go from there.

    EU Representation
    Mr. John Swinney: If he will list the meetings on the subjects of fishing, agriculture, education and economic development during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EU which he or one of his Ministers has chaired. [41262]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): The Minister for Education and Industry will represent the United Kingdom at the joint Education and Social Affairs Council on 4 June. The Minister responsible for health, the arts and children will chair a health conciliation meeting with the European Parliament on 27 May. I have represented the UK presidency in bilateral meetings on the European spatial development perspective with eight member states. In addition, the Secretary of State will represent the UK on 9 June in the regional policy discussions at the informal ministerial meeting in Glasgow.
    Mr. Swinney: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he believe that that is satisfactory representation of Scotland's distinctive interests in those policy areas? What are his expectations about the incidence of Scottish Ministers representing the Scottish Parliament in such forums after the passage of the Scotland Bill?
    Mr. Macdonald: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands what is involved in chairing such meetings as part of the UK presidency. The chair is not supposed to advance national interests as such, but, rather, to look after the interests of all member states at the meeting. I expect that arrangements will continue satisfactorily after devolution, just as they do at the moment.
    Mr. James Gray: Is the Minister aware that the Scottish Fishermens Federation has expressed strong concern that Scotland will lose its independent voice in Europe after devolution? Is it not a matter of regret that, after devolution, Scottish Ministers will attend European bodies only by invitation, and not by right as they do at the moment?
    Mr. Macdonald: Attendance will be on the same basis as at present, which is by mutual agreement between different Departments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the federation recently, and they had a very constructive discussion on just that point.

    NHS Acute Services Review
    Mr. Michael Moore: When he expects the NHS acute services review to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [41263]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): The acute services review will be completed on time, at the end of May. The report will be published some time in June and will be made widely available.
    Mr. Moore: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he comment on whether Sir David Carter has looked at the future of the Princess Alexandra eye pavilion in Edinburgh? Will he give a specific assurance that, contrary to recent rumours, the eye pavilion's services, which are respected throughout the world and serve a wide range of people in the borders, Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland, will not be dispersed and that the site will not be sold simply to reap maximum development value for somebody else?
    Mr. Galbraith: I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that the acute services review is not about specific details for each health board. It is a template and the basis for principles on which acute services are organised, in order to ensure that, no matter where one enters the system, one gets the best possible care. Although the eye pavilion is a matter for Lothian health board, I assure the hon. Gentleman that nowhere in the health service is a decision made simply to make money from development. All decisions are made in the best interests of the patients whom we all look after.

    Local Government
    Ms Sandra Osborne: What plans he has to encourage greater community participation in local government. [41264]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): The Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament is looking radically at how councils can best make themselves responsive and accountable to the communities that they serve.
    Ms Osborne: May I draw to the Minister's attention to South Ayrshire council's new initiative in which more than 1,000 local residents regularly give feedback on council policy? From that, a citizens jury has been set up, which looks in depth at council and local issues. We are currently considering the issue of drinking in public places. Does the Minister agree that the initiative is excellent and should be encouraged in a modern democracy?
    Mr. Macdonald: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. South Ayrshire council is conducting an exciting experiment, to which other councils could look. I hope that the independent commission will take the initiative into account as it completes its deliberations and takes evidence from councils.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: In encouraging greater participation in local government, does the Minister have any plans to introduce gender balance in the selection of candidates? If so, is he aware that the vast

    727
    majority of people consider such an artificial exercise to be purely in the interests of public relations and to be of no benefit whatever to the Scottish people?
    Mr. Macdonald: It is for political parties to decide on gender balance. I notice that the Conservatives have managed to achieve a gender balance in their representation of zero.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What proportion of local government spending in Scotland is raised by council tax; and what plans he has to change this proportion. [41265]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): Just over 20 per cent. of local authority net expenditure in Scotland is funded by the council tax. There are no plans to alter that proportion at present.
    Mr. Bruce: Surely Government policy is to extend the amount being collected locally compared to the amount provided by the national Exchequer. The English borders are subject to that policy, but Scotland is not. There is already an enormous inequality between the amount given by the central Exchequer to local authorities in Scotland and the amount given to those in England and Wales. As a result of devolution, must we not re-examine the Barnett formula and come up with a fair distribution of central funds to local funds, because, otherwise, the United Kingdom will come under enormous pressure?
    Mr. Macdonald: The Conservative Government were happy to sustain and support the Barnett formula. It is odd that Conservative Members should stand on their heads and try to attack it now that they are in opposition. We will consult in the summer on proposals to return some local control over the business rate, but, if that is implemented, there will be strong safeguards to protect the interests of local businesses.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Law Centres
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: What proposals he has to increase financial support for law centres. [41279]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): To deliver the Government's manifesto commitment to create a community legal service, we are seeking to refocus legal aid on social welfare issues. We expect law centres to benefit from that if they are franchised and able to win contracts.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that law centres are valuable and are the best way of providing good, cost-effective and efficient legal advice
    728
    for the mass of ordinary people who are being priced out of paying for legal services by escalating costs. As we agree that law centres are to become the kernel of the community legal service that we are committed to providing, is it not necessary now to provide them with more money to expand their number from the present 50 or so towards the 250 envisaged at the end of the war, and to extend the range of legal services that they can provide to fill the gaps in legal aid?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I agree that we should like more money to be made available to law centres, but clearly a prerequisite is that we control the costs of legal aid. We already provide grants to nine law centres and £1.7 million under the green form scheme. If we are to release resources to be made available to law centres, it is important that we are able to control the costs of the traditional legal aid scheme.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: What will be gained by making more legal services available to the general public when the need to travel—for example, in Shropshire, where it is proposed to close the court in Shrewsbury—makes access impossible for ordinary people?
    Mr. Hoon: No decisions have yet been taken about the court in Shrewsbury. It is important that there should be a balance between the availability of courts and expense. Courts are expensive capital assets which the Government have to maintain. In supporting courts and making sure that as many people as possible have access to them, we have to ensure that the taxpayer is getting value for money. That balance must be struck.
    Ms Hazel Blears: Although law centres are a key element in improving access to justice, many other advice services such as citizens advice bureaux, housing advice centres, welfare rights centres and debt counselling are funded and co-ordinated by local authorities. Will my hon. Friend ensure that, in the shaping of the future of the community legal service, local government plays a key role in ensuring that services are accessible and relevant to local people?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful question. Clearly it is crucial that we provide local high-quality legal assistance; indeed, to deliver a community legal service is a manifesto commitment of the Government. We are examining the range of help that may be necessary with issues such as social welfare, benefit advice, debt, housing and employment, and there is a task force in the Lord Chancellor's Department working urgently to develop a range of proposals to enable us to deliver such legal advice where it is most needed, to the most vulnerable people in our society.

    Legal Aid
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: How many responses his Department has received to the consultation paper on conditional fee arrangements which were (i) in favour of the Government's proposals and (ii) against them. [41282]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Consultation closed on 30 April 1998, by which time we had received 233 responses. That includes the response from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), but not the bundle that he submitted of private correspondence between Opposition Members and various law firms, some of which was written before the consultation paper was published, and some of which was clearly aimed at soliciting unfavourable comments. Analysis of all the responses to our paper is being undertaken and we will consider the results in due course.
    Mrs. Laing: Can the Minister assure the House that, despite the clearly party political inference that he put into his answer, when the analysis takes place he will note the significant body of opinion, of which the Opposition are aware from our postbags, that opposes the Government's policy? Having done so, will he change the policy accordingly—or is the consultation exercise just a public relations exercise?
    Mr. Hoon: It has been made clear—indeed, I have made it clear myself in a letter to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough—that we shall take into account all the representations that we receive. There has been a prolonged consultation period. The Lord Chancellor first suggested the changes that we are considering as long ago as October, and there has been a further consultation paper, a statement in the House and extensive discussion involving Opposition Members on how to take the proposals forward. Only when we have considered all the representations will we reach any decisions.
    Mr. John Burnett: Mention is made in the consultation paper of the continuation of legal aid for defendants and its withdrawal in business cases. Will the Minister assure the House that legal aid will always be available to defendants such as Mr. Gerald James, formerly chairman of Astra Holdings plc, who had to defend proceedings that were subsequently found to be unsound and collapsed, although he had had to face the might of the state in those circumstances?
    Mr. Hoon: Legal aid will continue to cover a range of cases, including family cases, housing cases, judicial review and actions arising from the misdeeds of public authorities, as well as to enable people to defend proceedings. I hope that that list is sufficiently wide to encompass the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for giving publicity to the work that I have done as Opposition spokesman. From my perusal of the press, it seems that I get a rather better press than either the hon. Gentleman or the Lord Chancellor—which I agree is not difficult. Does the Minister realise that it is now widely accepted that the Lord Chancellor's plans for conditional fees, although long on misdirected ambition, are woefully incoherent? Will he undertake not only personally to read every response to the consultation paper—including the letters from solicitors that I forwarded under the consultation process—but to pay attention to, and act upon, the criticisms contained in those responses?
    Mr. Hoon: I am delighted to discover that the hon. and learned Gentleman is so pleased with his own publicity.
    730
    I understand that a reshuffle is in the offing and I hope that his comments are in no way an advertisement of his skills for the attention of his leader, who no doubt reads Hansard as regularly as the rest of us. I shall certainly read all the various comments that have been made before reaching a decision on the consultation paper. It is vital that we have a reformed modernised legal aid scheme; indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that he supported a Government who regarded the costs of legal aid as utterly out of control, and the legal aid system as in urgent need of reform. It is astonishing that in such a short time he has become so used to the ways of opposition.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: What action he has recently undertaken to make transparent levels of charges for legal aid work. [41283]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The level of charges is published annually in regulations and in the legal aid handbook.
    Mr. Viggers: Was it not misleading and totally unrealistic for the Lord Chancellor to say in an article in The Independent on 18 February that legal aid assistance should be focused on cases either involving novel and significant points of law or with wider implications? As the Lord Chancellor is cutting legal aid across the board, would that not mean that individuals involved in normal cases would pay even more and receive even less?
    Mr. Hoon: The reference was to ensuring that legal aid was available in cases in which there were novel or significant points of law. Central to the proposed reforms is the belief that everyone should have access to a lawyer and that scarce taxpayers' money should be concentrated on cases in which it can do most good. It is right and proper that the availability of legal aid should be restricted in that wide range of money-related cases where, we believe, conditional fees are an adequate way in which to provide people with representation. Scarce taxpayers' funds should be concentrated on the cases in which they are justified, such as those involving novel and significant points of law.
    Mr. Steve McCabe: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a world of difference between the vast majority of solicitors engaged in legal aid work, who make a valuable and often unrecognised contribution and receive modest incomes, and the tiny proportion of people engaged in such work who can claim fees of up to £750,000 a year at taxpayers' expense? Will he join me in commending the contribution of that vast majority, and will he assure the House that, under the reforms, individuals will no longer be able to extract such exorbitant funds from the public purse?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I entirely agree that the great majority of lawyers working through the legal aid system provide a valuable and consistent source of advice and representation—I am the first to pay tribute to that. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the fact that as much as £750,000 of taxpayers' money can be paid into the

    731
    pocket of one lawyer in one year is a matter of concern. It is absolutely right that the Government should publish such figures, as, indeed, our predecessors did.

    Medical and Personal Injury Insurance
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What estimate his Department has made of the impact on the legal aid budget of compulsory (a) medical insurance and (b) personal injury insurance; and if he will make a statement. [41287]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Although the Government are keen to see an expansion of legal expenses insurance generally, the Lord Chancellor's Department has not made any estimate of the impact of compulsory insurance on the legal aid budget, because that is not a realistic prospect. The Government prefer to modernise the civil justice system to make it quicker, cheaper and simpler—we want to encourage the development of voluntary insurance, wider access to membership schemes such as those provided by trade unions and other organisations, and increased availability and use of conditional fee agreements.
    Mr. Hughes: In considering the legal aid system in general, will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind the fact that, every day, people bring cases against health authorities throughout the country? Some of those cases are legally aided and others are not, but they all involve a huge amount of public money. People want a simple way in which fault can be recognised when the health service gets something wrong. Will he talk to his colleagues in the Department of Health to ensure that
    732
    people's ability to enforce their rights when things go wrong in the health service is streamlined and made far less traumatic?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of Health have been engaged in discussions along those lines. In the most recent consultation document, we stressed the importance of channelling legal aid funds to those who specialise in medical negligence cases. Lawyers who deal daily with such issues do a far better job not only for the individual plaintiff but, crucially, in providing a proper and effective service to society.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a strange irony in the fact that the Labour Government adopted Tory spending plans and introduced the possibility of cutting legal aid, but are now being condemned for it by Tory Members? Is there not a moral here—that it is time we stopped using Tory spending plans?
    Mr. Hoon: I had considerable experience of disagreeing with my hon. Friend in the days when I had the privilege to represent him in the European Parliament. The important point is that the Government do not intend to cut legal aid. Our ambition is to refocus it and save money on traditional legal aid, to ensure that we can help the most vulnerable in our society, many of whom live in Bolsover.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: When will the Legal Aid Board become subject to the late payment legislation that is currently before the House?
    Mr. Hoon: We are considering that.

Indonesia
3.30 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the current situation in Indonesia.
Our top priority remains to ensure the safety of British citizens in Indonesia. Throughout the recent unrest, the embassy has kept in close touch with the British community through the warden system and through regularly updated travel advice. That advice has also been broadcast by the BBC World Service. Emergency telephone lines have been set up in Jakarta to provide up-to-date information 24 hours a day.
Advice to resident British nationals caught up in the unrest has been kept under constant review. From Friday 15 May, Britons were advised to consider leaving Indonesia. Early this morning, in view of the latest political developments and the demonstrations expected on 20 May, we issued advice that British citizens should leave Indonesia, preferably avoiding travel on 20 May. At our ambassador's request, an additional British Airways 747 flight has been arranged by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, leaving Jakarta later today for Kuala Lumpur. Other scheduled flights are also available.
British citizens with safe access to the airport were advised to make their own way there, where an embassy team will be available at the British Airways office to give advice. The embassy also chartered a fleet of buses to transport British citizens from central Jakarta. As an extra precaution, a police escort was requested and provided.
We were greatly saddened by the tragic death of a British citizen in Jakarta on 14 May. Our deepest sympathy goes out to his family. The motive appears to have been robbery, as the evidence suggests that the death was unrelated to the political violence. We have asked the Indonesian police for investigation reports as a matter of urgency. We have also heard rumours of the possible death of a second British national, but that has not yet been confirmed. Our embassy in Jakarta is working in extremely difficult circumstances to try to establish the full facts.
I would like to thank the staff of our embassy in Jakarta for their hard work in the face of enormous difficulties and a very unpredictable political situation. They, and many of their spouses, have been working tirelessly round the clock since 14 May to help the local British community. Many of them also have dependants in Indonesia to worry about. Although their work is not yet over, I would like to take this opportunity to thank them now for their continuing efforts and their support to the British community. We are also very grateful to British Airways, and especially to Claire Hatton and her staff in Jakarta, for their great efforts to help many Britons leaving Indonesia.
The situation in Indonesia is changing very rapidly. President Suharto told the Indonesian people in a television address today that there will be general elections as soon as possible and that he will not stand again. We call on the Government of Indonesia to ensure that the new elections are free and fair. Political reforms are needed that will do justice to the aspirations of the
734
people of Indonesia. The tragic violence that we have witnessed over the past week must be stopped, before more innocent lives are claimed. We urge Indonesia to introduce the necessary changes quickly, so that calm and stability can be restored.
The British Government have been following developments in Indonesia closely over recent months. Ministers have made our concerns clear to the Indonesian authorities. I visited Jakarta in March, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was also in Indonesia at the beginning of this month. He took the opportunity then to underline the importance of political and economic reform. Together with our European Union partners, we issued a statement on 13 May calling on the authorities to exercise maximum restraint and to respect individual rights. That message has been conveyed to the Indonesian authorities through our embassy in Jakarta. I summoned the Indonesian ambassador on 13 May.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took the opportunity of the G8 summit to discuss the situation in Indonesia. As the House knows, leaders called on the Government of Indonesia to refrain from using lethal force and to initiate political reform. We have stressed the importance of political and economic reform. The two are now essential to recovery in Indonesia. I am sure that the House will want to support the Government in calling for peaceful transition in Indonesia.
Mr. Michael Howard: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he gave me advance notice of his statement. I join him in expressing deep sympathy with the family of the British citizen who was killed in Jakarta on 14 May. I express also my sympathy with the families of other nationals, including Indonesians, who have lost their lives in the tragic disturbances.
The Minister was right to thank the staff of our embassy in Jakarta and of British Airways. I would particularly like to associate myself with his tribute to Claire Hatton, the British Airways employee who kept her office open throughout the disturbances and helped some 2,000 people to leave the country.
I agree with the Minister on the importance of early, free and fair elections and of respecting human rights in Indonesia. Have the Government offered any assistance for the conduct of those elections? What consultations have the Government had with Indonesia's regional neighbours? In the light of events, does he think that the package of assistance offered by the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, and the terms on which it was offered, were well judged? What action, if any, have the Government taken to ensure that the assistance from those bodies is reviewed in the light of these events? Will the Government pay particular attention to the warnings given by the Government of Australia on these questions, to which I drew the attention of the Foreign Office some two months ago?
Finally, will the Minister comment on the Foreign Secretary's statement last week that none of the British-made vehicles used by the Indonesian Government has been exported since Labour came to power? Does he associate himself with the explanation of the Foreign Office spokesman that that statement was made during a compressed interview that made it difficult to go into the

735
sort of depth that this complex issue requires, or will he be more forthcoming and simply say that the Foreign Secretary got it wrong again?
Mr. Fatchett: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his early remarks. He is right to express sympathy not only to UK nationals but to those of other countries caught up in these events. I share his congratulations and thanks to Claire Hatton, British Airways staff and embassy staff. We are grateful for all their work on behalf of UK citizens. I agree that we need early, fair elections in Indonesia. I am not optimistic that they will take place, but I agree that we should continue to push in that direction and to urge on the Indonesian Government a greater respect for human rights and a great improvement in their record.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked three specific questions. We have as yet had no request for assistance with elections, but if we were convinced that there would be free and fair elections in Indonesia, we would be willing to play a part, in the way in which Britain and the European Union have on other occasions. We have been in constant contact with Indonesia's regional neighbours. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that, as part of the EU presidency, I visited Indonesia's neighbours a few weeks ago, as did my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the IMF programme. I think that the worst possible sign that we could give to the Suharto regime, and the worst possible way of developing human rights and democracy in Indonesia, would be to give the impression that that programme is now negotiable. The programme is important, to lever in political and economic reform. Without that, there will be no accountability and transparency, and those are developments that we desperately need in Indonesia.
Finally, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to export licences. I am always impressed and intrigued by his brazen audacity at the Dispatch Box. It might be worth while reminding the House that no equipment used in recent events has been licensed since 1 May 1997. All the equipment used to which attention has been drawn was licensed by Conservative Members, and it is about time that that party took responsibility for what is happening in Indonesia.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If a new Indonesian regime were to apply to the Government to freeze the assets of the Suharto family here, on the basis that those assets had been illegally transferred from Indonesia, would my hon. Friend look favourably on such an application?
Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend raises a number of hypothetical issues that may well become important as developments take place. I can say that we shall support the principle of accountability and transparency not merely in Indonesia, but here in the United Kingdom if that is relevant.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does not the Minister think it a bit rich to call on the Indonesian
736
Government to refrain from using lethal force now, despite this Government's ethical foreign policy, which, frankly, has carried on the policy of the previous Government and that was repeating Baroness Chalker's mantra that arms should not be sold that could be used for internal repression? Does he realise that, tomorrow, when the student demonstration takes place, students are likely to be killed and maimed using British riot control agents, British nerve gases, British batons and British water cannon?
Mr. Fatchett: It is absolutely right to urge restraint on the Indonesian authorities. I do not think that any hon. Member would take a different view, and any movement towards democracy and respect for human rights in Indonesia would be a step in the right direction; we would all support that.
The hon. Lady seems not to have done her homework as she normally does. To aim her criticism at the Labour Benches rather than the Conservative Benches is a mistake on her part. I repeat that the water cannon, to take the example that she used, was equipment licensed under the previous Government. It is about time that the hon. Lady looked at what happened and clearly differentiated between the record of this Government and that of the previous Administration.
Ann Clwyd: What Baroness Chalker actually said was that once one sends weapons to a country such as Indonesia, one cannot possibly monitor their end use. Why did we not revoke the licences given by the previous Government when we had the opportunity to do so last year—when our policy states clearly that we will not sell arms for internal repression? It is true that the licences granted by the previous Government are responsible for the use of British-made water cannon on the streets in Indonesia against unarmed students as recently as April. Why, despite all the knowledge that we were propping up a rotten, corrupt regime, which was responsible for the most terrible human rights abuses, did we still not revoke those licences?
Since May last year, we have agreed another 56 licences for all sorts of military equipment which, in 18 or 24 months' time, might be used on the streets in Indonesia. It really is not good enough to say that we are not responsible for the equipment that is being used now, when, in 18 months' time, equipment that we have supplied may also be used against the very same people who are now fighting for democracy and human rights on those streets.
Mr. Fatchett: I very much respect my hon. Friend's views and know that she has a long-standing interest in Indonesia and developments there. She is absolutely right to make the differentiation she made in terms of licences. The new licence criteria that were introduced last July, despite Conservative opposition, are tougher, and it is now extremely difficult to imagine that the Labour Government would ever grant a licence for, for example, water cannon; that would simply not happen. My hon. Friend points the finger and lays the responsibility exactly where that responsibility rests.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is readily apparent, even from only watching newsreels, that the spectrum of

737
demonstration and violence extends from students, protesting as students sometimes will, to criminal elements, who are frankly exploiting the situation; that that is something which we have seen in Europe, for example, in France in the 1960s; and that it is not simply an Indonesian phenomenon? Whatever President Suharto's shortcomings as a Westminster democrat may be, the record will show that, judged in the context of the country within which he operates, he has raised the condition of his people, and history might come to a slightly different judgment from the one being expressed here today. In short, is not the situation a great deal more complicated than many hon. Members and some commentators think?
Finally, it is the Minister's position that he had no choice but to go ahead with the export of particular types of equipment because the previous Conservative Government had granted a licence; but if he believes the material supplied by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and is now satisfied that the equipment was used in breach of the licence conditions, surely he could revoke the licence. That was the point he avoided when responding to the questions asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
Mr. Fatchett: I am surprised that there is one apologist for the Indonesian regime in the House, but if I had had to predict who it would be, I might well have pointed my finger at the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). His defence of the Indonesian regime, despite its lack of democracy or respect for human rights, even brought embarrassment to his own Front Benchers.
Mr. Roger Berry: Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative support for the military regime in Indonesia is a disgrace to the House, not least given the events in East Timor in recent decades and the current conflict within Indonesia itself? Does he further agree that we should condemn the previous Conservative Government for their policy of granting, willy-nilly, export licences for arms that are now being used against the Indonesian people? How is that policy to change under the present Government?
Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right to express his surprise at the support for the regime in Indonesia and the reluctance among Conservative Members to back the programme of political reform that is so desperately needed in that country. He is also right to make, yet again, the crucial differentiation between the records of the two Governments. The arms sales criteria that we introduced last July are tougher and have played out tougher in practice. My hon. Friend knows that, and I am grateful for his support. He will know that the hoo-hah about one issue that we have heard in recent weeks contrasts sharply with the Conservatives' support for arming Indonesia, despite its past record; that contrast will be very obvious to hon. Members and to the general public.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: The Minister referred to the need for political and economic reform in Indonesia. Does he agree that such reform must include self-determination for the people of East Timor?
738
Will he undertake to continue to press for the implementation of United Nations resolutions in respect of East Timor?
Mr. Fatchett: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have taken an initiative during our EU presidency on the issue of East Timor. That is why we sent EU troika ambassadors on a visit to East Timor and why we have continued to take an interest in East Timor. We share the broad aspirations that the hon. Gentleman set out in his question.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: My hon. Friend will be aware that some ethnic minorities in Indonesia are being singled out by the mob for special treatment. What help can the outside community give to people such as the ethnic Chinese, who are receiving no protection whatever from the police or security forces in that country?
Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend talks about one of the more alarming developments taking place in Indonesia. I think that all of us will express deep sympathy for the Chinese ethnic minority, which has made such an important contribution to development in Indonesia. It is important that, in whatever way possible, we offer protection to all those people, because they have an absolute right to live in Indonesia and an absolute right to have the contribution that they have made for years recognised and respected. We shall urge restraint and urge the Indonesian Government to give the fullest possible defence to those people.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The House will have noted with approval that the Minister gave priority in his statement to ensuring the safety of British citizens in a situation that must have been dire for them and their families—witnessing the destruction, in many instances, of their livelihood and the way of life that they had established as expatriates in Indonesia. Is the Minister satisfied that the chartered jumbo jet and the scheduled services with airlines other than British Airways will be sufficient to transport out of Indonesia all British people who wish to accept his Department's wise advice to leave?
Is the Minister aware that, in situations of this kind that can deteriorate even more, the necessary form of military back-up should always be present, and in that connection, can he confirm to the House that his Department advised the strategic defence review that the Royal Air Force should have a heavy-lift capability?
Mr. Fatchett: I am very grateful for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's comments. Obviously, it is our primary responsibility to look after the security and well-being of British citizens, and we shall do our utmost to discharge that responsibility. I am confident that we can discharge that responsibility. I believe that the steps so far taken by the ambassador and his staff have worked very well toward that objective. I am confident that the new steps that we have announced and the advice that we shall give will ensure that every British citizen who wishes to leave Indonesia will have the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Minister aware that those of us who were lucky enough to go to Indonesia 30-odd years ago are really dismayed by what has

739
happened in the past 15 years, and by the way in which events have turned out? However, does he recognise that it may now be a Javanese problem rather than an Indonesian problem? What advice is being given to British citizens in Sumatra, Lombok, Flores, Sulawesi and Kalimantan, where circumstances may be entirely different, away from the Jakarta mob?
Mr. Fatchett: Our advice to all British citizens, in whatever part of Indonesia and on whatever island, is to leave. We still feel that that is the most appropriate advice, whether in Jakarta or one of the other islands; we are not differentiating between them. I believe that it would be risky for us to try to differentiate. The important thing is to get British citizens out if they so wish, and we wish them to come at this stage, for their safety.
Mr. Edward Garnier: I am sure that the Minister appreciates that many people in this country are worried about the well-being and whereabouts of relations and friends in Indonesia. Is an information line available at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which the public may contact to get such information?
Mr. Fatchett: There is, and we shall ensure that that information line is made available for the public, and for the use of Members if they wish to take up individual cases.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will continue to insist on the importance of human rights and political democracy to Indonesian Ministers when he meets them, and is not that in sharp contrast to the policy of the previous Government, who did not think it necessary to mention those things?
Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right, and I believe that the tone of the questions this afternoon shows that to be very much the case. We have constantly talked about the need for political reform, accountability, transparency and a respect for human rights, and we shall continue to do so. I do not think that we shall hear from the Labour Benches any support for Suharto, the regime in Indonesia
740
and the mistakes that have been made over the years. I believe that that contrast will be widely understood and respected.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Perhaps the Minister will think again about the advice that he gave his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). There are 13,000 islands in Indonesia, so to suggest that everyone is at the same risk is surely incorrect. Will he also comment on the G8 suggestion that the Indonesian regime should use non-lethal force? Is the Minister saying that water cannon should be used to control the rioters? Clearly, the vast majority of those who died did so because rioters set fire to shops and suchlike.
Mr. Fatchett: I repeat the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell): we advise all British citizens to get out of Indonesia, wherever they are. We see that as the best advice to offer.
The hon. Gentleman referred to water cannon, which many people would see as lethal equipment. If the Government were faced with a licence application for similar equipment to be exported to Indonesia, I do not expect that we, unlike the previous regime, would agree to it.
Ms Gisela Stuart: Will the Minister confirm that the Labour Government refused to permit the export of machine guns and tear gas to Indonesia?
Mr. Fatchett: The answer is yes. That is part of the policy that we have adopted over the past 12 months.
Mr. Brian White: Does my hon. Friend recognise that many non-governmental organisations have highlighted the situation in the rural areas of Indonesia? We have all seen what has happened in Jakarta this week, but many people in rural areas are starving as a direct result of Indonesian Government policy. Will my hon. Friend make representations that go beyond what is happening in Jakarta and which touch on abuse of human rights in the rural areas?
Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When I was in Jakarta a few weeks ago, one of my concerns—it was also expressed to me by others—was the fact that Indonesia may be unable, because of changes in its infrastructure, to deliver enough food to people in the outlying islands. There may be a state of near famine in many of those islands, and the international community must address that issue with some urgency.

Concessionary Travel Schemes (Scotland)
3.56 pm
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require Scottish local authorities to make reciprocal arrangements for the operation of bus and rail concessionary travel schemes for visually impaired and blind people within their areas; and for connected purposes.
Because of local government reorganisation under the previous Administration, there are 32 separate travel schemes for blind people in Scotland. Most of those independent schemes offer free or concessionary schemes to registered blind residents. However, the anomaly lies in the fact that the schemes are not co-ordinated or interchangeable across local authority boundaries.
To put it simply, blind or visually impaired people can travel at a concessionary rate within their own local authority areas, but when they travel outside those boundaries, there is no guarantee that they will receive their customary benefits. The only substantial impediment to geographical equality is that there is no statutory requirement on local authorities to provide schemes similar to those enjoyed by their own residents for non-residents who visit their areas.
My Bill would require Scottish local authorities to establish reciprocal agreements to extend their schemes to blind and visually impaired people who visit their areas. That would create equality and consistency across Scotland for all registered blind and visually impaired citizens. The scheme would extend to all bus and rail transport in Scotland.
For many years, the National Federation of the Blind has highlighted the need for a co-ordinated scheme, and it recently met the Scottish Office and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to press for action. Despite broadly favourable responses from both, there has been no concerted effort to implement the principles of such a scheme. My Bill offers the opportunity to establish a fair and workable scheme that will end a glaring omission from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which required local authorities to plan only for their own blind residents. The Bill should not impose any significant additional financial burden on local authorities, and it would be jointly administered by the Scottish Office and COSLA.
There are more than 30,000 registered blind people in Scotland, of whom 9,000 are partially sighted. More than 85 per cent. of those people are over the age of 60, and many are unable to travel unattended, so it is important for them that their companion can travel with them. Therefore, I propose that the basic provisions of the Bill should be extended to include a companion card scheme, which is currently operated in 23 local authority areas, to assist the stress-free movement of the blind and visually impaired throughout Scotland.
To put the proposal in a broader context, there are many worthwhile examples of similar schemes throughout Europe. The best example of workable schemes lies across the Irish sea. Both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland operate free concessionary travel schemes throughout the country to all registered blind and visually impaired people. Those schemes have been in
742
operation for several years without significant problems, and have been warmly welcomed by blind and visually impaired residents of those countries.
Concessionary travel schemes are available throughout the public transport network to registered blind people in Belgium, Finland, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. In addition, free companion travel schemes are available to blind people who purchase a ticket for travel in Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland. International travel has been made significantly easier through the Voyager Plus programme, whereby a blind person purchasing a first or second-class ticket for travel to more than 20 European countries is automatically entitled to a free companion ticket. If we can learn from our European partners, we, too, can have a national scheme of which to be proud.
I recognise Scotland's long tradition of concessionary travel, dating back to 1922 in Edinburgh and following on to other cities. I also recognise the contribution made by all parties to the development of such schemes in their local council areas. The points that I am making are clearly not party political, as is demonstrated by the cross-party support for a number of early-day motions on the issue and the cross-party sponsorship of the Bill.
As we contemplate the new millennium, I see such a national scheme as a timely reminder of the importance of our community values and as an encouragement to use and enhance our public transport network. It is certainly an area where the Scottish Parliament can move forward, if this House fails to respond to the needs of blind and visually impaired people across Scotland. The proposal could lead the way for the adoption of similar schemes in the other nations of the United Kingdom, as is demonstrated by the support of English and Welsh Members for my Bill.
It is encouraging that COSLA and the Scottish Office have expressed their support for such a scheme, but unfortunately little progress has thus far been achieved. Clearly, the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office supports the principles of my Bill, as he has stated:
"This Government is very much committed to partnership and we want transport operators to help us address social exclusion from transport services which still affects many blind people. I am calling on them to introduce a free concessionary travel scheme which will go some way to helping blind people enjoy a better quality of life."
However, words are not enough. The Bill offers a route for action.
I understand that the Scottish Office is to publish
"the Integrated Transport White Paper in the summer. This will be the most significant single event in postwar Scottish Transport."
I hope that the Scottish Office will seriously consider integrating the principles of my Bill in order to engender consistency and equality across Scotland. It is a small but important step towards making travel for the blind and visually impaired more accessible and less stressful. I am encouraged by the cross-party support for this important measure.
Question put and agreed to.

743
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alasdair Morgan, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Donald Gorrie, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. John Swinney and Mr. Michael Moore.

Concessionary Travel Schemes (Scotland)
  CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL SCHEMES (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan accordingly presented a Bill to require Scottish local authorities to make reciprocal arrangements for the operation of bus and rail concessionary travel schemes for visually impaired and blind people within their areas; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 191].

Written Questions
4.4 pm
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to trouble you again with a matter that I raised yesterday regarding the answering of written questions. I said yesterday that Ministers continue to abuse the system of named days by failing to answer questions on the day that is named. I received an answer to a question yesterday, which appears at column 260 of Hansard. Madam Speaker, I know that you are not responsible for answers given in this place, but the answer provided bears absolutely no relation to the question that I asked concerning an important matter. Will you issue an instruction to Ministers through the Leader of the House that they must try to answer the questions that are asked and do so on the day that answers are due?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman points out, answers to questions are not my responsibility. I know that he has raised this matter before. He might put his question directly to the President of the Council when she deals with business questions. I cannot commit myself, but I shall try to look his way at the appropriate time.

Orders of the Day

  Scotland Bill
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Committee), further considered.

  Scotland Bill
    Clause 34

      STAGES OF BILLS
      4.5 pm
      Mr. Michael Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 16, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 17 and insert—
      '.—(1) Each Bill considered by the Parliament shall comprise the following stages—

      (a) a general debate and vote on the principles of the Bill;

      (b) a committee stage for members of the Parliament to consider and vote on the detail of the bill and for interested bodies to make representations to the Parliament;

      (c) a further stage for interested bodies to make representations to the Parliament;

      (d) a report stage to consider any amendments subsequent to the committee stage in subsection (1)(b) and the further stage for representations in subsection (1)(c);

      (e) a final debate and vote on the Bill at which the Parliament can either pass or reject it.

      (2) A period of not less than three calendar months shall separate the stages of the Bill mentioned in subsections (1)(b) and (1)(d) unless otherwise provided for by a resolution supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament.'.
      As we near the end of this long road, we must feel rather like those in history who embarked on long marches. I hope that we can deal today with those matters that have not been covered since we began this process on 12 January. Amendment No. 7 is designed to fill what we believe is a serious gap in the provisions of the legislation. I suspect that the Minister will say that the procedures of the Scottish Parliament are a matter for that Parliament and for the committee that is advising him. I simply remind him that the Bill—rather unusually at this stage—requires the Standing Orders to contain certain provisions. We think that that is right: the House should have an overview of the general way in which the Scottish Parliament will operate.
      Clause 34, which I am seeking to amend, already includes provisions governing the stages through which legislation must pass in the Scottish Parliament. My amendment is before the House because we believe that those provisions are inadequate in very specific and important ways. The amendment seeks to address the fact that the Scottish Parliament is unicameral.
      When the Bill leaves the House today, it will go to another place where the noble lords will examine our work closely and, for all I know, may ask the House to think again about certain measures that have been passed. That is right, because that is the proper role of a scrutinising Chamber. The ability to require the main House of Parliament to reconsider legislation that may be inadequate, badly drafted or fundamentally wrong is an important safeguard within our constitution.
      746
      That facility does not exist for the Scottish Parliament. According to the Bill, legislation will pass through the stages set out in clause 34. Subsection (1)(a) essentially provides for a Second Reading debate, subsection (1)(b) provides for a Committee stage and subsection (1)(c) provides for a Third Reading.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument quite closely. He seems to be cutting across the purpose of the consultative group that is examining those aspects, which includes Conservative representatives and the Minister of State as chairman. Why is the right hon. Gentleman cutting across his own party in Scotland, which is attempting to agree those matters, by trying to be so prescriptive in this place?
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman may not have been listening when I said that I expected that to be the answer given to me by the Minister. The hon. Gentleman should look at clause 34, which already does precisely that. I merely think that it does it inadequately, so it is important that we point out the inadequacy.
      Report stages, let alone a second chamber, are missing from the Bill. Report is a useful stage for legislation. Hon. Members should look at the amendment papers for last Tuesday and for today: the vast majority of amendments are Government amendments to areas that they failed to get right when the Bill was drafted or failed to adjust sufficiently in Committee. They have an enormous amount of revising work to do on their own Bill on Report.
      When the Bill reaches the House of Lords, even more Government amendments may be tabled. I make no complaint about that, because a procedure that takes a Bill through Parliament in such a way that faults can be cured before it reaches the statute book and becomes law is an important protection of the quality of legislation.
      If such omissions occur during those three stages when a Bill goes through the Scottish Parliament, however, there will be no way to correct them, other than by amending the original primary legislation through further primary legislation. That cannot be satisfactory, from anyone's point of view. The only people who might find pleasure in such a situation are in my old profession, the law, which lives on the mistakes made by Governments and omissions in legislation. That is the basis on which they can earn a good living, but we must try to ensure that such a situation does not arise.
      In my view, there is no case for a second chamber in the Scottish context. We would all agree that, if anything, there is too much politics and that there will be all sorts of layers of politicians in Scotland. To create yet another layer would not meet with the approval of the Scottish people, whatever form it might take and whatever its context and powers. We considered whether, in terms of the Scottish Grand Committee, which is exclusive to Scottish MPs, there might be a role for Scottish Members of Parliament elected to this place by the Scottish electorate, but we decided that that might be difficult and cumbersome. The amendment is simple: it would add two further stages to the three in the Bill.
      The first stage would be a period of reflection and consideration. When Committee consideration—the stage described in clause 34(1)(b)—had been completed,

      747
      legislators could reflect on the nature of the legislation for three calendar months. More important, those concerned with the legislation's effect and those with an interest in its working properly would have a chance to make representations and suggestions to the Scottish Parliament which could be taken into account before the Bill completed all its stages. The second stage would be Report. Following the period of reflection and the making of representations, the Parliament would have the chance to table or to consider amendments reflecting such representations and, indeed, to press for some reconsideration by the Administration.
      The amendment would not tie the hands of the Scottish Parliament; we are making more sense of something that is deficient. Although the Minister's record in acceding to amendments has not been good, we have tabled the amendment in the hope that he will realise the sense of it and accept it. It is in the interests of everyone in Scotland that the Parliament produces quality law.
      Perhaps I should declare an interest. Although I have not practised since 1979, I am a Scottish advocate who admires the Scottish legal system and who often boasts about the quality of Scottish law. It would be sad if devolution resulted in less considered laws being passed, because that would lead to a diminution in the quality of Scots law. For that reason and to give a greater say to bodies in Scotland that might have an interest in the legislation, I commend the amendment.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: The process would not be difficult and cumbersome, as the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) would have it. It would be politically impossible, and we must rule out straight away any idea that the Scottish Grand Committee or anything like it could possibly be a revising body, because that would lead to all sorts of political difficulties and frictions. It is not clever either to suggest a body that is equivalent to the House of Lords. I do not know what it would be called—possibly the House of Thanes. That is out. However, there is a real problem and it would be much more satisfactory to have some kind of revising mechanism.
      I have a question for the Government. We read about a new body called the council of the isles. I do not know what substance there is in that or the form that such a body would take. Is it envisaged anywhere, as has been suggested in some sections of the press, that that council could take the place in the legislative process of the House of Lords? The answer may be no, but I should like to have an answer.
      Mr. James Wallace: The amendment's motives are no doubt well intentioned. They are to try to ensure that the laws that are passed by the Scottish Parliament are understandable and effective. Like the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), I declare an interest as I am a member of the Faculty of Advocates. However, I am not sure that legislation is necessarily the greatest jewel in the crown of Scots law. I am sure that there are many ways in which we could improve our law making. We could try to frame our legislation in language that is much more readily understood by lay people. I hope that the Scottish Parliament will address that.
      748
      My objection to the amendment is that it is far too prescriptive. I acknowledge that provisions in clause 34 have to be included in Standing Orders, but the amendment goes too far and would tie the Parliament's hands and, in the meantime, those of the consultative steering group. That group could do much imaginative work about how legislation should be treated, not least by pre-legislative Committees, which are completely missing from the Bill.
      All of us who were involved in the constitutional convention and in discussions in the constitutional steering group, most recently yesterday, agree that there should be proper, widespread consultation before Bills are laid before the Scottish Parliament. That would go a long way towards giving the reassurances that were sought by the right hon. Member for Devizes. Legislation should address the needs that have prompted it. I fear that some of the time scales could be unrealistic, although there is a let-out clause for a two-thirds vote.
      I hope that the Scottish Parliament will not be hidebound by a requirement to pass all its legislation in one year. There should be provision for rollover into the following year if that makes sense. That, in itself, would provide further opportunities for consultation. The consultative steering group and the Parliament should not be tied by the type of structures that are employed in this Parliament. They may work well here, but we are starting with a clean sheet and we should be allowed to engage in some lateral thinking to see how things could be done differently and, I hope, better. I oppose the amendment.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: The difficulty that has been faced throughout this legislation is that there is a desire to give Scotland the maximum devolved government within the ambit of the Bill, but it is a devolved Parliament, and the buck will stop back in this place, which is one of the problems that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has touched on frequently during our debates. Therefore, the difficulty that we face is the extent to which we should try to go into the procedure of the Parliament to ensure that it works properly.
      The amendment is a good one because it does not stray so far into procedure. That is not a matter which can be left solely to the Scottish Parliament. It is essential, if we have a unicameral Parliament in Scotland, that there should be procedure for proper scrutiny, so that, if complaints arise, we can at least say, "There is a perfectly clear system for dealing with this in Edinburgh. Don't come bleating to us about it. The system is there and the scrutiny has properly taken place."
      Mr. John Swinney: I do not feel that the hon. Gentleman has learnt many of the lessons of the referendum. People in Scotland voted for a particular type of Parliament, as set out in the White Paper, and that Parliament should be allowed to take its decisions. If the Conservatives had reflected more on the feeling in Scotland and the demand in the referendum for a Parliament of the nature that is being established, the problems that he says the Parliament is incapable of addressing of its own free will would not arise. It seems a rather supremacist attitude.
      Mr. Grieve: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point that I am making. What is more

      749
      extraordinary, he has misunderstood his party's position in the referendum. It backed a devolved Parliament. It did not back a sovereign Parliament. As Ministers have said on countless occasions, the Parliament is devolved and residual responsibilities will remain here. I believe that they will remain here in practice. When complaints arise, they will still be ventilated in this place, although how we are ever going to deal with them, I do not know. It is certainly not a supremacist attitude.
      Mr. John McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to me, as I am a bit slow on the uptake, where it says in the Bill that the way in which the Scottish Parliament conducts its business is a reserved matter for Westminster?
      Mr. Grieve: The way in which the Scottish Parliament conducts its business is not a reserved matter. If badly drafted legislation goes through the Scottish Parliament, and there are complaints about it which are brought back to this place, that will be a matter for us. It is bound to be a matter for us; that is one of the central difficulties of this whole legislation.
      Mr. Salmond: Can the hon. Gentleman, as a relatively new Member, think of any badly drafted legislation that has gone through this place—pioneered by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), in the case of the poll tax legislation—and through exactly the processes that he is trying to impose on the Scottish Parliament?
      Mr. Grieve: I cannot think of any in the past 12 months. I can certainly think of stacks of badly drafted statutory instruments that have gone through the House. I have to look at them once a week. There is much bad legislation being passed. That is not a reason why we should not try to set up systems for Edinburgh that are workable. The matter is of particular importance because it is going to be a unicameral assembly.
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman said that if legislation that is passed in Edinburgh is bad and does not work, it will have to be tidied up or brought back to the House. By what mechanism does he see that happening?
      Mr. Grieve: I did not say that. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had listened, he would have realised that that was not what I said. I said that if bad legislation is passed, the fact that sovereignty is remaining with this Parliament will, by implication, lead to problems that arise in Scotland being brought back to this Chamber. They will be raised in the House by Members of Parliament for Scottish constituencies. The matter simply will not go away, and I wish to minimise any adverse consequences. The best way of doing that, if it is necessary to do so, is for hon. Members to be satisfied, when we devolve power to Edinburgh, that the scrutiny system is such that we are wholly happy with it—which is the purpose of clause 34 and amendment No. 7.
      The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I shall attempt to be helpful. In devolved matters within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Parliament will be in a position to make good or bad legislation. In my judgment, it will be good legislation. There will be
      750
      an opportunity to interface with Westminster only when there is an issue of vires or of, for example, Scots law impinging on reserved matters. Otherwise, hon. Members will have no locus in the Scottish Parliament's deliberations on legislation in devolved matters.
      Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for teaching me, as a new hon. Member, to suck eggs. However, we have been discussing the point dealt with in the amendment throughout the passage of the Bill. I appreciate what the Minister is saying—that that is how the system should work. Nevertheless, if there is a problem in Edinburgh with badly drafted legislation, or with a range of other issues, I do not share his confidence that, in practice, those matters will not resurface in this place.
      As I wish for such consequences to be minimised, and as I think that amendment No. 7 is innocuous in establishing a procedure that the House could broadly agree with, I commend it to the House. The amendment is not straying too far down the road of fettering procedure, but simply acknowledges the fact that the Edinburgh Parliament will have competence on a range of devolved issues and that it will be unicameral. Therefore, it is desirable that, from the outset, there should be a clear set of guidelines on the consideration of legislation, so that that issue should not thereafter be a contentious one, either within the Edinburgh Parliament, or between the Edinburgh Parliament and this place. That is the purpose of amendment No. 7, which is why the Minister should pay attention to it.
      Mr. Salmond: I can describe the speech by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) only as an "us and them" speech, about what us in this place should prescribe for them in the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps, after the advice of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I should be speaking as a thane of Buchan.
      The Conservative party is in a state of political schizophrenia. Although there is no cure for schizophrenia, and it is very difficult to diagnose, I have been able to diagnose it in the Conservative party. When I speak to Conservatives in Scotland—in, for example, the Minister's consultative committee—they are enthusiastic, or say that they are, about developing new processes for the new Scottish Parliament, to try to do rather better and to pass less bad legislation than this place has done in the past 20 years or so. However, Conservative Members here seem to have absolutely no awareness of the arguments that have been accepted, and in some cases promulgated, by the Conservative party in Scotland.
      Mr. Ancram rose—
      Mr. Salmond: I give way to the man who piloted through the poll tax.
      Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He likes polishing that cherry from time to time, but it is getting fairly rotten and will not last much longer. Earlier, I told him that he was not listening to what was said. He is also not reading what is on the amendment paper. He keeps saying that we are proposing the procedures of this place for the Scottish Parliament. If he can tell me where in our procedures there is mention of a three-month period between Committee stage and Report stage, during which interested parties—such as trades unions and businesses—

      751
      can make representations on legislation, I should be interested to hear it. Such a period is a new idea, which I believe is worthy of consideration for the Scottish Parliament. I am surprised that, whenever any proposal is made by the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) seems to become blind and deaf, but, unfortunately, not dumb.
      Mr. Salmond: Definitely not dumb; and I am not foolish enough to believe that the poll tax will disappear from the public memory in Scotland as quickly as the right hon. Gentleman hopes. He has missed the point entirely. The point is not whether his ideas in amendment No. 7 are good or bad. The point is that it is not properly the province of this place to dictate any ideas on procedure to the new Scottish Parliament. A steering group, on which the Conservative party is represented, is debating such things.
      Mr. Ancram: The provisions are in the Bill.
      Mr. Salmond: The provisions are in the Bill in outline form—precisely because the Minister of State is keenly awaiting ideas from the steering group that he has established. The last thing that he needs is to be pre-empted by these foolish and rather ill-thought-through amendments tabled by the Conservative party in this place.
      The Minister is anxious to get to his feet, so I shall provide just one example to illustrate my point—not that of the poll tax, but of electricity privatisation. In 1988, I served on the Select Committee—which had a Tory majority—that appealed to Lord Parkinson, the then Secretary of State for Energy, and to Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, to delay legislation on electricity privatisation to allow an investigative committee to consider the issue. Both Secretaries of State declined that invitation, and, as a result, what the Committee described as "spatchcock legislation" was passed.
      The Minister of State has described a framework, and we should support him. We should allow his consultative group to do its work, and not attempt to wreck it with such foolish amendments.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. McLeish: I shall respond first to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who asked about the council of the isles as a revising chamber. I am not aware of any proposal that the council of the isles should act as a revising chamber instead of the House of Lords.
      Although I acknowledge the unicameral nature of the Scottish Parliament and therefore see some of the sense behind the issues proposed by the Opposition Front-Bench team, the Government believe that amendment No. 7 intrudes too far into the legislative processes of the Scottish Parliament. That point has been echoed in the debate.
      The amendment would impose requirements that could prove burdensome and unnecessary. It would require all Bills, no matter what their content, to be subject to at least three months of public consultation in the middle of their
      752
      passage through the Scottish Parliament, unless two thirds of the Parliament voted to provide otherwise. By introducing further stages of detailed scrutiny, it could cause an unacceptable delay in the passage of Bills.
      Ultimately, it is for the Parliament to decide on its procedures, including arrangements for the scrutiny of legislation. None the less, the Bill requires the Standing Orders of the Parliament to make provision for three stages of parliamentary scrutiny. These are, first, a general debate on a Bill, with an opportunity for Members to vote on its general principles; secondly, consideration of, and opportunity to vote on, the details of the Bill; and, thirdly, a final stage at which the Bill may be passed or rejected. Those are the minimum stages which must be prescribed in the Bill. Further details should be left for the Scottish Parliament to decide.
      The White Paper explains that the Government expect Committees to play an important part in carrying out parliamentary business, and the Scottish Parliament will have power to establish such Committees as it considers appropriate. Ultimately, it will be for the Parliament to decide precisely what role Committees should perform, but we envisage that they could be involved in considering proposals for legislation before the formal legislative process has begun, including, in appropriate circumstances, taking evidence before a Bill is prepared. Their task will be to scrutinise and amend all proposals before the Parliament. Such a role will mean that the Scottish Executive's legislative and other proposals will be appropriately scrutinised before they are enacted.
      The all-party consultative steering group on the Scottish Parliament, which has been alluded to, agreed at its first meeting that arrangements for pre-legislative scrutiny should be introduced. The exact form that that might take will be considered carefully in the coming months. With cross-party agreement on the principle of pre-legislative scrutiny, amendment No. 7 becomes redundant. Pre-legislative scrutiny involving interested parties will result in the emergence of a greater consensus on legislation before it is introduced. Therefore, the need for a period of public consultation in the middle of the progress of a Bill through Parliament, as proposed, will not be necessary.
      It is useful to stress the work that is being done by the consultative steering group, which involves representatives of all parties, who are all making an excellent contribution. They are aware of the unicameral nature of the Scottish Parliament. They are keen to achieve consensus on legislation. Indeed, they are keen to improve radically on the Westminster model, which is important.
      Mr. Owen Paterson: Can the Minister name any genuine Parliament in the world that does not have a true revising chamber?
      Mr. McLeish: I can furnish the hon. Gentleman with details on that question. We are not talking about the nature of a unicameral Parliament per se. We are talking about the right of the Scottish Parliament to decide on its legislative scrutiny and process.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It is inadequate.
      Mr. McLeish: We hear from a sedentary position that that is inadequate. The model that the Scottish Parliament

      753
      will adopt will be a huge improvement on the Westminster model. It will involve people and experts, it will aim for consensus and it will ensure that we have the best possible legislation. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Ancram: The Minister has answered my point in his own way. He said that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament. If ever legislation has had pre-legislative scrutiny, it is this Bill. There was a detailed White Paper last summer, a referendum campaign during which the proposals were discussed at length, and a three-month period before the Bill was produced, yet amendment after amendment has been tabled by the Government on Report. If this were a Bill in the Scottish Parliament, it would be too late and there would have to be further legislation. The amendment is much needed, and I ask my hon. Friends to support it.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 303.

      Division No. 279]

      [4.34 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Amess, David

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Arbuthnot, James

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Bercow, John

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Key, Robert

      Blunt, Crispin

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Boswell, Tim

      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)

      Lidington, David

      Burns, Simon

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Butterfill, John

      Loughton, Tim

      Clappison, James

      Luff, Peter

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Cran, James

      MacKay, Andrew

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Day, Stephen

      Malins, Humfrey

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Maples, John

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Evans, Nigel

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fabricant, Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fallon, Michael

      Norman, Archie

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Page, Richard

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Paice, James

      Gale, Roger

      Paterson, Owen

      Garnier, Edward

      Randall, John

      Gibb, Nick

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Robathan, Andrew

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Gray, James

      Ruffley, David

      Green, Damian

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Greenway, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Grieve, Dominic

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hammond, Philip

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hawkins, Nick

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Horam, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Steen, Anthony

      754

      Streeter, Gary

      Wells, Bowen

      Swayne, Desmond

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Syms, Robert

      Whittingdale, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Taylor Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Wilkinson, John

      Willetts, David

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Yeo, Tim

      Tredinnick, David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Trend, Michael

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Walter, Robert

      Sir David Madel and

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mr. Oliver Heald.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Allan, Richard

      Dafis, Cynog

      Allen, Graham

      Dalyell, Tam

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Darvill, Keith

      Ashton, Joe

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Austin, John

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Baker, Norman

      Davidson, Ian

      Barnes, Harry

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Beard, Nigel

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Benton, Joe

      Denham, John

      Berry, Roger

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Betts, Clive

      Dismore, Andrew

      Blackman, Liz

      Dobbin, Jim

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Doran, Frank

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dowd, Jim

      Boateng, Paul

      Drew, David

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Brake, Tom

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Ennis, Jeff

      Breed, Colin

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Browne, Desmond

      Flint, Caroline

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Follett, Barbara

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burnett, John

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Burstow, Paul

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Byers, Stephen

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Cann, Jamie

      Gerrard, Neil

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Caton, Martin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Chaytor, David

      Gorrie, Donald

      Chidgey, David

      Grant, Bernie

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hancock, Mike

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hanson, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Colman, Tony

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Connarty, Michael

      Harvey, Nick

      Cooper, Yvette

      Healey, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cotter, Brian

      Heppell, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Hesford, Stephen

      Crausby, David

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      755

      Hill, Keith

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Milburn, Alan

      Home Robertson, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hope, Phil

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Moore, Michael

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretfotd)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Hurst, Alan

      Mudie, George

      Hutton, John

      Mullin, Chris

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Illsley, Eric

      Norris, Dan

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jenkins, Brian

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pearson, Ian

      Pendry, Tom

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pond, Chris

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Pope, Greg

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Pound, Stephen

      Keetch, Paul

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Purchase, Ken

      Khabra, Piara S

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Kidney, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Radice, Giles

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Rammell, Bill

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Rendel, David

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Rogers, Allan

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Rooker, Jeff

      Leslie, Christopher

      Rooney, Terry

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Roy, Frank

      Linton, Martin

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Livsey, Richard

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Lock, David

      Salmond, Alex

      Love, Andrew

      Salter, Martin

      McAllion, John

      Sanders, Adrian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McCabe, Steve

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Sawford, Phil

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Macdonald, Calum

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McFall, John

      Singh, Marsha

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Skinner, Dennis

      McLeish, Henry

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

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

      McNulty, Tony

      Snape, Peter

      MacShane, Denis

      Soley, Clive

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Spellar, John

      McWilliam, John

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Martlew, Eric

      Swinney, John

      Meale, Alan

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Merron, Gillian

      Michael, Alun

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      756

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Todd, Mark

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Willis, Phil

      Touhig, Don

      Wills, Michael

      Trickett, Jon

      Wilson, Brian

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Winnick, David

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wise, Audrey

      Tyler, Paul

      Wood, Mike

      Wallace, James

      Woolas, Phil

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Mr. David Clelland and

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Mr. Kevin Hughes.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 46

      JUNIOR SCOTTISH MINISTERS
      Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 20, line 8, at end insert—
      `( ) The First Minister shall not seek Her Majesty's approval for any appointment under this section without the agreement of the Parliament.'.
      Amendment No. 46 fulfils the commitment that I gave in Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), and will provide a role for the Parliament in the appointment of junior Scottish Ministers. That will bring the appointment procedure for junior Ministers into line with that for other Scottish Ministers.
      The Bill requires the Parliament to nominate the First Minister, who will be appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Presiding Officer. The First Minister will have to obtain the agreement of the Parliament and the approval of Her Majesty before appointing Scottish Ministers, and the amendment provides a similar role for the Parliament in the appointment of junior Scottish Ministers.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 47

      THE CIVIL SERVICE
      Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 133, in page 20, line 18, leave out from 'appoint' to end of line 19 and insert
      `persons to be members of the staff of the Scottish Administration'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 134 to 136, 146, 235 to 241, 246, 250, 252 to 255, 213, 216 and 217.
      Mr. McLeish: The amendments are technical and clarifying—I shall explain them as quickly as possible, as I know that the House has yet to consider other important groups.

      757
      Government amendment No. 213 clarifies what is meant by the term "Scottish Administration". Government amendments Nos. 134, 146, 236, 238, 239, 189, 199, 216, 217 and 245 are consequential. The Scottish Administration is an umbrella concept to describe what is, in effect, Her Majesty's Government in Scotland in relation to matters that are not reserved. It is important that the definition is clear—Government amendment No. 213 puts beyond any doubt who belongs to the Scottish Administration.
      The Scottish Administration is defined as the office holders in the Scottish Administration and their staff. Office holders in the Scottish Administration are defined as members of the Scottish Executive—that is the First Minister, the Scottish Ministers and the Law Officers—junior Scottish Ministers and holders of non-ministerial offices. Non-ministerial offices are defined as the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages for Scotland, the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland, the Keeper of the Records of Scotland and other offices where the holders exercise functions that are conferred by an enactment and who are appointed by a member of the Scottish Executive—for example, the Accountant in Bankruptcy.
      The definition of the Scottish Administration can be changed by an Order in Council, which will be subject to parliamentary control by this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, to take account of any future developments. I urge hon. Members to support these technical but necessary amendments.
      Government amendments Nos. 133 and 134 are designed to clarify the Government's policy that staff serving the Scottish Administration will be members of a unified home civil service. Amendment No. 133 makes it clear that Scottish Ministers may appoint not only staff in the Scottish Executive, but other staff of the Scottish Administration. Amendment No. 134 specifies that such staff and non-ministerial office holders of the Scottish Administration will be members of the home civil service.
      Government amendment No. 135 is a technical amendment to ensure that Scottish Ministers have the same delegated powers as Ministers of the Crown to deal with superannuation schemes affecting staff of the Scottish Administration. Government amendment No. 136 avoids ambiguity by making it clear that the Act referred to in clause 47(8) is the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992.
      Government amendments Nos. 237, 240, 241, 246, 250 and 253 to 255 constitute a technical group designed to ensure that redundant references to Treasury consent and the Secretary of State are removed, and that appropriate powers are transferred to the First Minister and Scottish Ministers.
      Government amendments Nos. 240 and 241 clarify that the Secretary of State for Scotland's statutory power to appoint the Keeper of the Records, the Keeper of the Registers and the Registrar-General will transfer to Scottish Ministers. Government amendment No. 246 removes a function of the Secretary of State in relation to schools inspectors that will transfer by administrative action to the First Minister. Government amendment No. 250 clarifies that the Scottish Ministers will appoint the Accountant in Bankruptcy. Government amendment No. 252 makes similar changes in connection with the provision of prison staff.
      758
      Government amendments Nos. 253 to 255 are technical amendments to the list of repeals in schedule 8. They are related to the amendments made in schedule 7.
      Mr. Jenkin: This group of amendments underlines how fantastically complicated it is to define a civil servant in the Scottish context and to specify which members of staff, who may ultimately be answerable to the Scottish Executive, count as members of the home civil service. Will the Minister say whether the definition of the home civil service is being expanded?
      While the hon. Gentleman is thinking about that—it may require some thought—will he also bear in mind the fact that, because this huge raft of amendments, which underlines the scale of the undertaking, has been brought forward at such a late stage, the House will not have the opportunity to consider them in much detail? We shall have to rely on the second Chamber to ensure that the amendments are appropriate. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Government may yet table one or two more amendments—indeed, there may be tens or hundreds of them. There will be pages and pages of changes to the Bill, which we have not been able to perfect in the House of Commons.
      Mr. Donald Gorrie: Will the Scottish Parliament be able to introduce a more open ethos in the Scottish civil service than the one that conventionally obtains in the United Kingdom civil service? There has been much talk of the Scottish Parliament operating in a new way and being more open and consensual, so civil servants may have to respond differently. Will the Minister assure the House that they will be able to do so while continuing to be members of the United Kingdom civil service?
      Mr. Dalyell: I am not alone in thinking that there is a real problem. Both Sir John Garlick and Sir Michael Quinlan, the civil servants who were brought in last time when such matters were dealt with by the Cabinet Office, expressed their concern at various academic seminars in the 1980s—I suspect that the problem remains—about not only the unity of the British civil service, but who will be the "master" of these civil servants. It is very far from clear whether crucial civil servant appointments will be made by the Cabinet Secretary of the day, the head of the home civil service or the Scottish Executive. I ask for some comment on that.
      I do not know whether this is the right opportunity to ask this, but how many junior Ministers will there be, and what will they be paid? Will they be paid along Westminster lines, or is there another idea for payment?
      Mr. McLeish: As the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, the Bill is extraordinarily complex—that has become obvious during the eight days in Committee and the three days on Report. However, I think that it is substantially well worked out. As we are talking about civil servants, I should say that they have made an extraordinary contribution of the highest quality to achieve what I believe is our success in moving in 53 weeks from the general election to, I hope, the Bill's Third Reading.
      On the specific question posed by the hon. Member for North Essex, the base of the home civil service will not be extended. The matter is being dealt with entirely by transfer from the Scottish Office to the Scottish Executive.

      759
      On openness, I stress that people who serve the Government are often much maligned. Our experience in government has shown us that openness is not an issue. I believe that there is a consistency of provision throughout the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that, whether the operation is in Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland, we receive a high-quality response. I believe that the civil service will embrace and make an excellent contribution to the new politics in Scotland.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about junior Ministers' pay. The Senior Salaries Review Body must deal with that. We want to generate confidence in Scotland in what we are doing on pay, pensions and conditions.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the SSRB to provide guidance, on the basis of its excellent knowledge, on salaries, pensions and conditions for Members of the Scottish Parliament and, indeed, the Scottish Executive. That is absolutely right, because we want to start off on the right footing. I remember the unedifying sight of Members scurrying through the Lobby here to vote on pay rises, conditions and allowances.
      With the SSRB report, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be in a position to make judgments for the Scottish Parliament, and that it will proceed quickly to fill in the detail of what is required for the future. There needs to be some objectivity in relation to sensitive issues that can be misconstrued, so Holyrood should not be involved in some of the decisions.
      There are often complaints about the number of Government amendments tabled at a late stage, on Report. The complexity of the legislation meant that we could not get the detail right any sooner, but we have made a comprehensive response on the question of the Scottish Administration and its staff. We believe that we have got it right. Although time must tell, we know that there is an excellent civil service in place, and that it will serve the Scottish Parliament well.
      5 pm
      Mr. Dalyell: There is a critical question as to who makes the decisions. Is it to be an organisation based in Scotland, with its own chief executive, or is it to be the head of the home civil service in London?
      Mr. McLeish: The Scottish Executive will be responsible for appointments. That is a reasonable demarcation of responsibilities. What is good and unifying about our approach is that there is a home-based civil service throughout the United Kingdom. That is good for Westminster, for Scotland, and, indeed, for civil servants.
      Mr. Grieve: The Minister slightly sidestepped the question about possible changes in the civil service ethos. It was suggested that the ethos in Edinburgh might be different from that in London. If there is a unified home civil service with central control—even if civil servants are working with different masters—there can be no room for a different ethos, because everyone will have to follow the guidelines laid down by the central civil service in London.
      Mr. McLeish: That proposition is premised on the assumption that we need to change the ethos. After my
      760
      first year as a Scottish Office Minister, I am not entirely convinced that that is so. There is a pejorative aspect to the talk of ethos, suggesting that something is substantially wrong, and I do not accept that. No matter where civil servants are working, I am convinced that we will get the same quality of active advice and thorough professionalism.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 134, in page 20, leave out lines 21 to 25 and insert—
      '( ) the holder of any office in the Scottish Administration which is not a ministerial office, or
      ( ) a member of the staff of the Scottish Administration'.
      No. 135, in page 20, line 38, at end insert—
      '( ) Section 1(2) and (3) of the Superannuation Act 1972 (delegation of functions relating to civil service superannuation schemes etc.) shall have effect as if references to a Minister of the Crown (other than the Minister for the Civil Service) included the Scottish Ministers'.
      No. 136, in page 21, line 7, leave out 'that Act' and insert
      'the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

    Clause 48

      EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS
      Amendment made: No. 137, in page 21, line 29, at end insert—
      `( ) In this section, "statutory functions" means functions conferred by virtue of any enactment, including this Act'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

    Clause 49

      GENERAL TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS
      Amendments made: No. 138, in page 21, line 31, leave out
      `in or as regards Scotland'
      and insert 'within devolved competence'.
      No. 139, in page 21, line 36, after 'Crown' insert
      `including functions conferred on a Minister of the Crown by a prerogative instrument'.
      No. 140, in page 21, line 39, leave out from 'Advocate' to end of line 40.—[Mr. McLeish.]

    Clause 50

      SCOPE OF POWERS TO MAKE SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION, ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 141, in page 22, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert—
      '(1) References in this Act to the exercise of a function being within or outside devolved competence are to be read in accordance with this section.
      (2) It is outside devolved competence—

      (a) to make any provision by subordinate legislation which would be outside the legislative competence of the Parliament if it were included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or

      (b) to confirm or approve any subordinate legislation containing such provision.

      (3) In the case of any function other than a function of making, confirming or approving subordinate legislation, it is outside devolved competence to exercise the function (or exercise it in any way) so far as a provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament

      761
      conferring the function (or, as the case may be, conferring it so as to be exercisable in that way) would be outside the legislative competence of the Parliament'.
      No. 142, in page 22, line 15, leave out from 'made' to `by' in line 16 and insert
      `confirmed or approved, or purporting to be made, confirmed or approved'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

    Clause 52

      SHARED POWERS
      Amendment made: No. 143, in page 22, line 29, at end insert—
      `( ) any Order in Council under section 1 of the United Nations Act 1946 (measures to give effect to Security Council decisions),'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

    Clause 56

      TRANSFERS TO THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS
      Amendment made: No. 144, in page 24, line 24, leave out from beginning to 'retained' in line 26 and insert
      `within devolved competence, other than'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

    Clause 59
      POWER TO TRANSFER FUNCTIONS
      Amendment made: No. 145, in page 25, line 19, leave out `statutory'.—[Mr. McLeish.]
    Clause 61

      SCOTTISH CONSOLIDATED FUND
      Amendment made: No. 146, in page 26, line 17, leave out
      `a member of the Scottish Executive'
      and insert
      `an office—holder in the Scottish Administration'.—[Mr. McLeish.]
      Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 147, in page 26, leave out lines 31 to 32 and insert—
      `( ) The Fund shall be held with the Paymaster General.'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 272, 148, 273 to 279 and 281.
      Mr. McLeish: In Committee, I said that I would consider carefully the points made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, with a view to tabling amendments designed to strengthen the independence of the head of the audit service of the Scottish Parliament, and to provide for the appointment of accounting officers in the Scottish Administration. I hope that amendments Nos. 273, 274 and 278 will fulfil that undertaking.
      Amendment No. 273 provides that the independent person who is to undertake, or supervise the undertaking of, audit and related functions will be the Auditor General for Scotland, established by amendment No. 278, which also provides that the Auditor General will be appointed by Her Majesty on the nomination of the Scottish Parliament, and that he or she can be removed from office by her Majesty only after a resolution of the Parliament.
      762
      Taken together with the existing provision in clause 66(4), these proposals ensure considerable independence and status for the audit service, and provide that its head cannot simply be removed by the Executive.
      The second part of amendment No. 274 deals with accounting officers. It provides that Scottish legislation must provide for officials to be designated as answerable to the Scottish Parliament for the expenditure and receipts of each part of the Scottish Administration. Thus, the Parliament and its Committees will have direct access to officials.
      The first part of amendment No. 274 clarifies that it is the auditors who must, under Scottish legislation, be given access to documents that they may reasonably require for their functions. The previous drafting was imprecise on that matter.
      Mr. Salmond: Can the Minister confirm that he is not suggesting a local authority set-up, with an outside body appointing the auditors, and that the Parliament will look after its financial affairs properly without being overseen by a higher authority, as though it could not be trusted to conduct its affairs efficiently?
      Mr. McLeish: Yes, that is the case. The intervention of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission highlighted the seriousness with which any parliament must take those issues. The Government considered that the legislation had not treated the matter with the appropriate seriousness, and tabled amendments accordingly.
      Amendment No. 147 is essentially technical, designed to make it clear that the Scottish Consolidated Fund will be held with the office of the Paymaster General. The existing provision is misleading, since the office, although it provides payments and receipt services for the Government, does not provide banking services as such.
      The new provision makes it clear that the fund will be held as an account with the office of the Paymaster General, ensuring that overnight balances are available to be swept back to the National Loans Fund, thus reducing overall Government borrowing. However, the Scottish Executive will be able to maintain subordinate bank accounts with commercial banks if that makes sense.
      Amendment No. 148 is for clarification. It makes it clear that Scottish legislation must provide for persons receiving money directly from the Scottish Consolidated Fund to account for all their expenditure and receipts. That would include receipts obtained by them but not paid into the fund because, for example, Parliament had authorised alternative disposal or accounting under clause 61(4).
      Amendment No. 279 inserts a new subsection in clause 66, to ensure that Scottish legislation is not required to make provision for accounts to be prepared by cross-border public authorities, when they are specifically dealt with under clause 84 or another enactment, or generally to impose accounting or auditing requirements when other legislation makes provision for accounting and audit. That is to avoid any clash between clause 66 and such other legislation.
      The new subsection also means that Scottish legislation will not have to provide for the Auditor General to audit his own accounts, which would clearly be wrong. It defines two new terms: "parliamentary accounts" and "Scottish legislation", which are used to simplify the drafting.

      763
      Amendments Nos. 272, 275 to 277, and 281 are consequential on the others and amend references to make use of the new terms "Auditor General for Scotland", "parliamentary accounts" and "Scottish legislation".
      Mr. David Davis: I thank the Minister for that explanation. Amendments Nos. 278 and 274 implement the concessions that he made in Committee, in response to my proposals to provide better for the Auditor General for Scotland's security of tenure and to provide for accounting officers. The amendments, as he described them, are broadly in line with what I wanted, and I am grateful.
      Amendments Nos. 278 and 274 are broadly consistent with the amendments that I originally tabled. Amendment No. 278 goes slightly less far than I had hoped, in that a resolution for the removal of the auditor will not require a Division. That contrasts with the provision for the removal of judges in clause 89, but, for some reason, is in line with that for a dissolution in clause 3.
      The Scottish Office view is that the dissolution model is more appropriate for removing the auditor. There is a clear parallel between an independent auditor general and an independent judge, so I think that the judge model is better. It requires a Division, and would not allow an Administration to slip a proposal through Parliament, as we know is possible.
      Mr. Dalyell: This question is not meant offensively, but is this also the professional view of the current Comptroller and Auditor General?
      Mr. Davis: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is right: I have discussed the matter with the Comptroller and Auditor General. We agree on all these points. I should like the Minister to say why this approach has been taken. It seems anomalous, and is difficult to understand.
      I also raised in Committee the question of a scrutiny committee of the Scottish Parliament, not identical to or with the same name but modeled on, our Public Accounts Committee. Its chairman should come from the Opposition, and certainly not from the Executive or the coalition making up the Executive. That would be an important advantage and addition to the Scottish Parliament. There is no amendment to that effect. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
      The amendments do not address the other financial matters raised in Committee. The result will be inefficient, and probably ambiguous, accountability to Westminster for the funds granted to the Scottish Parliament, with the consequent risk of conflict over those matters.
      The principal absences are the UK Parliament's need to know the purposes for which it would be expected to vote money for the Scottish Parliament; the need for the Secretary of State to be properly accountable to this House for the grant of the Scottish Parliament; and the need for the Comptroller and Auditor General to have continuing access in Scotland to provide assurance to the UK Parliament about the spending of UK taxpayers' money.
      Amendments were tabled in Committee to protect the rights of this House and of the UK taxpayer. I hope that the House of Lords will revisit those matters and correct
      764
      them. However, it would be churlish not to thank the Minister for his two concessions. They will be helpful, and are in the interests of the people of Scotland.
      Mr. Gorrie: I wish to touch on a point raised by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis): the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament necessary to vote for the removal of the auditor general. We have tabled an amendment that the figure for judges should be three quarters. I ask the Minister to consider that three quarters might be more intelligent than two thirds. The whole thing is flexible, but it is likely that the Scottish Parliament will have a coalition Executive. The two, or even three, parties concerned might have two thirds of the votes. There would not be the same defence for the auditor general against the Executive if there was a quarrel.
      Mr. David Davis: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument. The Comptroller and Auditor General for the Westminster Parliament can be removed only by separate votes of each House of Parliament. That is a formidable barrier for a Government wishing to remove an awkward or difficult auditor general—that is, one who is doing his job. I agree that the hurdle should be raised even higher.
      Mr. Gorrie: It is important that such officials have security. I was a member of a council that badly sacked its chief executive on the hoof. Three quarters might be safer than two thirds. I notice, in the light of the interest in trade union votes, that, on the same basis, two thirds of Members of Parliament would be required to vote.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Dalyell: While there is an important meeting upstairs concerned with trade union recognition and the visit of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, and this is a quiet, gentle debate, these are crucial, not arcane, matters. They go to the heart of responsibility for money.
      The reason I interrupted the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is that, like my hon. Friend the Minister, I was educated—I choose that word rightly—on the Public Accounts Committee by the Comptroller and Auditor General—in my case, Sir Edmund Compton. The concerns of the Comptroller and Auditor General must be answered. We are operating under a guillotine, but I hope that the other place looks carefully at these matters. Unless they are sorted out, it will lead to endless trouble.
      The reason is basic. The subordinate Parliament is part of a unitary state, and is dependent on the overwhelming bulk of its money being raised by the other part of the state. That other part will doubtless be characterised as the parsimonious people in Great George street, or the English Chancellor—one can imagine all the phrases that will be used.
      Members of the Scottish Parliament, whatever their personal feelings, will be under pressure to report to this House on how money is used. There will be overwhelming demand for better services, education, health and everything else in Scotland that requires expenditure. The pressure on Members of the Holyrood Parliament to accede to such requests, or at least to say that they are doing their best, will be terrific.

      765
      In those circumstances, sooner rather than later, this House will ask those who have departed this House to account for their use of money. I do not suggest that there will be anything corrupt about it, that there will be misappropriations, or that big nanny is needed to look after expenses; it is the politics of the situation. In those circumstances, the position of the Public Accounts Committee is crucial. The other place should explore that.
      Mr. Jenkin: I thank the Minister for his concessions to my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, but I underline what he finished by saying. There is a fundamental imbalance in setting up a Parliament that is not responsible for securing its own revenue. As long as the Scottish Parliament has such extensive reliance for its supply on this House, there will inevitably be tension between it and the Westminster Parliament. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, that relationship will be difficult to manage politically. The amendments do nothing to resolve that fundamental imbalance.
      Mr. McLeish: There is not a fundamental confusion, but a misunderstanding. I agree with the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that there will be tensions and pressures on public policy on finance. That is the nature of the changes. However, we are discussing how we examine what we are spending, and how to ensure that we have a first-class system for accountability, efficiency and effectiveness, and all the issues of probity.
      I shall respond briefly to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I thought that the possibility of the Auditor General being removed without a Division would be of concern. On a Division, two thirds of the Members would be required to vote in favour. We do not envisage it being a factual proposition that the Executive would try to sneak through, if I may be allowed to use that phrase, a motion late at night, or in any other circumstances to try to achieve that.
      On a second, and perhaps more positive, note, a meeting of the all-party consultative steering group yesterday agreed that, as part of the Standing Orders, we might want to identify a few Committees to recommend to the Scottish Parliament, and that one would be the equivalent of the Public Accounts Committee. I hope that that will satisfy the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and ensure that the integrity of the person who chairs such a Committee is beyond doubt.
      Clearly we will be expecting a high standard of deliberation. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, I enjoyed my experience on the PAC, and I have no doubt that the quality will be there in Scotland to ensure that we replicate that part of the scrutiny procedure.
      Mr. David Davis: Clearly, I welcome—
      It being one hour and fifteen minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [12 May], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 66

      FINANCIAL CONTROL, ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT
      Amendments made: No. 272, in page 27, line 37, leave out from beginning to 'shall' and insert 'Scottish legislation'.
      No. 148, in page 27, line 41, leave out from 'of' to end of line 42 and insert 'their expenditure and receipts'.
      No. 273, in page 28, line 3, leave out
      `appointment of an independent person'
      and insert 'Auditor General for Scotland'.
      No. 274, in page 28, line 6, leave out from 'access' to `and' in line 7 and insert
      `by persons exercising those functions to such documents as they may reasonably require,
      ( ) for members of the staff of the Scottish Administration designated for the purpose to be answerable to the Parliament in respect of the expenditure and receipts of each part of the Scottish Administration'.
      No. 275, in page 28, line 8, leave out from first 'of' to first 'and' in line 9 and insert
      `parliamentary accounts and of reports on such accounts'.
      No. 276, in page 28, line 13, leave out from `examining' to end of line and insert 'parliamentary accounts'.
      No. 277, in page 28, line 22, leave out 'the rules' and insert 'Scottish legislation'.
      No. 278, in page 28, line 26, at end insert—
      `( ) There shall be an Auditor General for Scotland who shall be an independent person appointed by Her Majesty on the nomination of the Parliament.
      ( ) A recommendation shall not be made to Her Majesty for the removal from office of the Auditor General for Scotland unless the Parliament so resolves and, if the resolution is passed on a division, the number of members voting in favour is not less than two-thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament.'
      No. 279, in page 28, line 29, at end insert—
      '(4A) Subsection (1)(a) does not apply in relation to any cross-border public authority if any enactment not contained in Scottish legislation requires—

      (a) the authority to prepare accounts of the expenditure and receipts, or of any part of the expenditure and receipts, of the authority, and

      (b) the accounts to be examined, certified and reported on by the Auditor General for Scotland.

      (4B) Subsection (2)(b) does not apply to accounts prepared by the Auditor General for Scotland.
      (4C) This section does not require Scottish legislation to impose any requirement which is imposed by any enactment not contained in such legislation.
      (4D) In this section—
      "parliamentary accounts" means the accounts prepared in pursuance of subsection (1)(a) or (b) and the accounts referred to in subsection (4A),
      "Scottish legislation" means provision made by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

    Clause 69
      POWER TO FIX BASIC RATE FOR SCOTTISH TAXPAYERS
      Amendment made: No. 47, in page 29, line 34, leave out '1997-98' and insert '1998–99'.—[Mr. McLeish.]
    Clause 72

      CHANGES TO INCOME TAX STRUCTURE
      Amendment made: No. 48, in page 32, line 43, leave out '1997-98' and insert '1998–99'.—[Mr. McLeish.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to amendment No. 22.
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I register that it is deeply unsatisfactory that amendments on the reference year for income-tax-varying powers and the restriction on changes to such powers, which are important subjects, have not been discussed because of the time—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not use a point of order to put a point of argument. That issue arises throughout a programmed debate.

    Clause 76

      REMUNERATION OF MEMBERS OF THE PARLIAMENT AND EXECUTIVE
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 35, line 24, at beginning insert
      `Subject to subsections (6) to (8) below,'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 23, in page 35, line 26, at beginning insert
      `Subject to subsections (6) to (8) below,'.
      Government amendment No. 151.
      No. 21, in page 35, line 46, at end insert—
      '(6) The Parliament shall ensure that no salary or allowance paid to a member of the Parliament under subsection (1) shall exceed those for the time being paid to members of the House of the Commons.
      (7) The Parliament shall ensure that no salary or allowance paid to the First Minister shall exceed the average salary or allowance for the time being paid to a Secretary of State in the United Kingdom Cabinet.
      (8) The Parliament shall ensure that no salary or allowance paid to a member of the Scottish Executive other than the First Minister shall exceed the salary or allowance for the time being paid to a Minister of State in the United Kingdom Government.'.
      Government amendment No. 242.
      Mr. Robertson: The amendments are intended to ensure that no salary or allowance paid to a Member of the Scottish Parliament shall exceed that paid to a Member of this House; that no salary or allowance paid to the First Minister shall exceed the average paid to a Secretary of State in the United Kingdom Parliament; and that no salary or allowance paid to a Member of the Scottish Executive other than the First Minister shall exceed that paid to a Minister of State in the UK Government.
      Those are the details of the amendments. The reasoning behind them is to protect and strengthen the Union; to reflect the fact that the Scottish Parliament is a
      768
      subordinate legislature; and to recognise that the work and responsibilities of Members of the Scottish Parliament are different from those of Members of this House.
      The amendments are in keeping with the precedent set following elections to the European Parliament in 1979. The work load and responsibilities of Members—
      Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman were a time and motion man, and bearing in mind his experience as a constituency Member of Parliament and his knowledge of the functions being devolved to the Scottish Parliament and those being retained by Westminster, could he estimate whether the Member of Parliament in Westminster or the Member in Edinburgh will have the greatest constituency work load?
      Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is either extremely well informed or very unlucky, because I used to be a time and motion person, and I assessed work loads each and every day. If he will allow me to proceed, I will explain my view.
      It cannot justifiably be claimed that Members of the Scottish Parliament will have the same work loads, or the same degree of responsibility, as exist in this place. That is especially true of the additional Members, whose presence will reduce the work load and responsibilities of those who represent constituencies. As we heard today, the Government recommend that the two different sorts of Member should be paid the same. Therefore, it is only right that Members of the Scottish Parliament should not receive more pay than Members of this House, and our amendments will ensure that that is the case.
      As for the First Minister, I am aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland has his eye on the job, but I am confident that he could survive on a salary of no more than £106,716, which is what he receives as a Cabinet Minister in the United Kingdom Government.
      Mr. John M. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as he is doing so well at the Dispatch Box, but I think that I am the only person in the Chamber who has been simultaneously a Member of this Parliament and the European Parliament for 12 months at the whim of the electors. That experience rewarded me with a salary of one and one third. There seems to be some merit in that, and at the very least, it is a precedent.
      Mr. Robertson: It is indeed a precedent, and one which I am about to mention.
      I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that the pay of the First Minister should exceed the figure I quoted. Our amendments will ensure that it will not.
      Under our amendments, Members of the Scottish Executive could receive up to £77,047 in pay. I am equally confident that no one would suggest that, comparably, that would be inadequate. However, there is a deeper point about salaries, which is that the Scottish Parliament is essentially a subordinate Parliament, and therefore it would be very odd indeed to pay its Members more than Members of the supreme and sovereign United Kingdom Parliament.
      Our objection to that is not born of greed or resentment, but of a desire to protect the Union. Because the Scottish Parliament is new and people have high hopes of it, there may be a temptation, especially if the Parliament is

      769
      dominated by Scottish nationalists, to attempt to enhance its standing. One way to do so would be by paying its Members more than Members of this House receive, which would be an odd and dangerous thing to do.
      In those circumstances, the comparable link would be broken, and that would weaken the Union. It is important that the subordinate character of the Scottish Parliament be maintained, and be seen to be maintained, if we are to preserve the Union. Therefore, a cap needs to be applied to what Members of the Scottish Parliament receive, and our amendments would do exactly that.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) said, there is a precedent, which is the European Assembly (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979. It limits the salaries of Members of the European Parliament to those paid to Members of this House. A Conservative Government passed that Act, but the Labour party supported it. On Second Reading, the then shadow Home Secretary, Merlyn Rees, said:
      "I believe that to have paid the new members of the European Assembly higher salaries than those of Members of this Parliament … would have been an affront".
      He was right, but his reason for taking that view was even more important. He said:
      "I agree with the Home Secretary that in no way should the European Assembly detract from the supremacy of this Parliament."—[Official Report, 22 June 1979; Vol. 968, c. 1679.]
      That is the crucial point. Lord Merlyn-Rees was right for more than just one reason. The fact is that he realised that paying higher salaries to Members of the European Parliament than those paid to Members of this House was objectionable for constitutional reasons. Those same objections exist in the case of a Scottish Parliament. The public tend to place importance on how much people are paid.
      Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman rests his case too much on that argument. I once worked for the Royal Bank of Scotland, where, for example, a merchant banker was paid more than the chairman of the bank, although he was a subordinate because of the scale. I am not sure about his argument, but I am sure that, if he is a time and motion man, he must realise that the work load of Members of Parliament here will decrease when the Scottish Parliament is established. On that logical basis, what salary reduction will he suggest, as all the hon. Members here today will not have to do that sort of work in future? Their work loads will decline, and so should their salaries.
      Mr. Robertson: We are not certain—because the questions have not yet been answered, we do not know how things will work. We are still searching for an answer to the West Lothian question, so we do not know how the arrangements will work in practice. We shall have to wait and see, but I certainly do not recommend that any Members of this Parliament should have to take any reduction in pay.
      Mr. James Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only Members of Parliament who will be doing significantly less work are Members representing Scottish constituencies who remain at Westminster? North Wiltshire will still demand the same amount of work, but will representing Banff and Buchan in this place require the same amount of work after the establishment of the new Scottish Parliament?
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Robertson: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will have a reduced work load; nevertheless, I would not suggest that he should take a lower salary.
      The public tend to attach importance to how much people are paid; they tend to judge the worth of persons or organisations on the basis of how much income they receive—perhaps the reason why the public do not value Members of this Parliament highly is that we are inadequately paid, but that is another argument. It is important that Members of the Scottish Parliament do not receive higher salaries than Members of the House of Commons. It is important that the salaries they are paid recognise what I maintain will be a lower work load and less responsibility—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I have to tell the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that he must not conduct a mini-debate while the main debate is taking place.
      Mr. Robertson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the subject is an interesting one.
      It is important to preserve the subordinate character of the Scottish Parliament, and to prevent it from becoming a quango that feathers its own nest. It is vital that we preserve the Union, and doing as the amendments propose would be consistent with the precedent set by the European Assembly (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979, to which I referred. Our amendments would achieve all that. They would ensure fairness, and, in doing so, protect the Union. For those reasons, I commend amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 21 to the House.
      Mr. Dalyell: In the past five minutes, a whole collective of cats has been let out among the pigeons. Without wishing to talk down to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), I should warn him not to be naive. He was unfair to the Scottish National party: it is not only the SNP that will take the view he describes, but every Member of the Holyrood Parliament, because it is in the nature of politicians to think that the institution they are in is the important institution. It is not only, or even mainly, a question of financial greed; amour propre will come into it.
      If the hon. Gentleman wants an example, I shall give one from my own party. Those who were pro-Europeans listened to Barbara Castle, then the hon. Member for Blackburn, endlessly criticising the Community and the dreadful institution in Strasbourg; but heaven knows, as soon as she herself got there, as Lady Castle of the British delegation, it metamorphosed into a most important institution.
      Mr. John M. Taylor: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that Barbara Castle was not just a member of the delegation, but that she was directly elected in 1979?
      Mr. Dalyell: We all knew it, very clearly. I say this seriously: it is in the nature of politicians that they will shout for the institution where they themselves happen to be. Do not let us think that it is only the Scottish National party that will do that; it will be every Member of the

      771
      Parliament. They will say, "We are doing more work than those people in Westminster." I shall be mildly interested to see what is the reaction, first, of my colleagues who remain at Westminster and, secondly, of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and of my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, both of whom will by that time be Members of another body, because position in that body will have a marvellous way of changing attitudes.
      Mr. McLeish: It is instructive to note that today's Scottish edition of the Daily Express contains the following:
      "Scottish Conservatives spokesman Paul Cullen"—
      who is a member of the consultative steering group—
      "said that if Holyrood was to be taken seriously then salaries had to be comparable with the current Westminster level.
      `It would be undesirable to create a two-tier system of MSPs,' he insisted."
      The Government are attempting to set an objective basis for deliberations on this matter, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the chairman of the Senior Salaries Review Body on 25 March asking him to consider and make recommendations regarding salaries, allowances and pensions benefits which would be payable to Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive.
      In that context, it is unreasonable to lay down in the Bill limitations on the levels of salaries and allowances which the Scottish Parliament can set for its Members, the First Minister or other members of the Scottish Executive, so we strongly resist the amendments. Much of this debate was not about salaries, allowances or pensions, but old Conservatives expressing old prejudices about subordinate Parliaments. That is not the spirit in which we have to move forward.
      In the short time left, I commend Government amendments Nos. 151 and 242 to the House.
      It being one hour and thirty minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [12 May], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 308.

      Division No. 280]

      [5.35 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Cash, William

      Amess, David

      Clappison, James

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Baldry, Tony

      Collins, Tim

      Bercow, John

      Cran, James

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Boswell, Tim

      Day, Stephen

      Brady, Graham

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Brazier, Julian

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Evans, Nigel

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Faber, David

      Burns, Simon

      Fabricant, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Fallon, Michael

      772

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Moss, Malcolm

      Gale, Roger

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Garnier, Edward

      Norman, Archie

      Gibb, Nick

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gill, Christopher

      Page, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Paice, James

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Paterson, Owen

      Gray, James

      Randall, John

      Green, Damian

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Greenway, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Grieve, Dominic

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Ruffley, David

      Hammond, Philip

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Hawkins, Nick

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Shepherd, Richard

      Horam, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hunter, Andrew

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Steen, Anthony

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Streeter, Gary

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Swayne, Desmond

      Syms, Robert

      Key, Robert

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tredinnick, David

      Lansley, Andrew

      Trend, Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Letwin, Oliver

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Wells, Bowen

      Lidington, David

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Whittingdale, John

      Loughton, Tim

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Luff, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Willetts, David

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Woodward, Shaun

      MacKay, Andrew

      Yeo, Tim

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Maples, John

      Sir David Madel and

      Mates, Michael

      Mr. Oliver Heald.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Breed, Colin

      Alexander, Douglas

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Allan, Richard

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Allen, Graham

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Browne, Desmond

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Ashton, Joe

      Burden, Richard

      Austin, John

      Burgon, Colin

      Baker, Norman

      Burnett, John

      Banks, Tony

      Burstow, Paul

      Barnes, Harry

      Byers, Stephen

      Bayley, Hugh

      Caborn, Richard

      Beard, Nigel

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Benton, Joe

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Berry, Roger

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Betts, Clive

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Blackman, Liz

      Caplin, Ivor

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Caton, Martin

      Blizzard, Bob

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Chaytor, David

      Boateng, Paul

      Chidgey, David

      Borrow, David

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Clapham, Michael

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Brake, Tom

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      773

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Home Robertson, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hood, Jimmy

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Colman, Tony

      Hope, Phil

      Connarty, Michael

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cooper, Yvette

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Corbett, Robin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cotter, Brian

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cranston, Ross

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Crausby, David

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hurst, Alan

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hutton, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Illsley, Eric

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jenkins, Brian

      Darvill, Keith

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Denham, John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Dismore, Andrew

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dobbin, Jim

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Keetch, Paul

      Doran, Frank

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dowd, Jim

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Drew, David

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kidney, David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ennis, Jeff

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Flint, Caroline

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Follett, Barbara

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Linton, Martin

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Fyfe, Maria

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lock, David

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Love, Andrew

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McAllion, John

      Gerrard, Neil

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McCabe, Steve

      Godsiff, Roger

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Goggins, Paul

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Gorrie, Donald

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Grant, Bernie

      Macdonald, Calum

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McDonnell, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McFall, John

      Grogan, John

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McLeish, Henry

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hancock, Mike

      MacShane, Denis

      Hanson, David

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      McWilliam, John

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Healey, John

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Heppell, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Hesford, Stephen

      Meale, Alan

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Merron, Gillian

      Hill, Keith

      Michael, Alun

      Hinchliffe, David

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      774

      Milburn, Alan

      Sawford, Phil

      Miller, Andrew

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mitchell, Austin

      Sheerman, Barry

      Moffatt, Laura

      Singh, Marsha

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Skinner, Dennis

      Moore, Michael

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

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

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Snape, Peter

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Soley, Clive

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Spellar, John

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mudie, George

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mullin, Chris

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Norris, Dan

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pearson, Ian

      Pendry, Tom

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pike, Peter L

      Tipping, Paddy

      Plaskitt, James

      Todd, Mark

      Pollard, Kerry

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pond, Chris

      Touhig, Don

      Pope, Greg

      Trickett, Jon

      Pound, Stephen

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Wallace, James

      Purchase, Ken

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Welsh, Andrew

      Radice, Giles

      White, Brian

      Rammell, Bill

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Rendel, David

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Rogers, Allan

      Willis, Phil

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wills, Michael

      Rooney, Terry

      Winnick, David

      Roy, Frank

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Wise, Audrey

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wood, Mike

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Woolas, Phil

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Salmond, Alex

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Salter, Martin

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mr. David Clelland.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Amendments made: No. 151, in page 35, line 32, leave out 'or other place' and insert 'employment or other post'.
      No. 49, in page 35, line 43, leave out 'addressed to' and insert 'conferring functions on'.—[Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 83

      CROSS-BORDER PUBLIC BODIES: INITIAL STATUS
      Amendments made: No. 152, in page 38, line 16, leave out 'body' and insert 'authority'.

      775
      No. 153, in page 38, line 16, at end insert
      ';and sections 105, 106 and 107 shall not apply in relation to any function of such an authority.'.
      No. 154, in page 38, line 18, leave out 'body' and insert 'authority'.
      No. 155, in page 38, leave out line 19.
      No. 156, in page 38, line 20, leave out from 'to' to `concerned' in line 22 and insert
      'any appointment or removal of the cross-border public authority concerned or of any members or office-holders of the cross-border public authority'.
      No. 157, in page 38, line 23, leave out from 'might' to end of line 24 and insert
      `affect Scotland otherwise than wholly in relation to reserved matters.'
      No. 158, in page 38, line 25, leave out 'body' and insert 'authority'.
      No. 159, in page 38, line 26, after 'enactment' insert `or a prerogative instrument'.
      No. 160, in page 38, line 27, leave out 'body' and insert 'authority'.
      No. 161, in page 38, line 29, leave out 'subordinate legislation' and insert 'Order in Council'.
      No. 162, in page 38, line 31, leave out from 'public' to `do' in line 35 and insert
      `authority" means any body, government department, office or office-holder specified in an Order in Council made by Her Majesty under this section.
      (5A) Such an Order may only specify a body, government department, office or office-holder which (at the time when the Order is made) has, in addition to other functions, functions which are exercisable in or as regards Scotland and'.
      No. 163, in page 38, line 36, after 'section' insert—
      "office-holder" includes employee or other post-holder, and'.—[Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 84

      POWER TO ADAPT CROSS-BORDER PUBLIC BODIES
      Amendments made: No. 164, in page 38, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 38 and insert—
      `( ) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision in relation to a cross-border public authority as She considers necessary or expedient in consequence of this Act.
      ( ) Such provision may, in particular, include provision—

      ( ) modifying the functions of a cross-border public authority or of a Minister of the Crown in relation to such an authority,

      ( ) modifying the constitution (if any) of a cross-border public authority,

      ( ) modifying the application of section 83(2) or (3),'.

      No. 165, in page 38, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line and insert
      'for any function to be exercisable'.
      No. 166, in page 38, line 41, leave out first 'or by' and insert 'concurrently with'.
      No. 167, in page 39, leave out line 1.
      No. 168, in page 39, leave out lines 12 to 14.
      776
      No. 169, in page 39, line 15, leave out
      `subordinate legislation shall be made'
      and insert
      `recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order'.
      No. 170, in page 39, line 16, leave out 'body' and insert `authority'.—[Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 85

      POWER TO TRANSFER PROPERTY OF CROSS-BORDER PUBLIC BODIES
      Amendments made: No. 171, in page 39, line 18, leave out 'body' and insert 'authority'.
      No. 172, in page 39, line 20, leave out 'Subordinate legislation may' and insert
      `Her Majesty may by Order in Council'.
      No. 173, in page 39, line 23, leave out
      `the person making the legislation'
      and insert 'Her Majesty'.
      No. 174, in page 39, line 27, leave out 'body' and insert 'authority'.
      No. 175, in page 39, line 27, leave out
      `the person making the legislation'
      and insert 'Her Majesty'.
      No. 176, in page 39, line 34, leave out 'Subordinate legislation may' and insert
      'Her Majesty may by Order in Council'.
      No. 177, in page 39, line 35, leave out 'body' and insert 'authority'.
      No. 178, in page 39, line 36, leave out
      `the person making the legislation'
      and insert 'Her Majesty'.
      No. 179, in page 39, line 39, leave out
      `subordinate legislation shall be made'
      and insert
      `recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order'.
      No. 180, in page 39, line 40, leave out 'body' and insert `authority'.—[Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 86

      MALADMINISTRATION
      Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 181, in page 40, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 and insert
      `any other office-holder in the Scottish Administration.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 182.
      Mr. McLeish: Clause 86 places a duty on the Parliament to make provision for the investigation of certain complaints of maladministration made to Members of the Scottish Parliament. At present, the clause refers to members of the Scottish Executive and certain other members of the Scottish Administration. Government amendment No. 181 clarifies that, in addition to members of the Scottish Executive, all other office holders in the

      777
      Scottish Administration come within the scope of the Parliament's duty. That amendment is linked to other Government amendments concerning what is meant by "the Scottish Administration".
      The present clause sets out what the Parliament must do. I am certain that the Parliament will want to consider what additional provision concerning the investigation of maladministration it will wish to make. Government amendment No. 182 is intended to ensure that the Parliament is able to do so. It is intended that the Parliament will be able to make arrangements for the investigation of complaints of maladministration against all members of the Scottish Administration, and Scottish public authorities, including local authorities and the health service. It is also intended that it will be able to make provision regarding cross-border public authorities where the complaints are about non-reserved matters concerning Scotland. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to accept the amendments.
      Mr. Jenkin: I thank the Minister for introducing amendments that go some way to allaying concerns expressed in Committee. We welcome them.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 182, in page 40, line 8, at end insert—
      `( ) The Parliament may make provision for the investigation of complaints in respect of—

      (a) any action taken by or on behalf of an office-holder in the Scottish Administration,

      (b) any action taken by or on behalf of a Scottish public authority to which paragraph 1A or 1B of Part III of Schedule 5 to this Act applies, or

      (c) any action concerning Scotland and not relating to reserved matters which is taken by or on behalf of a cross-border public authority.'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

    Clause 89

      APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES
      Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 41, line 3, at end insert—
      `( ) Before making such a nomination the First Minister shall consult the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk (unless, in either case, the office is vacant).'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 51 to 55.
      Amendment No. 74, in page 41, line 14, leave out `two-thirds' and insert 'three-quarters'.
      Government amendments Nos. 56 and 57.
      Mr. McLeish: The amendments to clause 89, and the linked amendment to schedule 7, concern the Scottish Land Court Act 1993, and have been tabled by the Government in response to points made by hon. Members in Committee about provisions relating to the appointment and removal of judges. Amendments Nos. 50 to 52 and No. 57 deal with appointment issues.
      Amendment No. 50 will require the First Minister to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk, where available, before making a nomination to the Prime Minister for an appointment to either of those senior posts when a vacancy arises.
      778
      Amendment No. 51 similarly requires that the First Minister should consult the Lord President before making a recommendation to the Queen for the appointment of any other judge of the Court of Session or any sheriff principal or sheriff. Amendment No. 52 will oblige the First Minister to comply with any requirement relating to appointment matters which may be imposed by virtue of an enactment, including an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The amendment acknowledges that the Scottish Parliament would be competent, should it so wish, to impose other requirements on the First Minister, such as consideration of judicial nominations put forward by the judicial appointments committee. I should, however, make it clear that the First Minister would retain ultimate responsibility for making nominations or recommendations and for consulting the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk, where appropriate.
      Amendment No. 57 makes it clear that the First Minister will take over the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for recommending to Her Majesty the appointment of any person as a member of the Scottish Land Court. It requires the First Minister to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session before recommending anyone for appointment to the post of chairman of the Scottish Land Court.
      Mr. Ancram: I have a general inquiry. Have the Minister or his right hon. Friend had discussions with the Scottish judiciary about these proposals; and, if so, is it generally happy with them?
      Mr. McLeish: I can say yes to that valid question.
      Mr. Wallace: I have another general inquiry; if the Minister cannot answer straight away, perhaps he will write to me. Given that provision has been made for the chairman of the Land Court, what is the position regarding the appointment of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary from the Scottish Bench?
      Mr. McLeish: I shall be moving on to that point later.
      Amendments Nos. 53 to 56 deal with provisions on removal from office that are contained in clause 89. Amendment No. 53 adds the office of chairman of the Scottish Land Court to those posts to which the provisions on removal of judges will apply. That simply reflects the chairman's equivalent status to that of a judge of the Court of Session.
      Amendment No. 54 provides that the Scottish Parliament will be asked to vote on a motion for removal of a judge in which the First Minister will be required to specify the ground of unfitness for office which he considers to merit that exceptional action, which touches on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
      Amendment No. 55 is a minor technical amendment which substitutes the word "motion" for "resolution", reflecting the wording of amendment No. 54.

      779
      Finally, amendment No. 56 will require the First Minister, before making a motion for removal, to be satisfied that the judge in question is unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour.
      Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps this is little more than a drafting point, but it would be a calamity if it ever arose. I gather that the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are not covered. Is that an oversight?
      Mr. McLeish: I will clarify that point and convey the clarification to my hon. Friend.
      The wording of amendment No. 56 follows closely that of section 12 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 which deals with removal of sheriffs and sheriffs principal. The second part of amendment No. 56 places a requirement on the First Minister to consult the Prime Minister before bringing a motion for removal of the Lord President or Lord Justice Clerk. The provision reflects the important role that the Prime Minister plays in recommending an appointment to those two most senior posts.
      I believe that the amendments strike an appropriate balance between the responsibilities of Parliament and the First Minister, and the independence of the judiciary. They provide a statutory safeguard, which the senior judiciary sought, in place of the informal arrangements currently enjoyed, for consultation with them on judicial appointments at the levels of the supreme court and shrieval benches. I hope this will meet with general approval; we have tried to take on board points made from all sides. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Jenkin: We appreciate the efforts that the Minister has made to accommodate concerns expressed in Committee and elsewhere about the arrangements for the appointment and removal of judges. We stress that the real test of the provisions will come in the other place where more experts with judicial experience are available to raise concerns. We welcome the amendments as far as they go, but look forward to hearing what the other place may have to say.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: Perhaps I ought to declare an interest as an occasionally practising member of the Faculty of Advocates.
      The amendments represent a substantial improvement, and the Government are to be commended for that. It seems right that the sort of difficulties that the Secretary of State and the Lord President and Lord Justice Clerk faced in relation to the case of Sheriff Ewan Stewart ought, as far as possible, to be eliminated by making more precise the grounds on which a motion may be made to seek dismissal of a judge. Those who have studied the report of that case, which went all the way to the House of Lords and was heard by several Lords of Appeal in Ordinary—I shall return to them shortly—will be aware that interpretation of certain provisions was required before a clear indication could be given of the basis on which, in that case, the removal from office of Sheriff Stewart was sought. To that extent, the amendments represent a substantial improvement.
      780
      I shall deal with the question of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. There is always some confusion: a judge sitting in the outer house of the Court of Session is a lord ordinary, whereas a judge who sits as part of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. As I understand it, there is provision for a number of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, but by convention, two are judges from Scotland, with Scottish experience. I do not believe—I am open to correction—that there is any statutory minimum number of such judges.
      The point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was that the Bill's provisions do not apply to those judges who go from Scotland to become members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That is entirely appropriate, because the Bill includes a scheme to devolve responsibility for those parts of the judicial system that operate in Scotland. It does not seem incongruous or illogical that the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary should not be subject to the provisions.
      Mr. McLeish: Not being a member of the legal profession has its drawbacks, but help is always on hand. With reference to the points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, the Bill contains no provision relating to the appointment of those Lords. They are appointed by the Queen, and that will continue.
      6 pm
      Mr. Campbell: On that footing, it would have been illogical for any reference to be made to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary in a Bill the scheme of which is to devolve to a Scottish Parliament those parts of Scottish justice that are conducted in Scotland. In that sense, the Government's position is entirely logical.
      I shall take the opportunity to speak to amendment No. 74, which seeks to introduce a majority of three quarters of the legislature for the motion for a removal of a judge to take effect. We discussed the matter to some extent in Committee, and it may help if I explain why raising the threshold from 66.6 to 75 per cent. is justifiable.
      First, as has already been intimated in at least one intervention, the removal of a judge is an extremely serious business. By tradition, judges held office ad vitam aut culpam—that is, they kept office for as long as they lived or unless they were guilty of some very considerable indiscipline. The independence of the judiciary is an important part of our constitutional arrangements. Therefore, if we introduce a provision that may encroach on the independence of the judiciary, we must be satisfied that it provides adequate protection.
      Secondly, if we have a Parliament elected by proportional representation—the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I heartily approve of that part of the Bill—it is not difficult to envisage circumstances in which the Administration is formed by two parties that achieve 66.6 per cent. of the vote, which means that the Administration would have within their power the right to bring about the dismissal of a judge. That does not provide adequate protection. However, it is difficult to envisage an Administration getting as much as 75 per cent. of the membership of the Scottish Parliament. That provides an additional protection.

      781
      There is now a far greater certainty, from the point of view of the Administration, as the grounds of unfitness for office are spelt out in much more detail than previously. Given that higher degree of specification, and as part of the balance necessary in such a matter, it is reasonable to make the hurdle that must be crossed before a judge may be dismissed from office rather higher than the Government propose.
      Mr. Jenkin: As a matter of interest, if the Scottish Parliament abused its powers in the way that the hon. and learned Gentleman envisages, would it be appropriate for the Westminster Parliament to intervene?
      Mr. Campbell: It would be appropriate in statutory terms, but intervention on such an issue would raise some very difficult questions where the devolving of responsibility for the administration of justice in Scotland was so all-embracing. If there was an intervention of the kind postulated in the question, the consequence would be some degree of political disturbance. It would be much better to avoid such issues by creating a threshold sufficiently high as to require that three quarters of the legislature indicate their assent to the serious matter of the removal of a judge from office through unfitness.
      As far as I can remember—the Scottish Office records may go much further back than my memory—Sheriff Ewan Stewart is the only judge to have been removed from office since 1945, and possibly for a considerably longer period than that, which shows how rare such occurrences are. We are endeavouring to find a proper balance between the right of the legislature to ensure that there are proper standards of competence and ability on the Bench, and the traditional independence of the judiciary which, like many other parts of our constitution, is unwritten, but which none the less forms an important part of the checks and balances that are essential to our constitution. For that reason, my hon. Friends and I believe that the amendment is at least worthy of consideration. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.
      Mr. Dalyell: The last time that I raised the subject of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary was during an Adjournment debate on Lockerbie. I requested that the evidence that the Crown Office purports to have in relation to Lockerbie should at least be seen by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. The Minister replied that the evidence could not be shown to "sundry third parties". I am not sure that Lord Hope and Lord Clyde enjoyed being so described. However, on this occasion, in relation to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, I am satisfied with the answer and believe that it is logical.
      Mr. Edward Garnier: I intervene in the debate with considerable diffidence. Although I am a lawyer, I am very much an English rather than a Scottish lawyer. I hope that those who know more about the subject will forgive me if I wander into error.
      Government amendment No. 52 states:
      "The First Minister shall comply with any requirement…imposed by virtue of any enactment."
      Can the Minister explain what that is supposed to mean?
      I fully agree—again, with diffidence—with the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) in his description of the role of what I would call Law
      782
      Lords, to avoid confusion—that is, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary who sit here. They are United Kingdom judges and therefore should be outside the ambit of any Scottish legislation.
      Those who sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are not just United Kingdom judges, as they include the noble and learned Lord Cooke, a former senior judge from New Zealand who sits on the Judicial Committee as a life peer and a peer of the realm. I believe that Northern Ireland judges have also been promoted to the Judicial Committee. We should not think of the House of Lords in its judicial capacity in any other way than in its United Kingdom role. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point.
      I query the thrust of the Liberal Democrats' amendment on the matter of two thirds or three quarters. With proportional representation, it is likely to be difficult for any one party—although I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's point about a group of parties—to command even two thirds of the total number of seats in the Scottish Parliament. It will be almost impossible for a coherent group to command three quarters of the seats—although I may be proved wrong on both points.
      I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that a judge could—I hope that I shall be forgiven for such a colloquialism—get up the nose of the Scottish Parliament or of a large part of it for having done something that the Parliament considers politically unacceptable. I recall some of the decisions made by English judges over the past 10 or so years that offended the trade unions. The judges were interpreting the law of England, as passed by the House, whether we like it or not.
      I fear that a Scottish judge, carrying out the law of the United Kingdom Parliament or of the Scottish Parliament, might upset a majority, which goes after him for purely political reasons. I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, but it is a nice judgment. Where the line should be drawn is a matter of debate and opinion, which we may not be able to resolve this evening.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. and learned Gentleman might like to consider another instance. If it was believed that a particular judge was being unduly lenient in respect of a certain class of criminal cases that appeared before him, it could create an atmosphere—led by a prurient press—in which that judge would come under scrutiny. In addition, a judge who appeared to be more willing than others to grant applications for judicial review—accepting that there had been an abuse of discretion by Ministers—might find himself in similar circumstances.
      Mr. Garnier: Those points are perfectly good. We can only hope, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, that we never have to worry about that. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife is correct: one Scottish sheriff in living memory has been removed from his post. I do not think that the equivalent of a High Court judge has ever been removed—although in the not-too-distant past one judge jumped before he was pushed; but let us draw a veil over that.
      There appears to be some sort of a muddle. Clause 89 of the Bill as drafted, and as it is proposed it should be amended, grants the First Minister and the Scottish Parliament powers over the removal and appointment of

      783
      judges, from the highest to the lowest, within the Scottish judicial system. I refer hon. Members to page 77 of the Bill and to head 11 of schedule 5 dealing with judicial remuneration. Unless I have wholly misunderstood the position, judicial remuneration is reserved for the United Kingdom Parliament. If the Scottish Parliament is able to remove judges, why is it not allowed to decide on the level of pay for judges? Does the Minister believe that there is any inconsistency in that position?
      Mr. Grieve: I have only one question. I find it difficult to understand amendment No. 56 in so far as it refers to the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk. If the appointments continue to be made on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, does it not constitute a reserved matter? In those circumstances, how can a motion by the Scottish Parliament affect the Prime Minister in the discharge of his functions? That matter, if it rests with the Prime Minister, must be the responsibility of this House. I should be grateful if the Minister would answer that question. The amendment does not tally with the original wording of clause 89, which makes it clear that it is a reserved matter.
      Mr. McLeish: I shall take the latter point first. There is no confusion about that matter. The essential prerequisite is the role of the Prime Minister in making those recommendations. The points that I have made in relation to amendment No. 56 are very straightforward, and there is no conflict or inconsistency inherent in them. Similarly, the satisfactory way of dealing with the question of judges' remuneration is as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) describes. It is a question of striking a balance in relation to both issues.
      Mr. Grieve: I confess that I still do not understand—it may be a failing on my part. If the Prime Minister may recommend that a judge should be removed from office, should not the House—the Prime Minister will certainly not be answerable to the Scottish Parliament—scrutinise that decision and approve or disapprove of it? I do not see how that can be done on the recommendation of the First Minister through the Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. McLeish: Amendment No. 56 places a requirement on the First Minister to consult the Prime Minister before bringing a motion for the removal of the Lord President or the Lord Justice Clerk—it is not a question of wider removals. As I said before, this provision measures the important role of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is taking an executive role and it is not an issue for the Westminster Parliament.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: It is an executive appointment.
      Mr. McLeish: That is correct.
      Mr. Grieve: It may be an executive appointment, but the executive roles of the Prime Minister are subject to the scrutiny of the House. How can the Prime Minister exercise an executive capacity over which the House has no power of scrutiny? We have that power now if we wish to exercise it.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. McLeish: The point has not been well made in that it is a tradition of the House as part of the devolution settlement. We shall continue with what works. It is absolutely right—this is a matter for the judiciary as well as for us, and there is agreement on it—that the Prime Minister should continue to recommend appointments. The proper process in the amendments reflects much constructive discussion and many suggestions made by the House. The Government see no particular dilemma in that.
      The other point concerns amendment No. 52 and the question of enactments. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) seemed a little confused about that. It provides an opportunity for a judicial appointments committee, for example, to be established—it is nothing more sinister than that. It obliges the First Minister to comply with any requirement relating to appointment matters. That opens up the possibility that the Scottish Parliament could take a decision that will establish a judicial appointments committee within the Parliament to reflect what was said by Liberal Members and also to take cognisance of the fact that the situation surrounding appointments to the judiciary may change in the future. It allows the Parliament that facility.
      Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that point. It is now quite clear—although it appeared confusing on the amendment paper. The Minister said a moment ago that the inconsistency between remuneration in section 1, head 11 of schedule 5 and the amendments and main drafting of clause 89 was satisfactory. Will he explain why he thinks that is so?
      Mr. McLeish: The Government believe that, given the Government amendments, we now have a balanced package in place. There is consistency between the two different interpretations. As always in these situations, I am happy to reconfirm that and I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman about that point. The Government believe that there is no inconsistency. This is a straightforward measure and each part of the Bill is consistent with that objective. We have no difficulty with it.
      Amendment No. 74 is similar to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in Committee. As I said then, the proportion of two thirds suggested in the clause as it stands already represents a very high threshold required to vote in favour of any resolution—particularly having regard to the fact that it is not just two thirds of those voting, but two thirds of the total number of Members of the Scottish Parliament. In proposing that figure, the Government—and I in particular—have recognised the seriousness of the act of removing one of Her Majesty's judges from his post. That is why we have not proposed a simple majority in the normal way, but instead will require that a significant number of Members of the Scottish Parliament should be satisfied that the Government's actions are justified and appropriate.
      I agree with the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) that it is a question of balance. The Government believe that we have struck the right balance. It is a serious issue—I hope that my comments reflect that fact—and, on that basis, I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press his amendment.

      785
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 51, in page 41, line 4, after `Minister', insert
      `, after consulting the Lord President,'.
      No. 52, in page 41, line 8, at end insert—
      `( ) The First Minister shall comply with any requirement in relation to—

      (a) a nomination under subsection (2), or

      (b) a recommendation under subsection (3),

      imposed by virtue of any enactment.'.
      No. 53, in page 41, line 9, after 'Session', insert
      `and the Chairman of the Scottish Land Court'.
      No. 54, in page 41, leave out from beginning of line 12 to first 'the' in line 13 and insert—
      '(a) the Parliament, on a motion made by the First Minister and specifying the particular ground of unfitness, resolves that such a recommendation should be made on that ground, and
      (b)'.
      No. 55, in page 41, line 13, leave out 'resolution' and insert 'motion'.
      No. 56, in page 41, line 15, at end insert—
      `( ) The First Minister shall not make a motion under subsection (5) unless—

      (a) he is satisfied that the person in question is unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour, and

      (b) where the person in question is the Lord President or the Lord Justice Clerk, he has consulted the Prime Minister.'.— [Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 93

      POWERS OF COURTS OR TRIBUNALS TO VARY RETROSPECTIVE DECISIONS
      Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 42, line 2, after first 'to', insert
      `the protocol of relevant considerations and to'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 60, in page 42, line 4, at end insert—
      '(3A) In subsection (3), "protocol of relevant considerations" means a list of matters to which the court or tribunal is to have regard in exercising its powers under this section.
      (3B) The protocol of relevant considerations shall be drawn up by the Secretary of State, after he has first consulted such representatives of the judiciary and others as appear to him to be appropriate.
      (3C) The protocol mentioned in subsection (3B) shall not enter into force unless an Order containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, both House of Parliament and the Scottish Parliament.'.
      Mr. Jenkin: As we near the end of this marathon process, it distresses me that we have such a short time in which to deal with the issue of retrospection, which we have not had the opportunity to discuss before now. Clause 93(2) says that, in deciding a devolution issue—that is, the vires of the Scottish or Westminster Parliaments—the
      "court or tribunal may make an order removing or limiting any retrospective effect of the decision".
      786
      Suppose that a sheep farmer in the west of Scotland decides that he is eligible for a grant. The Scottish Office denies it him on the ground that it is beyond the scope of the Parliament's powers to award it—perhaps it is a European Community grant. The matter eventually goes to the highest court and that court decides in the farmer's favour. The decision may have taken many years to reach, and the resulting expenditure would be expensive for the Government, not only because of the individual concerned, but because lots of individuals might be in a similar position. The farmer having won his case, the court could decide to limit or to remove the retrospective effect and decide not to pay out any money to give the Government time to change the rules so that the grant should not be payable.
      That is fundamentally a political matter. Our amendment would allow the Secretary of State to draw up criteria by which such essentially political and subjective judgments should be made. What are the relevant considerations that a court should apply, as no legal text or guidance is available to help any court to decide what to do under such circumstances?
      It being two hours and fifteen minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [12 May], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.

    Clause 96

      POWER TO MAKE PROVISION CONSEQUENTIAL ON THIS ACT
      Amendment made: No. 183, in page 43, line 2, after `enactment' insert
      `prerogative instrument or other document. — [Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 97

      POWER TO ADAPT CERTAIN MINISTERIAL AND OTHER FUNCTIONS
      Amendments made: No. 184, in page 43, line 9, after `which' insert `— (a)'.
      No. 185, in page 43, line 10, at end insert
      ',or
      ( ) is not otherwise exercisable separately within devolved competence to be so exercisable.'.
      No. 186, in page 43, leave out lines 11 to 18. —[Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 100

      SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION: GENERAL
      Amendments made: No. 258, in page 44, line 18, at end insert—
      `( ) An Order in Council made under section 29—

      (a) may modify any enactment, prerogative instrument or other document and any provision made by or under this Act, and

      (b) in relation to any matter which by virtue of the Order becomes a reserved matter, may provide for any Act of the Scottish Parliament or subordinate legislation made, confirmed or approved by a member of the Scottish Executive to continue to have effect despite the Order'.

      No. 259, in page 44, line 20, after `5)' insert `prerogative'.

      787
      No. 260, in page 44, line 21, leave out `to 99' and insert
      `, 96, 97, (Agreed re-distribution of transferred functions), 98, 99 and 114(3)'.
      No. 261, in page 44, line 22, at end insert—
      '( ) Subordinate legislation made by virtue of section 103(2)(c) may modify any enactment, prerogative instrument or other document'.
      No. 187, in page 44, line 24, at end insert—
      `( ) Subordinate legislation under this Act shall not create any criminal offence punishable—

      (a) on summary conviction, with imprisonment for a period exceeding three months or with a fine exceeding the amount specified as level 5 on the standard scale,

      (b) on conviction on indictment, with a period of imprisonment exceeding two years.'.

      No. 188, in page 44, line 30, at end insert—
      `( ) Any power to make subordinate legislation conferred by this Act is without prejudice to any other power so conferred.'. — [Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 101

      SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION: PROCEDURE
      Amendments made: No. 262, in page 44, line 33, after `97,' insert
      `(Agreed re-distribution of transferred functions),'.
      No. 263, in page 44, line 40, after '59' insert
      `, (Agreed re-distribution of transferred functions)'.
      No. 189, in page 45, line 23, leave out 'and 103(8)' and insert '103(8), 111(5C) and 114(3)'.
      No. 280, in page 45, line 24, leave out 'paragraph 2' and insert 'paragraphs 2 and 7'.
      No. 190, in page 45, line 35, leave out 'and 85' and insert 85 and 111(5C)'. —[Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 102

      SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION UNDER OPEN POWERS
      Amendments made: No. 191, in page 45, line 47, leave out from 'Parliament' to 'is' on line 1 of page 46.
      No. 192, in page 46, line 2, leave out from 'by' to end of line 3 and insert
      'resolution of each House of Parliament'.
      No. 193, in page 46, line 12, at end insert—
      '(6) A statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under section 84 or 85 which, apart from this subsection, would be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament and of the Parliament is not so subject if a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament and of the Parliament.
      (7) A statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under section 84 or 85 which revokes, amends or re-enacts an Order under either section may be subject to a different procedure under section 101 or this section from the procedure to which the instrument containing the original Order was subject.'.—[Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 103

      TRANSFER OF PROPERTY: SUPPLEMENTARY
      Amendments made: No. 194, in page 46, line 15, leave out 'provide for'.
      788
      No. 195, in page 46, line 16, after '(a)' insert 'provide for'.
      No. 196, in page 46, line 19, after `(b)' insert 'provide for'.
      No. 197, in page 46, line 20, at end insert—
      `(c) make provision (other than provision imposing a charge to tax) as to the tax treatment of anything done by or under the legislation.
      ( ) No order shall be made by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of subsection (2)(c), and no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order in Council by virtue of subsection (2)(c), without the agreement of the Treasury.'. —[Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 104
      MINISTERS OF THE CROWN
      Amendment made: No. 198, in page 47, line 6, after `enactment' insert 'prerogative instrument'.—[Mr. McFall.]
    Clause 105

      SUBORDINATE INSTRUMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 199, in page 47, line 22, leave out from 'exercise,' to 'of in line 23 and insert
      'so far as it would be within devolved competence,'.
      No. 200, in page 47, line 28, leave out from 'apply,' to `as' in line 30 and insert
      `so far as it would be within devolved competence,'.—[Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 106

      CONSOLIDATED FUND, ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 201, in page 47, line 35, leave out
      `in or as regards Scotland'
      and insert 'within devolved competence'.
      No. 202, in page 47, leave out line 38 and insert
      `and functions of any Scottish public authority to which paragraph 1A of Part III of Schedule 5 applies'.
      No. 203, in page 48, line 10, at end insert—
      `( ) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply to the words from the beginning of section 2(3) of the European Communities Act 1972 (general implementation of Treaties) to "such Community obligation" '.
      No. 281, in page 48, line 35, leave out from second `the' to end of line 36 and insert 'Auditor General for Scotland'.—[Mr. McFall.]
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These are most important matters. May I make the naughty point of order that I hope that the other place considers them properly?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his naughty point of order. It will be noted.

    Schedule 5

      RESERVED MATTERS
      Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 59, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 and insert—
      '1. The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—

      (a) the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,

      (b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England,

      (c) the Parliament of the United Kingdom,

      (d) the continued existence of the High Court of Justiciary as a criminal court of first instance and of appeal,

      (e) the continued existence of the Court of Session as a civil court of first instance and of appeal.'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 58, in page 59, line 31, at end insert—
      '5A. Paragraph 1 does not preclude the holding by the Scottish Executive of a referendum on any reserved matter, provided that the decision to hold such a referendum has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      Mr. McLeish: Government amendment No. 73 is clarificatory and makes clear the matters reserved under the heading, "The Constitution". As hon. Members know, we do not have a written constitution in the United Kingdom and there is no clear definition of what the term includes. Comments made by a number of parties make it clear that there is doubt about what the reservation covers. It might have been argued that it included local government or the courts. For the avoidance of doubt, we have decided to specify the matters that are covered by the reservation. The other matters listed are a central feature of the constitution and are required to be reserved to preserve the integrity of the United Kingdom. I shall be brief, because we must debate the wider issues.
      Mr. Ancram: The Minister has moved the amendment very swiftly. When I first read it, I was surprised, because it replaced a catch-all provision. At part 1 of schedule 5, the Bill states:
      "The constitution, including…the succession to the Crown and a regency and the Parliament of the United Kingdom are reserved matters."
      The word "including" is important, because it suggests that other matters form part of the constitution. When I first read the Bill, I assumed that the question whether such matters were constitutional would be decided by the courts. Provision has been made in the Bill to decide what are devolved issues and what are not. The broad catch-all provision was sensible, and disputes would have been resolved, but I was surprised, because the amendment restricts what is to be regarded as constitutional to the five provisions that will be inserted into the Bill by amendment No. 73.
      So surprised was I that on 7 May I wrote to the Secretary of State:
      "In order to inform this Debate I would be grateful if before it you could let me know what the implications of the new amendment are as against the broader and more catch-all provision which it replaces."
      790
      I was delighted to receive this morning a letter from the Minister referring to my letter and giving me notes on the amendments. I turned with excitement and anticipation to the note on amendment No. 73, which states that it is a
      "Government amendment to clarify which aspects of the constitution are reserved."
      I am no further forward and, although the Minister has moved the amendment, still no clearer about what has been left out. What is left out is important, because a catch-all provision is being replaced by a specific provision which will weigh heavily in the minds of the courts, which may have to deal with the question of what are devolved matters and what are reserved matters.
      I have read the amendment a number of times, and it is difficult to see what has been left out. The Minister said that local government is not included. I had presumed that it was not a constitutional issue and therefore would not arise. I make these inquiries because we must have a clear idea of what the provision will achieve. Although the Parliament of the United Kingdom is a reserved matter and defined as constitutional, are its actings, for example in terms of the exercise of the power under clause 27(7) to legislate for Scotland, regarded as constitutional? Are they included in the definition, or are they outside it and therefore not covered by the reservation of constitutional matters?
      The matter concerns the sovereignty of Westminster over the Scottish Parliament, which we have debated at length. I hope that that is a constitutional matter, but whether it is covered by the definition's specific provisions is questionable. That leads to the question that we were debating a week ago, to which amendment No. 58 refers: the holding of referendums and whether that is regarded as constitutional and therefore reserved. I want to explore that issue further. I see nothing in Government amendment No. 73 that tells me that that is the case, so I hope that the Minister will deal with the matter specifically.
      The question of referendums is relevant, because I understand from an early sedentary intervention that part of the Liberal Democrat party in Scotland has decided to press for a referendum on the independence question.
      Mr. McLeish: Just for the record, I did not want to go into too much detail on the first part of your response, but you are speaking to the amendment. I am happy to expand on our views later.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister needs to be reminded that he is addressing the Chair.
      Mr. Ancram: I appreciate that the Minister deliberately did not deal with those issues, but I want to put them firmly on the record as I want clear answers. Whether official or unofficial, there has been a Liberal Democrat call for a referendum on the independence question in Scotland. At the moment, it is within the purview of this House to arrange for such a referendum to be held. What is much more questionable is whether, consequent on devolution and the creation of a Scottish Parliament, the right to hold such a referendum would reside in this House only, or whether it would also be available to a Scottish Parliament. I want to secure assurances from the Minister on that matter.

      791
      Last week, we had an interesting debate during which the subject was raised with the Secretary of State, perhaps slightly in advance of its time on the amendment paper. I am sorry that he is not in his place, because I had hoped to question him further on language that was characteristically his. It is worth studying the exchanges, because they show a lack of clarity. I said to the Secretary of State:
      "I hope that I am not pre-empting our debate on the issue, but the Secretary of State mentioned the Union of the United Kingdom being a reserved matter."
      That is part of the Government amendment. I asked:
      "Does that mean that a referendum on the Union also will be a reserved matter and not available to the Scottish Parliament?"
      The Secretary of State replied:
      "It is clear that constitutional change—the political bones of the parliamentary system and any alteration to that system—is a reserved matter. That would obviously include any change or any preparations for change."
      Later in his reply, he referred to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) wanting a referendum. He said:
      "It is clear that he cannot find a vehicle for doing that in the machinery laid down in this legislation."
      It seems from that reply that the ability of a Scottish Parliament to hold such a referendum was being ruled out. I asked:
      "In very simple terms, does that mean that a referendum on Scotland's future in the United Kingdom is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament?"
      6.30 pm
      The Secretary of State could have said yes or no to that question, depending on his view, but he said:
      "If one assumes that that is a way of changing the constitution, no, it is not in the power of the Scottish Parliament to change the constitutional arrangements."
      Later in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) sought to question the Secretary of State. He asked:
      "Would the holding of a referendum be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament?"
      The Secretary of State replied:
      "A referendum that purported to pave the way for something that was ultra vires is itself ultra vires. That is a view that I take, and one to which I will hold."
      The Secretary of State qualified that by saying:
      "But, as I said, the sovereignty of the Scottish people, which is often prayed in aid, is still there in the sense that, if they vote for a point of view, for change, and mean that they want that change by their vote, any elected politician in this country must very carefully take that into account."
      Rather than getting a straight answer, the jungle was becoming thicker by the moment. Characteristically, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) sought to cut away the foliage by asking:
      "Can the Scottish Parliament of itself initiate a referendum on independence?"
      792
      It could not be put straighter than that. The Secretary of State said that he thought that he had answered that, but he went on to say:
      "It is my view that matters relating to reserved matters are also reserved. It would not be competent for the Scottish Parliament to spend money on such a matter in those circumstances."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 256–57.]
      I think that we made some progress because, in the words of the Secretary of State, it would not be possible for the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum the cost of which came from the financial provisions that will be made for that Parliament. However, the question about whether it is in the competence of that Parliament to hold a referendum was not answered.
      I could be facetious and say that the Liberal Democrat party, or the section of it that wishes to have a referendum, could decide to sponsor one and put up the cash for it. As the Scottish Parliament would not have to find the wherewithal, would it be competent to initiate and conduct such a referendum? That is an important matter.
      Our amendment is a probing one. The Scottish Parliament could decide to hold a referendum, but the amendment ensures that it could do that only with the consent of both Houses of this Parliament. It would allow the Scottish Parliament to apply to this Parliament as the custodian of the constitution, which is how I understand the Bill, for permission. I do not intend to press the amendment: it is intended only to tease out the situation. However, it is at the heart of the debate because it looks at the relationship between the Edinburgh and Westminster Parliaments.
      I understood that it was agreed between the Government and the Opposition that the Westminster Parliament is supreme and could, under the Bill, legislate on all matters in Scotland if it so wished. It also decides on questions of constitutional change because of its supremacy and the sovereignty that is vested in it. The dialogue to which I have referred from last week's debate casts some doubt on that and the matter needs to be clarified.
      When we started the debate on the Bill in January, the Government spoke about the creation of a Scottish Parliament in which there would be new politics. They said that there would be sweetness and light and that many questions about the legislation were irrelevant because everybody wanted to see the Parliament working. On that basis, many of our concerns were brushed aside, but now there is a somewhat different political situation. It was assumed that the Scottish Parliament would be a friendly one that was run by some combination of the Scottish Labour party and others and that it would deal in a friendly way with this Parliament. But that is questioned by opinion polls in Scotland and will not necessarily be the case. The idea that dialogue between Westminster and Edinburgh would always be friendly and co-operative is in doubt.
      Today's debate and Scottish questions were undermined by the vitriol—that is the only word that I can use—of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan in addressing some of the issues that we raised about sovereignty. The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, was vitriolic in his responses to the hon. Gentleman at Scottish questions. The question whether sovereignty ultimately rests here or can be vested under

      793
      certain conditions in the Scottish Parliament is not theoretical. It cannot be quietly be left on the shelf as if it does not matter. It could become important quickly.
      Mr. Salmond: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that those exchanges were vitriolic, I can only say that he has led a sheltered existence. He said all that in the referendum campaign, but is repeating it as if it has only just been discovered. Perhaps I could refer to Lady Thatcher's celebrated remark. She said, "If the Scots were to determine on independence, no English politician, certainly not me, should gainsay that process." Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that is still the view of the Conservative party?
      Mr. Ancram: Yes, I do, and it was repeated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) when he was Prime Minister. He said that he would not hold any part of the United Kingdom within it against the wishes of the majority of the people in that part. I think that I quote him correctly. Obviously, that is relevant to the debate. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan says that I am saying nothing new. I know that: I am trying to avoid saying, "I told you so." I predicted all along that that issue would become crucial because of the fact that the extraordinarily sunny picture that was being painted by the Government was simply unreal.
      In the referendum campaign, I said that devolution would create a focus for nationalism, which would grow on the back of it. I was told that I did not know what I was talking about, and the Secretary of State for Defence said that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead. We see now that our fears during that campaign were real. If anything, that strengthens my point that these matters need to be clarified before the Bill leaves the House. If matters are left uncertain, they will become the focus for further resentment and anger that will cause friction between the Edinburgh and Westminster Parliaments, and that can only feed the flames of nationalism. We want to avoid that.
      As I said, ours is a probing amendment, but I have more than a hope that, before the Bill completes all its stages, there will be clear answers. I hope that the Minister will not think that I am insulting the Secretary of State when I say that I do not think that we got clear answers last week. I hope that he will take this opportunity to give such answers.
      Mr. Dalyell: My view is simple and concise. Sooner rather than later there will inevitably be a referendum on the question of independence. Therefore, we should clear up the issue of who has the power to initiate it.
      Mr. Salmond: I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). He rightly said that the Conservative party said last year in the referendum campaign that devolution would lead to independence. Some official spokesmen for the party said that the process would be inevitable. If they still believe it to be inevitable, I do not see the point of making these speeches. By definition, if something is inevitable, there is no point in trying to resist it, so if the right hon. Gentleman is now disputing the inevitability of the process, we have to conclude that the Conservative party has at least modified its position since the referendum campaign.
      794
      Surely the important point is that these arguments were ventilated before the people in the referendum campaign by the Conservative party, and the people gave their answer.
      Mr. Ancram indicated dissent.
      Mr. Salmond: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I recall being on television programmes with him, and he made exactly those points. They were available to the people when they judged the matter, and they gave an answer. He implied that the reason for that was that they did not believe him. Another reason might be that they did not care particularly. The argument from the other side—both from me and the Secretary of State for Scotland—was that it was up to the people to decide the constitutional future of Scotland. When the right hon. Gentleman made those arguments in the referendum campaign, the united answer that he received from the yes forces was that these matters would be determined by the people of Scotland.
      Mr. Garnier: I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the referendum, which the yes campaign decisively won last summer, took place in ignorance of the Bill. Does that not have some bearing on this debate?
      Mr. Salmond: The referendum was informed by a White Paper that gave a detailed explanation of what we could expect from the Bill. Certainly what would be a reserved matter in terms of the constitution was in the White Paper, but the answer given by the yes forces was very clear, and it was given on a number occasions.
      I had a number of meetings with the Secretary of State in that period. I asked him a number of times in the House what his answer was. I particularly remember 24 July 1997, when I specifically asked him whether there would be any attempt to put up obstacles or roadblocks to stop the Scottish Parliament from developing, if the people so chose, into an independent Parliament. He gave a specific answer:
      "If I did try to build such barriers, they would be futile and without effect. At the end of the day, in practical politics, what matters is what people want. If the hon. Gentleman is able to carry the people of Scotland, no doubt he will be able to advance his cause."—[Official Report, 24 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 1049.]
      There was no doubt or dubiety whatever. The Secretary of State clarified that there was to be no glass ceiling in these proposals. They envisaged a devolved Parliament within the state of the United Kingdom, but the sovereign right of the Scottish people to choose to change that arrangement, if they so wished, was upheld.
      Dr. Liam Fox: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, on two occasions last year—first at the general election and then in the referendum—the population of Scotland voted for a Unionist position: first, for Unionist parties in the general election and then for devolution within a United Kingdom, for which he campaigned?
      Mr. Salmond: I did not see the hon. Gentleman very much in the campaign. I was told that he was on holiday in America at one stage in the campaign. [Interruption.] If I am wrong, I gladly apologise.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Salmond: No, I will not give way to my old university friend.

      795
      I repeat the point that I did not see very much of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) during the devolution campaign, but if he saw much of me during that campaign, he would know explicitly that the yes side argued that, although we had different objectives for Scotland's future, the thing that united us was that we accepted the right of the people of Scotland to decide their future.
      The hon. Member has asked me about the last general election. I would have thought that the Conservative party, which ended up with zero seats in Scotland—nul point, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) is fond of pointing out—would be the last party to say that the last general election was a final determination of the state of Scottish politics. The hon. Gentleman prays in aid a victory for the Labour party as a victory for his position. I am sure that there are people in the Labour party who would be very upset about that argument. Clearly, the last general election decided the last general election. The Scottish election will decide the Scottish election. No doubt the next general election will make a decision.
      Democracy does not stop at a point in time. The whole point about democracy is that if people lose an argument, they have the right and ability to re-present that argument. Scotland was an independent state for 1,000 years. It then made a decision not to be an independent state. If it chooses to reverse that decision, it has the absolute right to do so.
      6.45 pm
      Before the hon. Member for Woodspring diverted me, I was going through some of the quotations from the Secretary of State for Scotland. I come to one that specifically looks at how that sovereignty might be exercised:
      "Although the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is in favour of a multi-option referendum as a general principle, when it comes—if it ever does—to the point where he wishes to implement a specific constitutional scheme, he should put that to the people of Scotland in a single-question referendum to get it endorsed."—[Official Report, 4 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 433–34.]
      The Secretary of State advised me that that was the right and proper methodology to use if I wanted argue the case for independence and have it put before the people—I was to put it before the people in a single-question referendum. I find it a bit surprising that, less than a year later, the same Secretary of State is now, in pejorative terms, daily accusing me of doing exactly what he advised last June.
      What has changed between last June and this May? The most significant change is that, last June, the Labour party was 30 points clear in the opinion polls and, this May, it is five points behind.
      Mr. Dalyell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, not since Mephistopheles made a bargain with Dr. Faust has there been anything quite like him and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland coming together. It was a Faustian bargain because they both knew that they wanted different things.
      796
      I ask the serious question: what is the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of my right hon. Friend's undertaking at that time in relation to a referendum? For the sake of clarity, what does he think was promised by the Secretary of State?
      Mr. Salmond: The position is absolutely clear in the Hansard of 4 June last year. That was repeated to me at private meetings and in the press. On 16 May in The Herald, the Secretary of State made it clear that no "glass ceiling" would be built. He said:
      "The only way in which we could move to independence would be if people voted for independence. That is clearly their right and I would not wish to deny them their right",
      ruling out any trick in the White Paper. When I specifically asked the Secretary of State about the reserved matter of the constitution in the Bill, he repeated that that was overridden by the Scottish people's sovereign right to express their wish for independence, if they so chose to do, that this was a point in time and that if the Scottish National party, the independence forces, won their argument, they would have their case resolved.
      Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Salmond: No.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is a fair-minded man. He knows that I have argued consistently for a position, as he has. He was with me on television programmes last year when both the Secretary of State and I answered his specific point by saying, "It is up to the people to decide."
      The arguments of the Conservative Front-Bench team have an air of total unreality. There is the apparent belief that it can find a mechanism, an amendment, a clause, a statement from the Government Front-Bench team, an expression of view by the Secretary of State, by the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, or by a Labour Member, which could somehow stop the process of sovereignty in the Scottish people. It cannot be done in that fashion. No amendment or clause can erect the roadblock that the Secretary of State promised would not be there.
      Mr. Swayne: I do not think that anyone is questioning the sovereign right of the Scottish people to opt for independence, should they so wish. We are discussing merely the proper means by which that process will arise.
      Mr. Salmond: That is why I quoted—I know that the hon. Gentleman was listening carefully—the advice given to me, on 4 June 1997, by the Secretary of State for Scotland. He told me that if it comes to a point at which I wish to implement a constitutional scheme, I should put the scheme to the people of Scotland in a single-question referendum. I suggest to the House that I could put the matter to the people of Scotland only if I were in the majority party, or the leader of a coalition, in the Scottish Parliament. I cannot see myself as Prime Minister in this place, or commanding a majority in accepting such a scheme. The words of the Secretary of State for Scotland can be interpreted only in that way.
      It is a bit rich, and a bit late, for that certainty—that democratic point of view—which was crystallised and repeated many times last year by the Secretary of State

      797
      for Scotland, to have undergone a transition this year, because of a change in the nature of Scotland's opinion polls. What manner of politics is it that bases an argument on democracy on the latest position of a few public opinion polls?
      Mr. Dalyell: This is a very important discussion indeed in terms of the British constitution. In the presence of the Whips—I do not care who knows it—I want to know, as a Labour Member of Parliament, why the Secretary of State for Scotland has something better to do than to be in the House of Commons at this point? This is a House of Commons point, and I am an old House of Commons traditionalist. On this particular issue, the place for the Secretary of State for Scotland—Cabinet Committee meeting or not—is on the Treasury Bench. I hope that the Whip registers that.
      Mr. Salmond: That was an intervention for me, but an observation for the Labour party. I should tell the hon. Member that there are several crisis points in the Labour party in Scotland. Perhaps the Secretary of State is dealing with one of the other crises, rather than with us in the Chamber.
      Despite the Secretary of State's absence, there is no shortage of quotations from him. I have another half dozen of them with me, which I shall not read out now. Nevertheless, Ministers should remember that those quotes, and the notes of various meetings that I have had with the Secretary of State, are on the record and can be prayed in aid.
      It is ridiculous to try to block the democratic sovereign right of the Scottish people, and the parties that try to do so will not gain any benefit. For 20 years or more, the Tories tried to do it, and the result of that and other measures was that they were perceived—in the words of the previous Secretary of State for Scotland—as being "anti-Scottish". They were perceived as such not necessarily because of the views that they held but because of their attempt, in one way or another, to deny the Scottish people the right to decide their own destiny. Regardless of its views on other matters, any party that makes an argument that one can deprive people of that right will fall into the same trap as the Tory party did for so long.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is touching on an important point. Does he believe that the type of roadblock that he fears is or is not being created by Government amendment No. 73? I am trying to clarify that point. It is essential that we should have the answer to that question before the Bill is passed by this place.
      Mr. Salmond: I do not think that such a roadblock would be created by the Government amendment, although one would be created by amendment No. 58, which was tabled by the right hon. Gentleman. That is why, if he had the courage to press it to the vote, I should take the greatest pleasure in voting against it.
      We have to distinguish between the Parliament's legislative competence and its right to discuss, decide and consult on anything that it wishes. We have to distinguish between the Parliament's legislative competence and whether it can "pray in aid"—to use the Secretary of State for Scotland's own words—the sovereign right of the
      798
      Scottish people to determine their own future. I think that the right hon. Member for Devizes will find that that view is well supported by eminent Scottish lawyers and academics. It is certainly the view I take.
      I do not mind that the settlement is a devolution one—I never have. The only question that I have asked the Secretary of State—and the Minister of State, as he can verify—is whether the Scottish people have the right to move on if they so wish. I am genuinely saddened that the confident democratic answer given last year by the Secretary of State for Scotland has been replaced this year by a much more equivocal and muddied one. It would be far better if all of us were to accept that sovereign right, stop trying to move the goalposts and let the Scottish people determine their own national destiny.
      Mr. McAllion: Like the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), I cannot foresee his ever being the Prime Minister or commanding a Scottish National party majority in this place. As he well knows, it is not in the nature of the beast.
      I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that, although certainly he can tell the Secretary of State for Scotland what he thinks, through the Whips, I certainly would not—as I await an interview for the Scottish Parliament—dream of doing any such thing—[Interruption.] I am only, at the very outset, setting the tone of my speech.
      I was relieved to hear that amendment No. 58 is only a probing amendment. I thought that the Tory party was trying to facilitate constitutional referendums in Scotland. As the Tories have spent 18 years frustrating such referendums, that really would have been one for the book.
      I tell the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) that he cannot call in aid the state of current opinion polls in arguing that devolution will necessarily fan the flames of nationalism and lead to an independent Scotland. If he carefully examines opinion polls in Scotland, he will see that the SNP is ahead of Labour only in elections to the Scottish Parliament. Scottish voters realise very well that electing a large SNP contingent to the Scottish Parliament is not the same as voting for independence. Scottish voters are being very discriminating in how they are indicating their voting intentions in the next election.
      I felt that I had to speak in this debate because of the attack by the right hon. Member for Devizes on an individual Liberal Democrat Member, for daring to come out in favour of a referendum. Today, I seem to have caused some controversy by saying that I, too, am in favour of an early referendum on whether Scotland should remain with a devolved Parliament inside the United Kingdom or move to independence in Europe. It seems that I am now—unintentionally—at odds with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench.
      I was merely stating what I believe to be the case. I make it clear that, in any such referendum, I would vote for Scotland to remain within the United Kingdom, and for the devolved Parliament to be the way forward for Scottish government. The differences between Ministers and me is only about tactics, and about what is in the Labour party's best interests. I believe that it is certainly in Labour's interests to hold an earlier rather than a later referendum, because the current mood in Scotland is very different from what it might be in five or 10 years' time. We will have to consider that fact.

      799
      I have several concerns about Government amendment No. 73, which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will try to deal with in his reply. Paragraph 1(b) of the amendment would seem to exclude any matter of
      "the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England"
      from being dealt with by the Scottish Parliament, in a referendum or by any other device. The provision seems to be a type of blocking mechanism designed to stop the Scottish people, through their elected representatives in the Scottish Parliament, from ever reaching any decision on whether Scotland should remain inside or outside of the United Kingdom.
      The Government amendment seems to require a vote in this place before a referendum could be held to discover the views of the Scottish people—thereby giving a veto to the majority of non-Scottish Members in this place, allowing them to prevent the Scottish people from ever having an opportunity to vote in such a referendum. If that were the case, I should be very concerned about the amendment. Many years ago, when many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I signed the Claim of Right for Scotland, we were unequivocal in stating that sovereignty lay with the Scottish people, and only with the Scottish people. We signed up to the Claim of Right for Scotland, and we signed up to the sovereignty of the Scottish people. We should be standing by what we believed in 1989.
      Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Does the hon. Gentleman think that if action is taken that fundamentally alters the whole of the United Kingdom, the whole of the United Kingdom should be part of the decision-making process, at least through the United Kingdom Parliament?
      Mr. McAllion: I might be prepared to take that argument a little more seriously if it were applied in Northern Ireland, for example. Friday's referendum does not involve the whole of the United Kingdom; nor should it. As I was saying, the Labour party is committed to the Claim of Right for Scotland and to the concept of the sovereignty of the Scottish people. If the Scottish people decide on independence, it would not matter whether 500 or 600 Tory Members in this place were opposed to the Scottish people breaking away from the United Kingdom. They would have no right to stop them from breaking away, if it was based on the democratic view of the Scottish people. Even Mrs. Thatcher was prepared to accept that much. I am surprised that the hon. Lady is at odds with her great heroine.
      Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that if the Scottish people demand independence, it is game, set and match to the Scottish National party. The question is whether it is right in the United Kingdom constitution for the Scottish Parliament to be able to facilitate that process. Does he think that there is any limit on the powers that the Scottish Parliament can demand, argue for, campaign for, spend money on campaigning for or hold referendums on? Is there anything on which it cannot spend money? If he thinks that there is not, we are establishing a sovereign Scottish Parliament and an a la carte United Kingdom, which I do not suppose he favours for the European Union, for example.
      7 pm
      Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman paints a distorted picture of reality. I ask him in turn how this Parliament will stop a majority in the Scottish Parliament deciding that they should hold a referendum on the future constitutional position of Scotland? It is all very well for this Parliament to say that it is not in the competence of the Scottish Parliament to spend any taxpayers' money—even if it is raised by the Scottish Parliament's right to vary income tax—on holding a referendum, but how does it stop the Scottish Parliament? Is anyone seriously arguing for sending troops to prevent the holding of a referendum in Scotland and the Scottish people having a say on the future constitutional set-up under which they wish to live? Of course a referendum could not be stopped. If a majority in the Scottish Parliament ever decide that they want to hold a referendum, there will be very little that this Parliament can do.
      One only has to look back to the previous Tory Government to realise that very little can be done. Strathclyde regional council decided that it would hold a referendum on the future structure of the water and sewerage industry in Scotland. The Government of the day did not want it to do that. They may even have decided that it was not competent to do so and that it should not be wasting local taxpayers' money on such a referendum, but the region went ahead with the referendum and it had an effect on the Government of the day. Even with a big majority in the House, the Tory Government had to back down because it was clear that the Scottish people thought that the water and sewerage industry should remain in the public sector. Even a Government who were committed to privatisation had to accept that. That is the reality with which we are dealing.
      Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman has done well to remind his Front-Bench team of the Claim of Right, which dealt with such issues explicitly. Does his memory of the referendum campaign accord with the quotations that I have cited? There was not a Faustian bargain, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) suggested; there was a very clear agreement which allowed the Scottish people to determine the future of our country.
      Mr. McAllion: I understand that that is the policy of my party. It has been made clear on several occasions that the Labour party is a democratic party and would accept whatever democratic decision the Scottish people took. In fact, I think that every political party in the House holds that position. I know of no hon. Member who would seriously argue that if a majority of the Scottish people want to go down the road towards independence in Europe, this House should try to block their wishes. Surely nobody in a democracy would argue that.
      Mr. Ancram: At the risk of ruining the hon. Gentleman's chances in his future selection contest, is he saying that he disagrees with the Secretary of State when he said last week to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that
      "he cannot find a vehicle for doing that"—
      holding a referendum—
      "in the machinery laid down in this legislation"?—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 256.]
      Mr. McAllion: I am not disagreeing—partly because I was not here. I had a constituency week last week; I was

      801
      somewhere else. I was certainly not watching the proceedings of the House on cable television. I have far better things to do with my time.
      I am trying to put across the point that we are not dealing with some inferior institution. We are dealing with a Parliament that will be elected under—in my view—a much fairer democratic system and will reflect the views of the Scottish people. It will be a democratically elected Parliament consisting of 129 Members who will be every bit as competent to decide on such issues as anyone in this House. It is not for us to instruct them on what they can or cannot do with the budget that has been devolved to them. If we continue to try to block what a Scottish Parliament wants or does not want to do, there will be constant friction and fighting between the two Parliaments, which will play into the hands of the Scottish National party. That is why we should not be trying to place such constraints on the Scottish Parliament in anticipation of what might happen many years down the road.
      Trying to put in place such constraints betrays an acute lack of confidence in our position. I am in favour of an early referendum in Scotland because the Scottish people want a devolved Parliament in the United Kingdom and do not want to move to independence in Europe. When the new Parliament is up and running, most Scots will be wishing it well and hoping that it starts to improve the government of their country. The last thing that they will want is another constitutional upheaval.
      I think that that is also the view of the Scottish National party—although its members would never admit it publicly. The last thing that they want is a referendum in the first or second year of the Scottish Parliament because they know what the result will be. If there were an overwhelming endorsement of Scotland remaining in the United Kingdom, the SNP's case for independence would be put back at least 10 years—and SNP Members know it. They hope that there is not an early referendum; they hope that they do not get a majority in the Scottish Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] It will he very difficult for any party to get a majority in the Scottish Parliament under proportional representation.
      If the Westminster Parliament continues to block the Scottish Parliament's rights to do this or that, it will add to the sense of grievance in Scotland against the Westminster Parliament. Who benefits from any such grievance? None of the parties that argues for remaining in the UK will benefit; only the SNP will benefit. We should not be making it easier for the SNP. In arguing our corner, we should be making it more difficult for the SNP and showing confidence in our position.
      It is tactically inept to put off the question of a referendum. If there are years of friction between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments and if the view is maintained in Scotland that the Scottish Parliament has been held back from doing what it wants to do on behalf of the Scottish people due to politicians in Westminster, the case for independence in any future referendum will be boosted. It is in our interests to hold an early referendum, get the issue out of the way for at least 10 years and get down to governing Scotland properly.
      Mr. Wallace: This is an important debate. I hope that it is common ground between the four parties that no one has ever suggested that the Scottish Parliament established
      802
      by the Bill could claim independence for Scotland or become an independent Parliament. To that extent, many of us have always thought that, as amendment No. 73 states, the Union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England is a reserved matter. That should not come as any surprise. We run into difficulty on whether there can be a referendum on a reserved matter. The notorious—or famous—clause 28 states that an Act of the Scottish Parliament would not be law so far as the Act related to a reserved matter. The question is whether a reserved matter in this case is the Union between Scotland and England or—if it were an advisory referendum—the holding of referendums. If it is the latter, I do not see any problem. Clarification would be useful so that the principle of holding a referendum does not become contentious.
      Amendment No. 58, tabled by the Conservative party, helps only to the extent that it is a clarification. It does not help that it would require an appeal to Westminster for orders to be granted.
      Mr. Grieve: The hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect that, last week, with great difficulty, it was extracted from the Secretary of State that he was quite satisfied that it would be ultra vires for the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum.
      Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State has expressed that view, but, at the end of the day, that might be a matter for the courts to interpret. That is why it would be better if the matter were cleared up in the Bill.
      Even the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) seems to accept that facilitating a referendum could not be achieved by legislation. An article that I happened to glance at in today's edition of The Scotsman says:
      "Mr. Salmond said this could be done as long as the referendum was not set up by an act of the Scottish Parliament, which could be challenged as being outwith the competence of Holyrood."
      No doubt, if there were some other way—if a referendum were sponsored by Stagecoach, for example—a referendum could go ahead.
      Mr. Salmond: The hon. and learned Gentleman can relax; I shall not refer to the rest of the article in The Scotsman. I was quoting Professor Colin Munro, professor of constitutional law at Edinburgh university, who said:
      "You have to make the distinction between the reserved powers and what parliament can debate and discuss … there is nothing to stop the parliament arranging to hold a referendum, because that would not involve a change in the law. The actual separation of Scotland from the rest of the UK would be a Westminster decision, but Labour have already said they would regard a majority vote in favour … as a vote for independence".
      Mr. Wallace: Arranging to hold a referendum might involve passing a law. The referendums on accession to the European Community in 1975, on the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments in 1979, in Wales and Scotland last year and in Northern Ireland later this week were all arranged by Acts of Parliament.
      Mr. Salmond: And the Strathclyde water referendum.
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman mentions the Strathclyde water referendum, which I remember well and

      803
      which my colleague, Councillor Christopher Mason, managed to persuade Strathclyde region to hold. Labour Members scoffed and told me in the Lobby that that was a terribly bad idea and that we should not hold it because we might get the wrong result, but the result was overwhelming and Labour Members were only too pleased to use it to twist the tail of the Conservative Government. Since that referendum was held, legislation has been passed that would not allow it to be repeated. Strathclyde region could never pass an Act of Parliament. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) may agree that it would help to clarify the point about the holding of a referendum.
      There is a further question of the wisdom of having a referendum, which is a point on which I do not agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.
      Mr. Salmond: The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he wants clarity, but he has not told us his view.
      Mr. Garnier: He is a Liberal—he does not have views.
      Mr. Salmond: That is not fair. Does the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) believe that the Scottish Parliament should have such a power, regardless of whether he thinks that to exercise it would be wise?
      Mr. Wallace: It would be better if the power existed; whether it is exercised is another matter, which brings me to the hon. Gentleman's position. He suggested that democracy is standing still. I do not say this in a pejorative sense, but his party is a single-issue party. It exists for only one purpose—to get independence for Scotland. That is a perfectly legitimate aim.
      Ms Roseanna Cunningham: At least we have a purpose.
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Lady makes a silly remark, but, during the by-election in her constituency, the Conservative party made an outrageous attack on her party on the anniversary of VE-day, when it tried to compare the Scottish National party to the nationalism that existed in Europe—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must address the Chair.
      Mr. Wallace: In Europe in 1939, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mrs. Laing: It is the same.
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Lady ought to withdraw that remark.
      Mr. Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to return to the matter under discussion, rather than airing a private grief?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Wallace: The Scottish National party has always argued its case through the ballot box. At every election in
      804
      Scotland—general elections and Scottish elections—we have a referendum on whether the people of Scotland want independence. At the most recent general election, the overwhelming majority rejected independence, and I believe that they will do so again. If the Scottish National party managed to get a majority of votes, it would have a mandate to hold a referendum and put the case for independence. Until that happens, Scottish nationalists must accept that the electorate has that opportunity at the ballot box.
      No new Parliament—once it had been set up and was getting on with its task of discussing Scotland's jobs, housing, education and health service—would want to be distracted. It would inevitably be distracted if it had also to debate the constitutional issue that has distracted our intention from other issues for far too long.
      Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I want to focus not on whether the Parliament could have a referendum—a matter which I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will address—but on the topical question of whether it should do so, particularly in its early years.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said that it was in the interests of the Labour party to hold such a referendum. However, we should be acting, here and in the Scottish Parliament, in the interests not of the Labour party but of the Scottish people. That will be a key issue in the run-up to the Scottish parliamentary elections. Everything that we do must be directed towards making the Parliament work for Scotland. Our argument is that the SNP wants to make the Parliament work for the SNP, which is what the referendum policy is about, so Labour Members should not use a similar argument to say that the Parliament should work for the Labour party.
      This is an exciting venture, to which all the people of Scotland are looking forward, and for which the vast majority of them voted. All our energies must be directed towards making the Parliament work for Scotland on the issues that concern its people, such as health, education, jobs and child care. I mention child care because the first-ever child care strategy was launched today.
      The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred to a glass ceiling. No party in this House—here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East—has ever said that there is a glass ceiling. Even the previous Prime Minister said that the people of Scotland would get independence if they voted for it. As the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, the people of Scotland have a continuing chance to vote for independence. It will be perfectly clear, through the votes cast for the SNP, whether the people of Scotland support independence. Notwithstanding the current protest votes in Scotland, people are not, at present, voting for independence.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. McLeish: Many people in my constituency will, like me, be astonished that, after the 55 weeks that it has taken to get to the point at which the Bill will have completed all its stages in the House, the 100 years for which this aspiration has existed in Scotland and the 20 years for which a movement for change has existed, we are now debating this matter. It has been graphically

      805
      illustrated that the people of Scotland want a Parliament that will deal with the issues that they feel need to be addressed. They do not want the Parliament to be turned into a constitutional circus—that is not its aim.
      We have worked for 55 weeks to ensure that we have a substantive legislative framework to move Scotland forward in the next century. We have done so around a consensus arrived at on 11 September and on 1 May last year. When we are talking about the will of the people and their votes, I am reminded that the Conservative party has no Members of Parliament in Scotland. I am reminded also that the Scottish National party has six Members out of a possible 72—
      Ms Cunningham: Wait until next year.
      Mr. McLeish: I look forward with relish to that contest. I am reminded also that one party, now represented in government, got 56 seats out of 72. Let us have a little pragmatism and perspective on an issue that is in danger of becoming abstract.
      Mr. Garnier rose—
      Mr. McLeish: I am not giving way.
      Mr. Garnier: Will the Minister give way on clause 29?
      Mr. McLeish: I am not giving way at this stage.
      In a curious way, when people talk about the sovereign right of the people, there is no debate, because people vote in a representative democracy, but another issue, which has been confused with that, is the rights and responsibilities of the Parliament that we have proposed over the past 55 weeks. A third tier has been brought into the problems—the constitutional underpinning and the logic inherent in the Scotland Bill. It is easy for right hon. and hon. Members to get the three issues mixed up, each for their own convenience. It is crucial to say that we are discussing a Bill which sets out matters clearly.
      I take exception to the way in which quotes of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have been bandied about in the Chamber and the press. There is nothing unclear about my right hon. Friend's position on an issue that has been raised by Conservative Members in a so-called probing amendment.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman can clear up the matter once and for all. I shall put to him the question that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) put to the Secretary of State: can the Scottish Parliament initiate a referendum on Scottish independence—yes or no?
      Mr. McLeish: The right hon. Gentleman should give me time to get to the central point. On 12 May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
      "A referendum that purported to pave the way for something that was ultra vires is itself ultra vires."
      One does not need expert lawyers to consider that in detail and interpret its meaning. Am I wrong in thinking that what the Secretary of State has been saying is consistent
      806
      not only on that point, but on the sovereignty of the people? In a similar vein, also on 12 May, the Secretary of State said:
      "But, as I said, the sovereignty of the Scottish people, which is often prayed in aid, is still there in the sense that, if they vote for a point of view, for change, and mean that they want that change by their vote, any elected politician in this country must very carefully take that into account.—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 256.]
      In previous debates, my right hon. Friend has captured the essence of linking the sovereignty of the people to the constitutional underpinning that forms the core of the Bill.
      The whimpering of the so-called official Opposition shows that they do not recognise the fact that 11 September meant that we should go forward. For the Government, that is what the Bill is about. This has been an extensive debate, and many right hon. and hon. Members have participated in it; far be it from a Minister to be criticised for trying to stifle such a debate. Clearly, the Government do not support amendment No. 58—
      It being three hours and fifteen minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [12 May], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 231, in page 59, line 16, leave out 'Crown Estate Commissioners' and insert
      'management (in accordance with any enactment regulating the use of land) of the Crown Estate'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 232.
      No. 96, in page 78, line 22, at end insert—
      'The subject of land reform in Scotland is not a reserved matter, notwithstanding the reservation of the Crown Estate Commissioners in Part I of this Schedule and of business associations under Head 3 of Part II of this Schedule.'.
      No. 113, in schedule 7, page 85, line 8, at end insert—
      `Crown Estate Act 1961—
      6A.—(1) The Crown Estate Act 1961 is amended as follows—
      (2) In section 1(4)—

      (a) after each "Secretary of State" add "or the Scottish Executive"

      (b) after second "Scotland" omit "Secretary of State" and insert "Scottish Executive".

      (3) In section 2(1) (Reports and accounts of Commissioners), at end add "and the Scottish Parliament.".'.
      Mr. McLeish: May I stress at the outset that, under the Government's proposals, the Crown Estate will be subject to the Scottish Parliament's legislation on devolved matters, such as land law including land tenure reform, planning, environmental protection and fisheries, in the same way as all other land in Scotland?
      Amendment No. 231 is a technical amendment intended to make the position of the Crown Estate Commissioners clear, and it may be helpful if I set out precisely what is intended in respect of the commissioners. The Crown is reserved and the Crown Estate Commissioners are included as part of that reservation. However, it is intended that, although the

      807
      functions of the commissioners in managing the Crown Estate should be reserved, the property and interests that form the Crown Estate should not be reserved.
      The Scottish Parliament would, for example, be able to legislate to implement the proposals announced by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary responsible for agriculture, fisheries and the environment, to extend the role of planning authorities to cover marine fish farming. The Under-Secretary responsible for local government and housing, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), announced on 17 December that new statutory procedures for the control of the dredging of marine minerals in Scotland would be introduced to replace the existing non-statutory procedure. That, too, would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. Garnier: The reserved matters are defined in schedule 5; we know that from clause 29, subsection (2) of which says:
      "Her Majesty may by Order in Council make any modifications of that Schedule which She considers necessary or expedient."
      What modifications did the Government envisage in drafting that subsection? How would they affect not only the matters that we were discussing a moment ago but the matters that the Minister is trying to discuss now?
      Mr. McLeish: Government amendments Nos. 231 and 232 deal with the issues surrounding the reservation of the Crown and the Crown Estate Commissioners. The essence of the discussion is to highlight, relative to the concerns that have been raised, the powers of the Scottish Parliament in that respect. There is some misunderstanding about the reservation of the Crown Estate and the Crown Estate Commissioners, and I am attempting to clear it up.
      Mr. Garnier rose—
      Mr. McLeish: No, I do not want to give way, because we need to make some progress. It is important that we discuss some of the other amendments that the Opposition have tabled, and if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall want to talk about them at a later stage.
      Amendment No. 232 makes it clear that the reservation of the hereditary revenues of the Crown does not include revenues from bona vacantia, ultimus haeres or treasure trove. That is a bit of a mouthful, but it means matters that the Crown can take over. Such matters are devolved as property belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown.
      I am sure that hon. Members will agree that, as they are matters dealt with distinctly under Scots law, it is appropriate that ultimus haeres, bona vacantia and treasure trove should be devolved. The revenues from bona vacantia and ultimus haeres and the benefit from treasure trove will accrue to the Scottish Consolidated Fund. The Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, who is responsible for administering ultimus haeres, is also devolved.
      Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 96 and 113, which stand in my name and in those of my hon. Friends. With the present debate,
      808
      we are returning to the issue of land reform—a subject which has exercised a great many people and been the subject of much political debate in Scotland. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is not in his place now, after his claim that my party was a single-issue party. From that, I can only presume that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not think that land reform is an issue. I do. Land reform is an issue for the Scottish National party, and has been for a considerable time.
      During the passage of the Bill, we have had several opportunities to explore what I see as the potential barriers that it could place in the path of radical land reform in Scotland. Amendment No. 96 identifies two of those—the reservations of business associations and of the Crown Estate Commissioners. It offers the Government the opportunity to confirm that the Parliament will be free to legislate in any way that it sees fit to move forward with land reform proposals.
      Government amendment No. 231 goes part of the way to allay my concerns, and I was grateful to hear what the Minister said about it. It restates the actual nature of the reservation, which focuses on the management of the Crown Estate, and confirms that the Crown Estate will not escape from the general structure of land reform legislation.
      However, the alterations do not go far enough. Indeed, they confirm the points that I sought to raise in Committee. Government amendment No. 232 devolves responsibility for certain elements of residual Crown finance. The Government have seen fit to devolve revenue in three areas. One is treasure trove, which in plain language means discovered treasure. Another is the Crown inheritance of certain types of property, such as when businesses are in dissolution and what, according to "The Oxford Companion to Law", are "waifs and estrays". Apparently, waifs and strays are classified as a form of income, although I am not sure how that would come about. That heading also includes beached whales and wrecks; I am not sure how many Members present tonight would come into that category.
      However, it is clear that some issues critical to future land reform are not devolved. Those are the Crown Estate Commissioners' control of the foreshore, the sea bed, mineral rights and salmon, and of the revenues that accrue from those rights. The Government amendments are not enough. Any meaningful land reform will have to include the option of transferring control and revenues from the Crown's residual ownership of the foreshore, sea bed and mineral rights. Those are sources of income that could be used to revitalise our rural areas and enhance community involvement in the management of land—a subject which I have dealt with in detail in earlier debates.
      Mr. Garnier: I tried to invite the Minister to clarify a certain point, but he seemed unable or unwilling to do so. I wonder whether the hon. Lady could help me. All the points raised by the amendments that she has tabled to schedule 5 could be rendered useless if an Order in Council were passed under clause 29(2), which says:
      "Her Majesty may by Order in Council make any modifications of that Schedule which She considers necessary or expedient."

      809
      Is the hon. Lady confident that the schedule that she seeks to amend could not simply be wiped out by an Order in Council passed in the House late at night?
      Ms Cunningham: With all due respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am not sure whether that is what we are debating now. We had an opportunity to debate that aspect at an earlier stage and, if he will forgive me, I do not want to be drawn down that avenue now.
      To return to the matter in hand, let me say that amendment No. 113 focuses on a problem identified in Committee. As the law currently stands, the Secretary of State for Scotland has wide-ranging powers of direction over the Crown Estate Commissioners in relation to their activities in Scotland. That power is contained in the Crown Estate Act 1961.
      That power confirms the overall democratic control of the Crown Estate land, and the distinctive needs of the Scottish estate are confirmed by the sole power of the Secretary of State to direct the commissioners in relation to Scotland.
      Amendment No. 113 would have two effects. First, it would transfer those powers that are currently held by the Secretary of State to the Scottish Executive. I wonder whether the Minister trusts the Scottish Parliament to carry out the functions with which the Secretary of State is entrusted. What happened in the discussions between the Government and the Crown Estate Commissioners that led to the decision not to devolve the Secretary of State's responsibilities? In the answer that I received today to a written question that I had tabled, I was told that no meetings had taken place between the Secretary of State and the first Crown Estate Commissioner to discuss land reform in Scotland, but that officials were in touch with the Crown Estate on the matter. I want in particular to know about the devolution of powers relating to the commissioners.
      7.30 pm
      Dr. Fox: May I take the hon. Lady back to the debate on land reform that took place only a few weeks ago? She said then:
      "The SNP seeks a people's land reform for Scotland. That means information, management, development, access and ultimate ownership of the land by and for the people of Scotland. Land reform must go beyond mere technical tinkering with the basic land law in Scotland."—[Official Report, 29 April 1998; Vol. 311, c. 247.]
      How will amendments Nos. 96 and 113 take that process forward? What will be the role of the Scottish Parliament in the transfer of Crown Estate land?
      Ms Cunningham: I am not sure to which debate the hon. Gentleman refers—land reform has been discussed a number of times in our consideration of the Bill, and recently there was an Adjournment debate on the matter. We are now focusing on the ownership of foreshore, sea bed and mineral rights; the resolution of that issue is vital if we are to move forward land reform in Scotland.
      It will come as no surprise that the consensus in Scotland is that land reform is a necessity—it is likely to be an early priority of the Scottish Parliament. We may differ slightly on what we want—some of us may want to go much further than others—but there is no doubt that land reform will be on the agenda. The amendments
      810
      would make it absolutely clear that the Scottish Parliament will not face difficulties in coming up against the reserved power. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on the discussions with the Crown Estate Commissioners on the devolution of the Secretary of State's powers over them.
      Amendment No. 113 would ensure that, even in relation to the Crown Estate, there was no question that the Scottish Parliament would be prevented from taking the steps that it thought necessary to maximise economic and community access to all aspects of the land, which perhaps answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). It would open up access to the resources that are currently under the commissioners' control—mineral rights, salmon rights, the sea bed and the foreshore. It would open the door to meaningful land reform.
      In his pre-general-election manifestation—before he became a Minister—the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) made a radical call for control over those rights. I shall not quote his words verbatim, as I did so in the Adjournment debate that has been mentioned, but he was speaking in the House about legislation introduced by the previous Government. I do not understand why the Bill cannot go further on land reform, especially in relation to the Crown Estate Commissioners.
      The second key effect of amendment No. 113 would be to introduce a requirement for the Crown Estate Commissioners to present reports not only to Westminster but to the Scottish Parliament. That would be a basic step. Even if the Minister does not accept the amendments in full, I hope that he will at least consider imposing that requirement and confirm that the Crown Estate Commissioners will be among the bodies that the Scottish Parliament can summon as witnesses. That will be essential when the Scottish Parliament discusses land reform.
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: The hon. Lady will find a ready echo of what she is saying among those of us who have had to deal with the Crown Estate Commissioners for years, with all the attendant frustrations—not least in the fish-farming sector in the highlands and islands. Does she share my frustration at the appointment system to the Crown Estate Commissioners, which is through the Chancellor of the Exchequer? When one asks questions on public policy of Scottish Office Ministers, those questions are often transferred to the Treasury, but Treasury Ministers, understandably, do not have the same knowledge of, or insight into, those matters as Scottish Office Ministers have. That problem may be overcome as a result of the new structure in the Scottish Parliament.
      Ms Cunningham: I certainly hope so. It would be a shame if our agreements on land reform were to be stymied by problems arising from the way in which the Crown Estate Commissioners are currently constituted. I do not know whether all hon. Members have experienced this, but it has been noticeable that, since the issue was first raised in our consideration of the Bill, the commissioners have been much more communicative. Perhaps it dawned on them that the secrecy and lack of transparency with which they had managed to conduct their affairs will not last much longer, and that they needed to get their act together, at least in public relations.

      811
      They certainly seem to have extended their fax and mailing lists to include many more people than previously received information from them. I do not criticise that—I am glad that it has happened—but it shows that even minimal debate in the House engenders a response. How much greater the response would be if the Scottish Parliament were able to consider those issues even more closely.
      The detail of the Scottish National party's concerns have often been misunderstood. We know that the Crown Estate will be subject to the technical reform of the feudal system—I think that I can say with some confidence that such reform will be introduced by the Scottish Parliament regardless of the result of next year's election. The Crown Estate will be subject to any changes in the law on the sale or purchase of land, the registration of land or access to grants for the development of land. It will not be exempt from the legal structures introduced by land reform legislation.
      The Government amendments and the comments of the Crown Estate Commissioners in the press serve only to highlight the basic nature of my concern—the aspects of the Crown Estate over which the Parliament will not be empowered to legislate, such as the revenues and residual ownership rights. Those are not trivial matters; they are extremely important, and have a profound effect on many communities in Scotland. They should be within the scope of the Parliament.
      Amendment No. 113 provides the Government with a solution. I hope that the Minister will explain why the Parliament cannot be trusted with powers that are currently exercised by the Secretary of State, and why it should be prevented from legislating to transfer ownership of, for example, the foreshore from the Crown Estate to local communities, which, I suspect, people may want to do in future. I await with interest the Minister's reply.
      Mr. Dalyell: I want to thank the hon. Lady. I interrupted her on the previous occasion when she raised this subject, and she said that she would send me the documents. She was as good as her word, and sent me the background work that she and others had done. Having read it, I find that there is a great deal of meat in it.
      I totally agree that these matters are not trivial, but I want to put it on the record that I have had both good and bad experiences with the Crown Estate Commissioners. They have done much of their work extremely imaginatively and competently, and I would not like the House to give the unfair impression that everything they have done is unimaginative and not for the good of Scotland.
      Ms Cunningham indicated assent.
      Mr. Dalyell: I am glad that the hon. Lady recognises that the Crown Estate Commissioners have done many good things.
      That said, vital issues concerning the sea bed are involved. Everything that flows from the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is intimately concerned with this matter. Some estates are run extremely well, but awkward
      812
      issues such as Knoydart remain. Those issues should certainly be discussed. I very much look forward to my hon. Friend's reply on this vital subject.
      Dr. Fox: On 29 April, we had a substantial debate on land reform in Scotland. It was one of the most constructive debates that I have sat through in this Parliament, and there were wide areas of consensus among all the parties. We agreed that changes in land use must remove barriers to sustainable rural communities, and we discussed the contribution made in the past by private ownership and the cost of public ownership. There was consensus about the need for reform of the feudal system; an example given at the time was the maintenance of tenancies, but with reform along the lines of farm business tenancies. We also agreed about regulation of public access.
      How do the Government amendments relate to what the Minister said on that occasion about the Government's broader view of land reform in Scotland, and especially the current review? When is that review expected to finish? What role do the Government envisage for the Scottish Parliament in broader issues of land reform? When he rejects—as he no doubt will—amendments Nos. 96 and 113, will the Minister consider those questions?
      Mr. McLeish: I may have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. There is a feeling in the House that land reform is the monopoly of one party, but that is not the case. All parties are concerned about the inequities that exist in Scotland, and we know that much needs to be done. The Government are moving on several fronts to tackle the problems.
      I want to reassure the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham), whose comments I respect, that the Government are keen to move on land reform. We are talking about the Crown Estate Commissioners, but, on a wider front, we want to achieve consensus on land policies for Scotland. The Scottish Parliament is less than a year away, and we are keen to achieve a set of policies that it can discuss and legislate on.
      The hon. Lady wants to know whether the Government trust the Scottish Parliament. The answer is yes. With first past the post and the additional member system, there will be a reinforced representation from many rural areas of Scotland, which will strengthen the Parliament's commitment to substantial land reform.
      Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I did not ask whether the Government trusted the Scottish Parliament, but referred specifically to the Secretary of State's current powers in respect of the Crown Estate Commissioners and the fact that they will not be transferred in their totality to the Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. McLeish: I shall deal with that point later in my reply.
      The hon. Lady asked about discussions with the Crown Estate Commissioners. There have been numerous discussions between the CEC and Scottish Office officials about the devolution of the Crown Estate and the Parliament's competence to legislate to take over the CEC's function in authorising marine fish farming, and

      813
      about the reservation of the CEC's management functions, but I can confirm that there have been no discussions at ministerial level.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, people have different experiences of the CEC in different parts of Scotland, but it is always useful for local intelligence to be fed into the process. We want to build on the best that has happened and to tackle the worst, despite the improvements over recent months that the hon. Lady has reported.
      7.45 pm
      I understand the reasons behind amendment No. 96. I recognise the importance of this issue and share the hon. Lady's concern that the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate in this area should be clear. That said, the amendment is simply unnecessary. It is clearly within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on land tenure reform as part of Scots private law. That is not changed by the fact that certain persons or bodies, who may happen to own land, are reserved.
      The reservation of the Crown Estate Commissioners does not reserve the land and property of the Crown Estate. The reservation of business associations will not prevent the Scottish Parliament from enacting new laws on land owned by business associations, whether relating to the tenure of such land or to associated planning issues. Any provision that the Scottish Parliament chooses to make in respect of land reform or planning will simply form part of the framework in which all will have to operate.
      The work of the land reform policy group, chaired by my noble Friend Lord Sewel, is intended to pave the way for early land reform legislation by the Scottish Parliament. I am not convinced that a land convention modelled on the Scottish Constitutional Convention would be an appropriate or practical approach to considering wider land reform issues.
      The land reform policy group has recently undertaken a wide-ranging consultation, and aims to publish its final report in December, in good time to inform debate in the lead-up to the Scottish Parliament. The timing is useful.
      We are well aware of the conflicts that can exist between those who own land and those who visit the countryside for recreational purposes. The Government have asked Scottish Natural Heritage to consider, in consultation, what changes are needed to provide equitable access arrangements.
      On amendment No. 113, the reservation means that the current power of direction over the Crown Estate Commissioners shared by the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not pass to the Scottish Ministers. We believe that it is right that it should remain with the United Kingdom Government, in line with the reservation of the commissioners. As things stand, the power would continue to be exercised by the Secretary of State.
      In the light of what I have said and, more importantly, of the tone in which I said it, I ask hon. Members not to press amendments Nos. 96 and 113 to a vote, but to support the Government amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      814
      Amendment made: No. 232, in page 59, line 23, at end insert
      `other than revenues from bona vacantia, ultimus haeres and treasure trove'.—[Mr. McLeish.]
      Dr. Fox: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 60, line 43, at end insert
      `, provided that any power conferred on local authorities in relation to taxes on businesses shall be framed so as to be exercisable with the effect of either increasing or reducing the overall burden of local taxation in the area of a local authority.'.
      The amendment concerns the environment for business in the post-Scottish Parliament era. We are keen to ensure that, just as the tax-varying power for income tax is both upwards and downwards, any such power on business taxation should also be seen to be in both directions. We must not create a one-way valve through which the Scottish Parliament, via local authorities, can soak Scotland's business community.
      At Scottish Questions today, the Minister for Education and Industry said that if equal taxation treatment in the United Kingdom for business—he was referring to corporation tax—was lost, businesses would flock out of Scotland. I am sure that he is right. He said that that was the justification for keeping corporation tax on a United Kingdom basis.
      If the basis for keeping taxation the same is to ensure that businesses do not flock out of Scotland, it surely makes sense that any business tax-varying power can go in both directions. The Scottish Parliament should be able either to raise taxes on Scottish businesses—I cannot understand why it would want to—or reduce them. It is illogical for the Government to say that they want equal treatment for businesses in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom and then provide for the Scottish Parliament to be able to change taxation, but only upwards. That can give no satisfaction to anyone in business in Scotland. It raises many worries.
      In previous debates, the Government failed to promise to maintain the uniform business rate, which led to some anxiety in business. This is a chance for them to reassure business that taxation will not go only upwards. If the Minister fails to give that reassurance, he will send a shudder down the back of business in Scotland, because it will believe that it will be soaked for the extra money that the Scottish Parliament will want to spend as a result of the expectations that will undoubtedly be raised during the election of the Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. Dalyell: It is superfluous for me to tell the Minister that many people in Scottish business simply ask whether they will be operating on what we must call a level playing field. Some assurance on that point would be helpful. Because of time, I leave my question at that.
      Mr. Gorrie: I should like the Minister to explain the position. I cannot see that the Bill says what the Conservative spokesman said that it says. He said that it can only increase taxes. I must be stupid, but I cannot see that in the Bill.
      It is important that Scottish local government should have the maximum flexibility to deal with financial matters, and that the Scottish Parliament should help it. It is widely recognised that it would be helpful if a method of letting local government raise more of its own

      815
      revenue could be found. There should be maximum flexibility for the Scottish Parliament and local authorities to do that. For example, the burden of commercial rates on small businesses could be reduced and the cost made up in some way out of income tax or whatever. There should be opportunities such as that for the Scottish Parliament and local authorities to be flexible. I do not see that the Bill prevents that. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether I have missed something.
      Dr. Fox: By way of clarification, is the hon. Gentleman's party's policy to maintain the uniform business rate?
      Mr. Gorrie: It is my party's policy that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to determine such matters. Business taxation should not be hiked up separately from the council tax, but there might be some flexibility between the two. I hope that the Minister can clarify my points.
      Mr. Swinney: I would hate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) to think that he was isolated in feeling stupid in his interpretation of the Bill. I share his concerns about the Conservative amendment. It is clear that the Scottish political parties, in offering their manifestos to the Scottish electorate next May, must decide for themselves about business taxation powers. None of us looks at the future of business in Scotland after the advent of the Scottish Parliament with anything but a responsible sense of trying to create the best business conditions in which companies can operate.
      I spoke last night at a meeting of the Angus Federation of Small Businesses. I was under sustained pressure about the burden of business rates on small companies trading in small towns. Political parties have an obligation to address the difficult trading conditions, costs and overheads experienced by such firms in the present climate. Political parties must be able to reduce, for example, the business rates of small companies and examine how that can be funded by other businesses or by the public purse. That is possible within the legislation and is in no way assisted by amendment No. 59. It is an issue for political parties to address in the context of their manifestos. They must build a message that is sustainable and acceptable to the business community and can carry its confidence. The legislation allows them to do that, but the amendment does not help the process.
      Mr. McLeish: It does not help to overstate an attack on what the Government are doing. I do not recognise the business environment described by the Conservatives. That is not to be complacent. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked whether we are providing a level playing field. I think we are. The constitutional settlement that we have tried to develop over the past 55 weeks is about a level playing field. We have sought through regulation to ensure that, at UK level, powers remain, whether on energy or on a wide range of other issues, to ensure that the existence of a level playing field remains a key factor.
      There has been no attempt to take corporation tax, national insurance or social security related benefits that impinge on industry, whether by amount or collection.
      816
      The central aim is to ensure that the transition to a Scottish Parliament creates a business-friendly environment. I have spoken often to many groups in Scotland, and they have accepted 11 September. They have sought reassurances about a level playing field, and, in large measure, we have given them.
      Dr. Fox: Does the Minister accept that, for many Scottish businesses, the most important step in the creation of the level playing field was the introduction of the uniform business rate, which ended the iniquitous treatment that Scottish businesses had suffered for a long time? Any suggestion that that might be removed would be seen by businesses in Scotland as potentially removing the level playing field.
      Mr. McLeish: Change makes individuals and companies apprehensive. We have tried to deal with that in our meetings.
      I ask the House to resist amendment No. 59, which provides an opportunity to explain the Government's position on local taxation and say why it is a devolved matter. It will swiftly become clear that there is no need for any restriction on the Scottish Parliament's competence of the sort proposed by the amendment. The White Paper made it clear that local government and its financing will be devolved matters. Local government is essentially that: local. It is right and proper that it should be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
      Local government provides major public services in respect of matters such as education, social work and a great deal more that are firmly within the ambit of the Scottish Parliament. Local government's structure and constitution are likewise rightly matters for it. Just as local government's main services and structure are matter for the Parliament, so, too, is its financing. Local government will spend a substantial proportion of the Parliament's budget. Local taxation is also rightly devolved, as it is not possible to examine local government without considering its financial arrangements and the tax base that supports its services. I do not think that there is serious argument about that in the House.
      What choices will be open to the Scottish Parliament on local taxation? It will be open to the Parliament to amend or change the system of local taxes, but there is a widespread consensus that property-based taxes are an essential element of the local tax system, as they always have been. The one disastrous experiment with a non-property based tax for local government was the poll tax, for which Conservative Members must accept full responsibility. That was an object lesson in how unwise it is to tinker with any local taxation system, particularly in a biased and blinkered way.
      Similarly, local business rates are an essential part of the local government finance system and, although they have been stable and widely accepted in Scotland in recent years, the Parliament should be able to change them—for example, to update and modernise them as necessary.
      The policy of the Government on that issue is clear—changes in such things have to be handled carefully, and, in relation to business rates in particular, can be made only after careful consultation with the business community. We recognise the benefits of stability and predictability that the unified business rate has brought,

      817
      especially to businesses in Scotland. We will be consulting later this year on whether there should be some local discretion on the business rate, perhaps of the sort proposed by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing. However, it seems likely that it will fall to the Scottish Parliament to introduce any legislative change that it may consider necessary in the light of the outcome of that consultation.
      Of course, local taxes can go up or down. It is the essence of local taxation that tax rates are set by councils, and there are no legal requirements that they must always go up. We have to bear it in mind that property-based taxes are not inherently buoyant—particularly if revaluations at the property base are infrequent, as is inevitable—so headline rates of tax, such as the UBR poundage, tend to rise even if, in real terms, the tax taken may be increasing no faster than the retail prices index. Indeed, it is right and proper that local taxation, along with local government finance and other local government issues generally, should be firmly within the ambit of the Scottish Parliament. I am in no doubt that the Scottish Parliament will deal with those issues wisely, well and sensitively.
      Amendment negatived.
      8 pm
      Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 282, in page 65, line 5, leave out from first 'of' to end of line 6 and insert
      `Parts I and II of the Plant Varieties Act 1997 (plant varieties and the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal).'.
      I take some pride in moving this amendment—I think that this matter was raised by an Opposition Member. This is a technical amendment to the exception from the reservation of intellectual property, which is necessary to reflect the coming into force of the Plant Varieties Act 1997, which repealed and replaced the relevant provisions of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 269, in page 65, leave out line 33.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 270.
      Mr. McLeish: These amendments refine the wording of the reservation of estate agency matters. They are fairly formal, and, given the time available, I beg to move.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 270, in page 65, line 41, at end insert—
      `( ) the Estate Agents Act 1979,'.—[Mr. McLeish.]
      Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 267, in page 68, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 35.
      I shall be brief, as there is little time left. The amendment would effectively exclude from reservation the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. I do not want to go into a great rehearsal of the issues of nuclear power in Scotland, other than to remind hon. Members, if they need
      818
      reminding, that that is a hugely controversial issue, and, remarkably, one which has not been discussed in the context of the Bill as far as I am aware.
      Recent events, which I shall not go into, demonstrate the important part in the political debate that nuclear power plays in Scotland. I shall not rehearse the debate about Dounreay, but people in Scotland have a passionate desire to have a say in that matter. The devolved powers as they relate to transport, the environment and planning will all have a capacity to impact on Dounreay. We should go that one step further, and I must insist on pressing the amendment.
      Mr. Dalyell: I merely want to register a view diametrically opposed to that of the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham). Any unbundling of the United Kingdom nuclear set-up would be a disaster.
      Mr. McLeish: Nuclear energy is reserved to ensure the continued existence of a single coherent regulatory framework in that extremely important industry. The balance between reserved and devolved matters in regard to nuclear energy is a sensible one. If accepted, the amendment could lead to fragmentation, confusion and weaker regulation—the opposite, I am sure, of what is desirable. I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw it.
      Ms Roseanna Cunningham: No, I wish to press the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that, under these procedures, we had only 15 minutes for a debate on euthanasia—a very important debate, in which I wanted to take part. Now, because this Division has taken unusually long, we shall have no time at all to debate those matters of life and death. I wonder why this Division has taken so long, what is going on, and whether we can speed it up.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I deplore the length of time that has been taken over this Division. Normally I would have asked the Serjeant at Arms to go and investigate, but, because of the small amount of time involved, I have not done so on this occasion. However, I will certainly ensure that inquiries are made as to what has happened.
      The House having divided: Ayes 6, Noes 289.

      Division No. 281]

      [8.3 pm

      AYES

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Salmond, Alex

      Mr. Andrew Welsh and

      Swinney, John

      Mr. Alasdair Morgan.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Alexander, Douglas

      Ashton, Joe

      Allan, Richard

      Austin, John

      Allen, Graham

      Banks, Tony

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Barnes, Harry

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Bayley, Hugh

      819

      Beard, Nigel

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Benton, Joe

      Fyfe, Maria

      Berry, Roger

      Galbraith, Sam

      Blackman, Liz

      Gardiner, Barry

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Gerrard, Neil

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Borrow, David

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Godsiff, Roger

      Breed, Colin

      Goggins, Paul

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Gorrie, Donald

      Browne, Desmond

      Grant, Bernie

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Grogan, John

      Burden, Richard

      Hain, Peter

      Burgon, Colin

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Burstow, Paul

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Byers, Stephen

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Caborn, Richard

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Healey, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Heppell, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Hesford, Stephen

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Casale, Roger

      Hill, Keith

      Caton, Martin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Chidgey, David

      Home Robertson, John

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clapham, Michael

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hope, Phil

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clelland, David

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Colman, Tony

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Connarty, Michael

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Corbett, Robin

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hutton, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Crausby, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jamieson, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jenkins, Brian

      Darvill, Keith

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Denham, John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Dismore, Andrew

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dobbin, Jim

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Doran, Frank

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dowd, Jim

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Drew, David

      Khabra, Piara S

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kidney, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Edwards, Huw

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Ennis, Jeff

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Flint, Caroline

      Livingstone, Ken

      Follett, Barbara

      Livsey, Richard

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lock, David

      820

      Love, Andrew

      Rooney, Terry

      McAllion, John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rowlands, Ted

      McCabe, Steve

      Roy, Frank

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McDonnell, John

      Salter, Martin

      McFall, John

      Sanders, Adrian

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McLeish, Henry

      Sawford, Phil

      McNulty, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McWilliam, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Singh, Marsha

      Mandelson, Peter

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

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

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Snape, Peter

      Martlew, Eric

      Soley, Clive

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Merron, Gillian

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Michael, Alun

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Miller, Andrew

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mitchell, Austin

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Moffatt, Laura

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Moore, Michael

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Morley, Elliot

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mudie, George

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Mullin, Chris

      Tipping, Paddy

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Todd, Mark

      Norris, Dan

      Touhig, Don

      Oaten, Mark

      Trickett, Jon

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      O'Neill Martin

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Tyler Paul

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Wallace, James

      Pendry, Tom

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Pickthall, Colin

      White, Brian

      Pike, Peter L

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Plaskitt, James

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Pond, Chris

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Pope, Greg

      Pound, Stephen

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Wills, Michael

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Wilson, Brian

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Winnick, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wise, Audrey

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Wood, Mike

      Radice, Giles

      Woolas, Phil

      Rammell, Bill

      Worthington, Tony

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Rendel, David

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Jane Kennedy and

      Rogers, Allan

      Mr. Clive Betts.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Dr. Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether, given that this is one of the first occasions when we have had such a detailed timetable for a Bill, you might wish to report back to Madam Speaker the length of this Division—18 minutes. It is a clear attempt by the Government to avoid having to discuss

      821
      what is for them an awkward ethical issue, and it is not only an act of blatant cowardice on their part, but contrary to the spirit in which we have hitherto conducted discussion of the Bill.
      Mr. Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Setting aside the issue of the length of time,
      I thought that we had reached a civilised agreement that we would ensure that all matters were properly debated, despite there being a guillotine. I therefore hope that you can raise this matter with Madam Speaker, and if necessary allow Division time to be treated, as it were, as injury time.
      This has been a very long Division; but even if it had been held promptly and had taken only 15 minutes, we should have been left with only five minutes in which to discuss whether euthanasia should be reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. That is unsatisfactory, and I hope that you will—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt in part with that point of order, and said that I deplore what has happened. Madam Speaker always takes a great interest in these matters, and no doubt she will have a view on this as well. Further discussion is simply taking time out of the next debate.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On a point of information, which I am sure you could supply, am I to understand that the Standing Orders relating to the conduct of business in this place were drawn up by the previous Administration?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair to deal with at this time.
      It being more than four hours and fifteen minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [12 May], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Amendments made: No. 233, in page 78, line 14, at end insert—

      RESERVED MATTERS

        'Scottish public authorities
        1A.—(1) This Schedule does not reserve any Scottish public authority with mixed functions which is not a cross-border public authority.
        (2) For the purposes of this paragraph, a Scottish public authority has mixed functions if some of them relate to reserved matters and some do not.
        1B. Paragraph 1 of Part I of this Schedule does not reserve any Scottish public authority with functions none of which relate to reserved matters.

        Interpretation'.
        No. 234, in page 78, line 17, leave out from 'effect' to end of line 22 and insert
        'at any time within the period ending with that day and beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, as it had effect immediately before that time'.—[Mr. McFall.]

    New clause 19

      AGREED RE-DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSFERRED FUNCTIONS
      `.—(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any functions exercisable by a member of the Scottish Executive to be exercisable—

      (a) by a Minister of the Crown instead of by the member of the Scottish Executive,

      (b) by a Minister of the Crown concurrently with the member of the Scottish Executive, or

      (c) by a Minister of the Crown only with the agreement of, or after consultation with, a member of the Scottish Executive.

      (2) Where an Order is made under subsection (1)(a) or (b) in relation to a function of the Scottish Ministers, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate which is exercisable only with the agreement of, or after consultation with, another person, the function shall, unless the Order provides otherwise, be exercisable by the Minister of the Crown free from any such requirement.
      (3) An Order under this section may, in particular, provide for any function exercisable by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of an Order under subsection (1)(a) or (b) to be exercisable subject to a requirement for the function to be exercised with the agreement of, or after consultation with, another person.'—[Mr. McFall.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Schedule 7
      MODIFICATIONS OF ENACTMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 235, in page 83, line 16, at end insert—
      MODIFICATIONS OF ENACTMENTS

        'Public Revenue (Scotland) Act 1833 (c.13)
        In section 2 of the Public Revenue (Scotland) Act 1833 (regulation of Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer), for "Treasury" in both places there is substituted "Scottish Ministers".'.
        No. 236, in page 83, line 27, after 'the', insert 'part of the'.
        No. 237, in page 83, line 40, at end insert—

        'Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act 1927 (c.35)
        .—(1) The Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act 1927 is amended as follows.

        (2) In section 1(2) (appointment etc. of procurator fiscal), "with the consent of the Treasury" is omitted.

        (3) In section 2 (appointment of sheriff clerk and procurator fiscal deputes), "with the consent of the Treasury as to numbers and salaries" is omitted.

        (4) In section 3 (whole—time sheriff clerks and procurators fiscal and deputes), "and in either case with the consent of the Treasury" is omitted.

        (5) In section 5 (whole—time clerks), "with the consent of the Treasury as to numbers and salaries" is omitted.

        (6) In section 12 (prosecutions at instance of procurator fiscal), "after consultation with the Treasury" is omitted.

        Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933 (c.41)
        . In the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933, in sections 24(7) and 25 (officers of Court of Session, etc.), "and shall be exercised on nomination by the Lord Advocate" is omitted'.
        No. 238, in page 84, line 8, after 'against', insert 'any part of'.

        823
        No. 239, in page 84, leave out lines 25 to 34 and insert—
        ' "(e) a part of the Scottish Administration, in any proceedings against that part or against the Lord Advocate on its behalf, shall not be entitled to avail itself of any set-off or counterclaim if the subject matter thereof relates to another part of the Scottish Administration or to the Crown in right of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.".'.
        No. 240, in page 84, line 36, at end insert—

        'Public Registers and Records (Scotland) Act 1948 (c.57)
        . In section 1(1) of the Public Registers and Records (Scotland) Act 1948 (appointment, etc. of Keeper of the Registers and Keeper of the Records), for "Secretary of State" there is substituted "Scottish Ministers".'
        No. 241, in page 85, line 8, at end insert—

        'Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 (c.49)
        . In section 1(1) of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 (power of Secretary of State to appoint Registrar General), for "Secretary of State" there is substituted "Scottish Ministers" '.
        No. 242, in page 85, line 8, at end insert—

        `Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (c.56)
        . In Part II of Schedule 2 to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (official pensions out of local funds), before paragraph 39 there is inserted—

        Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive
        38A. A pension payable under a scheme established by virtue of section 76(4)(b) of, or paragraph 3(4)(b) of Schedule 2 to, the Scotland Act 1998." '.
        No. 243, in page 85, leave out lines 16 and 17.
        No. 244, in page 85, line 22, leave out from beginning to 'an' and insert
        'references to an Act of Parliament shall be read as references to'.
        No. 245, in page 85, line 25, at end insert—
        `( ) In section 3(4) (evidence), references to a government department include any part of the Scottish Administration'.
        No. 246, in page 85, line 40, at end insert—

        `Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (c.44)
        . In section 135(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (interpretation), in the definition of "Her Majesty's inspectors", "on the recommendation of the Secretary of State" is omitted'.
        No. 247, in page 85, line 42, after '1983' insert
        `(members of House of Commons suffering from mental illness)'.
        No. 248, in page 86, leave out lines 1 to 5 and insert
        `and
        (b) subsection (7) were omitted.".'.
        No. 249, in page 86, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—
        `( ) any Scottish public authority to which paragraph 1A or
        1B of Part III of Schedule 5 to this Act applies'.
        No. 250, in page 86, line 11, at end insert—

        'Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (c.6)
        . For section 1 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 there is substituted—

        Accountant in Bankruptcy
        1.—(1) The Accountant in Bankruptcy shall be appointed by the Scottish Ministers.
        (2) The Scottish Ministers may appoint a member of the staff of the Accountant in Bankruptcy to be Depute Accountant in Bankruptcy to exercise all of the functions of the Accountant in Bankruptcy at any time when the Accountant in Bankruptcy is unable to do so".'
        No. 251, in page 86, leave out lines 13 to 19 and insert—
        '. In section 427 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (members of House of Commons whose estates are sequestrated etc.), after subsection (6) there is inserted—
        "(6A) Subsections (4) to (6) have effect in relation to a member of the Scottish Parliament but as if—

        (a) references to the House of Commons were to the Parliament and references to the Speaker were to the Presiding Officer, and

        (b) in subsection (4), for "under this section" there were substituted "under section 14( I )(b) of the Scotland Act 1998 by virtue of this section".'.

        No. 252, in page 87, line 12, at end insert—

        `Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 (c.45)
        .—(1) The Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 is amended as follows.
        (2) Section 2 of that Act (appointment of officers, etc.) is omitted.
        (3) In section 3(1) (prison officers), for the words following "Secretary of State" there is substituted—
        "(1A) Every prison shall have a governor and such other officers as may be necessary".
        (4) In section 3A (medical services)—

        (a) in subsection (2), for "appointing" there is substituted "providing" and for "appointment" there is substituted "provision", and

        (b) in subsection (4), for "appointed" there is substituted "provided".

        No. 57, in page 87, line 16, at end insert—

        `Scottish Land Court Act 1993 (c. 45)
        . In section 1 of the Scottish Land Court Act 1993 (the Scottish Land Court)—

        (a) in subsection (2), for "Secretary of State" there is substituted "First Minister", and

        (b) after subsection (2) there is inserted—

        "(2A) Before recommending the appointment of a person as Chairman, the First Minister shall consult the Lord President of the Court of Session".'. —[Mr. McFall.]

    Schedule 8

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 253, in page 88, line 28, at end insert—

      `1927 c. 35

      The Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act 1927.

      In section 1(2), "with the consent of the Treasury".

      In section 2, "with the consent of the Treasury as to numbers and salaries".

      In section 3, "and in either case with the consent of the Treasury".

      825

      In section 5, "with the consent of the Treasury as to numbers and salaries".

      In section 12, "after consultation with the Treasury".

      1933 c. 41.

      The Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933.

      In sections 24(7) and 25, "and shall be exercised on nomination by the Lord Advocate" '.

      No. 254, in page 88, line 36, at end insert—

      `1980 c. 44.

      The Education (Scotland) Act 1980.

      In section 135(1), in the definition of "Her Majesty's inspectors", "on the recommendation of the Secretary of State" '.

      No. 255, in page 88, line 41, at end insert—

      `1989 c. 45.

      The Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989.

      Section 2'.

      —[Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 111

      INTERPRETATION
      Amendments made: No. 204, in page 49, line 39, leave out 'a Royal Warrant'.
      No. 205, in page 50, line 12, at end insert—
      ' "prerogative instrument" means an Order in Council, warrant, charter or other instrument made under the prerogative'.
      No. 206, in page 50, line 18, at end insert—
      ' "Scottish public authority" means any public body, public office or holder of such an office whose functions (in each case) are exercisable only in or as regards Scotland'.
      No. 207, in page 50, leave out lines 19 and 20.—[Mr. McFall.]
      Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 264, in page 50, line 29, at end insert—
      `( ) the general principles of private law (including private international law)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 209.
      No. 118, in page 50, line 33, leave out 'of restitution' and insert 'arising from unjustified enrichment'.
      No. 119, in page 50, line 35, leave out 'and'.
      Government amendments Nos. 210, 211 and 265.
      No. 120, in page 50, line 38, at end insert
      `and—
      (e) Scottish Private International Law (Jurisdiction and Choice of Law).'.
      Government amendment No. 266.
      Mr. McLeish: During consideration in Committee of amendments that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) tabled to clause. 111(3), I said that I would consider further some of the issues raised by
      826
      his amendments. Government amendments Nos. 209 to 211 and 264 to 266 are the result of detailed consideration of our further discussion.
      Amendment No. 264 adds the general principles of private law, including international private law, to the list of areas of the civil law of Scotland that come within the ambit of Scots private law.
      Amendment No. 209 amends the reference to the area of the law of obligations, to avoid the overlap between voluntary and conventional obligations and obligations of restitution.
      Amendment No. 210 amends the reference to the area of the law of action, and ensures that the Scottish Parliament will have legislative competence to alter the jurisdiction of the courts in this area.
      Amendment No. 211 further amends the reference to the area of the law of action to reflect the fact that prescription more properly belongs to the law of obligations.
      Amendment No. 265 provides that, for the purposes of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, references to Scots private law include administrative law. This is intended to make it clear that the Scottish Parliament will be able to legislate about judicial review and matters of that kind.
      Amendment No. 266 ensures that the power to alter the jurisdiction of the courts in respect of Scots criminal law is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
      In the drafting of these amendments, full consideration has been given to the points raised by the Law Society for Scotland and by Lord Gill, the chairman of the Scottish Law Commission, and the commission has said that it welcomes the proposals. I therefore commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Wallace: I thank the Minister for having taken note of the points made in Committee. I believe that the amendments that the Government have tabled more than cover the points made in the amendments tabled by myself and my hon. and learned and hon. Friends. I welcome the fact that the Government listened and acted.
      Mr. McLeish: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments. Amendments Nos. 118 and 212 relate to issues similar to those dealt with by the Government amendments. In light of what I have said, the hon. and learned Gentleman has just given an indication that these will not be pressed. I thank him for the constructive contributions that have been made to this part of the debate.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 209, in page 50, line 32, leave out from 'including' to end of line 33 and insert
      `obligations arising from contract, unilateral promise, delict, unjustified enrichment and negotiorum gestio'.
      No. 210, in page 50, line 36, after 'including' insert `jurisdiction,'.
      No. 211, in page 50, line 37, leave out 'prescription and limitation' and insert 'limitation of actions'.
      No. 265, in page 50, line 38, at end insert—
      `and in section 28 include references to administrative law'.
      No. 266, in page 50, line 39, at end insert 'jurisdiction'.

      827
      No. 213, in page 50, line 42, leave out from `Administration' to end of line 44 and insert
      `are to the office—holders in the Scottish Administration and the members of the staff of the Scottish Administration.
      (5A) For the purposes of this Act—

      (a) references to office—holders in the Scottish Administration are to—

      (i) members of the Scottish Executive and junior Scottish Ministers, and

      (ii) the holders of offices in the Scottish Administration which are not ministerial offices, and

      (b) references to members of the staff of the Scottish Administration are to the staff of the persons referred to in paragraph (a).

      (5B) For the purposes of this Act, the offices in the Scottish Administration which are not ministerial offices are—

      (a) the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages for Scotland, the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland and the Keeper of the Records of Scotland, and

      (b) any other office the holder of which exercises functions conferred by an enactment and the power of appointment to which is exercisable by a member of the Scottish Executive.

      (5C) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make any modifications of subsections (5) to (5B) which She considers necessary or expedient'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

    Clause 112

      INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS
      Amendments made: No. 214, in page 51, line 24, leave out 'body' and insert 'authority'.
      No. 215, in page 51, line 24, at end insert—

      'Devolved competence (in relation to the exercise of functions)

      Section 50'

      No. 216, in page 51, line 33, at end insert—

      'Members of the staff of the Scottish Administration

      Section 111(5A)'

      No. 217, in page 51, line 35, at end insert—

      'Offices in the Scottish Administration which are not ministerial offices

      Section 111(5B)

      Office—holders in the Scottish Administration

      Section 111(5A)'.

      No. 218, in page 51, line 41, at end insert—

      'Prerogative instrument'

      Section 111(1)'.

      No. 220, in page 52, line 13, at end insert—

      `Scottish public authority

      Section 111(1)'.

      No. 221, in page 52, leave out line 17.—[Mr. McLeish.]

    Clause 114

      COMMENCEMENT
      Amendment made: No. 268, in page 52, line 30, at end insert—
      `(3) Subordinate legislation may make such provision as the person making the legislation considers necessary or expedient for transitory or transitional purposes in connection with the coming into force of any provision of this Act.'. — [Mr. McLeish.]

    Title
    Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 271, in line 4, leave out `bodies' and insert `authorities'.
    I have the satisfaction of rising to speak on the final Government amendment to the Bill. It is purely technical, it changes a reference in the long title, and it is consequent on previous amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    8.30 pm
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for the patience shown in a lengthy and protracted series of discussions. I confess that we are in no atmosphere of histrionics or high drama, but I hope that my colleagues will forgive me if I show some satisfaction at reaching the final stage of the Bill.
    I do not want to rehearse all that has happened—that would take many days—but I am entitled to look back to last May and on all that has been achieved since then. Much progress has been made: the White Paper last July was complex, lucid, and above all, popular; the referendum in September was carried handsomely and without qualification on both questions, ending the argument on consent; and the Bill itself had two days on Second Reading, followed by what might lightly be called extensive, and exhaustive, consideration in Committee and on Report.
    Mr. Dalyell: Before the Secretary of State leaves the subject of the referendum, will he clear up a question that bothered us earlier? Does the Scottish Parliament have the power to trigger and initiate a referendum on independence?
    Mr. Dewar: The constitutional structure of the United Kingdom is a matter for the whole country, and for the UK Government. However, as I have always made clear—I may say a word or two more on the matter later—any point of view, political or otherwise, can be advanced if the people's loyalty and votes can be obtained for it. I have made it clear repeatedly, and throughout our proceedings, that that is my view.
    Although my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and I have once or twice had, if not cross words, somewhat tense exchanges, I pay tribute to his persistence and tenacity. When I came to the House in 1978 as a retread after the Garscadden by-election, I watched my hon. Friend fight very hard against the

    829
    passage of the Scotland Act 1978. I find it a little eerie, but remarkable, that he is still here fighting the same corner just as hard as he ever did.
    I also pay genuine tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office, who has borne the brunt of the battle for a long time. He has shown patience beyond the call of duty, and has always been courteous, helpful to the House and well informed. He has been a first-class colleague, and has carried a lot of the burden of the Committee and Report stages. I am very grateful to him.
    I also congratulate and thank others who have played a role. I have had exchanges with, among others, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond); I have the feeling that there may be further exchanges in future. I look forward to starring on many more billboards, courtesy of the Scottish National party, in the period that lies ahead. I may even go into that business myself—who knows?
    Let us not forget the Conservatives and the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who thought that he had fled Scotland and the troubled times of the past to make a new home in a more settled environment, only to find himself sucked back into the maelstrom of Scottish politics. He found himself in the particularly unfortunate position of having no policy to promote or defend, and I think that he and his colleagues have busked most bravely. Finally, my parliamentary private secretary and many of my colleagues have also helped.
    I shall say just a word to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues, whose work is often underestimated, but who have listened to many speeches. Perhaps some of them did not reach inspirational heights, but they are all part of the daily machinery of the parliamentary process. I speak for all my colleagues in expressing thanks to you and your colleagues.
    I hope that the House will feel that our proceedings have been worth while. The Bill is sound; provides a coherent framework; and divides responsibility between Scotland and Westminster in a strong and logical way. The idea was to strengthen the voice of Scotland within the UK, and to put in place a structure that left at Westminster that which should be at Westminster—the most obvious matters are foreign affairs, defence, macroeconomics and fiscal matters. However, we have also left at Westminster the means to define the level playing field that is the United Kingdom. I do not want to labour the point, which the House has grasped, but matters such as financial services regulation, labour law and company law remain at Westminster.
    What Scotland receives is a remarkable range of powers affecting health, education, housing and law reform. Scottish affairs will be run by a directly elected Parliament that will precisely reflect the opinions and great mix of points of view expressed on the Scottish political scene.
    Mr. William Cash: I understand why the Secretary of State places great emphasis on the Scottish dimension, but he must realise that 97 per cent. of the money that Scotland receives in grants and so forth comes from the United Kingdom Parliament. Does he accept that, although the Scottish dimension is important, it remains fundamental to the concept of a united kingdom
    830
    that the amount of money paid by our taxpayers should be properly reflected in the proportion of power that is dispersed to Scotland?
    Mr. Dewar: I accept that we hold firmly to the partnership principle in the United Kingdom. I have probably said that often enough, and probably to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). Everyone in the UK pays direct or indirect taxes; the Government collect various revenues; and the whole lot is pooled and allocated on an agreed basis. I recognise that there has been debate about that basis—the hon. Gentleman is probably one of those who have taken part.
    The Barnett formula ensures that the Scottish budget is adjusted broadly in line with comparable UK spending Departments. That mechanism was tried, tested and fiercely defended as right during 18 years of Conservative Government. The hon. Member for Stone is entitled to dissent; indeed, all my memories of him have him as a pillar of dissent on almost every matter of importance during those years. I hope that he accepts that I recognise the importance of getting the balance right. I have talked of that balance, and the balance of what remains at Westminster, and the hon. Gentleman is right to mention an important issue. I am glad to have had his help in outlining the facts.
    I shall mention one or two other features of the Bill, which most people have grasped. Because the Parliament is unicameral, great emphasis must be placed on pre-legislative scrutiny, proper consultation and proper discussion with the community of Scotland before final decisions are made about legislation. It is easy to say that, and I accept that a great deal of work will have to be done to get the systems refined, in place and working properly. Everyone is in favour of them in principle, but that does not mean that it is entirely clear how they will work, or that people will always have the staying power to make them work, once they are in place.
    It is important that that remains part of our objective. The structure that we are now passing on to another place makes it essential that that effort is made. I am glad that there is a discussion, which I hope will continue, between parties and between other interested bodies in Scotland about how that can best be achieved. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is closely involved in that.
    Another self-evident protection that is relevant in view of the unicameral nature of the system is the new electoral system. I keep saying—I am not sure to what effect—that the Government whom I represent and the party of which I am a member deserve great credit for breaking the mould. One of the most far-reaching changes in the Bill is undoubtedly the direct linking of the percentage of votes gained by a party to the number of seats that will be allocated to it in the new Parliament.
    Mr. Jenkin: It is a midden.
    Mr. Dewar: I am delighted to hear that from a sedentary position the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is doing his best, even in that unlikely outpost, to keep the Scots language alive. He seems to suggest that the Bill is a midden. I should like to hear him trying out that expression at the next tea party of the North Essex Conservative association. It would be, to use a happy metaphor, a Pygmalion scene.

    831
    The electoral system is a vital part of the new politics in Scotland. Clearly, people will have to learn how the system operates. They will have to understand that they have two votes—one for their individual Member of the Scottish Parliament, who will represent them on a normal constituency first-past-the-post system, and a second vote that they can cast in terms of a party preference and which will be part of a corrective mechanism to ensure that the number of seats allocated is brought into line with the percentage of votes.
    I occasionally meet cynics, although I am sure that there are few in the House, who tell me that that is too complicated for the average voter in Scotland. I do not believe that, but the significance of the system will have to be argued and explained. That important work lies ahead.
    Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman used a rather strange expression. He said that the first vote would be for the constituency Member of the Scottish Parliament who would represent the voter. In that case, what does the second type of Member of the Scottish Parliament do? Whom do those MSPs represent?
    Mr. Dewar: I was merely drawing attention to the simple structure that we have introduced, which the right hon. Gentleman knows well. There are some interesting arguments to be conducted on the subject. It is one of several subjects on which I differ from the Scottish National party, which has suggested mechanisms that would make a sharp distinction between those who are elected in the first-past-the-post constituency section and those who are additional Members. I do not think that we should see such a distinction. All the Members of the Scottish Parliament have a representative capacity.
    My knowledge of European politics is not as detailed as that of some hon. Members, but I have visited Germany and spoken to people from the CDU, CSU, SPD and so on. My experience is that no distinction is made there, and no distinction is seen by members of the public. That is what we should aim at, although I accept that, as it is a new system, it may take some time for us to reach that position.
    Mr. Salmond: The Scottish National party has not suggested any such sharp distinction. We questioned the scale of expenses required, as I think the Minister of State will confirm.
    I wanted to be helpful to the Secretary of State. I have been looking at the record and, as far as I know, the Conservative party in Scotland is the only major political party in democratic history to say that it will put up only 73 candidates for a 129-Member Parliament. I know of no other party that has said that it will not try to fill all the seats available. That is an extraordinary position.
    Mr. Dewar: I always respond when the hon. Gentleman is anxious to be helpful. I shall not say that I treasure the moment, as that might suggest that it is rare, and it does not necessarily have to be rare. I was not aware of that eccentricity of the Conservative party, and it seems remarkable. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting—I look to see whether there is a confirmatory
    832
    nod from the wise and sage right hon. Member for Devizes—that the Conservatives will contest the first-past-the-post seats, but will not take up any list seats allocated to them.
    Mr. Ancram: That is not true.
    Mr. Dewar: Ah. There is a little mystery here. The right hon. Member for Devizes may want briefly to clarify the matter, within the rules of order, if only so that he will not be misrepresented by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan in future. We would all want to avoid that.
    I said that I would be brief, but I have been sidetracked, albeit pleasantly, by colleagues. The new electoral system is a brave reforming move. It was introduced on a matter of principle, because we believed that, on balance—there are always pros and cons and differences to be weighed up—it would produce a healthier democracy in Scotland, and a system that would be seen as fairer and more representative of all the various opinions in our political range. I have no doubt that it will have a remarkable and far-reaching impact on Scottish politics.
    The system is built to last. On occasions such as this, dire predictions are always made of trouble and strife. No one can rule out tensions, constructive and otherwise, in the future. We have, however, tried to accommodate that. As hon. Members will know, we have included a provision for dispute resolution. We have given a place, which has turned out to be surprisingly controversial, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We have tried to lay down ground rules in the form of concordats. I believe that that is a sensible way of proceeding, but I concede—
    Mr. Swinney: The Secretary of State mentioned concordats. How many concordats does he envisage will be put in place as a result of the legislation and the process dialogue between the Scottish Executive and the Westminster Parliament?
    Mr. Dewar: A good deal of consultation is going on. The process of government, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a process of discussion, dialogue, bid and counter-bid, leading to consensus and a common position that can be implemented. It is sensible for us to have ground rules, which is the purpose of concordats. We have made it clear, of course, that they do not reach a final form until they have been seen by the Scottish Executive, which is a party to them. They are not documents which are binding in law. Anyone who has moved, however uneasily or temporarily, through the labyrinth of government will know that precedents that have been established by agreement tend to hold. I believe that they will be helpful. Some will be more in the public interest than others, but I believe that all have a part to play in trying to shape the dialogue—which is the stuff of government—and ensure that it is constructive and serves the public well.
    Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Secretary of State a question, in a reflective spirit, about concordats? Through no fault of his, but because of the guillotine procedure, we did not discuss properly the position of the Secretary of State after May 1999. As a putative leader of a party in Holyrood, how does he envisage the role of Secretary of State in the House? Would he be content to see negotiations on the most delicate matters conducted by

    833
    someone who did not have the status of Cabinet Minister—a status that the present Secretary of State enjoys? Would not the First Minister in Holyrood prefer to deal directly with the Government in London? Does not the position of Secretary of State evaporate?
    Mr. Dewar: I do not think that it evaporates, but it certainly changes—it would be very odd if it did not. One of the prime aims of devolution is to achieve a more democratic and effective ministerial structure in place of the Secretary of State. I say in a reflective mood to my hon. Friend that, in the past year, I have had good cause to appreciate the force of that argument. It is extremely difficult to try to duplicate eight or nine United Kingdom Ministries in Scottish terms. I sometimes envy the Minister who has steeped himself in his portfolio and who has spent two or three years doing nothing but mastering the intricacies of education, for example, as I move inevitably—with what I hope is reasonable facility—between education and health, on to law reform and back to the problems of local government finance. That is not easy to do.
    Whatever one thinks about the balance of the devolution argument, by looking at the machinery and the proposals in the Bill, one can see that one of the pluses will be that several Scottish Ministers—the number obviously depends on the judgment of the First Minister and his colleagues—will become not generalists but specialists in those areas. There will perhaps be a rather different dynamic between Parliament and Minister and between Minister and Administration as a result.
    Therefore, the Secretary of State will lose many of the tasks that presently dominate—and I do not use that word lightly—his life. I believe that any Government in the United Kingdom will require a Minister of seniority who will have the task of interpreting what is happening in Scotland and providing advice to Government. That job will become particularly important if the Administrations in Edinburgh and London are of different political colours. No Secretary of State is a statutory animal—no one knows that better than the hon. Member for Linlithgow. A Prime Minister can decide to amalgamate ministries or simply cause a ministry or a Secretary of State to disappear—I refer not to the occupant but to the office itself. However, I do not anticipate that happening in this case. I believe that, for the foreseeable future, we shall need such a person in the United Kingdom Cabinet. Of course, I recognise that a change will take place—I glory in that change and I believe that it is at the heart of the argument for the devolution settlement.
    I shall try to hurry on as I am delighted to see several hon. Members poised to enter the debate. I believe that there are other areas where the provisions of the Bill will give to Scotland a new dimension and new horizons. Schedule 5 provides the basis for the European activities of the Scottish Administration: a representative office in Brussels. I hope that Scotland will have the opportunity to compete with the Spanish autonomous provinces, the German Lander and the Italian provinces. Anyone who has spent time in Europe—even I, who have been there only to sample occasionally—knows that there is a great deal of activity at that level in Europe and that not all the power broking, discussions and arrangements are made at national Government level. I think it is important that Scotland gets involved there.
    834
    I said a few minutes ago that I hoped that the system was built to endure. We aim to give the Parliament the chance to prove its worth. I recognise that, for the nationalists in particular, it is a transitory matter: a transitional arrangement. They view it as being inherently unstable—although they may protest, as they have tonight, that they believe in the good government of Scotland. I simply repeat my position, which is well known: we should get down to tackling the tasks that are important to people in Scotland, whether they involve housing, education, law reform or the field of employment. We should not be plunged immediately into an endless debate about whether we do or do not need further constitutional change.
    I have said repeatedly—and I shall do so again—that I believe in the sovereignty of the people. I do not want to sound as though I am repeating an old refrain or an old song: it is a matter of fundamental importance. I believe that power lies with the people. However, acceptance of that position does not imply that we should prejudge the way in which that power is exercised or what the final outcome should be. It would be arrogant to assume that the people will want to go down a particular road at a particular time and will not occasionally change their mind. I believe that our aim must be to convince people of the worth of the policies and mechanisms that we offer and upon which they must decide at the end of the day.
    The devolution settlement is exactly what it says and the constitutional framework is reserved in schedule 5—and self-evidently so. I repeat what I have always said: the way to exercise our power is for parties of whatever point of view or opinion to carry the people at the ballot box. If they do that, they are obviously in a position to progress their cause. I do not believe that people will want to do other than give the Parliament that they created with their votes the chance to flourish, prove its worth and to serve the people. I believe that most people want to see it enjoy the very substantial—and, in many ways, the radical and brave—powers that will be allotted to it by this Parliament if the Bill completes its passage. This Parliament is taking that decision, which must be endorsed by a majority in this Parliament representing the whole of the United Kingdom.
    What I believe Scotland wants, and what I hope will be granted, is a Parliament that will take seriously the problems that oppress and inhibit and build social and economic barriers in our communities, and which will reflect and respond to the views of people in Scotland. This is a matter for the electorate, but in my view we do not want further constitutional debate which could only distract and which would be in danger of smothering the real issues.
    I understand that I have not mentioned the Liberal Democrats over the past 20 minutes or so, which seems a little churlish as they stood by us in the Scottish Constitutional Convention and have certainly played a good and constructive role in the debate. I am not in their pockets and they are not in mine, as will become increasingly clear as the days go by, but I appreciate their whole-hearted support in what has been, and essentially remains, a common cause in terms of the structure of government in Scotland and our relationship to the rest of the United Kingdom.
    The Bill will now move on to the Lords. Someone said to me this afternoon—it must have been a Conservative because, I am told, the Conservatives believe in fun—that

    835
    when it goes to the Lords it will be great fun. I do not know whether it will be great fun and I do not think that that is a term that I would apply. Their lordships will take matters seriously. They are entitled—and, arguably, have a duty—to do so. I shall watch with interest their no doubt expert debates, especially on the more abstract constitutional issues, which, to be fair, lie at the heart of the Bill.
    I believe, however, that the upper House, like this House, will take the view that the referendum ended the argument on consent and that, although people of good will will want their say about detail, they will give a fair wind to one of the most exciting and important constitutional changes in this country for many years. I am unashamedly proud of what has been achieved—the coming together of diverse interests in Scotland—and have been impressed by the number of people who have said to me, "I didn't vote for your side in the referendum, but the decision now having been taken, I want to make it work and to get the best out of it in the interests of Scotland." There is determination to work with the grain of the new system.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Dewar: No, I am coming to the end of my remarks.
    To be fair, despite much wavering on the road, many Conservatives, especially in Scotland, take that view. The message has still to trickle down—to use a favourite Conservative phrase—to other parts of the parliamentary party, which are difficult to reach. I hope that we can continue that feeling of co-operation.
    The structures of our constitution will never be the same again and the face of Scottish politics will change for ever. I put this delicately, because I am aware that it may be a sensitive subject: after listening to recent contributions from Conservative Members, I believe that a lot of interesting thinking is going on about the implications for the wider United Kingdom of the brave stance and brave steps that we are taking and inviting the House to endorse.
    I believe that it is right to say that nothing will be the same again and I am convinced that that will be for the better. We shall enrich the democracy of the United Kingdom and Scotland will play a full, fair and significant part in its future.
    9.1 pm
    Mr. Ancram: Tonight we come to the end of a very long haul. I join the Secretary of State in thanking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your fellow Chairmen and the Clerks of the House for the way in which business has been conducted over the past four months. Indeed, it would be churlish not to offer some tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Minister of State for their stamina in driving the Bill through the House. I know the preparation that goes into taking Bills through Parliament, and I recognised on occasion the hunted look that comes across the face of a Minister at the Dispatch Box towards the end of a long and wearisome day, when yet another question not covered in his brief comes winging its way towards him.
    836
    I congratulate the Secretary of State on getting his Bill thus far. The Minister of State has left the Chamber, but I pay that tribute to him as well. Having said that, I am amazed that it has taken so long. For once, the Government cannot place an iota of blame at the Opposition's door for holding up the Bill, because we have worked throughout to an agreed timetable. When I signed up to the timetable in January, I thought that the Bill would be clear of the House by the end of March. I suspect that the Government are quietly beginning to panic about the timetable for the project, and I trust that they will not use that as an excuse to railroad the Bill through the other place.
    As the Secretary of State conceded tonight, deep scrutiny is required on many matters to which we in this House could not do justice within the timetable. Despite pressure from myself and from my hon. Friends, many questions remain dangerously unanswered. The lateness of the Bill is entirely of the Government's making, and the obscurity that still surrounds great lumps of it is solely the result of their reluctance to answer questions. In fairness, the right hon. Gentleman occasionally tried to answer questions, but, as we witnessed earlier tonight, that usually led him and the Government into deep water. The Minister of State made an art form of not answering questions, and I fear that in that respect he did the Bill no favours.
    I paid tribute to Ministers for their stamina in driving the legislation through, and driving is the right word. Steering is perhaps the more usual word, but it would be totally inappropriate in this case, as it carries the connotation of being prepared to move to meet the force of arguments and to take on board improving suggestions. That has not been the Government's way with the Bill. Almost all amendments have been rejected, no matter where they came from or what they sought to do. With few exceptions, even amendments that were tabled by Labour Back Benchers met the same, mostly unexplained, rebuffs as those that were tabled by the Opposition.
    The Government have given a new meaning to the slogan "Not an inch". Even the proverbial donkey with a leg stuck on each corner normally proves more mobile than have the Government during the Bill's passage. When they were faced with an embarrassing issue such as euthanasia, they were prepared to use underhand methods to avoid debate. Their actions will not go unnoticed outside, not least among their supporters who believe, as we do, that this is an important issue.
    The Government's arrogance will bring smiles of anticipation to the lips of lawyers. My old profession loves to see such Ministers because they are the guarantors of their future prosperity. Lawyers like Ministers who see concession as a weakness and admission of error as a character defect. I suspect that that is why they have enjoyed watching the Bill's progress. I fear that for many years it will be a dripping roast for lawyers on both sides of the border.
    The legislation will feed not only lawyers: it will feed the suspicions of those who believe that there is an agenda behind the Bill. In the debate, the Minister of State exacerbated that feeling by the way that he dealt with the constitutional issue. He was asked a simple question by me and by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about whether a Scottish Parliament could trigger a

    837
    referendum on independence. He ducked and weaved and refused to answer the question, leaving great suspicion in the minds of all who heard him.
    When the Bill began its parliamentary voyage on 12 January, it left port to the sound of cheering crowds. Scottish newspapers heralded the Secretary of State as the father of the nation. The Government were the champions of Scottish aspirations, and the sunshine cruise to the smooth election of a Labour First Minister in a Cabinet in the Scottish Parliament was guaranteed to all who bought tickets. However, the voyage has gone badly wrong. The vessel, which was famously billed as the weapon that would kill nationalism stone dead—[Interruption.] Some vessels are weapons, as I am sure the Secretary of State would find if he asked the originator of that expression—the Secretary of State for Defence.
    The vessel has run into an obstacle. The captain and crew became so convinced of their own importance that they stopped listening. The rest of us saw what was coming and warned about it, only to be called Jeremiahs. The Government listened even less. They stopped listening to views on where the Parliament would be sited. They started by saying that they would consult on that, but, in the end, they made the decision themselves. They stopped listening to people in Scotland and to hon. Members who warned that the Bill was fundamentally flawed in relation to money and to Europe. They saw every constructive criticism as an attempt to scupper the project, becoming so convinced by this political form of paranoia that, in the end, they would not even listen to their friends who tried to warn them as well.
    When the Government first struck the growing mass of nationalism, they would not even admit that it was there. They assured us that there was nothing to worry about, and the band that was led by the Secretary of State played on. When we raised the dangers in the House, we were accused of somehow being anti-Scottish. How different matters are now. The Secretary of State's sober analysis in this debate, compared with the triumphant confidence of his speech on Second Reading, shows how much has changed. Nationalism is not just creeping up behind the Government: it threatens to overtake them. The nationalism which, by the Government's analysis, should be dead, is trampling all over them. No wonder the Labour party in Scotland describes them as
    "economically inept, morally repugnant and spiritually bereft".
    I am sure that people will remember that quotation.
    We mark the passage to the other place of a Bill that arrived here in a mess.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Ancram: I shall give way only once, because I do not want to waste time. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because I always enjoy his contributions.
    Mr. Salmond: That quotation is absolutely accurate, but remember: the Scottish Labour party described the Labour Government as such because they were pursuing the policies of the right hon. Gentleman's Government.
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has obviously made the same mistake as other hon. Members: they have not noticed that the Government changed last year.
    838
    The Labour party is now in government. It is responsible for its actions and answerable to the House and the country for what it does. I am not going to accept responsibility for what the Secretary of State and his colleagues may do.
    Tonight, we mark the passage out of the House of a Bill that arrived here a mess and leaves here a mess. If it were just any old Bill, I would probably temper my criticism in the knowledge that when, in due course, its errors and flaws became apparent, the blame for the damage would be laid at the Government's door. That would politically suit us, but this is not just any old Bill. It is a fundamental constitutional reform which will fundamentally alter the constitutional landscape not just of Scotland, but of the United Kingdom as a whole. The Government's failure during the Bill's passage not only to resolve the problems, but to concede even that they exist is of the gravest concern to all those of us who wish Scotland well in the devolved future that she has chosen and who believe also in the United Kingdom.
    The Bill still carries the seeds of its own undoing. Far from achieving a glorious new Parliament and politics that would work in harmony with Westminster and Whitehall, it is riddled with irritants and omissions, which will ultimately only play into the hands of those who wish to create conflict between the two.
    The Bill still creates unacceptable constitutional imbalance within the United Kingdom. The English dimension remains an arena for future resentment, conflict and division. It is almost unbelievable that the Bill finishes its process here tonight without the Government having even remotely agreed that that dimension, that problem, is real or serious.
    The Secretary of State and his colleagues have repeatedly brushed that aside with contempt, painting it as an anti-Scottish figment of English political imagination, a last gasp by those who would stop devolution in its tracks. They have buried their heads in the sand and hoped that that awkward question would just fade away. It has not faded away and it will not. Indeed, they have succeeded merely in building into the legislation a flaw so fundamental and an irritant so pervasive that it remains a ticking time-bomb within their devolutionary reforms. They scoff at that description. Their English colleagues do not. While they claim that there is no need to do anything, we read in yesterday's Financial Times that their English colleagues are by no means so sanguine. Andrew Parker's piece in yesterday's Financial Times states:
    "Ministers intend to recall the Commons regional affairs committee. It could be renamed the English grand committee and may, over time, acquire limited law-making powers.
    Senior members of the government"
    so he had obviously got this from somewhere. The Secretary of State laughs, but the Government are the masters of spin. If they live by spin, they must die by it as well. Andrew Parker states:
    "Senior members of the government believe that reviving the committee will help shore up the United Kingdom.
    But ministers are also concerned at growing resentment over Scottish devolution among Labour MPs who represent English constituencies.
    One senior member of the government said the recall of the regional affairs committee would help to neutralise that resentment.
    A senior member of the government acknowledged that Scottish and Welsh devolution had to be balanced by a separate English forum."

    839
    Now there is something different from the same Government who told us, effectively, that the English dimension existed only in our minds. We now hear that members of the same Government fear its consequences. At least some members of this Government are awake to the consequences of their ill-thought-out proposals. Sadly, however, the Scottish contingent is not.
    What that senior member of the Government is offering goes nowhere near answering the West Lothian question, because it does not prevent Scottish and Northern Irish Members from voting on specifically English matters. All in all, it only goes to show the confusion that the Government have created in their own ranks and the muddle that they are in. I am only sorry that the United Kingdom is the victim of it.
    Mr. Wallace: In the past few minutes, the right hon. Gentleman has described the proposals as ill thought out, carrying the seeds of their own undoing, a ticking time-bomb, a mess and creating an unacceptable constitutional imbalance. Indeed, from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) described them as a midden. Will they vote against Third Reading?
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. and learned Gentleman must bide his time. I have had to listen to many speeches by him, and I hope that he will do me the respect of listening to mine. I shall make my speech in my own way. So far, I have described only a small part of the deeply flawed nature of the legislation.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Ancram: No. I do not want to take too long, and I have given way many times during the Bill's passage.
    Quite simply, the mess goes on. The Government proclaim for the Bill—the Secretary of State proclaimed it again today—a proportional election system. As we have clearly demonstrated, such a system is clearly open to abuse—to manipulation by split-ticket voting for alter ego parties—in a way that could outrageously distort the result. Would the Government listen to what we said? What a hope. Concern about the issue was voiced even by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), during the passage of the Government of Wales Bill—but not by his Scottish counterpart, to whom admission is apparently tantamount to defeat. A flawed electoral system therefore remains in place in the Bill.
    The Bill also contains a flawed system of tax raising. Hon. Members from many parties, and professional people in Scotland—such as accountants and general commentators—all say that the definition of who will pay the extra tax is confused, inadequate and, in some cases, downright unfair. The Government, with their familiar humility, respond by saying that the proposed system requires no change.
    The greatest flaws are yet to become apparent. Europe, and Scotland's voice within it, has been much debated in the House. We say that Scotland's right to be heard, which is implicit in the current unitary arrangements of the
    840
    United Kingdom, is being discontinued by the legislation, with nothing effective to replace it. I believe that both the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party agree with that analysis, as do Scottish fishermen and Scottish industry. The Government do not agree with it. Ministers talk blithely of informal agreements to regulate the matter, and have rejected genuine attempts to give Scotland statutory rights to be consulted and heard. They told us that it was not necessary to do so—because, after all, nothing much has changed, and all will go on as before.
    I wonder whether the Government really understand the purport of their own legislation. In today's Scottish questions, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), said that, after devolution, Ministers would continue to participate in European bodies
    "on the same basis as at present".
    They cannot participate on the same basis, as their status will be different. After devolution, they will cease being United Kingdom Ministers. One unitary Government will become two Governments, who will not necessarily be of the same persuasion. Disagreements and conflicts of interest will arise. Where will Scotland's voice be? The precise answer is nowhere, and no amount of pusillanimous and pious talk of concordats will alter the realpolitik that will govern.
    What about money? Of all the elements that can help to hold the United Kingdom together in the face of the threat of separation, foremost is the need for a system providing fair resourcing to all parts of the United Kingdom. The issue's sensitivity was highlighted in yesterday's Financial Times, which, in the same article, proclaimed that
    "a new assessment of public spending needs across the UK"
    could reduce resentment. Yet the Bill remains dangerously quiet on that issue.
    Again we are told that we need not worry, that nothing has changed, and that all will go on as before. However, what is now one Government will become two separate Administrations, with politically different agendas. It is really a dereliction that the specific issue of fair resourcing has simply not been addressed. If ever there was a cusp on which future division can be forced, an area for separatists to exploit and an issue requiring statutory reassurance, it is the issue of fair resourcing. Yet, once again, the Government have failed to act, leaving the Bill dangerously flawed.
    There will be much work for the other place in trying to salvage the Bill's original intentions of providing for a healthy, stable and beneficial Parliament for Scotland. There are many holes to be filled, and many half-baked proposals will require proper cooking.
    The real trouble is that the Bill has proceeded on a false assumption in the minds of Ministers. Throughout the Bill's passage, whenever we pointed out difficulties, Ministers used buzzwords and phrases, such as consensus, agreement, concordat, fraternal co-operation, the new politics, all working together—
    Mr. Jenkin: And the third way.
    Mr. Ancram: Yes. However, the Government's pipe-dream has been shattered by the cold blast of political reality that is now shown in political opinion in

    841
    Scotland. Today, we saw an example of that political reality, in the spat between the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). Such personalised venom is hardly the new politics that we were promised.
    Right from the start, we argued that the Bill needed to provide against the storm, and that it had to be tested against the worst-case scenario and not against the fairytale world described at the start of the debate by the Secretary of State. The need is even greater today, but, as the Bill leaves this House, that need has not been met.
    The people of Scotland can rightly feel that they have been sold a false prospectus. It is certain that much of what has been said about the Bill will come home to haunt the members of the Government. All those easy words about the constitution, the role of Parliament and so on, will be there for the eating in future. The Government will wish increasingly that they had thought through the Bill rather more comprehensively before taking it through the House.
    The hunted, twitching, panicking looks on the faces of Scottish Office Ministers demonstrate that that nightmare has already begun. We shall refrain from saying, "I told you so," but we shall look for the Bill to be improved in another place. Scotland was promised a stable Parliament that would work, not one that would descend into chaos in a welter of constitutional argument. As the Bill leaves us, it does not deliver that basic promise. Our role in these debates is one of which we can be proud. We at least have done our best. We can only hope that, in the other place, the Government will think again.
    9.20 pm
    Mr. Wallace: We are still waiting to find out whether the Conservatives will act on their hot words and vote against the Bill, which the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) clearly believes is flawed. We shall see whether the Division Bell rings and whether the Conservatives have the courage of their convictions.
    Mr. Salmond: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is being fair. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said that he was about to listen to the arguments. Which particular argument—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please be seated? I will not allow a discussion on how hon. Members might vote if there is a Division. This is a Third Reading debate. We will have a Third Reading debate on the content of the Bill, and nothing else.
    Mr. Wallace: If I am not straying too far beyond your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I thank your good self and your colleagues in the Chair for the way in which proceedings in Committee and on Report have been conducted—not least the Chairman of Ways and Means, who convened the Business Committee? The programme allowed reasonable explanation of many aspects of the Bill. Matters that were not dealt with in Committee were largely covered on Report.
    It is a convention of the House that all Committee proceedings on a constitutional Bill should be taken on the Floor of the House. From experience of proceedings
    842
    of this Bill, I do not think that that necessarily leads to effective scrutiny of all proposed provisions. The scrutiny that that convention claims may not necessarily be achieved in considering further constitutional Bills.
    I congratulate the Secretary of State and, particularly, the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution on their tenacity and endurance in steering the Bill through the House. I congratulate the Minister, too, on the way in which he responded in several respects, although I shall come later to the issues to which we have not had a response.
    We very much welcome the fact that the Bill reflects the White Paper, which, in turn, reflected the agreement achieved in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. There was much talk—not least during the referendum campaign—that it was a bit of a fraud to put a White Paper before the people because the Bill would be different, but the Bill that is about to go to another place substantially and very fairly reflects the White Paper. Of course, a White Paper may include many things that cannot always be translated into legislative form. None the less, the White Paper was a fair presentation of what the people of Scotland were asked to vote for in September.
    I turn to issues on which we still have reservations. The number of Scottish Parliament constituencies, once the boundary commission has reduced the number of constituencies in Westminster, is still unresolved. I welcome the Minister of State's constructive approach to that issue, and I hope that it will be addressed in another place and that the Parliament will continue to have 129 seats.
    Abortion will remain a reserved matter. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments that we had in Committee, but there is an imbalance and an illogicality in making euthanasia a matter for the Scottish Parliament, but not abortion, which relates to health and law, both of which are devolved matters.
    I agree with the right hon. Member for Devizes that it would be far better if there were a statutory right to Scottish representation at European Council meetings. We should always prepare for the worst-case scenario, and a future Government, perhaps of a different complexion to this one, might not want the Scottish Parliament to be involved in a delegation. It would be useful to have, as do the lander in Germany, a statutory right that would not allow exclusion.
    The Barnett formula is not enshrined in the Bill. There ought to be some means by which we can guarantee the revenue of the Scottish Parliament. There is still unease and concern among professional bodies about the detail of the tax-varying powers which I hope will be considered constructively in another place.
    Mr. Jenkin: So will the hon. and learned Gentleman vote against the Bill?
    Mr. Wallace: I will not vote against the Bill. It substantially represents the agreement struck between the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party and—let us not forget—many others who were involved in the constitutional convention, such as trade unions, Churches and many groups from Scottish civic life. The Government have honoured the agreement into which they entered.

    843
    The Bill differs in several significant respects from that put before the Scottish people in 1979. The fact that it contains tax-varying powers means that the Parliament will have some fiscal accountability, which is as much a matter of democracy as of accountability. Even if those powers are not used, the fact that they exist means that the electorate can ask, "Why has the hospital not been built?" or "Why has the school not been built?" and those who are elected must explain why they did not use the powers. Those powers improve the quality of accountability of those who are elected to those who elect them.
    The pre-legislative consultative committees will improve the quality of legislation and, above all, will include many people in Scotland—not just the great and the good—in decision making. I hope that we will be able to devise structures that will reach out. The use of new information technology will allow people from all corners of Scotland to get involved in the decision-making process.
    We shall have an electoral system that will fairly represent the parties, according to their strength in Scotland, in the number of seats that they are awarded in the Scottish Parliament. That is important not only in terms of democratic, fair representation, but in ensuring that it is a Parliament for the whole of Scotland.
    Scotland is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an homogenous country. It varies greatly from north to south and from east to west. A system of proportional representation will mean that every party will have a stake in Scotland's rural areas and in its urban areas. That can only be for the good, because all parties will have first-hand experience of different parts of Scotland and their problems, challenges and opportunities, which can only inform all parties and will, I trust, lead to better decision making.
    It is important to stress the question of the sovereignty of the people. As I said in an earlier debate, if people want to vote for independence in a general election, they are free to do so because there is a party that represents that view. They have not done so in any great numbers in successive elections.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the hon. and learned Gentleman's view of whether the Scottish Parliament can trigger a referendum?
    Mr. Wallace: About two and a half hours ago, I said that I did not think that the Bill was especially clear about that, and that I had hoped that we would have clarification. I still do not think that the matter is clear; that is why I would have welcomed provisions in the Bill to put it right. I said that I thought that there should be the right to a trigger, although I also thought that it would be unwise to use it.
    To return to my thread, we now have a proposal that has the overwhelming support of the Scottish people. I was one of the people in my party who opposed the idea of a referendum, but I said that if there were one, we should campaign strongly for a yes vote. Perhaps I got it wrong in opposing the referendum, because when it happened, the vote that the measure received represented probably the greatest form of entrenchment that it could
    844
    have. We are about to have a relationship and a Parliament which really represent the will of the Scottish people. Their sovereignty has been expressed, and the Parliament that we are about to have represents the expression of that sovereignty.
    We could argue that this is the first time that has ever happened, because those who negotiated the treaty of Union in 1707 had pretty scant regard for what the vast majority of the people of Scotland thought. Despite the idea sometimes expressed that we are in some way restoring a democratic Parliament, Scotland has never had a democratic Parliament. That is what we are about to embark upon.
    There is something that goes with that, and we should not be ashamed or embarrassed to say so. It is that those of us who support the idea of a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom should remember that there are two strands to the argument. Inevitably, we have talked a lot about the Scottish Parliament; we have talked about its powers, the years of campaigning that it took to get it, and the hours that we have spent discussing the detail in the Bill. However, we should not forget the other strand: the fact that the Parliament will be within the United Kingdom.
    Just as we are proud to celebrate the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, we should not be ashamed to say that we still believe in the merits of a United Kingdom. In other contexts, we are debating the completion of a single market and the prospect of a single currency. Here we already have a single market and a single currency, and we have had them for nearly 300 years. They work substantially to our advantage, and have done for many years.
    That is all before we even start to consider the kinship, the shared history and shared heritage, all of which are valued. I hope that, when the Scottish Parliament is established, we will not feel that to celebrate the Union makes us in any way less Scots. We can celebrate both the Scottish Parliament and our continuing membership of a United Kingdom that has served us all so well.
    I would not wish to disappoint the right hon. Member for Devizes, who said on Second Reading that I never made a speech without mentioning Mr. Gladstone. Today is the 100th anniversary of Mr. Gladstone's death, and I cannot think of a better memorial to the great old Liberal Prime Minister than the fact that we are putting into place one of the things for which he campaigned—Scottish home rule.
    In doing so, we are allowing ourselves an opportunity within Scotland to address the issues that matter to the people of Scotland—decent housing and a decent education system for our young people to train them and equip them with the skills to meet the challenges of the global marketplace, decent hospitals and a decent health service, the securing of jobs. Those are the things which really matter to the people of Scotland, and we shall have an opportunity to deal with them within Scotland. That will allow change for the better in the government of Scotland. For that reason, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will celebrate that fact, and will have much pleasure in giving the Bill a Third Reading tonight.
    9.32 pm
    Mr. Dalyell: The Secretary of State referred earlier to certain tensions during a previous debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has gone again."] Yes; I have to say that I

    845
    am one of those old-fashioned people who think that a Secretary of State has nowhere better to be than on the Floor of the House of Commons when the Third Reading of his own legislation is being debated. That is partly because I wanted to ask my right hon. Friend a serious question.
    First, however let me say—I wish that the Secretary of State were in the Chamber to hear this—that, in one particular respect, I was wrong and he was definitely right. As I understand it, his first instinct was that although the important clauses should be taken on the Floor of the House, the rest of the Bill should be taken in a Standing Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—which was also the view of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).
    I was one of those who thought, perhaps in an old-fashioned way, that constitutional Bills should be taken on the Floor of the House, full stop. I think now that I was wrong and that my right hon. Friend was right. If parts of the Bill had been taken upstairs, it would have been less unexamined that it has been.
    Mr. Swinney: I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider an area of the Bill that I think would have benefited from much greater scrutiny—the definition of the Scottish taxpayer, who may have to pay for the tax-varying powers. Does he believe that that would have been the subject of more detailed consideration if it had been taken in Committee upstairs, where we could have got to the nub of some of the concerns of hon. Members from both sides of the House that have not been dealt with in the Bill?
    Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman saves me some time, as I strongly agree with him. In particular—I wanted to put this question directly to the Secretary of State—what are Scottish Office Ministers doing to ensure that they have serious discussions with the Institute of Chartered Accountants? The institute's parliamentary officer is the daughter of one of the founders of the devolutionary movement, the late Professor John Mackintosh MP, for whom I had the greatest respect. The institute may be well disposed towards the general devolution proposal, but I am told that there are serious concerns about the important question of who is, and who is not, a taxpayer. Often, only small sums of money may be involved, but, because of the possibility of litigation, the lawyers will have a heyday, which I do not think that any of us want.
    Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way for what may be the last time in our consideration of the Bill. Does he agree that, whether the Bill is taken on the Floor of the House or upstairs in Committee, the effectiveness of scrutiny is dependent on the willingness of Ministers to give detailed replies to questions asked by hon. Members? Their failure to answer some of the specifics to which he refers has been the reason for the failure of scrutiny.
    Mr. Dalyell: We must face the fact that part of the difficulty is that there are no answers to the problems that arise in setting up a subordinate Parliament in one part, but only one part, of a unitary state. The model proposed in the Bill is different from the one in Catalonia and has not been tried anywhere in the world.
    846
    I have a concern—it is one among many—to which I want to return. The problem is currently disguised by the Government's majority of 179. Not only may legislation be imposed on the English part of the United Kingdom contrary to the political wishes of the majority of English Members of Parliament, but a Secretary of State for Health, for Education or for local government in England may be imposed who does not match the political colour of the Members who have, rightly or wrongly, been elected by the English.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Dalyell: No. Therein—
    Mr. Savidge rose—
    Mr. Dalyell: I have attended all our deliberations of the Bill—my hon. Friend will have his turn.
    Therein lies the difficulty of the slow candle of English nationalism. The position cannot endure, although it will endure during this Parliament, as it is disguised, and it will probably endure during the next Parliament. Sooner rather than later, however, hon. Members will find that the structure cannot last in anything recognisably like its current form. It is a structure built on sand and, as such, it will lead to endless difficulty in these islands. If I am Banquo's ghost, I am full of woe about what we are doing tonight.
    9.39 pm
    Mr. Salmond: I am glad that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) ended with a literary allusion, because I had intended to congratulate the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on an historical allusion when he said of the legislation that, "It cam wi' a mess. It gang wi' a mess", but I then realised that the allusion was totally unwitting.
    My party will vote for the legislation if we get the chance to vote. I do not challenge it in any way, but I was somewhat surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by your innovative ruling that speculating on voting patterns on Third Reading would not be in order. I have never heard of that before—but the House is full of surprises.
    I am not sure what argument remains to be debated that will decide whether there is a vote against the Bill. I shall be interested to see whether the right hon. Member for Devizes follows the logic of his speech.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Get on with it.
    Mr. Salmond: As the hon. Gentleman asks me to get on with it, I shall move on to my next point: I was impressed by the turnout of Conservative Members, until several Conservative Back Benchers confided to me the reasons for their attendance. They said that they had been designated to attend and speak on the Bill and that, in return, they all got a shottie at the Dispatch Box.
    Right enough, all the Conservative Back Benchers who attended, at some point or other, and with varying degrees of success, got to speak at the Dispatch Box. That puts the Liberal party and the Scottish National party at a serious

    847
    disadvantage: we cannot give an incentive to our Back Benchers to come along to debates by giving them a shot at the Dispatch Box.
    My understanding that the Conservative party is putting up 73 candidates comes from no less a source than Mr. Raymond Robertson, the chairman of the Scottish Conservative party, so it must be true; and I leave that observation to be judged on its merits.
    The Labour Back Benches were not always as full as the Conservative ones, but Labour participation was dangerous: the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) and for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) made distinguished contributions, and all of them seem to have been rejected for the list of potential candidates for the Scottish Parliament. Clearly, the best advice for aspiring candidates was not to turn up for the debates.
    The Secretary of State did not get the hon. Member for Pollok's graceful and humorous point about his dress and apparel; perhaps he did not know that the lack of a tie was given, in the newspapers at least, as the reason why he had not made it on to the list.
    Mr. Dewar indicated dissent.
    Mr. Salmond: Well, it must have been some other matter of dress that did for the hon. Member for Pollok.
    Some important points were established in our consideration of the Bill. I was disappointed on several occasions. I thought that the White Paper gave us reason to expect that the Scottish Parliament would have the power to summon not only witnesses but documents, which is important for its powers of investigation.
    I was disappointed, as apparently was the right hon. Member for Devizes, by the lack of clarity on the European role. Earlier remarks, by the Foreign Secretary in particular, had raised expectations that the Parliament would have a defined European role, but that was not forthcoming.
    I was disappointed by clause 27(7), which potentially overrides everything and means that, notwithstanding the rest of the legislation, the Westminster Parliament still has the ability if it so chooses to do anything it so chooses, even on devolved legislation. That contradicts the statements of the Secretary of State for Scotland during the devolution referendum that never again could a poll tax be imposed on Scotland. Clause 27(7) would allow the Westminster Parliament to impose such taxation.
    We shall vote for the Bill despite those failings because I believe that this is a process, not an event; a beginning, not an end. Even my worst enemy would not accuse me of a lack of consistency on that. The Secretary of State raises his glasses. I take that as a sign of assent. The glasses are raised when he agrees. The glasses are now down. That must be a signal that other hon. Members are waiting to speak. I have described how the Scottish National party regards the legislation. It is therefore worth voting for.
    As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, not every subject worthy of debate was debated. If he, rather than the Conservative party representatives, had been on the Business Committee, many of those issues
    848
    could have been brought before the House. I regarded many of our long debates as less important than some of the short ones. The hon. Member for Linlithgow nods in assent.
    I regret the chicanery earlier this evening that resulted in a clause not being debated. I think that that was the only sharp practice in the course of the legislation.
    Mr. Dewar indicated dissent.
    Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State demurs, but I think that there was some attempt to prevent a vote on that clause, which was foolish and unworthy. It could be said that the Conservatives should have asked for more than 15 minutes to debate one of their own amendments. [Interruption.] It is no argument to say that the SNP should not have voted on a clause that we thought was important.
    Mr. Savidge: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the time taken to count the 289 votes was disproportionate compared with the time taken to count some of the votes during consideration of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill?
    Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that two wrongs make a right and that sharp practice on one side justifies it on the other, I take it as an admission that there may have been some slow movement through the No Lobby earlier this evening. That was unnecessary. It demeans the process of legislation to resort to such a tactic. It is not worthy of the Secretary of State for Scotland or of the processes of this House. That was probably the only occasion on which I detected such practice during the passage of the Bill.
    It is a small, sour note to end what has mostly been a positive and productive process. I strongly support the Bill and look to the future optimistically with high hopes and brave heart. I am confident that the judgment of the people of Scotland will be that of the SNP: that this is a beginning, not an end.
    9.48 pm
    Mr. McAllion: It is not merely arguable but certain that history is being made tonight. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said, after tonight nothing will ever be the same again. It is therefore disappointing that this debate is taking place in such a thinly attended chamber and a flat atmosphere. I agree with what he said when he was challenged about whether constitutional issues such as this are above the comprehension of the average voter. Like him, I do not believe that. Average voters can follow very well the intricacies of constitutional Bills. Both he and I would have to admit that what has gone on inside the Chamber tonight is not necessarily the priority for ordinary voters.
    For example, we heard from Opposition Members about the huge resentment outside this Chamber among the English people, who will rise up in rebellion when the true significance of the Bill becomes known. I went outside the Chamber earlier to have something to eat and read the London Evening Standard, which has a wide circulation in this metropolis. Its banner headline is not about historic events inside the Chamber but reads, "Labour chaplain gropes wives." [Interruption.] Sorry,

    849
    it was "Army chaplain"—[Laughter.] If any Labour Member is called Chaplain, I apologise immediately. That headline shows the level of interest outside and gives the lie to many of the arguments that we have heard from the Opposition tonight.
    I must associate myself with the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland when he thanked the various contributors to the long process of this Bill, but I want to single out some he did not directly mention. I thought that the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) have been outstanding. I am sure that everyone who has been in the Committee would agree that they are excellent parliamentarians and that they would grace any Parliament anywhere in the United Kingdom, if they were given the opportunity to stand, and I am sure that they would return the compliment to me, if they had the opportunity.
    Most of all, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench on succeeding in getting this important Bill to its Third Reading in a form recognisable as the scheme set out not only in the White Paper on devolution, but in the blueprint established by the Scottish Constitutional Conventional all those years ago. We have to remember the sort of Parliament that we are agreeing to set up. For the first time, Scotland will have a democratically elected Parliament—not for the first time in 300 years, but for the first time ever. The last Scottish Parliament was anything but democratic, which is why it no longer exists. If it had been democratic, it would still be with us and all this would have been unnecessary.
    Also, the Parliament will be elected by proportional representation and the Labour party ought to be congratulated by the minority parties in Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"]—well, the majority in some cases, but by the other minority parties for being reasonable enough to allow the electoral system to be changed when it worked to Labour's advantage.
    We shall have a Parliament which has the right to vary the rate of income tax, as was promised by the constitutional convention; a Parliament which will be in control of the Scottish block, which will be arrived at through the Barnett formula, despite the moans from Tory Members; and a Parliament in charge of the health service, local government, housing and Scottish law. In fact, we have in the Bill an excellent Parliament, which the Scottish people will be happy to see set up.
    There have been some disappointments. We are not yet there on 50:50, but that is not through lack of effort by my hon. Friends in the Labour party or, indeed, the Scottish Labour party as a whole. The problem has lain with other parties failing to come to an agreement that would ensure a 50:50 Parliament in Scotland.
    From time to time, there has been falling out along the way. For example, there was some dispute earlier over the right to hold referendums. I must tell my hon. Friends that I do not set out to be on the other side of the argument from them on every occasion. I remember that, when they suggested that there should be a referendum before the general election, I disagreed, and when I suggested that there should be a referendum after the general election, they disagreed with me. That was coincidental. I have been saying what I think, not deliberately setting out to
    850
    go against them. However, we have a sound basis for a powerful Parliament and one which will be very popular in Scotland in the years ahead.
    Some issues have clouded debate on the Bill for me, in particular the debates on matters to be reserved to the Westminster Parliament and the assertion of the sovereignty of that Parliament over everything else, as well as the role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—those areas that are said to be extra vires for the Scottish Parliament and all those different ways in which the Westminster Parliament is seeking to assert its right to control what the Scottish Parliament does. I cannot believe that any of those different matters will be a practical option for the Westminster Parliament in the real world when it comes to co-exist with another democratically elected Parliament inside the United Kingdom.
    What we have to remember is that the Scottish Parliament, unlike the Westminster Parliament, will be exclusively Scottish; it will be elected exclusively by the Scottish people; it will be answerable to the Scottish people alone; that will be Scottish in every sense of the word. If the Scots in the Westminster Parliament take this Parliament's side against the Scottish Parliament, it will be seen as being anti-Scottish and it would not be sensible for anyone here to do that.
    Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. McAllion: No, I have not got time and other hon. Members want to speak.
    I know that the fact that there is to be a new relationship with a new sort of Parliament creates uncertainty and that Members of this Parliament do not like uncertainty, so they cling to the old certainties like Westminster sovereignty which reassure them and make them feel better. However, that is entirely the wrong attitude to take, because hon. Members have to recognise that they are dealing with a body that differs greatly from anything with which they have dealt before. We cannot compare a Scottish Parliament to Scottish local government and say that, because Scottish local government is a creature of Westminster statute, the Scottish Parliament will be a creature of Westminster statute. We are dealing with a national Parliament—a Parliament which has behind it the democratic authority of a nation having voted in democratic elections to put it into power; a Parliament which will have to be treated with respect and not as a plaything of this Parliament, to be chopped and changed to this Parliament's liking.
    I remember—albeit not personally, as I was not a Member of Parliament at the time—Enoch Powell arguing way back in the 1970s that devolution meant power devolved being power retained. That was 1970s-style devolution, but hon. Members have to remember that that sort of devolution was not sufficiently popular to stand up to the chicanery of the Westminster Parliament, so it did not succeed in getting enough of the Scottish people to support it against the desires of Members of this Parliament. Since the 1970s, the world has moved on and the situation is entirely different. We have had 18 years of undemocratic Tory government in Scotland, which hugely changed the opinion of Scots about the role of a devolved Scottish Parliament. We have had the Claim of Right for

    851
    Scotland, which asserts the sovereignty of the Scottish people and which is unchallenged in Scotland by almost all parties—even the Tories have come to accept that the sovereignty of the Scottish people is sacrosanct above all else. We have had the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which drew up a scheme for a devolved Parliament that was very different from the sort of Parliament suggested back in the 1970s.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. McAllion: There is not time and I shall finish soon.
    The 1990s-style devolution will be very different from the 1970s-style devolution and it will require the Westminster Parliament not to retain power, but to let go of power and free the Scottish Parliament to go its own way. Ultimately, what devolution really means is the right of the Scottish Parliament to be different from the Westminster Parliament—the right to decide that Scotland wants a different way of running its health service, a different way of looking after its schools and a different way of organising local government or paying for public services. That is Scotland's right and that is what devolution is all about. If we in our ignorance attempt to prevent Scotland from developing its own distinct and different ways, we really will be stoking up trouble for the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Today's political change becomes tomorrow's political status quo, and no status quo lasts for ever. Even the old Union, which was swept away on 11 September by the double yes vote in the referendum, was not the same Union that had lasted for 300 years. It had survived for so long only because it had changed constantly. The Scottish Office was not around in 1707 and neither was the Scottish Grand Committee or the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs; those changes were made over time, because nothing in politics lasts for ever. Everything has to change and we must not get hung up on the question whether or not there can be further change in the constitutional arrangements between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, or whether the demand for such constitutional change has to be channelled through the Westminster Parliament, rather than through the Parliament that we are going to establish up in Scotland.
    On its own, a devolved Parliament does not make any difference to whether Scotland will become independent or remain within the United Kingdom and neither does the holding of a referendum. Scotland will become independent only when a clear majority of the Scottish people want it to become independent. There is no road block that this Parliament or anyone else can put in the way of the Scottish people once they have decided to become independent; nor should anyone try to obstruct that desire. I cannot believe that anyone in the Labour party would genuinely want to frustrate the desire of the Scottish people if they wanted Scotland to become an independent country.
    I believe that, tonight, the Scottish people are getting what, in the main, they voted for in the past four or five general elections—what I voted for—and in a democracy, that cannot be bad.
    852
    It is said that history is sometimes made in very strange places, and they do not come much stranger than this place. Perhaps the strangest thing of all is that the Bill, having been considered by the democratically elected representatives of the people since the start of January, now passes to another House which is not democratically elected, and about whose deliberations the people have no say. I can only say to the lords who sit there that, although we can do nothing about that now, they should be wary of trying to make any changes to the Bill.
    I hope that Ministers will reassure us that the Scotland Bill is the beginning, not the end, of constitutional change in this country. When we have seen the Bill on to the statute book, we shall return to get rid of those—I was going to say "tyrants", but I had better not—unelected members of the other place.
    10 pm
    Mr. John Hayes: I have taken part in most of the deliberations on the Bill and, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, I should have done so regardless of the fact that doing so might increase the possibility of opportunities, however brief, to stand at the Dispatch Box. I have taken part in these proceedings because this is a matter of fundamental constitutional importance, and I am sure that goes for all my colleagues.
    Mr. Salmond: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is an honourable man, is not disputing the point that I made.
    Mr. Hayes: I merely reply that hon. Members in other parts of the House suggested to me that it was a good tactical move on the part of the Conservative party to give its new Members an opportunity to extend their skills and expand their experience. I am delighted to inform the House that that suggestion came from some of the frustrated new Labour Members who are given few opportunities to do anything. However, I do not want to become involved in such tittle-tattle because time is short and I wish to be brief.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said, the Bill is full of contradictions and anomalies, in many fields. In drugs policy, in food safety, in abortion and in tax-raising issues, there are significant anomalies in the Bill. One can only hope that they will be corrected when it passes to the other place—for which some of us have a great deal of respect, despite the comments by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion).
    Beyond those anomalies and contradictions, one fundamental point needs to be amplified. By the admission of all those who have spoken, the Bill is significant. The Secretary of State told us that nothing would be quite the same again, and it was suggested from our Front Bench that the Bill was a matter of fundamental constitutional importance.
    In those circumstances, I am worried, not by the hidden political electoral agenda, but by the absence of an agenda in respect of the constitutional strategy for the United Kingdom. There is an absence of vision about where the Bill leaves us in terms of the settlement between the various parts of the kingdom. I do not know whether the vision does not exist or whether the Labour party is not prepared to come clean about it; I shall be generous and

    853
    say that it is the former not the latter. However, as a result, further difficulties are inevitable in the relationship between the constituent parts of our kingdom.
    If the Labour party chooses to solve those matters by setting up an English Grand Committee, or even perhaps an English Parliament—or a council of the isles, as has been suggested—let us hear that now. Let us have a frank, open and full debate about the future of the entire constitution of these islands. Let us not have piecemeal, ad hoc reform of the constitution, whereby Scotland and Wales are dealt with in one fashion, leaving us in an inconsistent state, and other matters must be patched up to quell the dissatisfaction in England that will undoubtedly result from this legislation. Let us have a full and open debate. Let us hear what the Labour party believes is the appropriate way to deal with those matters.
    I shall conclude so that as many people as possible have a chance to speak. What concerns me is not so much what we have discussed in recent weeks and months, but the matters that have not been fully aired and considered: future democratic accountability of the nation; the distribution of sovereignty; how these islands will be governed; and the impact of all that on the interests of all the British people.
    10.4 pm
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I could not disagree more with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). If we had waited until the rest of the United Kingdom worked out how to conduct its home affairs, we would have waited a considerable time. Scotland was more than ready to go ahead with legislation for a Scottish Parliament. We have fulfilled our promise to introduce a Bill in the first year of government, and it will not be long before that process is complete.
    The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) compared the Bill to a great ship leaving harbour and setting sail across the ocean. The more he went on, the more I thought he must have seen "Titanic" recently, although he stopped short of comparing the recent opinion poll to an iceberg. The Scottish National party will have to make up its mind; it cannot be on the bridge, steering the ship safely to port, but then take it out to meet an iceberg. By saying that the Bill is part of a process that does not stop with devolution, the SNP rejects all that the people of Scotland said in the referendum in September. They wanted what the Bill is delivering; to say that they want to go further is to fly in the face of their will.
    We could hold referendums again and again, as was pointed out last Thursday at Question Time. We should remember, however, that people in Quebec are at each other's throats all the time, and we do not want that in Scotland.
    The right hon. Member for Devizes referred to aspects of the Bill that had been left undebated. He said that large lumps and holes had to be filled, but I can ignore his mixed metaphors. As some of my hon. Friends have said, if members of the House of Lords do not treat the Bill seriously, or try to frustrate the clear will of the people of Scotland, their actions will come to haunt them.
    Abortion and euthanasia have been raised, but I am baffled that any hon. Member should think that they are similar. To me, it seems obvious that abortions are carried out in clinics and hospitals, and it would be sensible to avoid cross-border traffic. Euthanasia, however, is by its
    854
    nature likely to be carried out wherever the dying person happens to be; we are not talking about transporting people on the point of death to clinics—a point which appears to have escaped those who discussed the two issues.
    Let me turn to the heart and soul of the Bill. We have rightly gone for a unicameral system, following the discussions of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The system involves consulting outside bodies—Special Standing Committees can do that here, but are rarely used—and that can only benefit us by making it more likely that legislation meets people's needs.
    I am glad that the Labour party in Wales has followed our lead in Scotland and has voted to carry out a twinning process for the selection of Labour candidates in Wales. I should not like the debate to conclude tonight without our thanking those in the convention who were involved in the fight for 50:50 representation. Particular credit must go to the Scottish Trades Union Congress women's committee for first raising the issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) pointed out, we will not achieve 50:50, but, owing to the Labour party's efforts alone so far, we are likely to achieve a high percentage of women Members, possibly one of the highest in Europe. We may well go on to achieve more.
    With reference to the advice given on that subject, I maintain that there is nothing in our law or in European law to prevent political parties from taking steps to ensure equal representation in our Parliament. If I and others who share my view are wrong, I am indebted to Professor Noreen Burrows for pointing out that the equal treatment directive also applies to other matters in the constitution and political processes—for example, the succession to the Crown. The Princess Royal could take her case to an industrial tribunal. Although I am not a monarchist, I would say that, when the job goes a-begging, it should go to the best candidate, and many of us think that she would have an excellent claim. Likewise, peerages that pass from father to son under the present system could be challenged by the daughters.
    I hope that I am not upsetting my hon. Friends too much, and I am glad that I will not be standing for the Scottish Parliament. If anyone tries to railroad our efforts and overturn them by taking us to an industrial tribunal, such consequences are likely to be raised, together with contests that were never aired before.
    To conclude on a positive note, the Scottish Parliament will be different. It will bring about widespread discussion in our country and meet the needs of our people. I am glad to support it, as it will initiate change throughout the United Kingdom, to the benefit of us all in achieving more democratic processes.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have received word that hon. Members on the Front Benches wish to make winding-up speeches, and I shall call them at 10.20. I hope that I can call at least one hon. Member from either side of the House before then.
    10.11 pm
    Mr. Swayne: One of the principal weaknesses of the Bill was illustrated this evening when the Minister of State, in answer to an earlier debate, complained that, after 55 weeks—that was his timetable, not mine—we were still discussing this constitutional circus. It is extraordinary that, as the Bill leaves the House, we are

    855
    still ignorant—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] The House is still ignorant of whether the Scottish Parliament will be able to initiate a referendum on independence in Scotland.
    We have heard various opinions, but it has been suggested from below the Gangway that the matter will be decided in the courts. I hope that it will be decided by their lordships, rather than in the courts, but the issue properly remains to this House. The constitutional settlement that was offered in the referendum referred to a devolved Parliament, a subordinate Parliament, where the sovereignty of the Scottish people properly rests with this House.
    A referendum on independence in Scotland should be triggered only when this House takes notice of the fact that a majority of Scottish Members of this Parliament are members of the party below the Gangway, the Scottish National party. That is the proper time for such a referendum.
    This is a dreadful Bill. Another of its principal weaknesses is the extraordinary arrangements that it will put in place to elect the Members of the Scottish Parliament. Those arrangements are the product of what we were told would be new politics and a new consensus. We were told that Labour was a party for the new Jerusalem, and that everyone would agree and co-operate. So many of this Bill's arrangements depend on that and on the good will of the Scottish Members in working together.
    As the processes have unfolded, as we have watched the Bill proceed and the opinion polls in Scotland change, we have seen the saints beginning to fall out. We know that politics has not changed, and that there is nothing new under the sun. We know also that these extraordinary electoral arrangements will return to haunt the Government as the matter proceeds.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Swayne: No, I do not have time.
    The question that remains to be decided by those of us who are deeply alarmed by the Bill is essentially whether the problems that it will create will be greater if we stop the process now, simply as a consequence of the quite unrealistic expectations that have been raised.
    10.15 pm
    Ms Sandra Osborne: I shall be brief in view of your earlier comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that this is an evening for celebration, and I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister. The Secretary of State may look rather tired, but he certainly does not look haunted or hunted.
    Although this has been a rather low-key debate, and some people might say that the Committee stage was not exactly scintillating, I believe that this is a significant day for the Scottish people. They gave their verdict on this and other issues on 1 May last year—and I note that the sun came out today in celebration of the achievement of a Scottish Parliament, just as it did then in celebration of the general election.
    I do not share Opposition Members' views about the cynicism of the so-called "new politics". The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) spoke
    856
    uncharacteristically about new politics, which he described as a fairy-tale world. I believe that many people in Scotland and elsewhere regard this place as a bit of a fairy-tale world at times, and I am optimistic that the Scottish Parliament will be different. I hope that it will have a more co-operative approach, with more women Members and greater representation from ethnic minority groups. That will be very welcome. I shall not rehearse those arguments again, and I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). There will also be more transparent procedures.
    Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Osborne: No. I am sorry, but there is no time.
    I support change, and I have great hopes for the Scottish Parliament and its new approach. I believe that many people in Scotland share my view. However, although there appeared to be a positive consensus across Scottish politics for a time, the situation is now very different. I for one am very disappointed about that. I believe it is because too much time is being spent discussing whether there should be a referendum and independence for Scotland even before the Parliament has had a chance to set up and get on with its business.
    I support the Scottish Parliament because it will bring more democracy to the everyday issues that affect the lives of people in Scotland. As a former councillor, I know the importance of health, education and housing. We must be able to deal with those issues closer to the people, in a way that they feel is relevant. I realise that the consultative steering group is doing a lot of work examining structures.
    I am worried that, when people hear the usual yah-boo exchanges, they will lose heart. I hope that, over the next year, we can discuss each party's position regarding the Parliament's responsibilities. We have had, "Where will it be?", "How much will it cost?" and, "What will it look like?"; it is now time for, "What will it do?" Scottish Office Ministers have made many announcements in the past year—today's announcement on child care to name just one. They have not achieved the publicity they deserve for the revolutionary and radical things they represent, especially in relation to child care, which is a subject close to my heart.
    In spite of the conduct of Conservative Members today, I believe that far more detailed and constructive discussion will take place in the Scottish Parliament. The staying power to maintain the momentum for genuine consultation is crucial, and the Scottish people will not thank us if we do not make sure that there is a genuinely different approach in the Scottish Parliament. People outwith the chattering classes in Scotland want something different, which reflects Scottish values and aspirations. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) must be fair to the hon. Lady. She has been in the Chamber all night, and she must have a hearing without interruption.
    Ms Osborne: I am tempted to argue that, when the Scottish people look to the Scottish Parliament to reflect their values and aspirations, they will look to the Labour

    857
    party, but, in the light of what I said previously, I shall resist temptation. I make a genuine plea to all parties and individuals to go forward to the Scottish Parliament in a genuinely co-operative and constructive manner.
    10.20 pm
    Dr. Fox: At the end of consideration during which there has been extraordinarily low input from Labour Members representing English seats, it is worth stating the context within which the Bill has been considered—Scotland's politics remain Unionist. Three parties at the previous general election put forward Unionist agendas—the Conservatives believe in a unitary state, the Labour party has put forward its devolutionary ideas, and the Liberal Democrats believe in a federal United Kingdom—and 76 per cent. of Scots voted for a Unionist party of one sort or another.
    The Government believe that devolution will strengthen the United Kingdom—the Secretary of State has been a consistent proponent of that position for many years, and is honest in his defence of it—and that creating devolution and creating an elusive dynamic will diminish the forces of separatism in Scotland. We do not believe that that is the case, which is why we have always argued against devolution. The risk is that it will not defeat the forces of nationalism, but strengthen them.
    That is not a forgone conclusion, however. The end of this part of the Bill's passage through Parliament is the beginning of the fight against the forces of nationalism, which we shall all, in our different ways, have to confront if they are to be defeated. I believe that they can be.
    I join—
    Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Fox: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because we are pushed for time.
    I congratulate my hon. Friends who have taken part in the debates on the Bill. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), despite a year as a Member of Parliament, has not succumbed to the new politically correct, inclusive, third-way, emotionally incontinent school of politics, and continues not to mince his words. I also congratulate the Minister, who has returned to his place, on the courteous way in which he has carried the debates in the House—he has been generous in giving way—although the manner of its doing does not alter the nature of the deed. We still believe that too many questions have been left unanswered at the end of the Third Reading debate.
    We have always worked on the principle that devolution poses a risk to the unity of the United Kingdom because it is an unstable model. As we have said many times, it pretends that the constitutional arrangement in one part of the United Kingdom can be changed without affecting the constitutional position in the rest of it. Given that we are vastly outnumbered in parliamentary terms, we have done our best to diminish the risks for conflict—what the Secretary of State called on Second Reading the "worst case" scenario on which we should plan future proceedings.
    Many problems remain in the Bill. We have talked about the electoral system: the Bill will establish new relationships between electors and elected, and the
    858
    relationship between directly elected Members of the Scottish Parliament and those elected on the list is unclear. To whom will constituents go? Who will deal with inconsistencies and with the inevitable poaching? How will the system work, because it will not be a stable model for new Members? The single-chamber system occurs almost nowhere in the developed, democratic world. How will that work, and how will a counter-balance be provided? Who will carry out revision, and what are the mechanisms by which that will be done?
    We still have not had clear views on tax. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) said that one of the most important elements missing from the debate was a clear definition of a Scottish taxpayer. Clause 72 does not clearly set out exactly how the tax-raising powers will work, and, given the contradictions between subsections (4) and (5), we do not know how they will work in practice. Many tax experts say that it is simply not possible for two opposites to exist in the Bill and for the Bill to begin to operate smoothly. I hope that the other place will give those matters due weight, because we certainly did not have the opportunity to debate them as closely as we would have liked.
    Much of what is to happen will be brought about by concordat, by trusting to good will, although I suppose that, if the Minister for Sport can take the oath with his fingers crossed, the Government can pass the Bill with their fingers crossed. The idea that it must be implemented with bonhomie is not a sufficient constitutional safeguard, and in the Bill it is safeguards that we seek.
    On the issue of Europe, there has been widespread cross-party criticism of the Government's failure to accept that the relationship will change. The role of Scotland in Europe will change fundamentally as a result of the legislation. That was never better demonstrated than by the case of Scottish fishermen who, because they constitute the majority of those in the United Kingdom's fishing industry, are automatically represented by a Scottish Office Minister, who is the lead Minister in European discussions. We are told that arrangements will remain as they are, and that there will always be the same consensus. They will not: they will change fundamentally as a result of the Bill, as will the role of the Secretary of State.
    What role will the Secretary of State have in the Cabinet? Whom will he speak for, and where will his loyalties lie? Who will answer in the House for the decisions of the Scottish Parliament? We have never had an answer to that conundrum, which was raised several times. Those of us who sit in the House are responsible for raising taxes. After the Budget, we each have to vote for the raising of taxes which go to the Consolidated Fund and to the Scottish block. What mechanism will we who take responsibility for raising taxes have to scrutinise how the tax money is spent? That question has not been answered.
    There are still inconsistencies in schedule 5. We wanted to discuss abortion and euthanasia and the inconsistencies relating to those matters. The contribution by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) raised more questions than it answered. We shall want to explore those matters in the other place. Despite a full day's debate, we have not had an answer on what is called the West Lothian question. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said that it was not possible to have an answer to that question. That may be the correct

    859
    assumption, given the form of devolution that we are debating. We have never dealt effectively with the English dimension, or with how it will proceed.
    The Secretary of State has long believed in devolution as a way to maintain the Union. Expectations were raised in the White Paper, in the Bill, and in the run-up to the Scottish election. We must remember that the enemies of the Union sit below the Gangway. The Scottish nationalists are the enemies of the Union. Whatever differences we may have about how the Union is structured, it is the Scottish nationalists who see devolution as a Trojan horse. They are destructive, negative and introspective, and in many quarters they are defined as much by their anti-Englishness as by their pro-Scottishness.
    It is the duty of all Unionists to make the new architecture work as best we can, but the architecture is unstable, because it fails to give equal weight to all parts of the United Kingdom. This part of the Bill's passage is over, but the real challenge to those of us who believe in the Union is just beginning.
    10.29 pm
    Mr. McLeish: It is with a great deal of pleasure and pride that I rise to say a few words at the end of the Third Reading debate.
    What is depressing is that, on 1 May, the Conservatives were unsure of where they were, and tonight they are still unsure. For some people, that may seem a charitable interpretation, but that has been the style that I have adopted throughout the Committee and Report stages. The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) sums it up—the style often subdues the substance—but, in some cases, it is grudging acceptance.
    The Conservative view is, "Who really needs this Parliament?" There has been carping and criticism. In some respects, a group of people have been unsure about where they stand, not only on this Bill, but on many others. On 1 May, there was an overwhelming endorsement of the proposals that were put forward by a potential Labour Government. On 11 September, with the support of all parties except the Conservative party, the Scots voted overwhelmingly for, and gave a ringing endorsement to, the two questions. With the icing on the cake of an additional member system, which can deliver the Conservatives some MSPs, I should have thought that they might at least have accepted and acknowledged those things, but, sadly, we had none of it.
    The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) may snigger, but, in most countries, serious constitutional change has the support of every party in that country. [Interruption.] Someone says, "Why should we be the same?"
    Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. McLeish: No, I am not giving way.
    The simple issue is that the Conservatives have to wake up to the fact that Britain is changing comprehensively and irreversibly. It is not a matter just of Scotland. On Friday in Northern Ireland, an historic decision will be made. Decisions on Wales have been made by the House.
    860
    London is moving forward, which is again a positive result. The European convention on human rights is to be absorbed into British law. The freedom of information Act is coming. The House of Lords is going to be reformed. But where are the official Opposition? They are simply nowhere, time-warped in the past and unable to face or embrace the future. That is sad not only for the House, but for the House of Holyrood in Scotland.
    I am a moderate man—
    Mr. Paterson rose—
    Mr. McLeish: But I am not giving way. When Scots experience the continuous and intense sniggering, it does nothing for the Conservative party or for the House, and it reinforces my central proposition that the Conservatives were nowhere on 1 May, and they are still nowhere.
    The plight of the Conservative Opposition should not detract from the achievements of the Labour Government. We have delivered on every occasion: on 1 May, on 24 July with the White Paper, on 11 September with the referendum, on 19 December with the Scotland Bill, on 9 January with the site at Holyrood, and on 12 January with Second Reading; and, of course, this evening we complete Third Reading. We at least can take some pride and satisfaction in that achievement.
    We have had contributions from other parties as well. Let me give a warning to the nationalists as the Bill embarks from the House to another place and as we embark on our work in Scotland. The nation of Scotland wants the Parliament to work for the people of Scotland. The test for the nationalists is simply this: do they want the Parliament to work for the Scottish National party? They have to make a big decision. We hope that they make the right decision and promote a people's Parliament, instead of a narrow self-interested policy of using the Parliament merely to cause a constitutional circus week in, week out, ensuring that we do not tackle the real issues that the Scottish Parliament faces.
    We hear views about elections, but the interesting thing about Scottish politics is that Labour wins when we have an election, and some parties do well between elections. [Interruption.] Let me remind the Liberal Democrats, who are carping from sedentary positions, that, just over a year ago, Labour held 56 of the 72 Scottish seats. The Liberal Democrats held six. They attack the Tories for having nil, but six is not a large way from that.
    I look forward—I relish the prospect—to the contest that lies ahead. Ultimately—although issues can be debated in this place, in another place or in consultative steering groups—the people of Scotland will make the biggest decision, on who is elected to the Parliament to serve as the 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there will be a Scottish Parliament, and he will embrace it. After today's Third Reading, I, too, can say that there will be a Parliament. I commend the Bill to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly 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),
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the draft New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.—[Mr. Clelland.]
      Question agreed to.

    TEACHING AND HIGHER EDUCATION BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
    Ordered,
    That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords]—

    TEACHING AND HIGHER EDUCATION BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

      Report and Third Reading
      1.(1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second of those days.
      (2) On the first such allotted day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for any part of the period of six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill which falls after Ten o'clock.

      Business Committee
      2. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
      3. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken, but the resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.

      Conclusion of proceedings
      4. For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by or under this Order—
      (1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others) —

      (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

      862

      (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

      (e) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

      (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

      (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.
      (3) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
      (4) On a Motion for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
      (5) If on an allotted day a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day or to Seven o'clock—

      (a) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion, and

      (b) paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for the period after Ten o'clock for which sub-paragraph (a) permits them to continue.

      Supplemental orders
      5. If a Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to amend this Order and if an effect of the Motion would be to provide a greater amount of time for proceedings on the Bill, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.
      6. If a Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to supplement the provisions of this Order in respect of further proceedings on the Bill, the Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, at any hour and the proceedings, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three-quarters of an hour after they have been commenced.

      Interpretation
      7. In this Order 'allotted day' means any day on which the Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day. — [Mr. Clelland.]

    Manufacturing Trade
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
    10.35 pm
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: The United Kingdom's balance of payments in manufactured trade has long been a worrying issue. However, I did not quite realise the extent of the problem until I began to assemble material for this debate. We are in the throes of a very rapid deterioration in the balance of our manufactured trade. The deterioration of the situation will be prolonged. Once started, such processes are very difficult and take years to turn round. Moreover, we are at the end of a period in which we have had problems generally with our balance of payments.
    The United Kingdom maintained a surplus in manufactured trade from Roman times until the 1980s. In every quarter until 1983, we had a manufactured trade surplus. Subsequently, our manufactured trade balance went into deficit—which hit its lowest point in 1989, and has been maintained in every quarter since. The deficit is now becoming a gaping one.
    We have paid for the deficit by our surplus in invisibles, which has been maintained in trade with the world outside of the European Economic Community. Our current account deficit with Europe is £6.8 billion, whereas, last year, our current account surplus with other countries was £10.5 billion. We have an overall surplus of about £4.5 billion. However, that surplus is now slipping. The protection and cover provided by that surplus in invisibles is declining, becoming a deficit.
    Our manufactured trade deficit represents a long-term failure, which is clearly due to the destruction of so much of our manufacturing base under the Conservatives. They lost more jobs in manufacturing, did more to shrink our manufacturing base and closed more manufacturing than the Government of any other advanced industrial country. The loss has been a debilitating one, forcing us to face our current difficulties with a manufacturing base that is weaker than it should be.
    Our manufacturing base provides the basis of our export effort, and our trade deficit—specifically our manufactured trade deficit—is debilitating our economy. The fact is that 60 per cent. of our exports are manufactured.
    Our poor record in exporting manufactures has led to several consequences. The first is that our overall export growth has been depressed because of our poor record in exporting manufactures.
    Secondly, our manufactured trade deficit has depressed the rest of our economy. It has effectively created a low economic ceiling, depressing and preventing our domestic economy from expanding as we need it to. We cannot grow, because we cannot pay for growth.
    A third consequence of the slow growth in our manufacturing, which has been caused by our manufacturing industry's comparative failure and our trade deficit, is low productivity growth. Productivity growth is achieved more easily in manufacturing than in services. Productivity growth is largely a feature of increased production—if production goes up, productivity goes up. Our production has not been increasing at the
    864
    same rate as everyone else's, which is one reason why UK productivity is low. The deficit is also the reason why growth has been low. This country's growth record is the worst in the advanced industrial world. We have had cumulative growth of just under 2 per cent. a year, which is half the world average.
    Why has there been such a deficit in manufacturing trade? It is not unique British incompetence—although our manufacturing has a smaller scale of production and has invested less than its competitors. The deficit is certainly not due to industrial relations and the so-called power of the trade unions. That power and those industrial relations are, in the main, a result of failure to grow rather than a cause of it, because the fight to share out the cake is greater and more intense if the cake is not expanding.
    There are three basic reasons why we have a manufacturing trade deficit. First, historically, our interest rates have been higher than those elsewhere in the world. Those interest rates are accompanied by a capital system that demands a quick and very high rate of return. Secondly, tight monetary policies have kept down demand. The third and most important reason is the high value of the pound. It is as simple as that. There has been prolonged overvaluation of the exchange rate since the late 1970s, through the 1980s and into the 1990s. It was at its highest in the early 1980s and early 1990s.
    Overvaluation hits manufacturing particularly hard because manufacturing is in the front line of international trade. It is a hugely competitive area. New competitors are coming along all the time all over the world; competition is intensifying.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most successful countries in the post-war era were Germany and Japan, which ensured that their currencies were kept low relative to those of other countries? Their success was based largely, if not primarily, on a low exchange rate.
    Mr. Mitchell: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). Such countries began with a low exchange rate, which made it possible to invest in manufacturing and made exports profitable. They have maintained such exchange rates, failing to let them rise as much as they needed to when they were in surplus.
    The world is becoming more competitive still. There are huge new competitors—specifically China. Prices of plastic goods, toys, basic stationery and all kinds of manufacturing equipment and produce are plummeting as China enters the market. Our industry is being asked to run a competitive race with the new tigers, especially China with its very low costs, with a ball and chain on each leg. The ball on one leg is marked "overvaluation" and the one on the other is marked "high interest rates". Together, they are crippling manufacturing.
    The situation that emerged in the 1980s is getting worse. The balance of trade in goods and manufactures is turning sour. In the three months to the end of February 1997, we had a manufacturing trade deficit of £2.7 billion. In the three months to the end of February 1998, the deficit had risen to £4.6 billion, and it has accelerated since.
    The Confederation of British Industry quarterly trends survey in April stated that manufacturing optimism about export prospects had seen the largest fall since July 1980;

    865
    business confidence had seen the sharpest fall since October 1992; export orders had declined at the sharpest rate since January 1989; and firms with fewer than 200 staff that make intermediate goods had been harder hit than other sections. We are seeing a fall in export orders.
    The CBI figures are paralleled by other figures from the Engineering Employers Federation, British Steel, Toyota, which is reporting a loss for the first time in three years, chemicals firms in Grimsby and food production firms. They all face international competition and are all shackled by overvaluation. Today's figures in the Marks and Spencer report show that the company is suffering in France owing to the high value of the pound. In a range of company reports, export prospects are dimming, exports are falling, and a wind-down in export sales is being predicted.
    That is grim news for jobs in my part of the country and others that depend on manufacturing. It might not be so grim for the financial sector in London, but companies there will also be hit by the problem eventually. It is grim for investment and for growth. Manufacturing accounts for only 20 per cent. of employment, but it employs a lot of services because of the trend to contracting out. It is not accurate to look at the manufacturing figures in isolation.
    The pace of those developments is growing because the pound is still grossly overvalued. It is overvalued because our interest rates are too high and speculative flows are coming out of Europe to buy sterling because it is a safe haven that gives a high return. It is overvalued because the deutschmark—some people might find this extraordinary—has been managed down and the French franc has depreciated with it. Sterling is also overvalued because many far eastern countries have undergone substantial devaluations.
    The decline in our manufacturing trade and the growth in our deficit will not end until the pound comes down, and it will not end immediately even then. Because of the J-curve effect, the situation will turn round only slowly. It is no use clutching at the slight fall of a few pfennigs since the summit agreeing monetary union as a hope for the future. More rubbish is talked on that subject than on any other. A headline in the Financial Times of 13 May said, "Fall in sterling has yet to lift exports". That is the most incredibly stupid headline. The fall in sterling happened during the six weeks before that headline appeared. Does the Financial Times expect that exports will suddenly turn round because a few pfennigs have come off the value of the pound? Even that fall was only about 20 pfennigs from DM 3.10 to the pound at the end of March. It is incredible that people can clutch at that as a straw of comfort in a disastrous, deteriorating situation.
    Mr. Hopkins rose—
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend wants to become a chorus.
    Mr. Hopkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. He is pointing out that the journalists know nothing about the J-curve and time lags in such matters. Relatively small changes in exchange rates make almost no difference. Would he like to comment on the
    866
    TUC's suggestion this week that an exchange rate target of DM 2.50 might be reasonable? I think that that is still too high, but at least it is a start.
    Mr. Mitchell: The scale of depreciation needs to be more substantial. Once damage has been done, it is difficult to reverse. To aim at a target, we have to be able to manage sterling by controlling interest rates. I do not want to go too far into that matter.
    This is a non-partisan issue. It is not career-enhancing for me to be making this speech. I have seen Back Benchers rallying round at Treasury questions and Trade and Industry questions in the past few weeks, asking supportive questions. Members from steel areas have said that even though the pound is a bit overvalued, we are still competitive and we are fighting on. Others have said that the situation reduces the price of raw materials, as though the value added in this country were unimportant. Others clutch at the straw that the pound is falling, or that exports are holding up. That makes no political sense. It is Back Benchers' responsibility to tell Ministers when things are going wrong. Things are going wrong in our areas.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that companies that find niche markets in which they have particular expertise are doing well in the export market? Several companies in my constituency have been bucking the trend. That may not be an overwhelming success, but it is an achievement in the market that he has described.
    Mr. Mitchell: There are always exceptions in any situation. We have to consider the overall figures, because they determine the prospects, the level of investment and the number of closures and jobs. A couple of swallows do not make a summer, just as a few pfennigs fall in the value of the pound does not make a devaluation. It is no use concentrating on those; we have to concentrate on the overall picture, and on bringing that home to Ministers so that we can have action. We should not try to coat the picture with honey for party political purposes.
    The Conservatives will always say that the pound is in a disastrous situation. They put industry into this mess by the debilitating way in which they treated it for 20 years; no wonder it has been hit. It is hypocritical of them to make the present position a party political issue. None the less, it is the responsibility of those of us who represent manufacturing areas to say what the problem is—and, in my view, to say that there is no way out unless the pound falls.
    If the pound does not fall, it simply will not be profitable to produce in this country with such overvaluation. If the overvaluation is sustained, production will go elsewhere. We have already seen the threat from Nissan, and the problems that Vauxhall has had in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North.
    Overvaluation is a threat to inward investment. Why should firms invest in this country if it is not profitable to produce here? There is the right to roam. The new German and Japanese owners of British industry cannot be bought off, fobbed off and conciliated by the prospect of knighthoods or seats on the board of the CBI, as British management was. Those people have a more realistic

    867
    view of things. They want to produce profitably, and if they cannot, it is "Sayonara—goodbye, that's it." They are warning us, and rightly, too.
    Ministers say that industry must be efficient, reform itself and make itself more competitive, but industry cannot become 25 per cent. more efficient or produce a productivity surge of 25 per cent. to cancel out the overvaluation—and if it cannot do that it cannot survive in the increasingly competitive markets that we now face.
    British industry is not the most productive or the most competitive, and the additional burden of overvaluation is an impossible hurdle for it to jump. The problems of British industry can be put right only by growth, which means expansion, improvement in productivity and investment. All those come from an exporting prospect, which in turn comes from competitiveness.
    Without that prospect, people will not invest—and the situation that we now face is the very reverse of it. A balance of payments deficit that lies basically in manufactured trade is usually an excuse for deflation. We reduce the demand for imports with which we cannot compete, by deflating demand in this country. That is usually an excuse for higher interest rates. Indeed, interest rates have to rise if we are to finance the deficit that we are incurring.
    I have seen that happen twice in the 1980s, and I do not want it to happen to my Government, blurring and destroying the bright prospects that we need to fulfil in terms of expanding the economy, generating growth, creating jobs and improving the lot of our people. I do not want us to be deterred from that process, on which we must embark by fighting and reversing the balance of payments deficit. We cannot do that by clutching at straws. We have to act.
    I do not suppose that, in his reply, the Minister will suddenly decide to tell me how right I am. Adjournment debates are usually an opportunity for a defensive reply. I suppose that the Department, and the Government as a whole, cannot submit to the arguments of one Back Bencher. However, I hope that, beyond the defensive reply that we shall hear tonight, the Government are seriously considering what can be done.
    The present situation cannot be prolonged, because it is ruinous for jobs. Unemployment is beginning to rise—as it will, because manufacturing will shed jobs. Overvaluation is also ruinous for growth and for all the things that Labour wants to achieve—indeed, it will undermine all that we need to achieve. Unless we turn the situation round, we shall fail.
    It is no use hoping that economic and monetary union will stabilise Europe and rescue us. There is a nightmare prospect that no one seems to be considering—that the euro will not be the hard currency that everybody expects. All the expectations held out hitherto—such as the idea that the convergence criteria would be fulfilled—have been belied in the event. If expectations are now held out that a hard euro will save us by making its users less competitive in comparison with us, thereby improving our position, they can easily be belied too. There is every prospect that the euro will be soft. The Germans have depreciated the deutschmark, which could be a last fling before the hard and rigorous disciplines of marriage, but it could also be the prelude to further depreciation to
    868
    create a soft euro, as that would be the best way in which to make the single currency acceptable—it would cause employment to expand, and unemployment is the horrendous problem in Europe at the moment. A soft euro could make things worse for us.
    Given that there are lags—export performance picks up only some time, perhaps two years, after a competitive reduction in the exchange rate—we must act now and act quickly to bring down the pound. There are many ways in which that can be done—I shall not go through them tonight—but the balance of payments deficit in manufacturing trade will be put right only if the exchange rate is more competitive. We must now bend our efforts to find how we can secure a more competitive exchange rate—otherwise we shall be stuck in recession and a balance of payments trap.
    10.55 pm
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on raising the important matter of manufacturing. We all share the sentiments that he has articulated tonight. I assure him and the House that the Government will give no defensive reply; we intend to take his pertinent points and long-standing criticisms—which extend over at least 18 years—very much to heart and to address them directly.
    I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), who speaks eloquently for his constituents—he made some telling points, to which we have listened. In putting his constituents' case so well, he is proving that Luton, North is being listened to in a way in which it has never been before.
    I say the same to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster)—never has Hastings and Rye been better represented in the House. He speaks for business and manufacturing in his constituency with a concise articulateness that means that Ministers have to listen—as, indeed, we are.
    That contrasts with the sorry state of the Conservative party. This is the first Adjournment debate that I have attended in 11 years as a Member of Parliament at which no Conservative Member has been present. Where is the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Does he really care about manufacturing? Is he listening to the real concerns that are being voiced by employees, families, businesses and manufacturers throughout the country? The answer, sadly, is no. Conservative Members have been absent throughout the debate, as have the nationalists. I welcome as the representative of the Liberal Democrats the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), who managed to catch the tail-end of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby—we are pleased that he is listening.
    We have heard tonight the real concerns about the deficit in manufacturing trade. I assure the House that the Government recognise the important part that manufacturing industry plays in our economy. It has both a direct and an indirect impact on local jobs and local prosperity. It employs 4 million people directly and its output amounts to a fifth of our gross domestic product.
    The manufacturing sector provides a vital contribution to our trade. Manufacturing production is about 10 times as likely to be traded across international boundaries as

    869
    services are. That means that firms in the manufacturing sector are much more likely to feel the full brunt of international competition. It can, however, serve to strengthen those firms and improve productivity, as I think we would all acknowledge, which is why the Labour Government are doing their best to ensure that manufacturers, as well as non-manufacturers, are given the opportunity to thrive. The latest figures show that, in the three months to February, manufactured exports were 1.5 per cent. higher than in the previous three months, but the legacy of the previous Government remains: the deficit still exists.
    The Government inherited an economy with many fundamental weaknesses. Over the past 30 years, manufacturing output and exports grew at a slower rate in the United Kingdom than in any other G7 country. Under the previous Government, instability did incalculable damage to manufacturing. Trade in manufactured exports has been in deficit each year since 1983: the first time in our history that manufacturing has been in deficit in peacetime.
    We have created a stable macro-economic framework in which British companies will be able to plan and invest for the future. Industry has long been asking for a stable environment with sustained growth, low inflation and sound public finances. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby will acknowledge that the Government are delivering that.
    A stable framework is also the key to achieving a stable and competitive pound over the medium term. Of course, we fully recognise the worries of manufacturers about the current level of the exchange rate—no more so than in Luton, North, Hastings and Rye and Great Grimsby—but we must avoid the short-term view that led to the damaging cycle of boom and bust. There are no quick and simple fixes to the short-term pressures facing manufacturing industry. A more stable exchange rate, which will suit more of our traders, will be achieved only through a stable framework. It is also worth noting that two thirds of sterling's recent appreciation occurred under the previous Government.
    As has rightly been pointed out, macro-economic stability is not enough. If we are to reverse the current trade deficit in manufacturing, our firms will need to become more competitive. There is evidence to suggest that the UK became less competitive in the 1980s. The trade deficit in manufacturing grew rapidly from 1983 to 1989, and import penetration in the UK was higher than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average throughout 1979–96; over that period, UK import penetration followed an upward trend relative to the OECD.
    The loss of competitiveness under the previous Government needs to be recovered and further improved on. That is why the Government are working in
    870
    partnership with business to help British companies to become as competitive as possible, generating the wealth that the nation needs, as well as good jobs and opportunities for all our people.
    Many vital areas must be addressed if we are to improve the competitiveness of British firms. The performance of all our firms—not only our weakest performers, and not only manufacturing firms—has to be improved. I fully acknowledge that the manufacturing sector makes an important contribution to UK trade, but we must not ignore the other components of the balance of payments.
    UK trade in services has been in surplus every year since 1965—in Harold Wilson's Government—and in the three months to February the surplus was £1.8 billion; but export and trade promotion are as vital now as ever. Today, both the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade are in Geneva celebrating the 50th anniversary of one of the greatest achievements of the post-war era: the creation of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Our commitment to the multilateral trading system and free trade remains as strong as ever. We recognise the vital role that trade has to play in the creation of jobs, prosperity and growth, and we seek to promote trade wherever we can.
    Improving British manufacturing firms' ability to exploit export markets is an important part of increasing our competitiveness. Here, the Government as a whole, and, in particular, the Department of Trade and Industry, have a crucial role to play. The DTI is assisting manufacturing companies in their marketing operations abroad in a number of ways. The export forum set up to review current activity has now issued its report; it makes several recommendations as to how support could be delivered more effectively.
    One important recommendation is that we should select a smaller number of markets, based around two categories: those that are accessible, reasonably straightforward to enter and suitable for the new or less experienced exporter; and those that are growing fast.
    High and sustainable employment requires a stable economic environment, to which the Government are committed, and not the boom-and-bust instability of the past. The whole House will welcome the fact that the latest figures show a rise in manufacturing employment of 6,000 in February, and of 22,000 on a year earlier.
    There is clearly much to be done. I am grateful to all my hon. Friends who have contributed to this important debate, and no more so than to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby.
    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 five minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Council Rents
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, in order, the London boroughs by(a) percentage change and (b) cash terms change, in council rent collected for each of the last four years. [41154]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not collected in the requisite form by my Department.

  Data are collected through the Housing Subsidies and Grants Claim form by the Department on potential rent income and on actual rent outstanding at the end of the latest financial year. Deducting the latter from the former would provide an estimate of the current year's rent collected within the year. However, these particular responses on the form are not audited, the figures would not cover any rent collected after the end of the year, and not all authorities provide the rent outstanding figures.

  The Audit Commission's Citizen Charter performance indicators for local authorities include an indicator on the percentage of rent collected.

  Lorries
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what costs have been incurred so far in strengthening bridges to accommodate 40 tonne lorries; and what estimate he has made of the costs of works yet to be undertaken. [41902]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  For Trunk Roads in England, where assessment indicates that bridge strengthening work is required for a bridge to carry 40 tonne lorries, the work is then grouped with nearby maintenance and construction works so as to produce a programme which is most economical and least disruptive to road users. Consequently, contracts specify a range of work and it is not easy to separate the costs attributable to strengthening work alone.

  The Agency estimated at the start of financial year 1997/98 that it needed some £240m to complete the bridge strengthening programme for Trunk Roads in England.

  In addition, over the period 1991/92 to 1998/99, central Government have made £913m available to Local Authorities for expenditure on bridge works. It is not possible at this stage to provide an accurate estimate of necessary future strengthening work.

  Hydrofluorocarbon
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts concerning hydrofluorocarbon emissions. [41905]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are in regular contact with other European Member States to discuss how the European Community and its Member States can meet the targets that were set in the Kyoto Protocol. The Environment Council in June will consider how to develop measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, including hydrofluorocarbons. The Government will be issuing a consultation paper later in the summer on policy options for meeting their commitments.

  Air Freight (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the possible expansion and use of small airports to transport freight in Wales. [42240]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department has received no representations on this particular matter.

  Small Commercial Vessels
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 6 May 1998,Official Report, column 392, which of the 11 certifying authorities listed in Annex A operate in the North of Scotland. [42127]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer of 6 May 1998,Official Report, columns 392–94.

  Motorcycle Parking
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with local authorities in London regarding the increase in provision of motorcycle only parking in prominent locations. [42227]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I and my officials have had a number of discussions with local authorities about parking in London although none specifically covered motorcycle parking. However, our new Traffic Management and Parking Guidance for London, a copy of which is in the Library, includes, in particular, advice that local authorities should consider the need for motorcycle parking in developing their approach to local traffic planning.

  Leaded Paint
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 28 April 1998,Official Report, column 88, on leaded paint, what are the terms of reference for the Building Research Establishment's consultation on behalf of the Department; and when its findings are to be published. [42263]
  299
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: The Building Research Establishment was principally commissioned to:

  1. Review the information and advice presented in the Department's current Lead in Paint leaflet (published March 1984), specifically with regard to modem methods of safe removal of leaded paint, taking into account waste disposal aspects and liaising with English Heritage, the British Coatings Federation and any other interested parties to be identified following discussions with the Department.

  2. Draft the test for a revised edition of the leaflet and liaise with the Department in its production.

  A subsidiary part of the commission was to:

  3. Review the current situation regarding the presence of old leaded paint and its potential impact on human health in other countries of the European Union.

  4. Review the impact in the other countries of the European Union of the derogation in the European Community Marketing and Use Directive (89/677/EEC) allowing limited use of lead paint in certain historic properties, works of art and scheduled monuments.

  The final report should be submitted to the Department in July 1998. A copy will be placed in the House of Commons Library. It is now intended to publish the revised version of the leaflet on lead in paint by the beginning of June.

  Motor Cycles
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to permit powered two-wheel vehicles to use bus lanes, on a national basis. [42316]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: The Government have said that they will welcome proposals from interested local authorities for fully monitored experimental schemes in which powered two wheelers were permitted to use bus lanes, so that all the implications can be studied. After such trials, it will take a view on whether or not the practice is one that might be encouraged on a national basis.

  Child Agricultural Employment
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will raise from 13 years the age at which a person can lawfully drive a tractor on a farm. [42610]

  Angela Eagle
  The Health and Safety Commission is currently reviewing the legislation which sets the current limit at 13 years of age—the Agriculture (Avoidance of Accidents to Children) Regulations 1958. I am awaiting its advice on the outcome of this review.

  Merchant Navy
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he will take to increase the numbers of new officer recruits to the Merchant Navy; and if he will make a statement. [42547]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are committed to increasing the numbers of British trained seafarers. A new seafarer training support scheme—SMarT—began on 1 April 1998 which consolidates and expands on the previous training 300
  support schemes. For the financial year 1998–99, SMarT has a budget 30% greater than the total paid out in grants for seafarer training in 1997–98.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to reduce employment costs in the Merchant Navy; and if he will make a statement. [42548]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister established a Shipping Working Group late last year to examine ways to promote the interests of British shipping and British seafarers. One of the areas the Shipping Working Group examined was the employment environment for British seafarers. The Deputy Prime Minister is currently considering the recommendations of the Shipping Working Group.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many responses he has received to the public consultation on his proposals for amendments to Approved Document B to the Building Regulations 1991; and if he will list the organisations and individuals who submitted these responses. [42697]

  Angela Eagle
  The closing date for responses to the public consultation on the proposal to revise Approved Document B was 31 March 1998 and a list of those who responded was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 6 May 1998. The number of responses on this date was 172.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action his Department is taking to address the concerns of fire service and insurance organisations regarding the practice of some water companies of reducing mains water pressure in order to reduce leakage rates. [42699]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department has set up a National Liaison Group to improve the way that the water industry and fire service work together. Representatives of the fire service and the water companies on the Group are preparing a Code of Practice to facilitate better co-operation. Water pressure will he one of the issues covered. Following the Water Summit, water companies are working towards meeting their mandatory leakage targets in a variety of ways including the repair of customers' supply pipes and repair and replacement of mains. The Office of Water Services continues to ensure that any reductions in water pressure do not jeopardize water companies' statutory duties with regard to mains pressure and the delivery of water.

  Delivery Vehicles (London)
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to restrict the access of delivery vehicles to Central London during daylight hours. [41846]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Traffic management on most roads in central London is the responsibility of the boroughs. The boroughs already have powers to restrict loading and unloading and the Government have no
  301
  plans to change them. As noted in the White Paper on proposals for modernising the governance of London, the management of freight traffic on the capital's roads will be an important policy area within the integrated transport strategy for London that the new Mayor will have a duty to produce.

  Road Planning
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what directions he has issued to local authority engineers to require them to be more conversant with the needs and safety requirements of powered two-wheel vehicles and pedal cycles when planning road layouts. [42324]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no power to issue such directions to local authority officials. A range of technical guidance exists on providing for the needs of two-wheeled vehicle users. This includes "Transport in the Urban Environment" published by the Institution of Highways and Transportation in collaboration with my Department, Design Bulletin 32 on the layout considerations of roads and footpaths, produced by my Department, and "Cycle-friendly Infrastructure" produced jointly by the Institution of Highways and Transportation, the Bicycle Association, the CTC and the Department. In addition, there is an extensive range of advice on providing for cyclists within our Traffic Advisory Leaflets and other material. This is listed in our cycling bibliography that is sent free to all local authorities.

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what mechanisms he has developed to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding for road maintenance, with particular reference to repairing the types of damage which are hazardous to cycles and motorcycles. [42326]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are committed to making best use of the existing road network. Future levels of funding for local road maintenance are under consideration in the Comprehensive Spending Review. It is for local authorities to plan their road maintenance, taking account of the needs of all groups of road users.

  Information
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 12 May 1998,Official Report, columns 65–66, on freedom of information, what factors determine which inquiries are monitored. [42687]

  Angela Eagle
  The responses to inquirers are co-ordinated when there are a number of inquiries from an individual, covering a range of topics, addressed to different parts of HSE and where there could be a risk that, inadvertently, inaccuracies or inconsistencies might occur.

  Shellfish Waters
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when a decision will be reached on the designation as shellfish waters of 302
  each of the remaining major estuaries in Devon; and what factors underlie the delays in reaching the decision to date. [42624]

  Angela Eagle
  The EC Directive concerning the quality of waters for shellfish was formally transposed in England and Wales by means of secondary legislation in June 1997. The legislation replaced the administrative arrangements under which the Directive had previously been implemented and was the first step in a process to review implementation policy, including designations. Since the legislation was enacted, work has been proceeding with the review. A review of water quality standards for some of the Directive's parameters has been completed and discussions have been held with the shellfish industry, MAFF and CEFAS (Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science) to produce a candidate list of new areas for designation, and a public consultation paper on these issues is in preparation. We expect to issue this by the summer recess, but the timing of final decisions will be dependent on the response to the consultation exercise.

  Severn Rail Tunnel
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what mechanisms are in place to ensure safety in the Severn Rail Tunnel; what improvements have been made recently to the track in the tunnel and fire safety arrangements; and what further improvements are planned. [42701]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The responsibility for ensuring safety in the Severn Tunnel rests primarily with Railtrack plc. Railtrack is responsible for maintaining the track and structure of the tunnel as well as regulating the flow of rail traffic through it. Railtrack contracts the maintenance of the tunnel to specialist contractors who undertake inspection, testing, maintenance and renewal work. Railtrack has management systems in place which are aimed at ensuring that their contractors carry out necessary work to the required standard.

  A programme of major improvement works has been carried out in the tunnel over the past few weeks. This has included track renewal and drainage work. Following the completion of the work, Railtrack removed a temporary speed restriction which they had previously imposed because of poor track condition.

  I understand that the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate is content with the arrangements relating to fire emergencies, introduced after the publication of its report into the accident in the Severn Tunnel on 7 December 1991.

  Railtrack has on-going arrangements in place for the inspection and maintenance of the tunnel.

  Housing Land
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in obtaining an assessment of the amount of previously developed land available for housing, announced in his policy document, "Planning for the Communities of the Future" on 23 February. [42966]
  303
  Mr. Caborn
  My Department has worked with the Local Government Management Board, English Partnerships, Ordnance Survey and local authorities to establish a method of providing a consistent assessment of previously developed land which may be available for housing or other development, as the first step towards a complete Land Use Database for England.

  Key features of the approach are to meet the needs of a number of organisations from a single data collection exercise, and to use information already held by the local authorities wherever possible, to avoid duplication of effort. Local authorities will be asked to draw up a list of previously developed sites along with information about the location, area, planning status and other relevant characteristics of each site. This will be done to a common format and using standard definitions that will be set out in guidance being developed jointly by DETR, Local Government Management Board, English Partnerships and Ordnance Survey following consultation with a number of local authorities.

  English Partnerships will contract teams of surveyors which will visit each local authority to complete the data collection and to collect additional information about certain sites on the potential for redevelopment. Ordnance Survey will provide quality assurance on the geographical attributes of the data, and develop the list of sites into a `map database' showing the site boundaries. Ordnance Survey will also develop a plan for extending the coverage of the database to other land uses, and for keeping the resulting National Land Use Database up to date.

  Cause of delay

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Broken/cracked rails

  31

  8

  30

  22

  56

  Signalling

  1,783

  1,718

  1,862

  1,891

  2,181

  Objects on track

  217

  208

  248

  327

  314

  All causes

  35,952

  34,150

  34,463

  34,767

  38,840

TREASURY

  Public Opinion Research
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 1998,Official Report, column 441, if he will publish the findings of the public opinion research conducted by (a) Fishburn Hedges on presentational aspects of the individual savings account and (b) Ogilvy and Mather on presentational aspects of the working families tax credit. [38217]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 7 April 1998]: The Chancellor announced in the Pre-Budget Report that he was considering proposals for an individual savings account and a working family tax credit, and that he would be consulting widely on these in the run-up to the Budget. Fishburn Hedges and Ogilvy and Mather were employed by the Treasury to look at the presentational aspects of the proposals. Their appointment was entirely consistent with long-established rules on the appointment of consultants by Government. The Chancellor drew on their work in preparing the Budget.

  Market Research
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 February 1998,Official
  304
  Data collection will start in the summer. English Partnerships intends to publish information on an initial set of sites suitable for redevelopment by the end of the year; summary results for all sites should be available by March 1999. Meanwhile, local authorities will have consistent information on the amounts of previously developed land which may be available for housing to assist in the drawing up of national and regional targets for the reuse of land.

  The database will also have value for other organisations. For example, officials are discussing with Urban Mines, an environmental NGO, which launches its own "Brownfield Sites" project today, to ensure the two projects are complementary. The intention is to secure agreements to make the information more widely available, including appropriate charging for commercial use.

  We shall be discussing this work as it progresses with the Urban Task Force.

  London Underground
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many delays to London Underground services have been caused by(a) broken rails, (b) signal failures, (c) obstructions on the track and (d) all causes in total, for each of the last five years. [37271]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [pursuant to her reply, 6 April 1998, c. 6]: I understand from London Underground that the information requested is as shown in the table.

  Report, column 384, (1) if he will publish for the survey of PEP/TESSA holders (a) the name of the company chosen to conduct the survey, (b) the cost of the contract and (c) the brief given to the opinion research company in respect of the people to be interviewed; and if he will place the results of the survey in the Library; [38893]

  (2) if he will publish for each of the omnibus surveys measuring characteristics of PEP/TESSA holders, amounts saved and savers' attitudes to tax-free savings accounts (a) the names of the companies involved, (b) the cost of each survey and (c) the brief given to each company in respect of the people to be interviewed; and if he will place the results of the surveys in the Library; [38892]

  (3) if he will publish the questions asked in each of the omnibus surveys into the characteristics of PEP/TESSA holders, amounts saved and savers' attitudes to tax-free savings accounts; [38890]

  (4) if he will publish the questions asked in the survey of PEP/TESSA holders. [38891]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 20 April 1998]: The Inland Revenue added questions to two Omnibus surveys, conducted by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and MORI Financial Services (MFS);

  305
  arranged for a follow-up survey by MFS; and purchased existing analyses from NOP's Financial Research Survey. The cost of the information was as follows:

  NOP: £1,350

  ONS: £24,400

  MFS: £14,500.

  Details on the specifications of all the surveys and a summary of the main findings have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Tax Law Rewrite Project
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further developments there have been on the Tax Law Rewrite Project. [42904]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Tax Law Rewrite project aims to bring clarity to our direct tax legislation, making the tax system more accessible to taxpayers, and their advisers. The Inland Revenue have today published a document which reviews the recent progress of the project and outlines its work programme for 1998–99. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The Rewrite is a major task, and we are committed to doing it well. We are also committed to continuing on the basis of full and open consultation. Such consultation has been the hallmark of this project from the beginning and will, I am confident, ultimately ensure that it is a highly successful one.

  Title

  Publication date

  Closing date for submissions

  Number of respondents

  Proposals for a new Industrial and Provident Societies Act

  23 March 1998

  1 May 1998

  64

  Innovating for the future: investing in research and development

  17 March 1998

  30 June 1998

  25 to date

  Bank of England powers to collect information for monetary policy purposes

  13 February 1998

  13 March 1998

  12

  Index linked gilt auctions

  5 January 1998

  30 January 1998

  28

  The future of UK Government debt and cash management: a response for consultation

  22 December 1997

  none

  6

  Cash ratio deposits

  25 November 1997

  20 April 1998

  19

  Pre-Budget Report

  25 November 1997

  17 March 1998

  1,250

  The future of UK Government debt and cash management: a proposal for consultation

  29 July 1997

  12 September 1997

  20

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many and what proportion of his Department's appointees to non-departmental public bodies are (i) aged under 25, (ii) aged 25 to 30 and (iii) aged 31 to 35 years. [40736]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since the publication of the Commissioner for Public Appointments' Guidance, statistics on the ages of appointees have been routinely collected. Details of the ages of those appointed before this date are not available in all cases.

  Based on the information available, four serving appointees are under the age of 35, of whom one person is aged between 25 and 30 and the rest between 31 and 35 years. This is approximately 1% of the total.

  MI5
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what briefings were given by Treasury Ministers on the funding of MI5; what meetings have taken place between Treasury Ministers and journalists at which MI5 was discussed; and which journalists were involved. [39197]

  Mr. Darling
  No such briefings or discussions have taken place about the Security Service's budget. As I announced in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) on 30 October 1997,Official Report, column 884, intelligence agencies are being reviewed as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review. The terms of reference have been placed in the library.

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the consultation papers published since 1 May 1997 giving the date of publication, closing date for submissions and the number of respondents. [42246]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Following is a list of the public consultation papers published by the Treasury since 1 May 1997, with the publication dates, closing dates for submissions and number of respondents. It does not include consultations which have been announced, but for which no consultation papers have yet been issued; nor does it cover a number of taskforces and advisory groups which may also have a consultative role.

  These figures include all appointments which fall under my responsibility or where my role is to advise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and, through him, Her Majesty the Queen. The figures include appointments made or recommended by previous Secretaries of State as well as by me.

  The Government are committed to encouraging a wide range of candidates to apply for positions on the boards of public bodies, reflecting the diverse society in which we live.

  This includes encouraging more young people to put themselves forward as potential candidates for public appointments. All appointments are made on merit, and candidates must demonstrate that they have the necessary skills and experience to match the needs of the public body on which they wish to serve.

  Arts Awards
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of awards made by(a) the Arts Council and (b) the London Arts Board have been directed towards black and minority ethnic groups in each year between 1987–88 and 1996–97. [41359]

  Mr. Fisher
  Figures for grant-in-aid awards from the Arts Council of England and the London Arts Board are not available under the Black and Minority Ethnic heading. However, figures are available under the broader Cultural Diversity heading.

  Figures for grant-in-aid awards, from the Arts Council of England and the Regional Arts Boards to the Cultural Diversity sector, are available only from 1990–91 onwards. These are set out in the following table:

  Number of Black/Minority ethnic awards

  Total Black/Minority ethnic awards (£)

  Total of awards

  Total grants awarded (£)

  Black/Minority ethnic (Per cent.)

  A4E Main Scheme Rounds 1–3, 1996/97

  35

  4,382,453

  278

  38,421,000

  14

  A4E Express

  65

  296,961

  2,070

  8,437,760

  3.2

  Capital 1995/96–1997/98

  29

  1,420,000

  1,794

  842,000,000

  0.2

  Film 9.1995/1.1998

  11

  4,305,853

  85

  49,485,612

  9

  A number of other awards may have been made which benefited black and minority ethnic groups, but in which the primary applicant was not so identified.

  Figures from the London Arts Board for Cultural Diversity awards, where available, are set out in the following table:

  Year

  Total Cultural Diversity Expenditure (£)

  Percentage of total grant expenditure

  1995/96

  2,237,102

  17.9

  1994/95

  2,260,895

  18.4

  1993/94

  1,817,614

  19.4

  1992/93

  1,786,893

  19.2

  Listed Sites and Buildings

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) listed buildings, (b) scheduled ancient monuments, (c) conservation areas, (d) local or national nature reserves, (e) sites of special scientific interest, (f) areas of outstanding natural beauty and (g) world heritage sites, are currently recorded. [42274]

  Mr. Banks
  The information requested, in respect of England, is as follows:

  (a) Listed Buildings: 365,8461 entries on the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest;

  (b) Scheduled Ancient Monuments: 17,5382 entries in the schedule of ancient monuments;

  (c) Conservation Areas: 8,758;

  (d) Local Nature Reserves: 593, National Nature Reserves: 194;

  (e) Sites of Special Scientific Interest: 3,987;

  (f) Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty: 37, and

  (g) World Heritage Sites: 11 (the UK as a whole, including dependent territories, has a total of 17).

  308

  Year

  Total Grants Awarded (£)

  Total Cultural Diversity Awards (£)

  Cultural Diversity (Per cent.)

  1996–97

  123,425,000

  2,492,000

  2.02

  1995–96

  123,143,000

  2,394,000

  1.94

  1994–95

  118,404,000

  2,490,000

  2.10

  1993–94

  120,929,000

  2,547,000

  2.11

  1992–93

  117,162,000

  2,453,000

  2.09

  1991–92

  115,738,000

  1,992,000

  1.72

  1990–91

  90,425,000

  1,780,000

  1.97

  Figures for Lottery awards from the Arts Council of England to the Cultural Diversity sector, which can be clearly identified as awards to black and minority ethnic groups, are set out in the following table:

  1 This figures relates to list entries which sometimes include more than one building. It is estimated that the number of buildings listed is between 450,000 and 500,000.

  2 This figure relates to entries which sometimes cover more than one monument. It is estimated that the number of sites and monuments scheduled is about 23,000.

  Lottery Grants
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the total(a) number and (b) value of the grants made by the Heritage Lottery Fund in the categories of (i) land, (ii) buildings, (iii) museums and galleries, (iv) industrial, transport and maritime and (v) manuscripts since its establishment in 1994. [42336]

  Mr. Banks
  As at 24 March 1998, the breakdown of awards made by the Heritage Lottery Fund since 1994 is as follows:

  Heritage sector

  Number of awards

  Value (£ million)

  Land

  230

  66

  Buildings

  905

  308

  Museums and galleries

  349

  432

  Industrial transport and maritime

  86

  64

  Manuscripts and archives

  78

  51

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the total(a) number and (b) value of the grants made by the National Heritage Memorial Fund in the categories of (i) land, (ii) buildings, (iii) museums and galleries, (iv) industrial, transport and maritime and (v) manuscripts since 1980. [42338]

  Mr. Banks
  Information on the number and value of awards made by the National Heritage Memorial Fund by heritage sector since 1980 is not readily available. However, the Fund has made 1,144 awards to date with a total value of £199m.

  Film Industry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for further Government support for the British film industry. [41876]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The recommendations of the Government's Film Policy Review Group were announced on 25 April. These set out an agenda for action by Government and industry in support of British film. Copies of the report 'A Bigger Picture' have been placed in the Library of the House.

  On 12 May, I co-chaired a meeting of an Action Committee, made up of representatives of key sectors of the British film industry, which will oversee the implementation of the report's initiatives.

  Sport (Women)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make an announcement about the Government's adoption of the 1994 Brighton Declaration on Women in Sport. [42967]

  Mr. Banks
  I am delighted to announce that the UK Government have adopted the 1994 Brighton Declaration on Women and Sport. I wish to place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for all his assistance in the past for his role in meeting this objective.

  Our decision to adopt the Declaration further indicates our determination to improve opportunities for women at all levels in sport, whether as participants, competitors, coaches or administrators.

  Through our policy of 'Sport for All' we shall continue to work with the Sports Councils and others to promote and develop opportunities in sport for women regardless of where they live, social background, age or ability.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Environmental Protection Agency
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to establish an independent Environmental Protection Agency in Northern Ireland. [41620]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No steps have been taken to establish an Environmental Protection Agency in Northern Ireland.

  The Environment and Heritage Service, a Next Steps Agency within the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland was set up on 1 April 1996 to assume operational responsibility for environmental issues.

  Prisoners
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 6 May 1998,Official Report, columns 412–13, on prisoners, if she will list for each of the years from 1998 to 2002 and for the following five years the number of prisoners in each category expected to be released who are serving life or other indeterminate sentences. [41712]
  310
  Mr. Ingram
  As a specific tariff is not set for individual indeterminate sentence prisoners in Northern Ireland, the information sought is not readily available. Figures provided previously have been broad approximations for indicative purposes. Given the small numbers involved, disaggregation of these figures by affiliation and by year of possible release could be misleading and could result in individual prisoners being identified or drawing incorrect inferences about the future handling of their cases.

  The table is an estimate of the number of indeterminate sentence prisoners at HMP Maze who could be released during the calendar years 1998, 1999 and 2000. The figures include prisoners in organizations which do not have a cease-fire and exclude prisoners who have already been given a provisional release date or are at an advanced stage of consultation about release.

  Number of indeterminate prisoners

  Total number of prisoners

  99

  Estimated releases in 1998

  0

  Estimated releases in 1999

  6

  Estimated releases in 2000

  14

  Remaining after December 2000

  79

  Beef Steer Prices
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the average price paid to the producer for a(a) 400 kilogram and (b) 350 kilogram deadweight beef steer in each month of the last five years for which figures are readily available. [41658]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Information is not collated on the basis requested. However, details of the average deadweight price for all steers in each month since January 1993 are set out in the table.

  Northern Ireland deadweight steer price (P/KG) 1993–98

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  January

  212

  222

  230

  223

  178

  155

  February

  230

  222

  225

  223

  169

  156

  March

  245

  228

  224

  220

  169

  144

  April

  234

  230

  228

  187

  164

  142

  May

  257

  245

  225

  196

  162

  —

  June

  249

  232

  227

  190

  167

  —

  July

  237

  228

  226

  187

  172

  —

  August

  226

  227

  226

  174

  169

  —

  September

  214

  221

  227

  173

  171

  —

  October

  208

  222

  226

  172

  171

  —

  November

  219

  226

  228

  179

  167

  —

  December

  225

  233

  225

  187

  159

  —

  Beef Exports
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if beef exports to the European Union have been resumed; what assistance is being given to the beef industry to regain markets in Europe; and if she will make a statement. [41622]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him on 11 May 1998,Official Report, column 26.
  311

  Referendum
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her oral statement of 22 April 1998,Official Report, column 940, if she will list the amounts paid or due to be paid to the various parties in connection with the forthcoming referendum. [42146]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: The Government have no plans to give any money to parties in connection with the forthcoming referendum. The parties are, however, entitled to a free mail shot in the referendum. It is for the parties to approach the Post Office to arrange distribution of their material, and the Post Office then recovers the cost from the Government. Until that has happened, we do not know exactly how much money the mail shot will cost.

  Ordnance Survey
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland in 1998–99. [42905]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  For 1998–99, the following performance targets have been set for Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland:

  Output

  1. To complete the digital conversation programme by 1999–2000 financial year by converting 1,740 large scale map sheets to digital format.

  2. To survey 65,000 new survey units.

  3. To update the digital topographic database with 26,000 survey units of change.

  Quality of Service
  4. To despatch within 7 working days 96% of customers orders for small and large scale basic format maps.

  Efficiency
  5. To reduce unit costs so that the weighted mean percentage reduction of selected representative activities is 2%.

  Financial
  6. To recover from the sale of goods and services 35% of the total costs incurred by the Agency.

  Compensation Agency
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she has agreed to the retention of Next Steps Agency status by the Compensation Agency after 31 March 1998; what future plans the Compensation Agency has prepared; and when they will be published. [42906]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have agreed that the Compensation Agency retains its status as a Next Steps agency from 1 April 1998 to 31 March 2000. The Agency will publish today its Corporate Plan and Business Plan. The Plans explain the Agency's business and organisation and set out the assumptions about workloads and resources which underpin the plans and targets.

  Planning Service
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Department of the Environment's Planning Service in 1998–99. [42907]
  312
  Marjorie Mowlam
  For 1998–99, the following performance targets have been set for the Planning Service:

  To publish the following development plans in draft form by 31 March 1999:

  Cookstown

  Armagh Countryside proposals

  Craigavon

  To adopt the following development plans by 31 March 1999:

  Belfast Road Lines

  Antrim Area Plan alteration

  Quality of Service

  1. To achieve a customer satisfaction level of 80 in relation to the determination of planning applications.

  2. To take 75 per cent. of Minor planning applications to District Council within 8 weeks.

  3. To take 65 per cent. of Major planning applications to District Council within 8 weeks.

  4. To issue 60 per cent. of all planning decisions with 7 working days of final District Council consultation.

  5. To reduce the proportion of invalid planning applications received by 5 per cent. to 25 per cent. overall.

  6. To issue responses to 93 per cent. of property inquiries within 10 working days.

  Efficiency

  1. To achieve 3 per cent. efficiency gains on running cost expenditure.

  2. To reduce Property Certificate Unit costs by 1.5 per cent.

  3. To achieve an average Unit Cost for planning applications not exceeding £2,885.

  Financial Performance

  1. To maintain expenditure within cash limits and to approved budget plans.

  2. To maintain full recovery of the costs of determining planning applications.

  3. To maintain full recovery of the costs of responding to property inquiries.

  Environment and Heritage Service
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Department of the Environment's Environment and Heritage Service in 1998–99. [42908]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  For 1998–99, the following performance targets have been set for the Environment and Heritage Service.

  Volume of Output
  Bring about a 10 per cent. reduction in the number of 'high' and `medium' severity water pollution incidents by the year 2000 on 1996 figures.
  Establish regulatory systems under the Waste and Contaminated Land (NI) Order 1997 for the registration of carriers, enforcement provision, fly tipping and special waste.
  Produce for the Department a draft Waste Management Strategy by October 1998.
  Declare 17 Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI).
  Submit proposals for the classification of three Special Protection Areas under the EC Birds Directive.
  Complete the fieldwork for the NI Countryside Survey 2000 by December 1998.
  Schedule 70 historic monuments to bring the total to 1,365.

  313
  Complete the resurvey of historic buildings in 24 wards.
  Redesign the EHS home page and establish a regular updating system by 31 December 1998.

  Quality of Customer Service
  Provide a round the clock response for all water pollution incidents reported and begin investigation of such incidents within 24 hours.
  Respond to 90 per cent. of written inquiries or requests for information within 15 working days.
  Issue 85 per cent. Water Act consents, wildlife licences, ASSI and scheduled monument consents within the timescales quoted in our Customer Service Guides.

  Efficiency
  Achieve 3 per cent. efficiency gains on running cost expenditure.
  Set specific unit cost targets for 1999–2000 for outputs.
  Monitor and maintain expenditure within cash limits.

  Information
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if her Department operates a monitoring exercise of persistent inquirers for information. [42641]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No.

PRIME MINISTER

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make available the minutes of meetings of himself and any of his officials with President Kabbah or his representatives to(a) the public, (b) HM Customs and Excise investigation into the Sandline affair and (c) the subsequent Foreign Office inquiry. [42092]

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Prime Minister who else was present at the meeting between himself and President Kabbah during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh; what was discussed; and if the minutes of the meeting will be published. [41968]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answers 14 May 1998]: Neither I nor my officials have had any formal meetings with President Kabbah, or his representatives. I met him at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Edinburgh last October, to which he was invited as my special guest. These contacts were informal and no minutes were taken.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Prime Minister whether briefing on the article published in The Observer on 8 March concerning arms sales to Sierra Leone was requested by his staff. [42058]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: No.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had in 1998 with President Chirac about arms sales to Africa. [41915]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: I have had no discussions in 1998 with President Chirac about arms sales to Africa.
  314
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with President Chirac about Sierra Leone in the past four weeks; and if he will give the dates and the main points of discussion. [41917]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: I have had no discussions with President Chirac about Sierra Leone in the past four weeks.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the guidelines currently used by Ministers and officials on the manner of responding to written parliamentary questions indicating any changes made since 7 May 1997. [42039]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: Guidance to Ministers on their responsibilities to Parliament is set out in the Ministerial Code.

  Guidance to officials on drafting answers to Parliamentary Questions, including the responsibilities of civil servants to help Ministers fulfil their obligations, was set out as part of the then Government's response to the Public Service Committee's Report on "Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility" in November 1996. This advice has not altered. Copies of both documents are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 11 May 1998,Official Report, column 20, what weight the Government place on the decision of the Lord Advocate, stated on 6 October 1995, that proof of the case against the two Libyans accused in respect of Lockerbie does not depend on evidence which may be given by Mr. James T. Thurman; and what independent assessment it has made of the relevance of Mr. Thurman's evidence. [42611]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: The assessment of the evidence in any Scottish criminal case is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate exercises that jurisdiction independently and objectively and it would be quite inappropriate to invite another party to consider that which has already been properly considered.

  North Korea
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to visit the Republic of Korea. [42360]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans to visit the Republic of Korea.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with the President of the Republic of Korea, with particular reference to his policy towards North Korea. [42359]

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed at length the situation on the Korean peninsula with President Kim at our meeting on 2 April. The Government believe that meaningful dialogue between North and South Korea is
  315
  the best means of achieving peace and stability on the peninsula. We welcome President Kim's policy towards the North as a positive step towards this.

  Duty-free Shopping
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 December 1997,Official Report, column 265, on duty-free shopping, what estimate he has made of the potential number of job losses that will arise from the ending of the trade in duty-free goods; whether, during the UK presidency, the Commission carried out the proposed survey; and if he will make a statement. [42343]

  The Prime Minister
  The Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions has undertaken a study into the effect on the transport sector of the abolition of intra-EU duty and tax free sales in 1999. During the UK Presidency, the Commission has not undertaken a survey of the potential number of job losses that may arise from the abolition of duty and tax free sales within the EU. The position of the United Kingdom remains that it would not oppose a study should there be a consensus amongst member states in favour of such a study.

WALES

  NHS (Staff Views)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what ways he seeks to obtain the views of staff in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [40826]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I have instigated regular meetings with representatives of NHS Staff Organisations, both at Ministerial and officials level where a wide range of issues are discussed. In addition, the Department will be undertaking public consultation on proposals to reconfigure NHS Trusts. Trades Unions in the health service will be consulted directly.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to involve parents in formulating policies for children with special needs; and if he will make a statement. [41649]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh Office Green Paper on special educational needs (SEN), "The BEST for Special Education", issued last October emphasised the key role of parents. The consultation attracted a large number of responses, including responses from organisations representing parents and individual parents. We are giving careful consideration to all responses in deciding on the way ahead.

  Breast Cancer
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by unitary authority the incidence of breast cancer in women in Wales over the past three years. [41790]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The following table shows the number of new registrations of female breast cancer in each of the last three years for which data are available.
  316

  New registrations of female breast cancer

  Unitary authority

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Anglesey

  31

  43

  47

  Blaenau Gwent

  43

  42

  29

  Bridgend

  72

  68

  106

  Caerphilly

  60

  84

  71

  Cardiff

  167

  206

  152

  Carmarthenshire

  94

  107

  110

  Ceredigion

  52

  46

  51

  Conwy

  86

  95

  89

  Denbighshire

  85

  69

  92

  Flintshire

  80

  74

  68

  Gwynedd

  83

  79

  68

  Merthyr Tydfil

  16

  30

  28

  Monmouthshire

  36

  45

  43

  Neath Port Talbot

  66

  78

  90

  Newport

  37

  59

  75

  Pembrokeshire

  76

  48

  70

  Powys

  66

  60

  64

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  100

  157

  120

  Swansea

  129

  146

  142

  Torfaen

  40

  42

  48

  Vale of Glamorgan

  64

  85

  92

  Wrexham

  72

  56

  90

  Unknown

  49

  17

  7

  Total

  1,604

  1,736

  1,752

  Source:

  Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit

  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give a breakdown by age of the incidence of breast cancer in women in Wales over the last five years. [41789]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The following table shows the number of new registrations of female breast cancer in each of the last five years for which data are available.

  New registrations of female breast cancer

  Age

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Under 30

  11

  11

  10

  9

  6

  30–34

  20

  17

  22

  17

  13

  35–39

  47

  55

  41

  49

  51

  40–44

  90

  87

  90

  96

  97

  45–49

  128

  139

  118

  140

  119

  50–54

  122

  146

  128

  155

  157

  55–59

  154

  161

  147

  181

  186

  60–64

  219

  189

  217

  232

  223

  65–69

  189

  222

  202

  212

  230

  70–74

  166

  199

  153

  185

  205

  75–79

  212

  173

  185

  164

  183

  80–84

  126

  140

  141

  128

  138

  85+

  134

  151

  150

  168

  144

  Total

  1,618

  1,690

  1,604

  1,736

  1,752

  Source:

  Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit.

  Air Freight
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the possible expansion and use of minor airports in Wales to transport freight. [42158]

  Mr. Hain
  A number of the responses to the Government's consultation exercise into the development of an integrated transport policy referred to the importance of developing civil aviation services and airports in Wales, including the transport of freight. I am also undertaking a series of meetings with airport and
  317
  airline owners and operators to assess the potential for establishing scheduled air services between north and south Wales.

  Our policies will shortly be set out in a White Paper, complemented to reflect the particular circumstances and needs of Wales by a Welsh Office Transport Policy Statement.

  Transport
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives are planned to help reduce the amount of(a) traffic and (b) freight on Welsh roads. [42226]

  Mr. Hain
  Our plans to develop an integrated transport policy will be set out in a UK wide White Paper on transport to be published shortly. At around the same time, a Welsh Transport Policy Statement will be published drawing out those issues of particular relevance and importance to Wales including, of course, measures to reduce congestion on Welsh roads. On freight, we have already taken a significant step forward with this week's announcement of Welsh Office support for the creation of a new Eurofreight terminal in south Wales.

  Aerospace Factories
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what visits he has made to aerospace factories in North East Wales; and if he will make a statement. [42454]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend visited Raytheon Corporate Jets on Friday 1 May of this year. I visited the British Aerospace facility in Broughton on 6 February. The aerospace industry is strategically important to Wales.

  Sport
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on publicly funded assistance for people to participate in sport. [42451]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Welsh Office support for increasing participation in sport by people of all ages and abilities is channelled through the Sports Council for Wales. In 1998–99, the Welsh Office's grant to the Sports Council is £6.6 million.

  In addition, the National Lottery is providing excellent sporting opportunities for the people of Wales. Since it began distributing Lottery funds in 1995, the Sports Council has awarded around £30 million to local schemes which provide a wide range of new or improved sports facilities with long lasting benefits for schools and communities throughout Wales.

  Cricket Clubs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the amounts of Sports Council, Wales money allocated to cricket clubs in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [42452]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The allocation of funds to individual sports is an operational matter for the Sports Council for Wales. I will ask the Chief Executive of the Sports Council to write to my hon. Friend with the information he has requested. A copy of his letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Sterling Level
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact of the current level of sterling upon export-dependent small businesses in Wales. [42449]

  Mr. Hain
  I fully recognise the worries of export dependent small businesses in Wales about the current level of the pound. In setting interest rates, the Bank of England takes into account the effect on exchange rates and on exports. The Government's aim is a stable and competitive pound over the medium term. The most important thing is to deliver a stable economic environment—sustained growth, low inflation and sound public finances—while at the same time introducing policies to promote enterprise and investment and raise Britain's sustainable rate of growth. The Government are determined to take a long-term view and not be diverted from this course by short-term pressures.

  Hypnotherapy
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many health authorities in Wales funded hypnotherapy treatment in the last year for which figures are available. [42480]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Excluding GP fundholder referrals for which records are not held centrally, only North Wales Health Authority currently funds hypnotherapy treatment.

  Information
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his Department operates a monitoring exercise of persistent inquirers for information. [42642]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  No.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the operation of the jobseeker's allowance in Wales. [41494]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are seeking to develop an active modern service that is flexible, efficient and easy to use. This will support promoting jobs not benefit dependency.

  The administration of Jobseeker's Allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Barry Jones, dated 18 May 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on the operation of Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) in Wales.
  JSA is delivered jointly by the Employment Services (ES) and the Benefits Agency (BA). The two agencies are accountable for different aspects of JSA delivery; the ES for labour market aspects and the BA for payment aspects and other Social Security benefit services. Areas of joint accountability are kept to a minimum.
  The organisational arrangements were shaped by the following operational objectives:
  to maximise the extent to which all services for the Jobseeker, including advice on relevant Social Security benefits, are delivered through a Jobcentre;

  319
  to improve service delivery and reduce administrative costs by streamlining processes and reducing the duplication of functions across the agencies;
  to achieve an effective partnership between the two separate agencies, whilst maintaining clear lines of accountability and responsibility.
  These objectives have a direct bearing on the location of functions, contact with the Jobseeker in the Jobcentre, the division of accountability and responsibility between the BA and the ES and the supporting management arrangements.
  Contact with Jobseekers is primarily through the Jobcentre. To support this, there is a minimum requirement to locate certain BA functions in the Jobcentre and, as far as possible, the Jobseeker is seen by the same team of staff.
  The level of service offered is underpinned by the Secretary of State's performance targets and the Jobseeker's Charter; the Employment Service also has JSA performance targets agreed with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. These interrelate to deliver all elements of JSA.
  The basis of the relationship between the two agencies is set out in a Memorandum of Understanding. There is regular, formal contact between managers in BA and ES at all levels in order to ensure that the JSA operation is effectively managed and that opportunities are taken jointly to effect any necessary improvements in performance and customer service. For example, there is a national initiative currently underway, examining the options available for improving customer service; Wales is included in this.
  There are 93 Jobcentres in Wales, 65 have at least one member of BA staff permanently on site. In addition, 10 Jobcentres have BA member of staff present on a part-time basis and in 4 other Jobcentres ES staff provide BA services through a Service Level Agreement. Of the remaining sites, 5 have access to BA services through a direct phone link in the Jobcentre or through a Public Caller Office situated within the same town.
  I hope that this is helpful.

DEFENCE

  RAF Signals Engineering Establishment
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment for 1998–99. [42973]

  Dr. Reid
  The Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment Agency's Key Targets for the Financial Year 1998–99 are:

  Operational Strategy
  KT 1—Reduce the core as far as possible and continue to refine it against the military need.
  KT 2—Maintain 100 per cent. of core skills to support likely operations.

  Performance Strategy
  KT 3—Deliver 100 per cent. of operational tasks to time.
  KT 4—Deliver at least 90 per cent. of non-operational tasks to time.
  KT 5—Achieve a quality failure rate for completed tasks of less than 4 per cent.
  KT 6—Reduce the full cost per Task Manhour by 7 per cent. on FY 96–97.

  Personnel Strategy
  KT 7—Achieve Investors in People accreditation by 31 December 1998.

  Financial Strategy
  KT 8—Develop an improved output costing system by 31 March 1999 which will interface effectively with the MOD's overall approach to Resource Accounting and Budgeting.
  320
  Information Strategy
  KT 9—Complete an Action Plan to resolve the Year 2000 problem by 30 September 1998.

  Defence Codification Agency
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Codification Agency for 1998–99. [43072]

  Dr. Reid
  The Defence Codification Agency's Key Targets for the Financial Year 1998–99 are:

  Support to NATO Codification Strategy
  KT 1—Meet 85 per cent. of timescales for UK codification requests as defined in Service Level Agreements/Customer Supplier Agreements.
  KT 2—Meet 95 per cent. of timescales for international codification requests.

  Information Management Strategy
  KT 3—Uniquely codify 75 per cent. of new items using a source data.

  Efficiency Strategy
  KT 4—Reduce the unit cost of codification to less than £51.
  KT 5—Reduce the Agency's Running Costs by 10 per cent.

  Quality Strategy
  KT 6—Reduce the number of post-codification challenges by 5 per cent.

  Logistics Support Services Agency
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Logistics Support Services Agency for 1998–99. [43073]

  Dr. Reid
  The Logistics Support Services Agency's Key Targets for the Financial Year 1998–99 are:

  Business Strategy
  KT 1—To produce 85% of all deliverables by the target date agreed with the sponsor.
  KT 2—To deliver 80% of all outputs at the cost agreed with the sponsor.
  KT 3—To produce 90% of all deliverables to the sponsor's complete satisfaction.
  KT 4—To achieve a 3% reduction in the cost of a productive hour.

  Quality Strategy
  KT 5—To succeed at the triennial re-certification and surveillance to BS EN ISO 9001 by 30 September 1998.

  Staff Car Mileage Allowance
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value in real terms of(a) staff car mileage claims paid and (b) staff rail fares paid in each year since 1989–90; and what was the total amount of staff car mileage for which reimbursement was made and the percentage change in each year since 1989–90. [42554]

  Mr. Spellar
  Unfortunately, the Department does not keep separate records for expenditure on these items back to Financial Year 1989-90. However, data have been retrieved back to 1991 for the amounts paid to civil servants in the Ministry of Defence as reimbursement for the use of their own vehicles on all forms of official duty, although mileage figures are only available since 1994. These are shown in the table; costs are given both as
  321
  actual in-year figures and at constant 1997–98 prices (i.e. uplifted for inflation by use of the Treasury GDP deflator):

  (a) Car mileage claims paid

  £

  Financial year

  Actual cost

  Constant price at 1997–98 values

  1991–92

  11,800,000

  13,954,000

  1992–93

  11,840,000

  13,437,000

  1993–94

  11,230,000

  12,384,000

  1994–95

  11,500,000

  12,493,000

  1995–96

  12,200,000

  12,896,500

  1996–97

  12,700,000

  13,043,000

  1997–98

  12,100,000

  12,100,000

  The cost of rail travel undertaken by civil servants on official duty over the same period and given in the same format is as follows:

  (b) Cost of rail fares

  £

  Financial year

  Actual cost

  Constant price at 1997–98 values

  1993–94

  5,229,660

  5,767,148

  1994–95

  4,140,617

  4,498,253

  1995–96

  4,817,745

  5,092,796

  1996–97

  4,888,864

  5,020,863

  1997–98

  4,897,573

  4,897,573

  The total mileages, and percentage changes by year, which are reflected in the figures provided at (a) above from 1994–95 onwards are as follows:

  Financial year

  Total mileage (million)

  Percentage variation

  1994–95

  43.8

  —

  1995–96

  46.1

  +5

  1996–97

  47.3

  +2.5

  1997–98

  45.4

  -4

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of staff of all grades employed by his Department; and what percentage of these staff were eligible to claim a car mileage allowance on 31 March in each year since 1990. [42555]

  Dr. Reid
  The total number of civilian staff of all grades employed by the Ministry of Defence on 31 March in each year since 1990 are listed in the table.

  Year

  Number

  1990

  139,100

  1991

  138,000

  1992

  137,300

  1993

  126,900

  1994

  123,900

  1995

  118,000

  1996

  111,600

  1997

  111,000

  1998

  105,900

  For each year, all staff with a valid driving licence and vehicle insurance were eligible to claim a car mileage
  322
  allowance while on detached duties. The Department does not record the number of employees who hold such documents.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the quantity of(a) oil, (b) gas and (c) electricity purchased for the heating, lighting and powering of all accommodation occupied by his Department within the UK in each year since 1989–90; and what was the total cost in real terms of (a) to (c) in each year;[42553]

  (2) what proportion of his Department's energy usage was from (a) renewable energy and (b) combined heating in each year since 1989–90. [42556]

  Mr. Spellar
  The MOD is committed to energy management and each major site is required to have an Energy Manager, amongst whose responsibilities is the collection of relevant data. However, this material is not held centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Information
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department operates a monitoring exercise of persistent inquirers for information. [42629]

  Mr. Spellar
  We do not monitor inquiries in such an exercise centrally. We do, however, monitor correspondence from the public sent to Ministers to determine our performance in responding to it. Where a correspondent has persistently corresponded with the Department on a particular issue and has been given the fullest possible answer, several times, it is our practice to send a formal letter stating that no further purpose will be served by continuing the correspondence. This decision is taken by an official at Grade 7 level or above and in accordance with Exemption 9 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information: Voluminous or vexatious requests.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to reply to the letter of 17 March from the hon. Member for Totnes, about Mrs. K. Graymore and the Dartmouth Royal Naval College. [42696]

  Mr. Spellar
  My office has no record of receiving the hon. Member's letter. We have, however, now obtained a copy and a reply will be sent as soon as possible.

  Defence Analytical Services Agency
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Quinquennial Review of the Defence Analytical Services Agency; and what key targets have been set for the Agency for 1998–99. [43074]

  Dr. Reid
  The Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) was set up in 1992 and the Quinquennial Review of the Agency has now been completed. The Evaluation Phase of this Review concluded that the Agency had made remarkable strides in a short time, had succeeded in providing its customers with an improved standard of
  323
  service and was well positioned to take advantage of the gains made in its first five years. I am placing a copy of this Report in the Library of the House.

  The Prior Options Phase of the Review concluded that the status of DASA as a Defence Agency should be extended for a further five years and that ownership of the Agency should be exercised by the Department's Principal Finance Officer. These recommendations have been accepted. A revised Framework Document for the Agency is being prepared and a copy of this will be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

  The following key performance targets have been set for DASA for 1998–99.

  1. To meet at least 95% of the targets set in Service Level Agreements and Project Agreements.

  2. To have at least 90% of customers saying they are at least satisfied with the timeliness, quality of work and helpfulness of staff in the annual Customer Satisfaction Survey covering all aspects of the business.

  3. To have at least 25% of customers who received DASA services in 1997–98 and 1998–99 report an improvement in DASA's services provided in the annual Customer Satisfaction Survey.

  4. Within existing resources, to make "UK Defence Statistics" and other related corporate information available via electronic dissemination within the Department.

  5. To deliver efficiency gains of 2.5% of the Agency's initial running cost allocation.

  Ministry of Defence Police Agency
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Ministry of Defence Police Agency for 1998–99. [43075]

  Dr. Reid
  The following Key Targets have been set out for the Ministry of Defence Police Agency:By 31 March 1999 to have completed all remaining Service Level Agreements with the Agency customers.
  By 31 March 1999 to have established an MDP Office Watch
  initiative at a minimum of 20 MOD locations nation-wide.
  In financial year 1998–99 to have in place local Policing and Security plans at each MDP policed establishment.
  By 31 March 1999, in accordance with Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary's recommendations, to have put in place agreed Area Policing Teams (APT) performance indicators which will enable the Agency to set targets for APT performance improvement in financial year 1999–2000.
  To achieve across Chief Constable MDP's retained element of the MDP budget, an overall efficiency saving of 2.5 per cent.
  To contribute to the achievement of Departmentally Mandated Standards for project CAPITAL (introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Insolvency Practitioners
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the regulation of insolvency practitioners and of their charges. [42804]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Mr. Justice Ferris is chairing a working party on remuneration of office holders which is expected to report shortly. Their terms of reference are to consider and make recommendations concerning the basis 324
  on which the courts should fix remuneration in those relatively rare cases where the courts are involved. However, we shall give careful consideration to how any recommendations they might make may be applied in other cases.

  The fees of an insolvency practitioner are subject to approval by the creditors in most forms of insolvency procedure. The authorising bodies have issued practitioners with guidance in this area, directed particularly to ensuring that creditors are provided with sufficient information to enable them to form a judgment as to whether the fees sought are reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

  Under the Insolvency Act 1986, only authorised persons may act as insolvency practitioners. Authorisation may be granted either by a recognised professional body or directly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Professional bodies are recognised on the basis that they have rules to ensure that practitioners have appropriate educational qualifications and experience and that they remain fit and proper.

  Practitioners have been subject to a formal programme of monitoring visits by their authorising bodies since 1994. These visits are designed to assess whether a practitioner is fit and proper and to promote compliance with statutory obligations and best practice. Monitoring has shown that the majority of practitioners now have acceptable procedures. Where failures in compliance are identified, undertakings are sought where appropriate and, in more serious cases, the authorising body will consider whether further action is required.

  In November 1996, a working party was established with representatives from the insolvency professional bodies and my Department's Insolvency Service, to review the current state of regulation and to consider how it might be made more effective in the public interest. The working party issued a consultative document in December last year and is now well advanced in reviewing responses and forming its preliminary views. They expect to submit their final report later this year and we shall certainly give their findings and conclusions very careful consideration.

  Arms Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 29 April 1998,Official Report, column 151–52, what is the total value of Export Credits Guarantee Department claims made by manufacturers, but not recovered from the courts of (a) Venezuela, (b) Jordan, (c) Kenya, (d) Egypt and (e) Algeria. [41460]

  Mrs. Roche
  From records readily available, the total level of ECGD claims outstanding on these markets as at 31 March 1998 was as follows:

  £ million

  Algeria

  172

  Egypt

  386

  Jordan

  278

  Kenya

  41

  Venezuela

  1

  325
  ECGD does not maintain its records on a basis which would enable it to provide the additional breakdown requested without disproportionate cost.

  Anguilla (Rocket Launch Pad)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the United Kingdom Government were first approached for permission to build a rocket launch pad on Sombrero Island, Anguilla. [42133]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government first became aware of Beal Aerospace's proposal to build a satellite launch site on Sombrero Island in July 1997. This followed a letter from Beal Aerospace to the Government and Governor of Anguilla asking permission to lease the island.

  Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been paid to(a) widows and (b) miners who were in receipt of state benefits for chronic bronchitis and emphysema; how many (i) miners and (ii) widows are entitled to receive these benefits; when the final payments are to be paid; and what arrangements apply to the interest on this money whilst negotiations continue. [42341]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: To date, over 200 interim payments of £2,000 have been made to miners in receipt of Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit for chronic bronchitis and emphysema (PD.D12). We have recently extended the offer of interim payments to widows whose husbands were in receipt of PD.D12 benefit and, to date, 5 payments have been made. However, the speed at which such offers can continue to be made is reliant on the co-operation of the claimants' solicitors who need to submit evidence of receipt of benefit and confirm acceptance of the offer on behalf of the claimant.

  The Department has also now extended the offer to all claimants currently in receipt of PD.D12 benefit, estimated to be in excess of 13,000. However, DSS are unable to provide a breakdown between miners and widows, whose husbands would have been receiving PD.D12 benefit.

  Prisoners convicted of terrorist-related offences and repatriated to the Republic of Ireland

  Offence

  Date of sentence

  Sentence

  Date of transfer to the Republic

  Release under rules applicable in England

  Release under rules applicable in Northern Ireland prior to the Belfast Agreement

  Attempted murder, conspiracy to cause explosions

  19 October 1993

  25 years

  14 May 1996

  15 July 2009

  15 May 2005

  Attempted murder x 3, conspiracy to cause explosions, conspiracy to murder, unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition x 2, unlawful possession of explosive substances, unlawful imprisonment

  11 May 1976

  Life

  21 May 1996

  Discretionary

  Discretionary

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  21 October 1994

  25 years

  13 November 1996

  12 July 2010

  12 May 2006

  Causing explosions, attempted murder, kidnapping, possession of firearms

  10 February 1994

  35 years

  13 November 1996

  27 June 2016

  27 August 2010

  326
  At a hearing on 27 March, plaintiff's solicitors requested a three-month adjournment to allow discussions on settlement arrangements to be progressed. The Court granted the adjournment and these discussions are continuing. We hope that arrangements can be agreed quickly, allowing full and final settlements for valid claims to begin being made as soon as possible.

  Any interest payable on an award of compensation is usually calculated and paid at the same time as the award, i.e. at final settlement. If an interim payment has been made, then this amount is deducted from the compensation award before the interest is calculated.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Terrorist Offences)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisoners convicted of terrorist offences who have been transferred from Great Britain to prisons in the Irish Republic indicating the(a) date of transfer, (b) date and length of sentence and the crimes of which they were convicted, (c) organisation to which they claimed allegiance and (d) date of release under the rules governing such release (i) in Great Britain prior to the Belfast Agreement, (ii) in Northern Ireland prior to the Belfast Agreement and (iii) under the terms of the Belfast Agreement. [41663]
  Ms Quin [holding answer 12 May 1998]: Since the Irish Republic ratified the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons in November 1995, 23 prisoners convicted in England and Wales of terrorist-related offences have been repatriated to the Republic.

  It is not normal practice to disclose the personal details of individual prisoners, nor does the Prison Service record centrally information on organisations to which prisoners may have claimed allegiance. However, the table lists for each of the 23 prisoners repatriated to date: their offences; date of sentence; sentence length; date of repatriation; non-parole release date in England and Wales; and, although the prisoners were not subject to the legislation applicable in Northern Ireland, dates of release, had they been so subject, prior to the Belfast Agreement.

  The release, under the terms of the Belfast Agreement, of repatriated prisoners is a matter for the Irish Government.
  327

  Prisoners convicted of terrorist-related offences and repatriated to the Republic of Ireland

  Offence

  Date of sentence

  Sentence

  Date of transfer to the Republic

  Release under rules applicable in England

  Release under rules applicable in Northern Ireland prior to the Belfast Agreement

  Attempted murder x 2, possession of firearms

  30 March 1993

  18 years

  13 November 1996

  3 July 2004

  3 July 2001

  Conspiracy to cause explosions, placing explosives

  14 April 1987

  16 years

  16 December 1996

  6 January 1997

  4 September 1991

  Possession of explosive substance

  19 July 1993

  17 years

  3 December 1997

  27 February 2004

  28 April 2001

  Cause explosion, place explosives, attempted murder, kidnapping, possession of firearms

  10 February 1994

  25 years

  3 December 1997

  24 November 2009

  24 September 2005

  Cause explosions, place explosives

  13 May 1994

  30 years

  3 December 1997

  2 March 2013

  1 March 2008

  Murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to cause explosions

  30 June 1977

  Life

  18 December 1997

  Discretionary

  Discretionary

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  23 June 1986

  Life

  15 January 1998

  Discretionary

  Discretionary

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  2 July 1997

  35 years

  15 January 1998

  19 November 2019

  18 January 2014

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  2 July 1997

  35 years

  15 January 1998

  19 November 2019

  18 January 2014

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  2 July 1997

  35 years

  15 January 1998

  19 November 2019

  18 January 2014

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  2 July 1997

  35 years

  15 January 1998

  19 November 2019

  18 January 2014

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  2 July 1997

  35 years

  15 January 1998

  19 November 1998

  18 January 2014

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  6 December 1990

  30 years

  15 January 1998

  18 March 2010

  25 December 2004

  Murder x 6, conspiracy to cause explosions, conspiracy to discharge firearms, false imprisonment, using a firearm

  10 February 1977

  Life

  5 May 1998

  Discretionary

  Discretionary

  Murder x 6, conspiracy to cause explosions, conspiracy to discharge firearms, false imprisonment, using a firearm

  10 February 1977

  Life

  5 May 1998

  Discretionary

  Discretionary

  Murder x 6, conspiracy to cause explosions, conspiracy to discharge firearms, false imprisonment, using a firearm

  10 February 1977

  Life

  5 May 1998

  Discretionary

  Discretionary

  Murder x 6, conspiracy to cause explosions, conspiracy to discharge firearms, false imprisonment, using a firearm

  10 February 1977

  Life

  5 May 1998

  Discretionary

  Discretionary

  Murder, attempted murder

  30 March 1994

  Life

  5 May 1998

  Discretionary

  Discretionary

  Murder

  16 February 1988

  Life

  5 May 1998

  Discretionary

  Discretionary

  Information
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department operates a monitoring exercise of persistent inquires for information. [42635]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department does not have any administrative arrangements in place for dealing specially with persistent inquiries for information. To date, there has been no requirement for such an exercise and therefore no guidance has been drawn up.

  Racial Violence
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 May 1998,Official Report, column 47, in respect of his plans to combat racial violence, if he will make a statement on
  328
  the impact of the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] in combating attacks on foreign visitors, with particular reference to English language students. [42297]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Crime and Disorder Bill introduces new offences of racially aggravated violence, harassment and criminal damage. An offence will be racially aggravated if:at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates hostility based on the victim's membership of, or association with members of, a racial group; or
  the offence is motivated wholly or partly by hostility towards members of a racial group.

  "Racial group" means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. We expect that foreign visitors would be covered by this definition.

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the consultation papers published since 1 May 1997 giving the date of

  Subject/title of paper

  Publication date

  Closing date for comments/submissions

  Number of respondents1

  The Future Role and Funding of Local Civil Protection in England and Wales

  24 November 1997

  15 January 1998

  2—

  The Control of Unscrupulous Immigration Advisers

  22 January 1998

  23 March 1998

  53

  The Prevention of Corruption—Consolidation and Amendment of the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889–1916: A Government Statement

  June 1997

  31 August 1997

  14

  Community Safety Order

  September 1997

  9 October 1997

  185

  Community Protection Order

  November 1997

  3 December 1997

  92

  Violence—Reforming Offences Against the Person Act 1861

  February 1998

  15 Mary 1998

  38

  Draft Lotteries (Frequent Draws) Bill, and Stake and Proceed Limits

  7 January 1998

  13 February 1998

  129

  Getting to Grips with Crime—A New Framework for Local Action

  September 1997

  31 October 1997

  550

  Working Together: An Examination of Some Options for Collaboration and Reorganisation in the Fire Service

  28 November 1997

  30 January 1998

  90

  Fire Service Pensions Review

  31 March 1998

  31 July 1998

  —

  Racial Violence and Harassment

  2 October 1997

  31 October 1997

  118

  Tackling Youth Crime

  25 September 1997

  3 November 1997

  323

  New National and Local Focus on Youth Crime

  9 October 1997

  10 November 1997

  267

  Tackling Delays in the Youth Justice System

  15 October 1997

  12 November 1997

  197

  No More Excuses—A New Approach to Tackling Youth Crime in England and Wales. (This was a White Paper but views were invited on the contents of two chapters)

  November 1997

  31 March 1998

  179

  The Drug Treatment and Testing Order provisions contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill

  Mid September 1997

  31 October 1997

  74

  Data Protection—The Government's Proposals (Cm 3725)

  31 July 1997

  31 August 1997

  71

  Intrusive Surveillance—Draft Code of Practice

  12 August 1997

  30 September 1997

  65

  Improving Local Service through Best Value

  30 March 1998

  21 May 1998

  —

  Forensic Science Service move to Trading Fund Status

  14 May 1998

  8 June 1998

  —

  Police Pensions Review

  31 March 1998

  31 July 1998

  —

  Regulation of the Private Security Industry

  15 August 1997

  1 October 1997

  c 70

  Draft Regulations on Particulars Required in a Vehicle Hiring Agreement

  15 January 1998

  27 February 1998

  8

  Report of the Community Fire Safety Task Force. (This was a report to Ministers on which they decided to consult)

  13 November 1997

  31 January 1998

  52

  Fire Safety Legislation for the Future

  28 November 1997

  28 February 1998

  c 450

  Review of Prison Service Drug Strategy 'Drug Misuse in Prison'

  3 April 1998

  21 April 1998

  20

  Review of Prison Service Nursing

  21 October 1997

  20 February 1998

  84

  Reducing Remand Delays

  23 October 1997

  14 November 1997

  12

  Juries in Serious Fraud Trials

  16 February 1998

  31 May 1998

  —

  Fire Service Radio Strategy3

  July 1997

  7 October 1997

  16

  Out of the Line of Fire—Modernising the Standards of Fire Cover4

  First version 15 January 1998 Amended version 12 March 1998

  First version 9 February 1998 Amended version no specific deadline

  First version 57 Amended version 34

  1 Figures include responses from individuals and organisations

  2 The paper invited consultees to complete a questionnaire and submit a written response. 287 questionnaires were returned together with 205 written replies

  3 This consultation was confined to major companies who were invited to take part

  4 This was not a general public consultation exercise but confined to local authorities, fire authorities and staff associations

  330
  publication, closing date for submissions and the number of respondents. [42249]

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

  Firearms Compensation
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new arrangements will be put in place to speed up compensation payments to pistol owners under the firearms compensation schemes following the recent Steed v. Home Department Appeal Court judgment. [42261]

  Mr. Michael
  There are no new arrangements consequent on this specific case. The arrangements for processing claims made under the compensation schemes are being improved continually in the light of practical experience and our commitment to complete the compensation payments as quickly as possible. It is not simply a matter of staff numbers: this is a complex compensation scheme, mainly to fulfil the promise to be fair to all shooters who have surrendered weapons. New systems had to be developed and staff trained, but, where it is possible, routine tasks are identified which can be undertaken by non-specialist staff. Claims made under Options A and B will be completed shortly, allowing the examining staff to concentrate on the remaining Option C claims. The number of staff with the Firearms Compensation Section has been further increased since Easter and we are also making further use of data processing staff. Staff also regularly work overtime at weekends and on weekday evenings. We are processing the remaining claims as quickly as possible, while having regard to the need for careful checking of individual claims to guard against fraud.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when claims for compensation, following the surrender of firearms, on(a) A and B options on full bore pistols and revolvers, (b) C options on full bore pistols and revolvers, (c) A and B options on small bore pistols and revolvers; and (d) C options on small bore pistols and revolvers will be settled in full. [42339]

  Mr. Michael
  Claims under Options A and B of the large-calibre compensation scheme and the small-calibre ex gratia scheme should be completed by the end of the month, and those under Option C by the end of the year.

  We anticipate that all claims for guns handed in after 1 February 1998 under the small-calibre compensation scheme will have been paid before the end of March 1999.

  Public Bodies
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average salary of(a) male and (b) female members of boards of non-departmental public bodies responsible to his Department; [42841]
  (2) what is the average attendance fee of (a) male and (b) female members of boards of non-departmental public bodies responsible to his Department. [42842]

  Mr. Straw
  Details of remuneration to the board members of non-departmental bodies are set out in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". Copies of the 1997 edition are available in the Library. Details of remuneration to members of the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO), which became an 332
  executive Non-Departmental Public Body on 1 April 1998, are given in the Home Office Annual Report 1998, copies of which are also available in the Library.

  Public Appointments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department's action plan for increasing the number of women holding public appointments will be published; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [42843]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department's action plan will be published shortly. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases lodged with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board under the 1992 scheme or its predecessors remain(a) to be disposed at first instance and (b) to be disposed of on appeal. [42445]

  Mr. Michael
  The Board advises that, at 30 April 1998, there were 3,396 cases remaining to be cleared at first instance under the 1990 Scheme, and 18,573 were awaiting determination at hearings.

  Police (Training)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department last reviewed police training. [42791]

  Mr. Michael
  A series of reviews led to the creation of National Police Training (NPT) in 1993. A strategic review of NPT began in 1997 and is expected to be completed later this year. A review of probationer training was carried out between 1994–95. Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary is carrying out a thematic inspection of police training, which is expected to be completed early in 1999.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assurances an applicant for a firearm or shotgun certificate will have in respect of patient confidentiality between himself and his doctor, under the proposals recommended by his Department's Operational Police Policy Unit to require or authorise inquiries to be made by the police directly with the applicant's general medical practitioner; what safeguards he proposes to include in the proposals; and if he will publish copies of the advice which he has received from the British Medical Association and other professional medical representative bodies; [42416]

  (2) what assurances the applicant for a firearm or shotgun certificate will have that inquiring police officers or police civilians have a satisfactory understanding of the medical facts presented to them, under the proposals being made by his Department's operational police policy units to require future applications to disclose to the police any medical condition or disability. [42415]

  Mr. Michael
  The Firearms Rules, which prescribe various forms used in the firearms licensing system, are in the process of being revised to take account of the recent changes in firearms law. The new application form for a
  333
  firearm certificate will contain a number of questions about the applicant's health. An applicant's medical condition or history may be a relevant factor in determining fitness to possess firearms. It is only right that the chief officer of police should have this information in order to reach an informed judgment on an application. Accordingly, it is proposed that the application form should seek the applicant's authority for the police to obtain factual information about these conditions from his doctor. It will be for individual chief officers to ensure that such information can be interpreted properly, through either appropriate training or access to professional medical advice. Correspondence from individuals and bodies with whom we may consult as a matter of routine is not normally published and we have no plans to do so.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received relating to the best value regime for local government services in Scotland [41266]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I have had several useful exchanges about best value with a wide range of bodies and individuals. Best value seeks to achieve real improvements in local authority service delivery. I welcome further dialogue with interested parties on how we achieve this aim.

  Health Services
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effect of Government policies on health services in the north of Scotland. [41267]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Our policies are bringing benefits to patients in the north of Scotland as they are elsewhere. For example, in Aberdeen the co-operative and collaborative approach we are encouraging will enable a new children's hospital to be built using capital receipts from the sale of redundant trust and health board estate.

  Oil and Gas Industry
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the North sea oil and gas industry to discuss matters relating to the industry. [41268]

  Mr. Wilson
  I meet representatives of the individual oil and gas companies and the UK Offshore Operators Association from time to time to discuss a range of issues. I am due to meet Shell UK Ltd. later this afternoon.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to involve the parents of children with special educational needs in the debate on future provision for them. [41269]

  Mr. Wilson
  Our discussion paper on special educational needs in Scotland acknowledges the importance of drawing on the knowledge and experience 334
  of parents. I invite all parents of children with special educational needs to express their views on any matters which are of concern to them within the context of the discussion paper or the Beattie committee which I have established to inquire into post-school special needs provision.

  Murderers
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce legislation to make convicted murderers deported back to Scotland subject to the same supervision as those released on licence from Scottish prisons. [41271]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Government are conscious of and share the concern that United Kingdom nationals, deported to this country from overseas jurisdictions on the completion of their sentences for serious crimes cannot be made subject to supervision. However, tackling the issue raises a number of complex legal and practical issues not least the need to ensure that any statutory obligations placed on returning prisoners do not result in an aggravation of their sentence. Consideration is at present being given to possible options to address the issue.

  "NHS Scotland: Designed to Care"
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what responses he has received to the Government's White Paper, "NHS Scotland: Designed to Care". [41272]

  Mr. Galbraith
  A number of responses to "Designed to Care: Renewing the NHS in Scotland" have been received from professional bodies and other groups. The responses have been predominantly positive, and have particularly welcomed the increased focus on patient care.

  Primary School Entry
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many parents exercised in the last academic year their right to defer primary school entry for one year. [41277]

  Mr. Wilson
  Full information on deferred entry is not available centrally. However, provisional results from the September 1997 school census show that, for 2,209 pupils in nursery schools and nursery classes in Scotland in 1997–98, entry to primary P1 had been deferred. These figures relate to publicly funded and independent nursery schools and classes only, and do not include private nurseries, day care units and other forms of pre-school establishments, on which information is not available.

  Sewage and Waste Disposal
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made on recent research commissioned by his Department into the possible health hazards of sewage and waste disposal. [41278]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture, the Environment and Fisheries announced on 5 May that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency had been asked to carry out a strategic review of recycling of all organic wastes to land. This study is due to be completed by Autumn 1998.
  335
  A co-ordinated project by the Macaulay land use research institute and the Scottish agriculture college into the disposal of wastes to land has recently started. This should be completed by April 2000. However, we would expect interim findings in early 1999.

  In addition, the Water Research Centre's review of the scientific evidence relating to the agricultural use of sewage sludge is expected to be published shortly.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with industries in Scotland affected by the current exchange rate. [41251]

  Mr. Dewar
  I have frequent discussions with many firms across Scotland on a wide range of issues. The newly instituted Scottish Business Forums is a recent example.

  I am impressed by the ability of Scottish firms to retain a significant presence in both domestic and overseas markets, notwithstanding the extremely competitive trading environment which they face.

  Pregnant Women
  Dr. Lynda Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the provision of pain relief, beds and nursing staff for pregnant women in labour in Edinburgh hospitals. [41270]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Obstetric delivery services in Edinburgh are provided at the Simpson memorial maternity pavilion. The hospital has a total of 143 beds and 82 whole-time equivalent midwifery staff excluding midwives based in out-patient departments and day assessment units. A full range of methods of pain relief is offered at the hospital.

  Land Reform
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Crown Estate Commissioner to discuss land reform issues in Scotland. [41273]

  Mr. Macdonald
  No meetings have taken place to discuss land reform issues in Scotland between my right hon. Friend and the First Crown Estate Commissioner. However, officials have been in touch with the Crown Estate regarding these matters.

  Scottish Record Office
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the targets for the Scottish Record Office in 1998–99. [43047]

  Mr. McLeish
  I have set the Scottish Record Office the following key targets for 1998–99: to reduce the unit cost of preserving and making available the Records of Scotland by 2.5 per cent. in real terms; to increase the number of catalogue entries available for public scrutiny on the electronic system by 52,000; to produce material for readers in 92.5 per cent. of cases in 30 minutes or less for material from the same building and in 2 days or less for material from elsewhere; to issue replies to 85 per cent. of correspondence within 10 days, absorbing up to a 2 per cent. increase in demand; and to implement 336
  the agreed recommendations flowing from the prior options reviews of the Scottish Record Office and the Scottish Records Advisory Council, including the production of a revised corporate plan.

  Registers of Scotland
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the targets for the Registers of Scotland executive agency in the financial year 1998–99. [43048]

  Mr. Dewar
  I have set the Registers of Scotland the following key targets for 1998–99: for the trading fund to achieve a return of 6 per cent. on net capital employed over the 3 year period ending 31 March 1999; to achieve the transfer of the counties of Perth, Angus and Kinross to the Land Register on 1 April 1999; to maintain and enhance customer service through the retention of charter mark and by improving customer satisfaction on first registration turnround times to 75 per cent. by 31 March 2000; to reduce progressively the turnround time for sasine writs to 25 days by 31 March 1999; to reduce progressively the turnround time for dealings with whole in the Land Register to 25 days by 31 March 1999; to reduce unit costs by 5.4 per cent. in real terms for sasine writs by 31 March 1999 from the base of £32.46 at 31 March 1997; to reduce unit costs by 2.4 per cent. in real terms for dealings with whole by 31 March 1999 from the base of £55.10 at 31 March 1997; and to launch a direct access service to customers by 30 November 1998.

  Ancient and Historical Monuments Commission
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the forthcoming policy and financial management review of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland. [43049]

  Mr. Dewar
  As part of the Government's ongoing programme of policy and financial management reviews of non-departmental public bodies, my Department will conduct a thorough review of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland—the national body of survey and record of the man-made environment in Scotland. As is the norm for such reviews, the first stage will take the forms of a "prior options" study. This will include an examination of the scope for discontinuing, privatising, contracting out or transferring to another body some or all of the functions carried out by the royal commission. The review is now under way and I would welcome comments from interested parties. Comments should be sent by 19 June to: Mr. John Barber, Room 3.9, Longmore House, Salisbury Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1SH.

  Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the functions ascribed to the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visitors for Scotland under section 6(1)(e) of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997; and what funding the board receives in respect of those functions. [43050]
  337
  Mr. Galbraith
  The board is required to provide a central system to deal with applications to enter into training courses, to provide careers information to the public and to carry out research into training methods (SI 1993/637(S.83)). Funding for carrying out these functions is not specifically authorised by statute and, with Treasury agreement, it is intended to allow the expenditure to rest on the sole authority of the Appropriation Act until amending legislation can be enacted.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to reform the uniform business rate in Scotland. [41275]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Government will consult on options for change this summer. However, in the end, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Police
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about possible reorganisation of Scottish police forces. [41274]

  Mr. McLeish
  There have been two letters of representation following my right hon. Friend's announcement on 22 April to embark on a period of consultation and information gathering on whether the present eight Forces are the correct basis for the structure of the police service in Scotland as we approach the new millennium. It will then be for the Scottish Parliament to decide on whether any change is required.

  Land Use (Glasgow)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total acreage of derelict land in the city of Glasgow; what acreage is contaminated land; and what acreage of each is located in the Glasgow, Shettleston constituency. [42854]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Scottish vacant and derelict land survey 1996, (a copy of which is held in the House Library) records 894 hectares (1 hectare is approximately equivalent to 2.5 acres) of land as derelict in the City of Glasgow. The survey has limited information on derelict land known to be contaminated. In the 1996 survey, 196 hectares in the Glasgow Development Agency's area was recorded as contaminated.

  Information on derelict or contaminated land is not held centrally by Parliamentary constituency.

  Housing Stock (Glasgow)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many multi-storey blocks of flats above 10 floors high there are in the City of Glasgow; what is the total number of housing units in these blocks; what percentage of the council's housing stock this represents; and how many flats in multi-storey blocks have been sold. [42855]

  Mr. Macdonald
  At 31 March 1997, the latest date for which information is available, Glasgow city council owned 105,035 dwellings of which 23,129 (22 per cent.)338
  were classified as high rise flats (flats in blocks of five storeys or more with a lift). Information on the numbers of these flats which have been sold is not available centrally.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Scottish Homes regarding the condition and future of the multi-storey flats in Hutchesontown, Glasgow; and if he will make a statement. [42865]

  Mr. Macdonald
  While it is the Scottish Homes to make decisions on operational matters relating to its own stock, I have been kept closely informed of its intentions regarding the future of the houses concerned. I understand that recent proposals to transfer the houses to an alternative landlord cannot be progressed because funding from the private sector is not available. In line with the new arrangements introduced by COSLA and Scottish Homes in December 1997, Scottish Homes will now consider the options for the future of the houses in consultation with the local authority and the tenants concerned.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses below the tolerable standard there are in each constituency in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [42866]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The 1996 Scottish house condition survey estimated that there were 21,000 below tolerable standard (BTS) occupied houses in Scotland. This information is not available by constituency.

  Local authorities supply annual estimates to The Scottish Office for the numbers of BTS dwellings in their areas. These figures, which are only available by local authority area, are published in Scottish Office statistical bulletins, copies of which are held in the Library. The latest such bulletin (HSG/1997/1) was published in February 1997.

  Care in the Community
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of health boards and National Health Service trusts to discuss matters relating to care in the community programmes. [41249]

  Mr. Galbraith
  I meet representatives of health boards and NHS trusts regularly to discuss matters of current interest, including care in the community.

  Child Care
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Green Paper on the child care strategy for Scotland will be published. [42769]

  Mr. Dewar
  Our Green Paper "Meeting the Childcare Challenge: A Childcare Strategy for Scotland" is being published today.

  The Green Paper sets out how we intend to make a reality of our manifesto commitment to develop a childcare strategy for Scotland. It is the first time a Government have a coherent and strategic approach to childcare. We are backing the strategy with a substantial investment of public money: almost £5 million extra in 1998–99 with a further £25 million to come on stream from lottery resources through the new opportunities fund over the years 1999–2003.
  339
  The Green Paper sets out three steps to the strategy: raising quality, making childcare more affordable and making it more accessible. I am appointing a Scottish Childcare Board to provide an external source of advice as we implement the Strategy. At local level, local childcare partnerships will be set up to plan and co-ordinate developments in childcare, so that we can build on what already exists to ensure that every neighbourhood has the childcare available which meets its needs.

  Our Green Paper sets out how we will take forward the childcare strategy for Scotland. The principles upon which it is founded apply across the United Kingdom and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women are also issuing a Green Paper on the national childcare strategy today. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and Wales are also planning to consult on these matters in the near future.

  Copies of the Green Paper will be available in the Vote Office.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Women Magistrates
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement regarding increasing the number of women on the Bench. [41288]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor regards this as an issue of real importance. Judicial appointments must continue to be on merit but he wants to see more applications from women and is actively pursuing policies to encourage women to apply. In respect of lay magistrates, he expects his Advisory Committees to have regard to the need for balance and 48 per cent. of the lay bench are women.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he intends to publish the Government's response to the public consultation on conditional fees and legal aid reform. [41289]

  Mr. Hoon
  We will publish our response as soon as the analysis of the 233 responses has been completed and my noble and learned Friend and I have had a chance to consider the results. I expect that to be within the next month or so.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the role of trade union legal assistance schemes in the provision of legal services in the context of the civil justice and legal aid review. [41290]

  Mr. Hoon
  The excellent schemes operated by trade unions and their lawyers provide effective, specialist representation to a wide range of people. The Government wish to explore with the TUC the suggestion that the schemes might be made available to non-union members. We are keen to encourage as many avenues of access to justice as we can.
  340
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many responses he has received to his consultation paper on legal aid reform. [41293]

  Mr. Hoon
  233.

  Legal Profession
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the extent of restrictive practices in the legal profession. [41292]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government are opposed to restrictive practices which cannot be justified in the public interest. The legal profession is independent and self-regulating, and is responsible, in the first instance, for the rules governing the profession; but it is the duty of the relevant professional bodies to regulate their members in the public interest. As the Lord Chancellor made clear, on 24 February 1998,Official Report, columns 555–57, he is looking at the restrictions on who may exercise rights of audience in the courts, and he intends to bring proposals forward, in due course.

  One change to those who may exercise rights of audience has already been made. The Institute of Legal Executives was last month authorised to grant rights of audience to suitably qualified Fellows. It has thereby joined the Bar Council and the Law Society in being empowered to grant rights of audience in appropriate courts.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received regarding the closure of local magistrates courts. [41286]

  Mr. Hoon
  The provision of magistrates courts is, of course, regularly under review by the local magistrates courts committees. For example, so far this year I have received 139 representations from Members, local authorities, justices of the peace and other interested parties on courts' committee's plans for possible magistrates closures in England and Wales.

  Magistrates Courts Committees
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his proposals for the future arrangements for magistrates court committees in larger police authority areas. [41291]

  Mr. Hoon
  In my statement to the House on 29 October 1997,Official Report, columns 901–05, I set out the Government's view of the future structure of the magistrates courts service. I stated that there need to be fewer and larger magistrates courts committee (MCC) areas which are more closely aligned to the areas served by other justice agencies, in particular those of the police. The Lord Chancellor has recently signed the orders which will amalgamate the five MCCs in Merseyside and the seven MCCs in the West Midlands. A number of other MCCs are developing their own proposals, whilst the remainder are considering the way forward.

  Computer Technology
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much his Department spent in 1997–98 and plans to spend in 1998–99 on computer technology in(a) the magistrates courts, (b) the county courts, (c) the Crown courts and (d) the High Court and Court of Appeal. [41285]

  Mr. Hoon
  During 1997–98, the Department's spending on computer technology was:

  (a) £7.8 million for the magistrates' courts1;

  (b) £7.0 million for the county courts;

  (c) £1.5 million for the Crown Court; and,

  (d) £1.5 million for the High Court and Court of Appeal.

  The estimates for 1998–99 are:

  (a) £11.5 million for the magistrates' courts;

  (b) £7.7 million for the county courts;

  (c) £1.2 million for the Crown Court; and,

  (d) £1.0 million for the High Court and Court of Appeal.

  1This figure is an estimate because the actual expenditure will not be known until after December 1998 when we have received the audited grant forms from the external auditors.

  Information
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if his Department operates a monitoring exercise of persistent inquirers for information. [42636]

  Mr. Hoon
  No formal monitoring of this information is carried out.

  Barristers' Fees
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how barristers' claimed hours of preparation are monitored; and what percentage of such claims are met without independent verification. [42267]

  Mr. Hoon
  In standardised fee cases, the preparation hours do not influence the fee level because the fee prescribed relates to the case as a whole or a discrete item of work. Standardised fees account for 90 per cent. of criminal cases. Standardised fees for advocacy in family cases are to be introduced later this year. In non-standard fee cases, the fees are paid following independent taxation or assessment when the reasonableness of the hours claimed is one of the factors taken in to account.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the 50 banisters who have received the largest sums of money, taking account of both defence and prosecution costs met from public funds, over the last three years. [42266]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Roger Levitt Case (Costs)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what were the final total costs of the Roger Levitt case broken down into(a) defence and (b) prosecution costs. [42268]
  342
  Mr. Hoon
  The costs of R v Roger Levitt and others broken down into defence and prosecution costs associated with the trial were as follows:Defence costs from legal aid: £2,649,495
  Defence costs from central funds1: £10,699

  1These costs compensate the privately represented defendant for any expenses properly incurred by him in the proceedings including the fees of his legal representation.

  It is not possible to identify separately prosecution costs associated with the investigation and trial stages. However, it is estimated that the prosecution costs associated with the trial were £993,815. In addition the estimated prosecution costs of investigation amounted to £819,552.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) of 21 April 1998,Official Report, column 588, what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the applicability of the proposed International Criminal Court to cases of international terrorism. [41248]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is the Government's view that terrorism should not be one of the categories of crime over which the proposed International Criminal Court should have jurisdiction.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the possibility of introducing charges on the fishing industry; and if he will make a statement. [43021]

  Mr. Morley
  The question as to whether the fishing industry might contribute to the costs of decommissioning was raised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at our first High Level meeting with industry leaders last July. I also indicated to the House on 17 December 1997,Official Report, column 346, that it would be included in the possibilities considered in the current comprehensive spending review. As a contribution to continuing discussion of this issue, I am now placing in the Library of the House copies of a recently completed academic report by the University of Portsmouth which the Department commissioned towards the end of last year.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the informal agriculture council held between 10 and 12 May; and if he will make a statement. [42269]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  As Chairman of the EU Agriculture Council, I hosted an informal meeting of Agriculture Ministers in Newcastle upon Tyne from 10 to 12 May 1998. My noble Friend, the Lord Donoughue,
  343
  Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the farming and food industry, represented the United Kingdom at that meeting.

  In the course of the informal visit, I was able to show my EU colleagues the efforts which the UK Government are making, in partnership with the farming industry, to help put our beef industry on to a sound footing for the future. In particular, my EU Ministerial colleagues were given a comprehensive presentation of the cattle traceability system now being put in place in Great Britain with the aim of assuring consumers, retailers and farmers alike of the safety and reliability of our meat.

  Linked to the theme of quality and sustainability of beef production, the information EU Council went on to discuss, on the basis of a UK Presidency paper, the challenges facing EU livestock producers in environmentally fragile areas of the Union, and the measure open to EU governments to assist them. A wide-ranging debate on this important subject gave rise to a number of important policy considerations which will be taken forward in the negotiations on the Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals for agricultural reform.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what statutory provision currently covers usage of pesticides on land. [41929]

  Mr. Rooker
  The current statutory controls over the use of pesticides on land in the United Kingdom are:

  The Food and Environment Protection Act 1985;

  The Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Act 1989;

  The Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 (as amended);

  The Plant Protection Products Regulations 1995 (as amended); and

  The Plant Protection Products (Basic Conditions) Regulations 1997.

  In particular, the legislation provides that only pesticides that have been approved by Ministers may be used.

  Advice on how users can meet their responsibilities under the legislation is given in the statutory 'Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Pesticides on Farms and Holdings', which is jointly produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the three most commonly used pesticides currently applied to land in the United Kingdom. [41933]

  Mr. Rooker
  The three most commonly used pesticides applied to land in the United Kingdom in 1997 were:By spray area (i.e. area of land times number of treatments):

  Isoproturon: 3.00 million hectares

  Chlormequat: 2.53 million hectares

  Cypermethrin: 2.51 million hectares

  By weight:

  Sulphuric acid: 13,348 tonnes

  Isoproturon: 3,312 tonnes

  Chlormequat: 2,637 tonnes.

  344
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the advantages of introducing separate regulation for food produced from land treated with pesticides; and if he will make a statement. [41936]

  Mr. Rooker
  Pesticides are used on over 98 per cent. of the agricultural and horticultural land on which food crops are grown. Land on which pesticides are not used and which conforms to other relevant standards can, if not already registered, be registered as organic. We do not see a need for further regulation in this area.

  Departmental Vehicles (Fuel)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of his Department's vehicles use(a) liquid petroleum gas and (b) compressed natural gas. [42067]

  Mr. Morley
  At present, this Department does not have any vehicles which run on liquid petroleum gas or compressed natural gas.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to convert his vehicle fleet to(a) liquid petroleum gas and (b) compressed natural gas. [42068]

  Mr. Morley
  It would not be a viable option for this Department to convert its existing fleet to liquid petroleum gas or compressed natural gas because the vehicles are predominantly diesel-powered and not readily capable of conversion. But, in future (and as the existing fleet falls due for replacement) consideration will be given to the use of LPG fuelled vehicles where it is appropriate to do so.

  Flood Warnings (Northamptonshire)
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements have been made for the issuing of flood warnings in Northamptonshire since March 1996. [42057]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to her on 14 May 1998,Official Report, column 197.

  Gangmasters
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to regulate the activities of gangmasters; and if he will make a statement. [42583]

  Mr. Morley
  I will write to my hon. Friend providing the information requested as soon as possible.

  BSE
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his current estimate of when the national herd is likely to be free of BSE. [42140]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to him on 6 November 1997,Official Report, column 331, and 28 January 1998, Official Report, column 301.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the toxicological data for(a) [(i) symmetrical and (ii) unsymmetrical, monothiono TEPP, (b) [(x) symmetrical and (y) unsymmetrical,] sulfotep, (c) s-ethyl diazinon, (d) iso diazinon, (e) TEPP, (f) z-isopropenyl diazinon, (g) diazonon and (h) hydroxymethyl diazinon found in sheep dips which has been collated by his Department. [42475]

  Mr. Rooker
  Data are provided by applicants for marketing authorisations for veterinary medicines and are subject to the confidentiality requirements of section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968 and regulation 14 of the Marketing Authorisations for Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulations 1994.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the possible potentiation and synergism effects involving the ingredients which have been included in sheep dips. [42235]

  Mr. Rooker
  A number of letters on this subject have been received by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. The direct chemical reaction of mixing phenols and organophosphates was considered as part of the approval process of former sheep dip products. There was no reaction and no change in the composition of the dip.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the genetic susceptibility of some breeds of sheep to diazinon. [42221]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am unaware of any such representations.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the toxicological data for(a) hydroxydiazinon and (b) thiodiazinon in sheep dips which have been collated by his Department. [42224]

  Mr. Rooker
  These data have been provided by applicants for marketing authorisations for veterinary medicines and are subject to the confidentiality requirements of section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968 and regulation 14 of the Marketing Authorisations for Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulations 1994.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the health effect of phenol and crenyl phosphates. [42218]

  Mr. Rooker
  A number of letters on this subject have been received by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. No human suspected adverse reaction to phenol or crenyl phosphates has been reported under the Suspected Adverse Reactions Surveillance Scheme. No currently authorised sheep dip contains phenol or crenyl phosphates.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the health risks of phenols in sheep dips. [42220]
  346
  Mr. Rooker
  A number of letters on this subject have been received by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. Seven cases of human suspected adverse reactions relating to sheep dips containing phenols have been reported under the Suspected Adverse Reactions Surveillance Scheme. No currently authorised sheep dip contains phenols.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what(a) general methods and (b) toxicological calculations are used to assess the presence of impurities in sheep dips. [42223]

  Mr. Rooker
  The requirements are set out in Article 5 of Council Directive 81/851/EEC as amended, on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products, and to Parts 2 and 3 of the Annex to Council Directive 81/852 as amended, on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to analytical, pharmacotoxicological and clinical standards and protocols in respect of the testing of veterinary medicinal products.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken regarding the addition of phenols to surfactants in order to preserve them. [42219]

  Mr. Rooker
  Data on the constituents of veterinary medicinal products are considered as part of the examination of applications for marketing authorisations in order to satisfy the statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what monitoring has been undertaken in the past five years to ensure the purity of diazinon at point of sale to farmers; when the monitoring started; and what were the results. [42222]

  Mr. Rooker
  Manufacturers of veterinary medicinal products must comply with the terms of their marketing authorisations and must carry out the quality checks on their products set down in them. If any purchaser has reason to believe the product purchased is not fit for the purpose, they should contact the local authority Trading Standards Department.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the chemical formula and structure of the compound G31045 which is a constituent part of organophosphate sheep dips. [42236]

  Mr. Rooker
  The chemical name for G31045 is 2-isopropyl-4-methyl-6-ethoxy pyrimidine, from which its structure may be deduced.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to reply to the letter of 19 January from the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay. [41908]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Minister wrote to the hon. Member on 18 May.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Information
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if his Department operates a monitoring exercise of persistent inquirers for information. [42644]

  Dr. David Clark
  Yes. Guidance on dealing with voluminous or vexatious correspondence is available to all staff. The guidance emphasises, among other points:the general commitment to be as open and helpful as possible;
  the importance of ensuring that correspondents have indeed been provided with all the information they are entitled to, and have had the appeals procedures fully explained to them, before the correspondence is brought to an end;
  that decisions should be in accordance with the Guidance on Interpretation of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information;
  that, if further correspondence received after a "final letter" has been sent raises a new and substantive point, that should be treated as any other correspondence and a substantive response provided.

  Information Formatting
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when local authorities first contacted the Government asking for details of how information was to be forwarded after the year 2000 and in what format; when the Government will respond to the local authorities; and what co-ordination he is seeking between departments in the format of information. [40432]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am aware of only one approach from a local authority on this aspect of the Year 2000 issue. Where local authority systems interact with those of other bodies they should agree, through their normal liaison procedures, the format to be followed so that changes made to systems are compatible with one another. However, they should not delay remedial action on their own business critical systems because others are unable to give any firm indication of the changes they are having to make to their own systems.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Dome (Air Conditioning)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will meet representatives of(a) York UK and (b) Combined Power Service Ltd. to discuss air-conditioning systems for the Millennium Dome. [40546]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 7 May 1998]: The New Millennium Experience Company is responsible for procuring goods and services to the Millennium Dome and it would not therefore be appropriate for me to meet individual companies who have an interest in supplying particular goods, works or services to the Millennium Dome. Combined Heat and Power Services Limited did not respond to the advertisement placed by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) in June 1997 in the Official Journal of the European Communities
  348
  (OJEC). This advertisement did not specify the type of chiller units required. York International did respond and were subsequently invited by the NMEC to tender against an HFC R134a refrigerant specification but with an option also to submit a tender with an alternative refrigerant. The bid received from York by the NMEC proposed only HFC R134a.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what weight of the gas HFC 134a he expects to be used in the proposed air conditioning system in the Millennium Dome. [40545]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 7 May 1998]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has procured twenty-four chiller units which will supply chilled water to cool air within the Dome. Each unit will have 274kg of HFC R134a hermetically sealed within them.

  Millennium Experience (Regional Boards)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio when he expects that the regional junior boards for the Millennium Experience will be appointed. [38455]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) held a consultative meeting last month to discuss how the Company might best establish regional junior boards. Following this meeting, the Company's Education Managers in their English regional offices, and in their offices in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, asked local authorities and youth agencies for nominations. The first regional junior board meetings are now planned for June and July this year.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children living within the local education authority boundaries of(a) Barnsley and (b) Doncaster currently receive subsidised private education via the assisted places scheme; and how many will do so from 1 September. [42657]

  Mr. Byers
  Information about the local education authority area from which assisted pupils originate is not collected centrally. There are no schools participating in the assisted places scheme in either the Barnsley or the Doncaster LEA areas.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much has been spent in each of the last five years on the(a) printing, production and design and (b) distribution of his Department's publications for schools. [42700]

  Mr. Byers
  Total spending on education publicity for the Department is given in financial years. It is not possible to separate out sums spent on publications only or to separate the cost of distribution to schools.
  349
  Publications are a basic part of all of the Department's publicity activities but on many occasions will also include some element of other types of media:

  Year

  £ million

  1993–94

  10.1

  1994–95

  9.4

  1995–96

  5.4

  1996–97

  6.2

  1997–98

  14.5

  1Provisional

  In each of the five years, spending on the distribution of publications to a range of audiences including teachers and governors has remained at around £0.8 million.

  Child Care
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the Green Paper on the National Child Care Strategy will be launched. [42893]

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will publish the Government's proposed National Child Care Strategy Consultation. [42706]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women and I are launching our joint Green Paper on the National Child Care Strategy,Meeting the Childcare Challenge, today. In developing our proposals, we have been working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who has responsibility for Lottery funding, and other colleagues.

  The Green Paper sets out how we intend to make a reality of our Manifesto commitment to develop a National Child Care Strategy. It is the first time a Government have taken a coherent and strategic approach to child care. We are backing the Strategy with a substantial investment of public money—over £125 million in England over the coming years—and we are making available £170 million from the Lottery New Opportunities Fund to develop new out of school child care provision.

  The Green paper sets out three steps to the Strategy: raising quality, making child care more affordable and making it more accessible. We will achieve this through working in partnership at local level, building on what already exists. Our aim is to ensure good-quality, affordable child care for children aged 0 to 14 in every neighbourhood, including both formal child care and support for informal arrangements.

  Our Green Paper sets out the principles of the National Child Care Strategy covering the whole of the UK, but the specific proposals for implementation relate to England. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is launching a Green Paper on the child care strategy in Scotland today. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Wales are also planning to consult on the National Child Care Strategy in the near future.

  The Green Paper has today been laid before Parliament and copies are available in the Vote Office.

HEALTH

  School Nurses
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many regions there have been(a) reductions and (b) increases in school nursing services over the last two years. [25025]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The levels of school nursing services are for local commissioners and employers to determine in the light of local needs and priorities.

  Cabinet Sub-committee
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Cabinet sub-committee on health was established. [28815]

  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the establishment, composition and terms of reference of the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Health (HS(H)) on 9 June 1997,Official Report, columns 302–09.

  Dental Services
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in Bolton treated NHS patients in(a) 1997, (b) 1996, (c) 1995, (d) 1994 and (e) 1993; and how many dentists treated only private patients in each of those years. [41895]

  Mr. Milburn
  For 31 March 1997, information is available for the Wigan and Bolton Health Authority, and in previous years for the former Wigan and the former Bolton Family Health Services Authorities. This information is shown in the table. These dentists will have varying levels of commitment to the National Health Service. No information is available for the number of dentists treating private patients only.

  General dental service: number of dentists1 in Bolton and Wigan Family Health Services Authorities (FHSA) at 31 March 1993 to 1996 and Wigan and Bolton Health Authority at 31 March 1997

  Year

  Bolton FHSA

  Wigan FHSA

  Wigan and Bolton Health Authority

  1993

  74

  87

  —

  1994

  81

  95

  —

  19952

  75

  87

  —

  19962

  81

  95

  —

  19972

  —

  —

  174

  1Includes principals, assistants and vocational trainees on health authority lists

  2The figures for 31 March 1995 onwards may be reduced by the effect of the lengthening of the degree course for dental students. Prior to this newly qualified dentists would appear in March figures each year but from 1995 these dentists graduated later and joined health authority lists after March each year

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of elderly people are liable to pay patient charges for dental treatment; and how much revenue is raised annually through dental charges to those of pensionable age(a) in Coventry and (b) in England. [42478]

  Mr. Milburn
  About 80 per cent. of people aged 65 and over are liable to pay full or partial charges for National Health Service dental treatment. It is estimated that some
  351
  £65 million in patient charge revenue was raised in England from patients aged 65 and over in 1997–98. This estimate is based on a sample of patient claims for April 1998. Corresponding information is not available for Coventry.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in(a) the West Midlands and (b) Coventry are registered with a dental practice. [42476]

  Mr. Milburn
  The table sets out figures for the number of patients registered with a General Dental Service dentist in the National Health Service Executive West Midlands Regional Office area and in Coventry Health Authority at 31 March 1998.

  General Dental Service: number of patients registered in the NHS Executive West Midlands Regional Office area, and Coventry Health Authority at 31 March 1998

  Adults

  Children

  West Midlands

  1,930,423

  723,700

  Coventry

  119,680

  42,326

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will restore the re-registration period for dental services to 24 months. [42477]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have no plans to review this policy, which will improve value for money by focusing payments to dentists on those patients receiving active care from them.

  From 1 April, £10 million of the resources released has been targeted at young children in poorer areas, adults requiring full dentures and to encourage dentists to provide continuing care to their patients including emergency treatment.

  Asthma
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will include a national target for the reduction of childhood asthma in the Government's public health strategy, Our Healthier Nation. [29968]

  Ms Jowell
  The Green Paper Our Healthier Nation sets out our proposals for a new health strategy for England. These proposals went out for consultation until 30 April. A White Paper, taking account of the results of the consultation, will follow in the autumn.

  Our Healthier Nation recognises that asthma is a serious health problem. Although it is not proposed for a national target it heads the Green Paper's list of possible candidates for local targets.

  Renal Services (North West)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the mortality rates among renal patients in Chorley and South Ribble Health District relative to those in other health districts in the North West Region; [42049]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of renal dialysis provision at Chorley and South Ribble General Hospital; [42050]
  352
  (3) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of funding for the provision of renal services in each of the health districts in the North West Region; and what plans he has to review this provision. [42051]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Office for National Statistics is being commissioned to produce statistics of trends or comparisons in mortality rates in renal patients between South Lancashire and other districts. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library.

  An assessment of renal services has recently been carried out. Further work, to include an assessment of resources, is currently in progress. At local level, South Lancashire Health Authority has run a population-based model as part of its analysis of health need to inform the Lancashire Renal Strategy. It has been agreed that the first step should be to enhance satellite dialysis facilities at Preston to cover the catchment populations of Fylde, Longridge, Chorley and South Ribble and Preston itself.

  Chorley and South Ribble District General Hospital does not provide renal dialysis. The service is provided mainly from the Royal Preston Hospital, although some patients are dialysed at Manchester hospitals or in the satellite unit at Accrington, depending on the availability of places.

  Drugs Treatment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many users of(a) cannabis, (b) ecstasy and (c) heroin are in contact with drugs treatment services. [41617]

  Ms Jowell
  The National Health Service regional drug misuse databases collect data on people presenting to services with a drug problem in England and Wales, either for the first time or after a gap of 6 months or more. Data for England are collated centrally by the Department, including details of the main drug and any other drugs of misuse (a maximum of five can be recorded). The most recent statistics published for England are given in the Department's Statistical Bulletin "Drug Misuse Statistics for the six months ending September 1996". Information for this period is given in the table.

  Use of cannabis, ecstasy and heroin as main or subsidiary drug by users starting agency episodes in the period 1 April to 30 September 1996, England

  Drug of misuse

  Main drug

  Subsidiary drug

  Total

  Cannabis

  1,533

  4,784

  6,317

  Ecstasy

  268

  1,165

  1,433

  Heroin

  14,334

  2,065

  16,399

  Note:

  A user may report using more than one drug; for example, heroin may be reported as the main drug and cannabis and/or ecstasy reported as the subsidiary drugs

  Our 10 year strategy for tackling drug misuse, Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain, aims to ensure that all problem drug misusers have access to support from appropriate services when needed and to increase the proportion of problem drug misusers in contact with drug treatment services.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 31 July 1997,Official Report, columns 608–10, concerning waiting lists, if he will supply the equivalent information for 1998–99. [42707]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not routinely available centrally.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by hospital, the regional fast track information on waiting lists and waiting times for(a) inpatients and (b) day cases, for (i) January, (ii) February and (iii) March. [41881]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: Waiting list and waiting time information is collected centrally on a quarterly basis direct from health authorities and trusts and shows the position at the end of the quarter. Provisional information showing the position on 31 March 1998, aggregated by region, will be published on 21 May 1998. Final validated figures, on a health authority and trust basis, will be published a few weeks later. The final figures will show ordinary cases and day cases separately.

  Blood Products
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the likely effect of the decision to source manufactured blood products from non-United Kingdom plasma on the number of blood donors in the United Kingdom. [42863]

  Mr. Boateng
  The decision to source blood products from non-United Kingdom plasma related to manufactured blood products only and has no impact on the blood used in transfusions. The decision does not mean that we need less blood—on the contrary, we need more than ever in order to support increasing hospital activity.

  We hope and expect that blood donors will understand that their gift remains vital to the work of the National Health Service, and that they will continue to support the NHS and help to save lives as they have done in the past.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he(a) sought and (b) received the advice of the National Blood Authority before taking the decision to source manufactured blood products from non-United Kingdom plasma; [42861]

  (2) what steps he will take to ensure that imported plasma is safe; and what estimate he has made of the risk that it is not; [42858]

  (3) what estimate the National Blood Authority has made of the probability of death resulting from (a) hepatitis and (b) HIV/Aids as a result of sourcing blood products from non-United Kingdom plasma; [42856]

  (4) if he will publish the full text of the report of the Committee on the Safety of Medicines on which his decision to source manufactured blood products from non-United Kingdom plasma was based; [42859]

  (5) what is the Committee on the Safety of Medicines estimate of the probability of contracting new variant CJD from blood products; [42857]
  354
  (6) if he will make a statement on the role of the National Blood Authority in his decision to source blood products from non-United Kingdom plasma. [42860]

  Mr. Boateng
  The decision to source blood products from non-United Kingdom plasma follows the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM), which the Department, acting with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices, has accepted.

  The CSM, in consultation with its expert group on new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, undertook a risk assessment of individual plasma derived medicinal products. This assessment took into account the therapeutic benefit of the products, details of the manufacturing process, the theoretical risk of transmission, the quality and availability of alternative supplies and the blood product supply situation. In the course of that assessment, the CSM took evidence from the two UK blood product manufacturers, the Bio Products Laboratory (which is part of the National Blood Service) and the Protein Fractionation Centre (its Scottish equivalent).

  The CSM's advice was that, although there is no evidence to indicate that nvCJD can be transmitted via blood products and the risk therefore remains hypothetical, it cannot be fully discounted. Therefore, as a purely precautionary measure, blood products should not be sourced from UK plasma for the time being. The full text of their advice is appended to the Department's press release of 13 May, copies of which are in the Library.

  We would not accept non-UK plasma which was considered unsafe. The imported plasma will come only from centres approved by the UK Medicines Control Agency. Only when the inspectors are assured that the stringent safety standards applied to the new sources of plasma are equivalent to those currently available in the UK will plasma be imported.

  Clinicians currently do not have to use Bio Products Laboratory or Protein Fractionation Centre products, but can use the licensed product of their choice. As a result, many of the licensed blood products already on the UK market are made from non-UK plasma and they have a high quality and safety record.

  Information
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department operates a monitoring exercise of persistent inquirers for information. [42634]

  Ms Jowell
  No.

  Nut Allergy (Paramedic Training)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training is given to paramedics employed by NHS ambulance trusts in dealing with individuals suffering from allergic reactions to nuts; and if he will make a statement. [42479]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Institute of Health and Care Development is responsible for the standards of training for ambulance personnel, including paramedics. All paramedics in the United Kingdom are trained in the emergency treatment of anaphylaxis, and I understand that the equipment needed for such treatment is standard on all front line ambulances.

  Tobacco Industry
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of reports that the tobacco industry (i) recruited scientists from political and scientific committees, (ii) withheld scientific reports and (iii) corrupted data on the health effects of smoking. [42771]

  Ms Jowell
  I read with interest and concern reports such as those referred to by my hon. Friend.

  Public Appointments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department's action plan for increasing the number of women holding public appointments will be published; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [42828]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department's action plan will be published shortly. Copies will be placed in the Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incomes (London)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of households in each(a) borough and (b) constituency in London was (i) on income support and (ii) paying tax at the higher rate in 1996–97. [41361]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Benefits Agency does not collect information related to tax payments. This is a matter for the Inland Revenue. The administration of Income Support is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Karen Buck, dated 18 May 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what percentage of households in each (a) borough and (b) constituency in London was (i) on Income Support (IS) and (ii) paying tax at the higher rate in 1996–97.
  I am unable to comment on tax payments as this is a matter for the Inland Revenue. The benefits information is not available in the format requested as the Benefits Agency (BA) collates statistics for benefit recipients within each BA District. The number of benefit recipients may not equate to the number of households as several customers may share the same address. BA Districts do not correspond to constituency or borough boundaries. The information which is available is contained in the attached table.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  IS live load

  BA district

  May 1996

  August 1996

  November 19961

  February 1997

  Leaside

  67,652

  68,195

  43,783

  44,057

  City East

  34,400

  33,211

  22,511

  22,061

  Hackney and Islington

  62,864

  64,260

  38,720

  38,484

  Lea Roding

  60,197

  60,711

  39,626

  39,194

  Newham

  49,086

  49,570

  33,158

  32,652

  Barnet

  35,496

  35,576

  24,824

  24,784

  Neasden

  47,909

  47,559

  30,129

  29,854

  Ealing

  60,686

  58,642

  41,429

  40,935

  Euston

  79,310

  79,381

  51,734

  50,984

  Harrow

  34,545

  35,477

  25,340

  25,226

  356

  IS live load

  BA district

  May 1996

  August 1996

  November 19961

  February 1997

  Palace

  67,374

  68,472

  41,588

  41,233

  London Central

  12,668

  10,574

  8,191

  8,078

  South West Thames

  57,248

  54,783

  35,642

  35,143

  Bankside

  26,113

  26,551

  16,632

  16,654

  North Kent

  55,185

  54,902

  36,426

  36,280

  Thameside

  46,127

  46,131

  30,461

  30,249

  South Circular

  59,608

  63,366

  36,419

  36,194

  Surrey

  40,163

  37,363

  29,496

  29,126

  Total (London)

  896,631

  894,724

  586,109

  581,728

  1JSA was introduced in October 1996

  Notes:

  1. This information has been supplied by the BA Central Data Unit, is provisional and may be subject to change

  2. The figures quoted relate to the number of benefit recipients at a given point in time for each quarter in 1996–97

  3. The number of recipients may not equate to the number of households as several benefit recipients may share the same address

  Benefit Overpayments
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if her Department will use its information technology network to co-ordinate payments made by different branches of her Department and its agencies in order to avoid overpayments of benefit. [42045]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Department continues to exploit the opportunities provided by information technology to deliver significant improvements to the accuracy of its payment mechanisms. In launching the Active Modern Service programme, the Department reiterated its commitment to ensuring that people with a genuine claim to benefit receive their correct entitlement, paid at the correct time and for the correct amount.

  The programme of work currently under way incorporates the development and design of integrated Information Technology Systems to allow speedier access to information held across the Department.

  The structure of future customer records will be around individual customers, as opposed to the benefits they claim. This will provide a complete picture of the customers dealings with the Department and reduce the scope for fraud, inaccuracy and inconsistency. Each individual customer record will contain details of payments made and moneys owed.

  Rigorous financial controls of each individual transaction will enable better accounting and speedier action to recover debt.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what external legal advice she has taken concerning the compliance of the reduced earnings allowance with European law in relation to discrimination on the basis of gender. [42123]

  Mr. Denham
  The question of whether the Reduced Earnings Allowance provisions comply with European Community law on grounds of gender is currently being
  357
  litigated before the Social Security Commissioner who has referred five cases to the European Court of Justice for a ruling. We have obtained external advice but it is not the normal practice to reveal the terms of legal advice received. We maintain that the Reduced Earnings Allowance provisions are in accordance with our obligations under Community law.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much it would cost to double child benefit for all children under five years old based on a doubling of the current figure for(a) the eldest qualifying child and (b) each other child. [42704]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  It is estimated that the costs in 1998/99 of doubling the Child Benefit rate for the eldest qualifying child for all children under 5 would be in the region of £670 million and of doubling the Child Benefit rate for each other child under 5 would be in the region of £680 million.

  The total costs of doubling current Child Benefit Rates for children under 5 would be in the region of £1.35 billion.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  2. Estimate assumes current the differential between Couples Higher Rate Child Benefit and Child Benefit (Lone Parent) is retained.

  Source:

  1. Child Benefit and Income Support statistics.

  2. Family Resources Survey.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates she has made of the receipts generated by removing the child benefit premium for the eldest child. [42705]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  It is estimated that the total savings in 1998/99 from abolishing the child benefit rate for the eldest child would be in the region of £590 million.

  Estimated growth in Housing Benefit (HB) in Great Britain between 1992–93 and 1996–97

  £ million

  Government office regions

  HB expenditure 1992–93 (cash terms)

  Growth in HB expenditure (cash terms) between 1992–93 and 1996–97

  Amount of growth attributable to caseload increases

  Amount of growth attributable to increases to the average amount of benefit paid

  Eastern

  575

  255

  88

  166

  East Midlands

  412

  187

  49

  138

  London

  1,746

  895

  383

  512

  Merseyside

  214

  383

  178

  204

  North East

  466

  104

  -73

  177

  North West

  673

  179

  -36

  215

  South East

  829

  493

  202

  290

  South West

  562

  262

  112

  150

  West Midlands

  735

  151

  -71

  222

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  538

  320

  101

  219

  England

  6,749

  3,227

  933

  2,295

  Scotland

  774

  240

  25

  215

  Wales

  378

  155

  46

  108

  Great Britain

  7,901

  3,622

  1,004

  2,618

  Note:

  Totals may not sum due to rounding to nearest £1 million.

  Sources:

  1. Housing Benefit Management Information System 1 per cent. samples.

  2. Departmental Reports.
  358
  Notes:

  1. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  2. Estimate assumes the current differential between Couples Higher Rate Child Benefit and Child Benefit (Lone Parent) is retained.

  Source:

  1. Child Benefit and Income Support statistics.

  2. Family Resources Survey.

  Information
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if her Department operates a monitoring exercise of persistent inquirers for information. [42638]

  Mr. Field
  The Department does not operate a monitoring exercise of persistent inquirers for information.

  Vaccine Damage Payments
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on progress on vaccine damage payments. [40615]

  Mr. Denham
  We are considering the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, as part of the overall review of welfare which includes disability benefits, in consultation with the Department of Health. While this is on-going it is right that we should increase the payments to new claimants. A proposal will be placed before the House to increase the current payment of £30,000 by £10,000 to £40,000, as soon as possible.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the change in the expenditure on housing benefit accounted for by(a) growth in the number of claimants and (b) growth in the size of weekly benefit since 1992 on a United Kingdom basis and on the basis of each region and nation. [41476]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]: The available information is set out in the table.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will estimate the additional funding required to extend NAO access to the accounts and internal accounting documents of private limited companies. [41931]

  Mr. Sheldon
  The Comptroller and Auditor General does not have a guaranteed right of access to the relevant records of private bodies providing public services under contract. Where access is not provided for in the relevant contracts, the Comptroller and Auditor General may be unable to check that public funds have been used as Parliament intended and with due concern for regularity and value for money. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and I have therefore recommended to the Government that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have a guaranteed right of access to contractors' records. The purpose would be to enable the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit the accounts from which the contractor is paid or pays in revenue, not to audit the contractors themselves.

  Where the Comptroller and Auditor General does have access to contractors, he exercises this right only in the relatively few cases where he is unable to obtain sufficient assurance from other sources about the occurrence, propriety or value for money of the payments to, or receipts from, contractors. The resource implications of arrangements to guarantee access rights would depend on the additional extent to which such rights needed to be exercised. It would be for Parliament to decide what additional resources to provide to meet any needs identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what meetings were held between Government representatives and Sandline during the period of exile of President Kabbah of Sierra Leone; who was present at such meetings; where and when they were held; what was their purpose; and what was discussed at them; [41799]

  (2) pursuant to the oral statement of 12 March 1998, Official Report, column 844, on what basis he concluded that the article which appeared in The Observer on 8 March was ill-informed; [41810]

  (3) on what grounds Her Majesty's Government recommended Sandline International to President Kabbah; [41970]

  (4) what the timescale will be for the independent investigation of arms sales to Sierra Leone; if it will be carried out in public; and if its terms of reference will allow all interested parties to give evidence; [41971]

  (5) if the United Kingdom High Commissioner to Sierra Leone visited the premises of Sandline International in the month before the counter coup in Sierra Leone; [41963]
  360
  (6) if the United Kingdom High Commissioner to Sierra Leone received full details of the arrangements, including the military equipment to be provided, together with a copy of Sandline International's strategic and tactical plan, for Sandline International's operations in Sierra Leone; and to whom this information was communicated in his Department, and when. [41962]

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) which official authorised the request for an inquiry by HM Customs and Excise into Lord Avebury's allegations concerning arms sales to Sierra Leone; [42100]

  (2) how many times Lieutenant Colonel Spicer is recorded as having telephoned the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Africa Department (Equatorial) between 25 May 1997 and 24 April 1998; and on what dates; [42689]

  (3) on what date the Permanent Under Secretary was informed of Sandline International's allegation of his Department's officials' complicity in arms exports to Sierra Leone; and what form the information took. [42694]

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the submissions or briefing notes on the situation in Sierra Leone which his Private Office received between 2 May 1997 and 4 May 1998, stating their dates. [42085]

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates meetings between Sandline personnel and staff of the British High Commission in Sierra Leone took place. [42059]

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions on which his special representative to Sierra Leone, Mr. John Flynn, met representatives of Sandline International in(a) London and (b) Sierra Leone since 9 January. [42286]

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Inquiry into the supply of arms to Sierra Leone will be held in public. [42262]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer to my statement in the House during the debate on 18 May 1998,Official Report, columns 604 –11, in which I announced the investigation by Sir Thomas Legg KCB QC into allegations about Government involvement with the supply of arms to Sierra Leone by UK citizens and firms, and said that the Terms of Reference would be placed in the Library of the House. I intend to publish the report of the investigation.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the inquiry he announced on 6 May concerning Sierra Leone will cover the role of Ministers and civil servants in the Department for International Development. [41937]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The investigation I announced on 18 May will cover all Government Departments which Sir T. Legg considers relevant.
  361
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 6 May 1998,Official Report, column 727, if he will make a further statement on ministerial policy towards Sierra Leone. [41978]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: I refer to my statement in the House during the debate on 18 May 1998, Official Report, columns 604–11.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) on what date his Permanent Secretary was first informed of the policy of the United Kingdom that the Government of Sierra Leone should be restored by military force; [41827]

  (2) on what date the intelligence summaries in the Red Book first informed him of the policy of the United Kingdom Government that the Government of Sierra Leone should be restored by force; [41825]

  (3) on what date officials and Ministers from his Department first consulted the US State Department, Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency concerning the policy of the United Kingdom that the Government of Sierra Leone should be restored by military force. [41828]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  This Government have consistently supported the peaceful restoration of the legitimate government of Sierra Leone.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the relationship between his Department's ethical code in respect of arms sales and arms sales to Sierra Leone. [41829]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: The criteria I have announced for use by the FCO when considering export applications for the export of conventional arms specify that a licence should be refused if approval would be inconsistent with the UK's commitment to enforce UN arms embargoes. No such application has been received in respect of Sierra Leone.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what day(a) his officials or (b) his Private Office first gave him papers relating to potential operations by Sandline or others in Sierra Leone; and on what date he acknowledged them. [41961]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: The first paper I saw was the letter shown to me on the evening of 28 April.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what time and on what date he first saw the letter addressed to him from S J Berwin & Co. on behalf of Sandline International dated 24 April. [42132]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The evening of 28 April.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) on what date he first consulted the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office concerning the UK Government's decision to assist Sandline International to help restore the Government of Sierra Leone; [41831]
  362
  (2) on what date the Director General of GCHQ was first informed of the role to be played by Sandline International in restoring the Government of Sierra Leone. [41826]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  At no stage was it our policy to assist Sandline International to help restore the government of Sierra Leone.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the basis of Mr. John Flynn's appointment as his special representative to Sierra Leone; [42281]

  (2) what are the terms of reference of Mr. John Flynn's appointment as his special representative to Sierra Leone. [42282]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Mr. Flynn was appointed as my Special Representative to focus international attention on Sierra Leone and to coordinate international support for the restoration of the democratically-elected government.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Sir Thomas Legg, when conducting the investigation announced on 18 May, will have access to all official documents which mention Sandline and the supply of military equipment. [43089]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  As I made clear in my statement on 18 May 1998,Official Report, columns 601–11, Sir Thomas Legg will be able to see all documents which refer to Sandline, and consider whether they were properly acted upon. These will include intelligence reports. We are aware of five intelligence reports, received between 8 October 1997, when UNSCR 1132 was adopted, and 10 March 1998 when Lord Avebury's letter of 5 February was passed to Customs, which refer to Sandline, or companies associated with Sandline, and to the supply of arms or military equipment. They were seen by officials but not by Ministers.

  Edgar Fernandes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the circumstances of Edgar Fernandes's death; and what representations he has made to the Turkish authorities on this matter. [42105]

  Mr. Fatchett
  A body was found on 10 April by the Bosphorus in Istanbul. On 8 May, Turkish police showed a photograph of the body to a relative of Edgar Fernandes who provisionally identified it. The relative subsequently saw the body and confirmed on 12 May that the body was that of Edgar Fernandes. We do not yet have details of the circumstances of Mr. Fernandes's death. An early unofficial police statement referred to a blow to the back of the head. We are now awaiting the autopsy report from the Turkish authorities. We continue to press the Turkish police to investigate the death of Mr. Fernandes thoroughly.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the number of military confrontations which have occurred between the Royal Navy or Royal Gibraltar Police and the Spanish sea-borne Civil Guard since 1 May 1997. [42156]
  363
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There have been no incidents during this period involving the Royal Navy or Royal Gibraltar Police and marine units of the Spanish Civil Guard. However, the Royal Navy was involved in two incidents in British waters around Gibraltar, on 22 October 1997 and 5 April 1998, involving incursions by Spanish naval patrol vessels. The Royal Gibraltar Police and the Royal Navy were involved in three incidents, on 5 July 1997 and on 13 March and 4 April 1998, involving incursions by vessels of the Spanish coastguard service.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the military confrontation on 6 April off Gibraltar. [42157]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There was no incident on 6 April. However, on 5 April, a Spanish naval patrol vessel was observed moving within British waters off Gibraltar. When the Spanish vessel failed to respond to calls, HMS Nottingham, which was approaching Gibraltar at the time, requested her to leave. The Spanish vessel was escorted out of British waters by a patrol craft of the Gibraltar Squadron. Our Ambassador in Madrid later protested to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs over this incident.

  Kashmir
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he intends to take to promote peace and reconciliation in Kashmir. [42155]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have made clear, most recently, during my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), on 14 May 1998,Official Report, column 527, that a solution to the problem of Kashmir is primarily for India and Pakistan to find. That problem has been compounded by the nuclear tests in India last week. It is all the more important now for India and Pakistan to continue their dialogue on all issues outstanding between them, including Kashmir. Both Governments are aware that we stand ready to help if called upon to do so.

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the consultation papers published since 1 May 1997 giving the date of publication, closing date for submissions and the number of respondents. [42243]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Although the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has frequent contacts with non-governmental organisations and individuals on policy issues, no formal consultation papers have been published for public comment since 1 May 1997.

  Intelligence Gathering
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the EU report, "Assessing the Technologies of Political Control", what guidelines govern the intelligence-gathering operations of the United States National Security Agency in the United Kingdom in respect of other EU countries. [42044]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: The report to which my hon. Friend refers, although commissioned by the European Parliament, is in no way endorsed by them. We do not comment on the intelligence operations of the UK or of its allies.

  Sarno, Italy

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution Her Majesty's Government are making to disaster relief in Sarno, Italy. [42772]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has offered assistance should any be required. No request has been received.

  War Crimes Tribunal
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much additional money the Government have made available to the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague since 1 May 1997. [41284]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Since May 1997, the Government have made voluntary contributions of £296,000 for the construction of a new courtroom, and £1.198 million to the Tribunal's 1998 Exhumations Fund, in addition to payments of assessed contributions totalling £2.025 million.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the delivery of British Aerospace Hawk 200 light multi-role fighters to Indonesia will commence. [41448]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  The current contract to supply Hawk 200 light multi-role fighter aircraft to Indonesia was agreed between British Aerospace and the Government of Indonesia in February 1996. I understand from British Aerospace that the delivery programme for aircraft supplied under this contract is a matter which is confidential between British Aerospace and the Government of Indonesia. The information is therefore being withheld under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

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

Deportees: Re-entry Detection Measures
Lord Dean of Beswickasked Her Majesty's Government:
What defensive measures they are taking to prevent deportees re-entering the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, those who are the subject of a deportation order may not return to the United Kingdom while the order remains extant. To assist in the identification of those who may seek to re-enter in breach of such an order, the Immigration Service has immediate access to the records of all those deported. In addition, the Immigration Service employs a range of measures to detect those who may subsequently seek to gain entry using false identities or by clandestine means.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply. However, is he aware of a report that appeared in the press three or four weeks ago concerning a man from Nigeria who, having come to this country, entered into large-scale fraudulent activities with the DSS? The man received a custodial sentence of two to three years, with deportation at the end of it. However, he had already gone through that process once and had been able to re-enter this country. How often is that happening? Is it possible that the restrictions could be tighter?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have only a general knowledge of that case. However, I recognise that this is a problem. Accordingly, the Immigration Service has now at its disposal a Suspect Index Computer System. It has been in operation at all ports and offices since December 1996. From June of this year, all visa issuing posts abroad will have access to it. That ought therefore to meet, at least in substantial part, my noble friend's concerns.

Government Car Service
2.38 p.m.
Lord Campbellof Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many road vehicles which are regarded as specially friendly to the environment are being used in the Government Car Service, or have been ordered, including those for the use of Ministers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government Car Service currently operates five vehicles in its fleet which run on gas as well as petrol. A further four vehicles are in the process of being replaced with alternative fuel cars. It is the policy of the Government Car and Despatch Agency, which runs the Government Car Service, to replace its vehicles with alternative fuel cars as they come to the end of their working life, normally after three years.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. While the Government provided much publicity for these benign road vehicles at the end of last month, are not cars which produce very little pollution expensive and beyond the aspirations of most of the motoring public? As regards government cars, will the safety of Ministers be borne in mind if they drive the cars themselves, in view of the misadventure experienced on that occasion by the Deputy Prime Minister?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the cost of a conversion to gas from petrol is between £750 and £3,000 according to the type of car concerned. It is therefore worthwhile commercially only if the conversion is carried out when the car is new, before it is added to the fleet. As the noble Lord knows, it is not normal for Ministers to drive cars from the Government Car Service.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of the non-gas fired cars that are regularly in the House of Lords' car park and Chancellor's Court spend a great deal of time with their engines running at a time when the Government have issued pollution warnings? Will he issue instructions to government drivers and others who visit this House to switch off car engines, and even to leave the air-conditioning off when the very important person inside does not happen to be there?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, presumably when that happens, the driver is in the car; and who is to say that the driver is not a very important person? The question of whether cars should be left with their engines running in the House of Lords' car park is a matter for the House authorities rather than the department. As regards pollution, I remind my noble friend that all government cars are fitted with catalytic converters, which work effectively only when the engine is hot. So perhaps the balance is not quite as clear as my noble friend thinks.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I must declare an interest as the President of the Natural Gas Vehicle Association, a non-paid position. I also welcome the Government's conversion of some of the ministerial fleet to gas-powered cars. Does the Minister agree that, until the duty on gas as a fuel is reduced, it is unlikely that the market as a whole will convert to environmentally friendly vehicles?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Question is about the Government Car Service. We propose to convert all the vehicles in the Government Car Service as they are replaced. That is the economical action to take. The question which the noble Lord raised about vehicle duties is a separate issue which I shall be glad to answer if he puts down a Question.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, does the Minister accept that a reasonable proposition might be for Labour Ministers to use their cars rather less, thus indicating that we hope that in due course the use of cars in our cities will be greatly reduced?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have some sympathy with that view. Paragraph 80 of the ministerial code, which was issued last year, states that:
"In using official cars and travelling by rail or air, Ministers must always make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements".
Lord Ironside: My Lords, will the Government consider the use of more electric vehicles in the Government Car Service, as plenty of charging sockets are readily available in London? Of course, if Ministers are using those cars, they need not worry about the batteries running flat, because if their meetings go on long enough, the batteries will be able to be recharged.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government Car and Dispatch Agency has already been working with Ford in testing an electric van called the Ecostar. But the conclusion that we have reached so far is that electric vehicle technology has not gone far enough to make it a viable alternative.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I seek clarification, because I may have completely misheard the noble Lord's initial answer to the first supplementary question. Did he say that five cars in the pool were converted to use "gas as well as petrol"? Alternatively, did he say "gas instead of petrol"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said "as well as". The normal procedure is to convert the car immediately after manufacture so that it can run on both. However, there are not enough LPG stations around the country to enable a car which is not required for such heavy use as government cars to be converted entirely.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, will the Government do anything to encourage the installation of LPG tanks at petrol stations so that cars may fill up? If there are only very few places where they can be filled, people will not be encouraged to switch over. That includes government cars.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is true that we do not have as many LPG outlets as some European countries. But I am afraid that that is a matter for the market. It refers back to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.

Domestic Violence Victims: Financial Help
2.45 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to fund organisations which help victims of domestic violence.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, central Government provide core funding through a number of departments to the Women's Aid Federation in England and its sister organisations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. In 1997-98, the Department of Health is providing that organisation with £217,385. Other provision includes funding through the Urban Programme for projects in Scotland, Welsh Office funding in Wales and funding for local projects in England through the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund. Housing Corporation capital and revenue resources can contribute to building and housing management costs, where local authorities identify as a priority the development of refuges for those escaping domestic violence; for example, the Housing Corporation currently provides a revenue grant to support 3,500 refuge bed spaces in England.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend
aware that the considerable amount of money spent by this Government on the victims of domestic violence is
very helpful and very much appreciated? Will the Minister bear in mind that the vital links between many of the victims and the organisations—the help lines which offer skilled advice—are often under-funded? The crisis line of Refuge, for example. is now offering tremendously skilled advice to many women and access to 200 sanctuaries, but that is now on the brink of closure because of lack of funds. Is it possible for the Government to help?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course, Refuge does extremely good work and its funding came from the National Lottery Charities Board, which was not a government source. The decision was not a government decision. However, we provide to WAF(E) the support I mentioned. It runs an extremely effective domestic violence helpline, fielding about 15,000 calls per year. It is true that Refuge is having to limit its service from four lines to one. The service has not been discontinued, but it is matter of regret that it has limited its operation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we recognise the valuable work the Government are doing in providing support for refuges in England and Wales. Can the noble Lord explain why the funding arrangements are so different between England and Wales? Why is it that in England the Housing Corporation would provide revenue for a five-bed space amounting to about £12,500 a year, while, if I pronounce it correctly, Tai Cymru—"Tai Coomry"—in Wales would provide £32,000 for the same five-bed space?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is pronounced "Tai Cumry"—Tai Cymru. They do things

1437
differently in Wales. I beg your pardon, my Lords, we do things differently in Wales! There are different circumstances obtaining in Wales which may have greater specific needs in the area. One of the reasons Wales does things differently is that at present devolved functions are admirably carried out by the Secretary of State for Wales. Subsequently, I dare say, the assembly will be able to assist.
The noble Lord makes a reasonable point that there is a fragmentation. That is one of the reasons my right honourable friend Ms Harman and my honourable friend Ms Ruddock are currently developing an overall national strategy to deal with violence against women. A consultation paper will be published this autumn, we hope, which ought to address some of the questions raised by the noble Lord.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, sadly, victims of domestic violence are often children? They suffer either directly or indirectly and much domestic violence is alcohol related. Is the Minister satisfied that the level of funding targeted at that area is enough to meet this sad situation?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right that children are often the innocent casualties of domestic violence, in the same way as large number of women are and a lesser proportion of men. Equally, it is generally accepted that alcohol can contribute to those problems. I cannot imagine any Minister ever being able to say with all honesty that there will ever he sufficient funds for these purposes. We need to be alert that the money available is properly directed and properly spent.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many refuges are facing considerable financial difficulty? For example, is he aware that following a High Court ruling last July it was said that housing benefit:
"is not there to make any general social provision for the protection of disadvantaged people in their homes"?
Many local authorities referred refuge rents to the rent officer with the result that many of the benefits have been cut by as much as £20 per person per week. That has meant that a refuge with six families is losing up to £120 a week as a consequence of that judgment and is therefore in great financial difficulty.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am aware of the case to which my noble friend refers. That is one aspect which will be considered by the review I mentioned earlier. The consultation document will be out in the autumn. We hope there will be a final document in February 1999 and that again relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley; that there are differences and variations which need to be looked at in the general context.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the funding system used by Tai Cymru avoided many of the difficulties mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood? Bearing that in mind, will he promote
1438
consultation between his department and the Department of Social Security to ensure that in the current review of housing benefit, decisions about the specialist needs of women's refuges will he taken into account before general decisions are made and not afterwards?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Earl's question. I can assure the House that the position of women's refuges will be considered in the context of any future review of housing benefit.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, with the greatest respect, is my noble friend aware that my information differs from his? I am told by the people who run the refuge that the helpline will close if the money is not forthcoming. Whether it closes or whether it is substantially reduced, as he says it will be, the result will be disastrous for thousands of women living in brutal circumstances. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that that is not allowed to happen and that is why we call for action.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I can only repeat that my information varies slightly from that put before the House by my noble friend. I will re-research it in case I have been misinformed. I repeat that we provide significant sources of support; for instance, for WAF(E) which has its own helpline and is extremely effective. The funding provided to the refuge in question was not government funding. When the original grant was awarded, it was made plain that there would be no continuing funding and that the refuge should plan accordingly.

British Industry: Productivity
2.54 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeauxasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to improve the productivity of British industry in relation to other member states in the European Union.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Competitiveness UK initiative launched by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade last summer, is central to the Government's drive to work with business to bridge the gap in productivity between Britain and its main competitor countries in Europe and beyond. Under this initiative, business people and other partners are working directly with Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry to identify barriers to improve competitiveness and develop practical proposals to overcome them. The conclusions of this process will help shape the forthcoming White Paper on competitiveness.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that UK productivity is extremely bad? If the UK could only

1439
perform as well as our leading EU competitors, our gross domestic product would increase by £60 billion a year, according to the CBI.
Are your Lordships as baffled as I am by the reports which indicate that the Government and their advisers do not even know the factors which make UK productivity so bad? What have they been doing all these years? Will the Government demonstrate to Parliament their firm commitment to understanding UK productivity problems as well as coming up with a policy that will work and will win the confidence of the British public?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are aware of the importance of increasing productivity. This Government have a sense of urgency about the need to tackle the problem. On 4th June last year my right honourable friend Margaret Beckett—only one month after taking office—launched the Competitiveness UK initiative. By November of last year the Competitiveness UK paper indicated where British businesses were compared with the best in the world. Six key areas of weakness in the UK's competitiveness performance were identified and a working party was set up to address each area. Those working parties reported their conclusions to the President of the Board of Trade in April this year. The Government are now working with the working party members and holding seminars at 11 Downing Street to see how their ideas can be developed in practice. We will then spell out our policy proposals to address this productivity gap.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, will the Minister briefly outline what the Government are doing to aid the productivity of the British beef industry?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am not sure that that is a question I ought to answer.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, that the most significant problem faced by the British economy at the moment is the lack of productivity in our industry? That is a view shared by the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will the Minister agree that, as our economy slows down, the most significant step that the Government could take to ensure that the problem is resolved is early entry into the European monetary union?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am not sure that early entry into monetary union is the solution to the problem. The fact that the euro will be used more frequently will expose British companies to their lower productivity as compared with other European countries.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a simple way of improving productivity in this country would be diminished productivity on the part of the bureaucrats in Brussels? If there were fewer regulations, British productivity would undoubtedly improve.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, it depends what is meant by regulations. The purpose of some regulations is to produce barriers in the way of business. But other regulations give people more confidence in the product; for instance, regulations in relation to aircraft and pharmaceuticals. The whole matter is extremely complex.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord's failure to answer the question of my noble friend indicative of the Government's belief that agriculture is not an industry? Is he aware that there is a huge imbalance between imports and exports in relation to British agricultural products? Most of the products produced in the United Kingdom are of excellent quality and observe all the welfare and hygiene standards required as opposed to what often happens on the Continent. Can he say what Her Majesty's Government are doing about agricultural products in Europe?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government have put forward restructuring proposals for the beef industry and those proposals are now being discussed. So the Government are working on the problem.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, when small and medium-sized companies are installing high-tech machinery in order to increase productivity, the most valuable thing for them would be fiscal incentives over the following few years? Both the companies and the Inland Revenue would benefit from the future profitability arising from such incentives.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, 1 entirely agree with the noble Baroness. Indeed, the Government have taken steps in that direction. The corporation tax rate for small companies will be cut by 1 per cent. to 20 per cent. from 1st April 1999, following a 2 per cent. cut last July. The capital gains tax taper system to promote and reward long-term investment has an effective top rate of 10 per cent. for gains on business assets held over 10 years. The Government are giving fiscal incentives to these companies in order to invest.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, where British companies have achieved high records of productivity and can easily be seen as the most successful within the EU, will the Government be vigilant in ensuring that our partner states do not involve themselves in practices which deny Britain the advantages of that achievement?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are very vigilant in this matter.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the measurement of increases or decreases in productivity is a matter of some difficulty, together with an agreed method of statistical representation? Will the Government therefore take into account that there still remains the largely unmeasurable factor of plain common sense and that one knows,

1441
factory by factory but certainly not in its generality, what underproductivity or overproductivity actually means?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are trying to apply common sense in that they are consulting the actual practitioners. Many of the people involved in the schemes to improve productivity are the businessmen themselves.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my noble friend Lord Randall could have asked this Question or its equivalent at any time during the past 70 years and that it is highly likely that my noble friend on the Front Bench or his equivalent would have answered in terms of working parties? As the problem has existed for at least 70 years, would it not be sensible not to introduce working parties or their equivalent but to try to find another way to deal with this problem? Ever since the Labour Government of 1945 we have been setting up these bodies. We have constantly talked about productivity problems but our relative position has remained not entirely unchanged, but certainly not very changed. The answer is that working parties are not what is needed.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I can say to my noble friend that this time it will be different. The working parties have reported and last week the first seminar took place to discuss the reports. The Government are determined that the practical proposals will be disseminated to all companies throughout industry and we shall start to benefit from that in a very short while.
The Earl of Home: My Lords, the Minister said that he was trying to identify barriers in order to improve competitiveness. Will the noble Lord tell us whether in discussing this issue the DTI has addressed the question of the aid-to-trade provision in conjunction with the Export Credits Guarantee Department or are the Government sticking to their dogmatic view of abolishing the aid-to-trade provision, which has been a great boon to this country in the past?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the policy on the aid-to-trade provision has been clearly laid out by the Government. It is not a matter of productivity; it is a matter of doing business deals.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following up the valid point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that what we least need is yet another working party, perhaps I may say that what we actually need is action based on what is well known over the years. Does the noble Lord agree that one of the major problems that has bedevilled British industry has been a relative lack of investment in new products and new procedures to match those of continental competitors? Is this high on the list of the studies now being conducted?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, not only is it high on the list but the Government have already taken action, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Platt. The
1442
Government have already given fiscal incentives to invest and, as a result of some of the studies being carried out, there may be further ones; I do not know. But certainly it is very high on the list of priorities.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, far from this issue being complex, does my noble friend agree that the two essential ingredients for increasing productivity are investment in technology and the training of the workforce? Unfortunately, for a number of decades a large part of British industry has failed to do either.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that investment in technology and investment in skills are important. The Government are addressing themselves to both those matters.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, how will productivity be helped by the introduction of the minimum wage?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, many of us do not need an expert to tell us that fairness at work leads to greater productivity. Many noble Lords, particularly noble Lords on this side of the House, know from their own experience that fairness at work increases productivity. As the minimum wage will increase fairness at work, it will increase productivity.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the situation in Indonesia. I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on the Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification.

School Standards and Framework Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 6 [Preparation of education development plans]:
Lord Pilkington of Oxenfordmoved Amendment No. 26:
Page 4, line 11, after ("area.") insert ("specifying the targets for attainment for individual schools at key stage I, key stage 2, key stage 3, and key stage 4,").

1443
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 27. These amendments are deliberately designed to make more specific and more precise the exact manner in which the education development plans prepared by each school and each local authority will—and I refer to a later phrase in the clause—"raise the standards of education".
The Bill is entirely about raising the standards of British education throughout the system. The Government and those on these Benches share the same aim. We realise that things have not always been as right as they should have been in British education and we have all tried to make improvements. Our wish is that the children in our schools are taught in such a way that they leave literate and numerate as well as extended by the whole business of their teaching; and this from whatever area or background they come.
While I accept the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in previous debates that regard ought to be paid to value added in assessing a school, I am sure that he will agree that value added is often hard to define although we both share the view that in part education development plans should pay some attention to that. But that is not in contradiction to what I propose in these amendments which deal with absolute facts that are at present available. The amendments suggest that any education development plan, both from the individual school and from the area plan as it is developed, should pay attention to existing facts and to the evidence available from existing national tests. That would actually help a judgment of performance.
I cannot imagine any other organisation in the country making a decision to improve standards which would not at least start from the existing achievement of the institution or organisation. This is very important. Both sides agree that the problem in areas of the same social mix, be it rich or poor, is that different schools are producing widely different results and therefore, in assessing their future performance in the education development plan, if we are to help the good ones to do even better and the worst to improve it would be worthwhile to look at what they have or have not achieved in the past.
As Members of the Committee opposite know, the education development plan suggests that by the summer of the year 2000 pupils in year six in primary, junior and middle schools should judge what they are going to achieve in their key stage 2 English and maths tests and so on; and similarly for GCSE and other results in secondary schools. Can there be any harm in asking that in deciding these targets we look at achievements in key stage 2 and more in previous years? We can then say whether they have set the right target and whether they have achieved it. In no sense are we hindering their performance.
The amendments propose a more specific and realistic approach to improving educational standards. It is unfortunate that Form 7, prepared by the local authorities, refers to people who receive free schools meals; it does not say what academic results the schools are achieving. These are practical amendments. There is
1444
no ideology in them. I would have thought that the Minister could say, "Thank you Lord Pilkington for your wisdom in suggesting these amendments to me. I am delighted to accept them." I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Thank you, Lord Pilkington, for explaining your amendments so clearly. The noble Lord says that his proposals are more specific and realistic than the existing provision in the guidelines for education development plans. I certainly agree that they are more specific. They require local education authorities to include in their education development plans specific targets for individual schools at each of key stages 1, 2, 3 and 4 and that the targets so specified—I am referring to Amendment No. 27—should be based on the prior attainment of individual schools.
We intend to have a small, manageable but challenging number of targets in the first three-yearly cycle of education development plans. The noble Lord rightly described the contents of the table of targets which is in Annex 1 of the consultation document. These will cover some but not all of all key stages. In other words, they will cover key stage 2 for English and maths and for schools with secondary pupils they cover results for pupils on the roll aged 15 at the start of the various years.
However, we do not want to overburden local education authorities or schools with a target-setting process as complex as that which the amendments provide. They would increase the amount of bureaucracy and decrease the amount of flexibility. Of course, if LEAs and schools want to provide further information and agree additional targets than those required under the education development programme, they can do so. There is provision for an optional annex to the education development programme. But the important point is that they should have choice to add to a limited but reasonable set of prescribed targets. I believe that many schools would find it a serious burden to meet as many targets as those implied by the amendments. To put them on the face of the Bill would make it impossible to change the targets that LEAs and schools should agree without further primary legislation. We are proposing that the Secretary of State should issue regulations on target setting under Section 19 of the Education Act 1997 which will enable him to specify appropriate targets, taking into account changing circumstances over the years. The amendments would impose targets which, even though perhaps appropriate at the outset, might very well be overtaken by education developments later on.
We are sympathetic to the idea of such important contextual information as pupils' prior attainment, and schools and LEAs will take that into account. It is only if we do take into account prior attainment that tracking and evaluating performance and rates of improvement are possible. So what is proposed in Amendment No. 27 is what will inevitably happen as part of the process of schools and LEAs agreeing, and subsequently monitoring, targets for pupils on the school side and targets for schools on the side of the LEA. What is

1445
necessary will be done: it does not need to be on the face of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may say that in the very first briefing produced by the National Commission on Education, written very persuasively by Professor Andrew McPherson from Edinburgh, the crucial importance of value added was stressed and a great deal of factual information was provided to indicate the reasons why crude league tables relating to levels of attainment by pupils in individual schools were misleading. It was necessary to take full account of the educational attainment of the parents of the pupils, their social and ethnic background and many other factors before one was able to see in what way targets for educational attainment had been achieved.
I very well understand the point made by the noble Lord, in reply to these amendments, about not imposing a greater level of bureaucracy on local education authorities and the schools. But it would be a great reassurance to the educational establishment, if I may call it such, if there were somewhere within this very important clause on educational provision by schools and educational plans a comment to the effect that the important principle of value added will be borne in mind.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was fully prepared to make exactly the points which the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, has made in response to what I hoped would be a more comprehensive group of amendments covering questions of ethnicity, gender and so on. But noble Lords who propose these amendments have exercised their undoubted right to have them debated separately. So it is true that we have had half a debate and not the whole of it. The noble Lord is entirely right in saying that these other issues are enormously important in assessing added value and we should not go on prior attainment alone.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may raise a point with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I listened with care to what he said and I understood that the Government expect that every school will have targets such as those proposed in these two amendments and that the Government are looking for targets which relate to value added. If that is so, surely targets of attainment in relation particularly to value added are so important that, above all other matters that should appear on the face of the Bill, they come first.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is looking puzzled. I do not know whether he is really puzzled or whether he thinks that I do not know what I am talking about. It seems to me that it is crucial that every school should know what it is trying to achieve and that it should be able to measure whether it has done so in relation to the matters covered by these amendments. If that is so, and if the Government agree, why can they not put this particular matter on the face of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not say that I expected that all schools and LEAs would provide all of the information required in the amendments. I said that the guidance for LEAs on education development plans includes, in annex 1, a table which provides for information at key stages 2 and 4. That information will be required. It is up to the local education authorities and the schools to decide whether they want to specify further targets. That is an option for them; it is not a requirement. We are anxious to ensure that education authorities and schools put forward targets which are meaningful to them rather than simply imposing the full range of central targets.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: So the Government do not expect that every school will set such targets. I am not talking about the education authorities. I do not see why a school's targets should not be known to the education authorities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They will not necessarily; they can do so if they want to. There are already differences between middle schools and secondary schools. We must be a little flexible in terms of what we require from schools.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question. It seems to me that his answers to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, are right. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, suggested another problem which has troubled me as I have read and tried to understand the Bill. I am not sure whether I have been successful. The point of having plans is to achieve something, and after implementing every plan the question is, "Did you achieve what you were attempting?". My difficulty when reading the Bill—I am sure that my noble friend knows the Bill much better than I do—is that I cannot find anything in it to cover that question. Before we leave this matter, could my noble friend direct me to the part of the Bill dealing with that? I had meant to raise this point later but, as my noble friend is dealing with the matter now, I must confess to him that I am a bit lost. I cannot see the point of having plans—I totally support them—unless at some point, say, every year, one says, "This is what I set out to do and this is what I have achieved". I cannot find the provision in the Bill that says that that must happen.
Lord Lucas: The noble Lord will find it under Amendment No. 31, which I hope that the Government will feel able to accept.
Baroness Blatch: I am not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, cannot find that provision. One of the difficulties with this Bill is that it is not possible to find such provisions in it. Having read the background papers, my understanding is that each school will negotiate its targets with the LEA.
However, because of the answers that we have been given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I now do not understand precisely what will be expected of each school. Perhaps I may link that with the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant.

1447
He referred to understanding children's backgrounds and the difficulties that they may face in their families if, say, they are not supported at home or if their homework is not supervised. Any such information is critical to the teacher's understanding of a child and of how to get the best from him or her, building on the strengths and addressing the weaknesses.
I must advise the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord McIntosh, that ultimately one wants to know that people have achieved the level of ability needed to do their job. I refer, for example, to surgeons who operate on people, to accountants who look after people's accounts and to lawyers who deal with complex matters. Whatever value is added and whatever extraneous information is provided by the school and/or the local education authority in the course of providing information to the Secretary of State (who will either approve or disapprove of it), it is important to know what a child is achieving, whatever his or her background. It is important to know what a child is achieving, what he or she is able to achieve and what it is possible (in the form of a target) for the child to achieve in the coming academic year. The answers that we have received so far from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, do not make it absolutely clear that we are looking for achievement targets and, based on previous achievement, that we are looking for reasonable, stretching targets for the following year in terms of a child's ability and curriculum outcomes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had thought that not only had I made that clear, but that the Bill makes it entirely clear. My noble friend Lord Peston is right: there is no point in having education development plans unless one is going to do something about achieving the targets. If my noble friend will look at Clause 7(5), he will see that it is the duty of the Secretary of State to keep under review the authority's proposals and their implementation. It is clear that implementation of an education development plan is an essential requirement of the process. I should add that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and her colleagues, propose that Clause 7 as a whole should be removed from the Bill, thus removing also the requirement for implementation.
Lord Peston: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but perhaps he will clarify one point. Does "implementation" mean "outcomes" rather than, "trying to meet the plan"? My understanding of the word "implementation" is that it means, "We are trying to undertake our plan". It does not mean, "Having set the target that 98 per cent. of children will be able to read, we now tell you that 95 per cent. can read, which is less than our target, but more than was achieved last year". If we are to follow this line, that is the sort of information that we want. I am certain that my noble friend is right about what will be done. I am simply asking a rather technical question because I cannot see any provision in the Bill which requires that that must be done. I was hoping that there would be a simple non-political answer to my question, saying, "This bit
1448
of the Bill says that you have to state whether, and the extent to which, you have achieved your objectives". That was all that I wanted. It was a very simple question.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not take it as a technical question. Perhaps I may write to my noble friend about the construction of the Bill. The intention is that the achievement of the targets set out in the education development plans will be a matter of public report. One would not have education development plans unless that is what one intended.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may return to something that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said earlier and ask him to clarify it. I hope that I was not correct in understanding him to say that a lower level of value added would be acceptable from pupils who might come from difficult home backgrounds or difficult economic circumstances. Surely the education system should be about enabling pupils to achieve their potential, whatever the background from which they come. That may require greater effort when dealing with pupils who come from difficult backgrounds, but surely one should not modify one's targets and expectations of value added just because pupils may come from difficult backgrounds. One should put in greater effort. The noble Lord seemed to imply that matters such as social class and ethnicity should be taken into account when assessing a school's target for value added. Surely that is not right.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I gave the impression that the noble Lord has drawn, I gave the wrong impression. I am not saying that there should be lower expectations of value added because children may come from different backgrounds. It is simply that the value added is measured in a different way if they come from different backgrounds. We still have to have added value. That is what raising standards is all about. It is not a question of relaxation; it is a question of the way in which we realistically measure what can be achieved. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that is a matter not only of prior attainment, but also of the various other social factors to which the noble Lord rightly referred.
Lord Peston: In support of my noble friend Lord McIntosh, the point that he makes is one of which both he and I have experience. Let us take the case of Haringey. When there was a large influx of people from Cyprus whose first language was not English those schools made prodigious achievements in teaching those children to read and write, although I am sure that their performance was less good in terms of the ghastly league tables that I detest than that of children from leafier suburbs. The whole point about value added is that perhaps only half the children can read, but half is a good deal more than nought compared with another school that has moved from 70 per cent. to 71 per cent. I hope that my noble friend does not remotely accept the notion that to take value added into account is to make the teachers' or school's life easier; if anything, it is to make it very much harder.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is barking up the wrong tree. Quite rightly, one starts from prior attainment in measuring value added. If children enter a school less well educated or able the attainment of that school at the end of the day will be less but there will be value added and it is on that basis that the school should be praised. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says that if two children coming into a school have equal prior attainment but one of them is poor and black and the other is rich and white the latter should be expected to do better. I do not believe that that is an acceptable policy for any government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I thought that my noble friend Lord Peston had made the issue entirely clear. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, appears to be attempting to cloud it. I am glad that the lobby of the Haringey Association for the Advancement of State Education has reasserted itself. The examples that he gives are entirely right. If pupils whose first language is not English come into a school in the middle of their school career one must adjust one's targets accordingly. That does not mean that one sets lower standards for value added, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, appears to insist upon. There is still value added although the targets are different.
Lord Lucas: I entirely agree, but that is what prior-attainment is about. One starts with the attainment, abilities and measured competence of the pupils. If they come in with no English half-way through their schooling that is taken into account, but that has nothing to do with ethnicity or social background. They are totally irrelevant to value added. If one introduces those factors one merely accepts the idea that people who are poor should be less well educated.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. I return to the point rightly made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. There are all kinds of other factors that affect prior attainment. If one takes prior attainment which is the result of all these other factors as the only measure then one will not understand what it is the schools have to do and are trying to do. One must understand that, and that is why one needs the other measures of value added.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I welcome the Minister's dislike of too much bureaucracy. I am delighted that he wants to reduce it, and I am sure that he will give me his support when later in the Bill I table amendments to that end. My heart is touched by his dislike of bureaucracy in face of this Bill.
Since this matter has attracted everyone's attention, I turn to the issue of value added and prior attainment. I remind the Committee—some Members appear to have forgotten the point that I made—that there may be two different schools in the same area. I can think of two schools in a deprived area of east London both with high ethnic pupil ratios. They achieve widely different results. Those schools are less than one quarter of a mile from each other. They achieve widely different results
1450
because one demands more and is better run than the other. Therefore, prior attainment is a very important element. I regret that the Government have paid no more than lip service to Amendment No. 27.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred to tests. There are other tests to show that prior attainment is more closely related to subsequent attainment than any other factor. The factors listed in the studies were class, parents' education, ethnicity, social disadvantage and free school meals. Tests have shown that if one can get prior attainment right regardless of race and social background one will get subsequent performance. I do not want to harp on something that I have referred to many times, but the experience of the United States proves that. Its educational system in the first 30 or 40 years of this century ignored ethnic and social background and awarded citizenship on achievement in the educational system and achieved it. We need not be in contradiction. I regret that in the first part of this debate these old social arguments are coming up. There is no contradiction. We on this side of the Chamber suggest that attention be paid to prior attainment and that schools be demanded to show it. That is the most effective way of judging a school. By all means work out value added, but I endorse the views of my noble friend Lord Lucas that it must never become, as it has in the past, an excuse for the fact that some people from different ethnic backgrounds are less well educated. There is no necessity for that. I taught pupils in Africa for three years for whom English was a third language. They spoke two others: their tribal language and Swahili. They were as clever as many of the people I taught later in highly selective schools. It is enormously important that we judge that in the state system.
Although I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage, I ask the Committee to pay attention to Amendment No. 27 because it may come back again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved]
Baroness Thomas of Walliswoodmoved Amendment No. 28:
Page 4, line 15, after second ("for") insert ("all").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 28 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. Amendment No. 28 seeks to add the word "all" to the first sentence of Clause 6. The effect is to insert on the face of the Bill the Government's stated commitment to improve the education provision for and the educational achievements of all children, including those with special needs in the broadest sense of those words.
I raised this matter at Second Reading. On 5th May I received a letter from the noble Baroness the Minister reassuring me that the definition of "children" in this sentence specifically included children with special needs. That provides some hut not sufficient comfort. But at Second Reading the noble Baroness also recommended that we study the draft guidance, as it then was, on educational development plans. I have

1451
done so. It is true that there are many places in which the requirements placed on LEAs in constructing these plans cover or refer to pupils with special needs and/or pupils in special schools.
However, the phrase "all children" is used only once in the outline of the legal position in appendix 4 of the draft guidance. That makes no mention of special needs. We wish to see a commitment in education development plans to the development of education provision for all pupils including those who are sometimes left on the margins of LEAs' interests, concern and expenditure. I include among them sometimes marginal groups and the full range of children with special educational needs, including those with behavioural problems, pupils with special gifts, the physically disabled, who are sometimes indefensibly separated from mainstream education, and pupils in referral units. The draft guidance goes some way towards satisfying that imperative. It is possible that, following the end of the consultation period on the draft guidance, increased emphasis may be placed on the spectrum of special needs within it. Meanwhile, we should like to see the Government's stated commitment to SEN pupils reflected on the face of the Bill.
I turn next to Amendment No. 39 which provides that when the authority prepares its education development plan it shall have regard to the curriculum statement under the Education Act 1996. This is a probing amendment. We want to ensure that the education plan is linked to the curriculum statement rather than that the duty to draw up such a statement is abolished. The LEA would then need to have regard to the curriculum statement when it draws up the EDP. The purpose of that amendment is quite clear.
Finally, on Amendment No. 40 we are asking that:
"In the course of preparing an education development plan the authority shall agree targets with a school, to which the school shall have regard".
Those proposals were in the White Paper and we wish to reintroduce them into the Bill. We need an explanation from Ministers as to why the requirement to agree targets with schools has been dropped although it was proposed in the White Paper. It is possible that the effectiveness of EDPs will be reduced if schools can ignore them. Equally, it is more likely that schools will ignore them if there has not been a reasonable discussion and agreement following that discussion. I beg to move.
Baroness Seccombe: The question of special needs has been raised and it is always very moving in this House when the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and other noble Lords refer to special needs. However, I am particularly concerned about a group of children which the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, referred to, but more or less in passing rather than in emphasis; that is, very gifted children. We always think of children with special needs as those who do not have the talents which many others have. But in this Bill, there is very little about gifted children who are, after all, the high fliers of the future. That is something that we should always keep before us.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, Amendment No. 28 would define the children in relation to whom LEA education development plans are to apply as "all children" in an authority's area. I have seen the letter which my noble friend Lady Blackstone sent to the noble Baroness on 30th April. The second paragraph of that letter states:
"You asked whether the definition of "children" in Clause 6 of the Bill concerning education development plans specifically included children with special educational needs. I can confirm that it does".
We cannot be any clearer than that. We take on board the noble Baroness's concern that no child should be overlooked under an education development plan. In fact, Clause 6(3) sets out the definition. For the purpose of outlining the scope of an education development plan, that part of the Bill defines children as "persons of compulsory school age", that is five to 15 inclusive. "(whether at school or otherwise)", which includes those being taught at home, for example, and,
"persons of any age above or below that age who are registered as pupils at schools maintained by the authority".
In other words, it is all those children that the amendment is concerned to include.
There is one practical effect of the noble Baroness's amendment. It would make local education authorities, through their plans, responsible for privately-educated children in the areas. That is certainly not what we intend because clearly, local education authorities could not meaningfully discharge that responsibility although we envisage that, where information is available, LEAs will take account of the performance of local independent schools in drawing up their targets and school improvement programmes. We welcome and fully endorse any voluntary co-operation between the state and private sectors in promoting educational attainment.
Amendment No. 39 would require LEAs, in drawing up their EDPs, to have regard to the written statement of policy on the secular curriculum that every LEA is presently required by law to have and to keep up to date. Our intention in the Bill is to repeal the requirement for LEAs to produce a curriculum statement. That requirement predates the introduction of the national curriculum and was intended as a tool to promote consistency in the school curriculum across the country. With the establishment of the national curriculum the requirement is now redundant and it would not be right to include it in an education development plan. Leaving it in would create a duplication and an unnecessary burden. Of course, if individual authorities wish to have a curriculum statement, there is nothing to stop them doing so.
Amendment No. 40 is a rather important amendment because it would work only on the assumption that LEAs will be able to impose targets on schools. We have made it clear that individual school targets are the responsibility of the school. We believe that the target-setting exercise between LEAs and schools should be a co-operative effort, involving a full exchange of views in agreeing appropriate performance targets. Local education authorities are responsible for encouraging schools to raise their standards and setting

1453
out in their EDPs how they will help schools to do so. But the schools must have the lead responsibility for their own improvements and should be accountable for their own performance. LEAs are responsible for their part of the bargain: how well they support the schools. Where it is not possible for schools and LEAs to agree targets, the EDP should record the disagreement.
I believe that the noble Baroness will agree, on reflection, that that is better than taking responsibility from schools for their performance while giving LEAs an important role in challenging school targets. Our proposal strikes a proper balance between the rights and responsibilities of LEAs and schools. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend for some slight clarification of his answer. He says—and it seems to be clear from the Bill—that children means children. In other words, we do not need the word "all" and, indeed, the word "all" may be unhelpful. He then said that included in that is a sub-set of children; namely, those with special educational needs.
Does it then follow that, without writing the words "special educational needs" into this part of the Bill, the plan must clearly provide targets and there must be a plan to encompass those children with special educational needs? In other words, it seems to follow logically from my noble friend saying that we do not need the amendment that if, the plan did not include what was required for children with those needs, it would not be acceptable. Am I right to interpret his answer in those terms?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It would not be a proper plan for all children in the area unless it provided for those children with special educational needs.
Baroness Blatch: I understood the noble Lord to say that Sections 370 and 374 of the Education Act 1996 are to be repealed or will not have effect as and when this Bill receives Royal Assent. In that event, what curriculum is to be regarded in the drawing up of those plans? It seems to me important that if there is not to be regard to the national curriculum, it should be made clear what is to be in its place.
Secondly, education action zones are to be a great factor in many parts of the country if the Government carry through their policy on education action zones. They will have the power to disapply the national curriculum and can therefore put another curriculum in place. At this stage, none of us has any idea what that may be because it will be a matter for the Secretary of State and the action zones to determine what will be the substitute curriculum.
Are the action zones exempt from that process of drawing up education development plans? I understand that they are not. In that case, how on earth will an LEA take into account the relaxing of the national curriculum as we have all come to understand it, which means a possibility of different things in different schools? Moreover, how do the LEAs take into account the action zone's curriculum?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are two parts to the noble Baroness's question. I can confirm that it is our intention to remove the curriculum statement requirement from the 1996 Act. I hope that that is entirely clear.
The noble Baroness's second question was about education action zones. She talked about them. It may be better for us to discuss those when we reach Clause 10.
Baroness Blatch: I reject the answers to both those points. First, in the event of the repealing of those parts of the 1996 Act, I asked what curriculum LEAs would have to have regard to in drawing up the EDPs. They must have regard to something going on in those schools. Secondly, as regards education action zones, I shall be happy to discuss these when we reach that point in the proceedings. However, at this stage, there is a read-across between the preparation of EDPs and the existence of EAZs in those authorities. That does not form part of the four clauses which appear later in the Bill. Therefore, in the context of EDPs, it is important to know whether they are exempt from that process. If they are not exempt, we need to know how the EDP clauses in the Bill will work in relation to education action zones.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the requirement for a curriculum statement will indeed be replaced by the national curriculum. There is legislation, both primary and secondary, on the national curriculum. On the question of education action zones, the answer is no. The schools in the EAZs will not be exempt from the requirement to produce an education development plan.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, had to say about the particular attention that should be paid to the needs of people with exceptional gifts. Indeed, it is a theme which I have often pursued, though in different chambers from this one. I am also most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for teasing out some of the detail of the Minister's reply on the question of gifted children.
Having listened to the interchange between the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the Minister, I must say that I am now rather confused as to the situation with regard to curriculum status. I did not think that the Education Act 1996 came into being before the national curriculum; indeed, I rather thought that it happened considerably after the national curriculum was introduced. Therefore, I did not understand the Minister's original reply. Moreover, I did not manage to achieve a better understanding of the situation from following the interchange between the two speakers. In the circumstances, I believe that we shall have to return to the matter at a later stage, when I have had the opportunity to read the Hansard report of that interchange and been able to reconsider the matter at greater length.
As regards Amendment No. 28, I believe that here, too, we shall need to reconsider the question. I do not believe that we shall manage to have the word "all"

1455
introduced into the Bill, because I have referred to the matter twice now in debate and have twice been turned down. Indeed, the letter from the Minister was pretty firm in that respect. However, there may be another more suitable way of ensuring that concern for pupils with special educational needs is expressed on the face of the Bill. If so, we may well return to the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Indonesia
3.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on unrest in Indonesia which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the current situation in Indonesia.
"Our top priority remains to ensure the safety of British citizens in Indonesia. Throughout the recent unrest the embassy has kept in close touch with the British community through the warden system and regularly updated travel advice. This advice has also been broadcast by the BBC World Service. Emergency telephone lines have been set up in Jakarta to provide up-to-date information 24 hours a day.
"Advice to resident British nationals caught up in the unrest has been kept under constant review. From Friday, 15th May, Britons were advised to consider leaving. Early this morning, in view of the latest political developments and the demonstrations expected on 20th May, we issued advice that British citizens should leave Indonesia, preferably avoiding travel on 20th May. At our ambassador's request, an additional British Airways 747 flight has been arranged by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, leaving Jakarta later today for Kuala Lumpur. There are also other scheduled flights available.
"British citizens with safe access to the airport were advised to make their own way there, where an embassy team will be available at the British Airways office to give advice. The embassy also chartered a fleet of buses to transport British citizens from central Jakarta. As an extra precaution, a police escort was requested and provided.
"We have been greatly saddened by the tragic death of a British citizen in Jakarta on 14th May. Our deepest sympathy goes out to his family. The motive
1456
appears to have been robbery, as the evidence suggests that the death was unrelated to the mob violence. We have asked the Indonesian police for investigation reports as a matter of urgency. We have heard rumours of the possible death of a second British national but our embassy in Jakarta has established that these rumours are unfounded.
"I should like to thank the staff of our embassy in Jakarta for their hard work in the face of enormous difficulties and a very unpredictable political situation. They, and many of their spouses, have been working tirelessly around the clock since 14th May to help the local British community. Many of them also have dependants in Indonesia to worry about. Although their work is not yet over, I should like to take this opportunity to thank them now for their continuing efforts.
"We are also very grateful to British Airways, and especially to Clare Hatton and her staff in Jakarta, for their great efforts to help many Britons leaving Indonesia.
"The situation in Indonesia is changing very rapidly. President Suharto has told the Indonesian people in a television address today that there will be a general election as soon as possible and that he will not stand again himself. We call on the Government of Indonesia to ensure that the new elections are free and fair. Political reforms are needed that will do justice to the aspirations of the people of Indonesia. The tragic violence that we have seen over the past week must be stopped, before more innocent lives are claimed. We urge Indonesia to introduce the necessary changes quickly so that calm and stability can be restored.
"The British Government have been following developments in Indonesia very closely over recent months. Ministers have made our concerns very clear to the Indonesian authorities. I visited Jakarta in March and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was also in Indonesia at the beginning of this month. He took the opportunity to underline the importance of political and economic reform. Together with our European partners, we issued a statement on 13th May calling on the authorities to exercise maximum restraint and to respect individual rights. This message has been conveyed to the Indonesian authorities through our embassy in Jakarta and I personally summoned the Indonesian Ambassador on 13th May.
"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister also took the opportunity of the G8 Summit to discuss the situation in Indonesia. As the House will know, leaders called on the Government of Indonesia to refrain from using lethal force and to initiate political reform.
"We have stressed the importance of political and economic reform. The two are now essential to recovery in Indonesia. I am sure that the House will want to support the Government in calling for peaceful transition in Indonesia".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement being made in another place. We are grateful for the opportunity to hear the Government's concern about the situation in Indonesia, which, in recent days, has been teetering on the edge of anarchy. We share the Government's sorrow at the rioting, looting and burning witnessed in Jakarta. This is the worst violence in the city since President Suharto took power in 1965 and has resulted in a rising death toll approaching some 500.
From these Benches we join the Minister in conveying our condolences to the family of the Briton murdered during the riots and to the families of all the innocent Indonesians who have died. Likewise, we also pay tribute to the work carried out by our embassy officials and would like to associate ourselves with the Minister's recognition of the bravery of Miss Clare Hatton who has kept the British Airways office open in Jakarta and enabled more than 2,000 people to leave the country.
I join the Minister in condemning the rioting and the unprovoked racist attacks, particularly on the ethnic Chinese community. There is a fundamental difference between those who take to the streets in peaceful political protest and the mob rule of violence and death seen in Jakarta in recent days. What reports have the Government had of the situation outside the capital, particularly in East Timor and in Irian Jaya? We welcome the Government's decision to urge the Indonesian authorities to use maximum restraint in dealing with crowd situations in order to avoid any further escalation of violence.
I wish to ask the Minister a few questions about the arms used in the recent disorder. Can the Minister confirm whether the Scorpion armoured reconnaissance vehicles which have been used to suppress protests in Indonesia were exported from Britain under this Government? Can the Minister further confirm whether Hawk aircraft have been used at any time during these disturbances? Is it the Government's intention to revoke export licences to Indonesia, as the Member for Cynon Valley has suggested? President Suharto has made a live address on national television promising to implement reforms and to hold parliamentary elections as soon as the Indonesian constitution allows. Does the Minister believe that a change of government can be achieved under the present Indonesian constitution? Does the Minister support President Suharto's decision not to resign immediately? If so, what timescale would be appropriate and practical for new elections to be held in Indonesia? Will the Government offer to send British experts in elections to provide advice to the Indonesian authorities on the drafting of new laws?
Finally, does the Minister agree that the recent agreement between Indonesia and the international financial institutions, including the IMF, must be adhered to if growth and confidence in the country are to be restored? What consultations have the Government had with Indonesia's regional neighbours and with our European partners on the situation in that country? We
1458
join the Minister today in wanting to help Indonesians see the potential of their country fully restored. It is a country with great economic potential. We welcome the initiatives that have been taken, as described in the Statement which the Minister has repeated.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement to the House. I also thank the staff of the British Embassy and British Airways in Jakarta for the help they have given to our citizens. Will every British citizen who wants to leave be enabled to do so in the reasonably near future? When the Government say in the Statement that they call on the Government of Indonesia to ensure that the new elections are free and fair, does the Minister recognise—as the Opposition spokesman has mentioned—that that is rather a difficult objective under the present constitution? Will the Minister make it clear to the present Government of Indonesia that to be successful such elections would have to be administered genuinely independently, and possibly with some external assistance?
In recent days British television viewers have watched democratic demonstrations in Jakarta being put down by British made water cannon firing British supplied nerve gas. My colleagues and I have tried to find the difference between the policy of the previous administration and the ethical foreign policy of the present Administration on the question of supplies to Indonesia. We have found an interesting difference. On 26th November 1996 the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, stated in a Written Answer,
"We do not license for export, to Indonesia or to any other country, any UK defence equipment likely to he used for internal repression".—[Official Report, 26/11/96; col. WA5.]
On 24th July last year the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, said:
"We will not sell arms to regimes which might use them for internal repression or external aggression".—[Official Report, 24/7/97; col. 1513.]
In the light of that subtle difference, will the Minister explain or confirm that 22 licences were granted to Indonesia between May 1997 and December 1997 for toxicological agents, riot control agents, body armour, and so on, and that between 1st January and 3rd April this year a further 28 individual arms licences were granted to Indonesia, some of them even after the troubles and violence began? What licences have been refused to Indonesia?
When I visited Jakarta a couple of years ago one of the people who impressed me most was the Speaker of the Parliament who seemed keen to improve the role of that parliament. Therefore is not his call for the resignation of President Suharto of particular significance and importance? In a meeting I attended with newspaper editors it became clear that the press operate under a strict system where, if they write something inimical to the regime, their licence to publish can be suspended. The conclusion we have to come to in this unhappy tragedy is that an ethical foreign policy must begin by denying weapons of security to unethical regimes.
4.5 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Steel, for their kind tributes to the British Embassy staff which I shall do my best to ensure are conveyed to the staff and to the spouses of staff in the embassy who have made such enormous efforts over the past weekend. I acknowledge again the bravery of Miss Clare Hatton from the British Airways office.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about the position outside Jakarta. As I understand it, there are demonstrations outside Jakarta at the moment although I do not have precise information. The warnings and advice that the British Government are issuing apply across Indonesia except for Bali. I hope that that answers the point; namely, that we are concerned about the situation elsewhere in Indonesia because there is sufficient unrest to warrant that concern.
The noble Lord asked various questions—as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Steel—about the equipment being used in the repression on the streets of Jakarta. I shall do my best to answer specific points put by both noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, went into specific detail which I may have to answer by letter. As regards the Scorpion tanks and the water cannon of British origin seen by television viewers being used recently, the licences were approved under the previous administration. It is not realistic or practical to revoke licences which were valid and in force under the previous government. We have issued no new licences for any equipment where we have judged that there is a clearly identifiable risk that it might be used for internal repression or external aggression. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about Hawk aircraft. We have studied all the information available as regards Hawks being used in East Timor. We are confident that UK supplied Hawk aircraft have not been used there, or in any counter-insurgency role in Indonesia. That is the information that I have as of today's date.
The noble Lord, Lord Steel, asked about refusals of licences. Since 2nd May we have refused a number of standard individual licences for Indonesia. We believe that this clearly demonstrates that the new criteria are having an impact. We are not in a position to give details on individual contracts as the information is confidential to the companies concerned and to their customers but if there are questions which the noble Lord has posed which I can answer without compromising that confidentiality, I shall be happy to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about President Suharto's position. I think it is still too early to anticipate when the elections he referred to in his broadcast yesterday are likely to take place. The noble Lord will know that there has been a certain amount of speculation about that in the press. As regards answering that question at the moment, I do not have any additional information. The noble Lord also asked t4thether it might be possible for British experts to help in those elections. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, mentioned that any elections should be clearly seen to be independent and to have received external assistance.
1460
I take the point that there has to be confidence in any election procedures in Indonesia. I shall convey the point that the noble Lords have put to me on this to my right honourable friend and my honourable friend Mr. Fatchett for their consideration in order to see whether there is any practical way that we might offer assistance. I cannot say whether such assistance will be welcome, but I shall ask my right honourable friend and my honourable friend. I think the two points that the noble Lords made were reasonably adjacent on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, then went on to ask about the IMF and the economic situation. We have contributed greatly to tackling the current financial problems in Indonesia. We have given full support to the IMF's role in seeking to restore confidence to markets in the region with its various rescue packages. Our aid effort in Indonesia is largely channelled through multi-lateral organisations such as the World Bank. We have also responded to the ICRC's appeal for help in Irian Jaya and East Timor. I hope that answers the points on the IMF.
I have already indicated that I shall try to see whether I can obtain more detail on some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Steel.
Perhaps I may make one further point. I made an error in beginning my Statement this afternoon. I indicated that the Statement was being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. It is 'n fact being made by my honourable friend Mr. Fatchett. I apologise to your Lordships for that mistake.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for repeating the Statement and for adding to it, may I ask her whether there is any estimate of the number of British citizens still in Jakarta and if it is known whether all of them are wishing to leave or whether there is a substantial number who are intending, against the advice tendered to them, to stay in Indonesia?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we do not have precise figures. We are doing our best to obtain them, as the noble Lord would expect. The British Embassy staff are trying actively to establish how many Britons remain to offer them advice and assistance. But the task is complicated because a number of the wardens that were used, to whom I referred in the Statement, have already departed. It is through the wardens that such information is normally communicated to the embassy.
I believe that the numbers are falling. Without being absolutely precise, we are hopeful that those who wart to leave will be able to leave on the additional BA flights which are going in. As I indicated to you Lordships, there were a number of vacant places on the BA flights that came out over the weekend, but it may be that individuals will now feel they want to go. They may feel that because the advice has hardened and because the situation is so unstable they now want to

1461
leave. Of course, we are doing our best, with all the other agencies, like BA, to ensure that those who want to leave can.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, would the noble Baroness join with me in paying a tribute to the staff of the British Council in Indonesia? Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that I am a member of the British Council Board. They have traditionally, in the British Council way, worked extremely closely with the Indonesian population over recent years, not only in terms of English language teaching and training potential English language teachers, but also in trying to arrange for Indonesian students to come to this country. I know that some members of the British Council staff left Jakarta at the end of last week. I am not yet certain about the position of the others today.
Does the noble Baroness agree with me that there is a rather deeper problem for long-term consideration? For more than 25 years, this country and other western countries have worked extraordinarily hard to try to put stability into the Indonesian financial system. After all, was it not true that under President Sukarno Indonesia was in an almost permanent financial crisis? Is it not extremely sad to see one of the south-east Asian Tigers, for whom we had hoped a great deal, collapsing so quickly like a pack of cards? Does that not call for a sober assessment in due course of the success of World Bank loans, of IMF money and, indeed, of the role of the Department for International Development? To what extent can we affect such huge events in as distant and as huge a country as Indonesia?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am happy to pay tribute to the work of British Council staff on this occasion. Indeed, I am always happy to find opportunities to praise the work of the British Council. Whenever I travel abroad I always try to make a point of seeing representatives of the British Council and to acknowledge the important work that they do in relation to ensuring that the work of Britons at home and the cultural aspects of life in Britain are understood by our friends abroad.
The noble Lord then went on to raise questions about perhaps the longer term assessment in relation to the IMF. s per Majesty's Government are confident that with the IMF and World Bank programmes, which I mentioned in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and with a strong adjustment effort from the Asian countries concerned, financial stability will be restored to the region.
Like everyone else, I am not able to say when, but ire believe that those are the reasonable mechanisms to use in order to try to re-establish that stability.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, appreciating what the Minister has said, it has been widely reported that what triggered the disorders was the raising of the price of important commodities at the behest of the International
1462
Monetary Fund. Is it not important that we should lock at the kind of advice that is given to such countries if this is the result of its acceptance?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think it is sensible for us to look at all the differing reasons which may have triggered the unrest in Indonesia. The noble Lord cites one of those reasons. There are other reasons, too, not least what is seen by many people to have been a regime which has not respected human rights. The fact that so many young people and students have been out demonstrating against the regime may be an indication of their desire for those greater human rights.
I by no means dismiss what the noble Lord is saying. At the moment, we are in the midst of a very difficult situation. There are British lives which I hope are not at risk but are certainly in an unhappy and uncomfortably- position, which is why we are trying to bring them out.
We now need to concentrate on ensuring the safety of British nationals. That is our foremost task and that is our foremost duty. Once we are sure that this immediate danger has been put on one side—the noble Lord is quite right, as are other noble Lords who have made this point—it is of course our duty to examine why this situation has arisen, to try to analyse the reasons and to do what we can to address them.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the Minister hinted in one of her comments that this is an area which is notoriously sensitive to anything that smacks of interference by the former colonial powers. The people who are being butchered are not Europeans, they are Asians and overwhelmingly Chinese. There is nothing new in this situation; it has happened before. Do we have any indication of the action of other countries in the region At the end of the day, they will be the people who wil7 apply power, other than the IMF. It will not be this House.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes, I would not wish that anything I said should be implied to mean that the British Government can come metaphorically parachuting into a situation and find all the answers. That is as self-evidently wrong-minded as the noble Lord has indicated.
The noble Lord asked what else is going on in the, region at the moment. I am not sure whether he relates that to what other people are doing about evacuations around the region. I know that the Australians are involved in such measures at present. If the noble Lord means what are the other countries in the region looking at in relation to Indonesia and Indonesian stability, I gave an answer in relation to the IMF and the measures that are being taken to secure economic stability in the region as a whole. Indonesia may be in particular difficulties at present. But many of the financial problems it is experiencing are, if not exact mirror images, at least similar to those arising in other countries in the area. We—I hope that the noble Lord will not misunderstand me—shall wish to look not only at Indonesia but at the problems of the region as a whole, as we did at the Asia Meets Europe Conference last month in London.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the noble Baroness speaks rightly of the need for us to concentrate on saving the lives

1463
of British citizens. Would she consider reintroduction of the system that used to operate whereby British citizens resident abroad register their names at the nearest British consulate? In the event of an upset such as this the authorities would have some idea who our nationals are and where they are so that they could be assisted. The system was abolished by the previous government. I suggest that the position might be reviewed.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion. As the Minister responsible for consular matters, I undertake to consider his suggestion which I think is interesting. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that we are not just looking at British citizens who are resident. There may well be a number of British people and others in Indonesia. We warned people who did not have essential business from, I think, Friday 14th May, or it may have been 15th May. I shall check the date. We believed that those who did not have any specific reason to stay in Indonesia should consider leaving. It is important to consider that it is not just residents. British nationals may also be in Indonesia at present.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, does the Minister agree that the Indonesian people have a great history of consensus in the way they are governed? Is it not appropriate to send a message to the Speaker of the Parliament from our Parliament to give those in parliament the encouragement needed? Is the Minister impressed by the restraint that has been shown by the students interviewed on television, and by some members of the army?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I should have to take further advice before responding to the noble Lord's point about sending messages. As I am sure noble Lords will understand, this is a very sensitive time. I believe that we must not lose sight of our immediate objective: to get British nationals out of Indonesia. Anything we do which cuts across that objective will not serve their interests. I believe that it would cut across our central duty, which is to the British nationals.

School Standards and Framework Bill
4.23 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 6.
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 4, line 20, at end insert (", judged by such measures as may be prescribed").
The noble Lord said: The Minister may be able to reassure me that the Government have the necessary powers to specify what is meant by "performance". It is important that the Government do specify what it means so that what is done by local education authorities and schools nationwide is consistent. When specific actions are shown to generate levels or types of improvement, it is important to be able to demonstrate that to local
1464
authorities by information which will be measured by and judged against standards agreed nationally. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am entirely sympathetic to the motives of the noble Lord in moving the amendment. He is right to say that it is important that an education development plan should set out what an LEA will do to improve the performance of its schools. He is right to say that we all want to see school performance improved. That is the whole purpose of the exercise. LEAs have an important role to play in supporting and challenging schools to drive up standards and through their education development plans they will be held accountable for their success in carrying this out.
Amendment No. 29 would require an LEA's proposal for improving its school performance to be assessed by measures to be prescribed in regulation. We need to be clear what an improvement to schools' performance means, and the measures by which it should be assessed. We are not at the starting blocks here. There are already well-established means of assessing improvement in schools' performance and information about how well schools are doing is widely available in the public domain. Ofsted inspections of schools provide a clear means of judging schools' performance and improvement and provide a wealth of information which—perhaps I may add, knowing the Lord's expertise in these matters—is available on the Internet. The performance tables which are published annually set out each school's performance and this can be tracked on a year by year basis. Ofsted has recently made available to all schools and LEAs wide-ranging details of schools' performance in performance and assessment reports and LEA profiles which—perhaps I may add, and LEAs to consider what more needs to be done on the basis of firm evidence of their own and similar schools' performance.
In addition, for the first time, Government will make available national value added analyses. This will enable schools to compare the progress made by a pupil between one stage of assessment and another with the progress made by all pupils nationally with similar starting attainments. Value added relates purely to the prior attainment of pupils and does not take into account other contextual factors which research suggests are of less significance in respect of pupil performance. This information will help schools and LEAs to raise standards by evaluating performance and identifying and encouraging good teaching practice.
The draft EDP guidance, on which consultation has recently finished, proposes that LEAs should carry out an audit of pupil performance and other aspects of performance taking account of available data such as Ofsted schools and LEA inspection reports, performance and assessment reports and LEA profiles. It also sets out draft criteria for how the LEA's school improvement programme will be assessed. Advisers from the standards and effectiveness unit in the department will also be working with LEAs to help them prepare and strengthen their plans.

1465
There are therefore a number of mechanisms already in place for judging the improvement of schools' performance and we do not see the need to add to bureaucracy further by specifying measures in regulations which is what the amendment proposes. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Before the Minister sits down, I am concerned about value added. I understand what the noble Lord says. Can he put a little more flesh on these bare bones and tell me the kind of issues he regards as value added? The noble Lord may remember that I mentioned that certain surveys indicated that such issues cannot be judged on the basis of ethnicity, deprivation and so on. The national value added scheme is important for those of us concerned with the Bill. I hope that the Minister can say more about the issues that the Government will consider.
There have been studies in the past. The Government have undertaken extensive consultation. It would help us considerably on this side of the Chamber if the noble Lord could share some of the insights with us.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think there are any insights which have not already been published either by this Government or by the previous government. A great deal of work has been done on this subject. I attempted, when we discussed earlier amendments, to give some idea of what, other than the measure of prior attainment, could be taken into account in value added. The noble Lord was quite right in saying that earlier reports show that prior attainment is the most important single factor in predicting future attainment, but of course it is also true that ethnicity, gender, language skills and social background are other elements. They are not elements in replacement of prior attainment; they are things which go to make up prior attainment, and prior attainment is the evident measure which encapsulates them. Our value added measures take that into account.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. We really do need to get this absolutely clear because it is important that schools themselves know against what they are being measured. Let us take two children. Both have achieved exactly the same at the age of 7: there is no difference between them in terms of attainment and they are level pegging. One child is having free school meals and the other child is not. In a year's time, the child who is having free school meals is attaining rather better than the child who is not. Where is the added value? How is it measured? What factors are taken into account in making a judgment as to how the children themselves have achieved and how the school has achieved? The noble Lord has mentioned gender, ethnicity and free school meals. If this sort of information is going to be added to pure academic
1466
achievement, then it is important that he tells this Committee exactly how that information is going to be weighted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was not talking about them at all. I was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, to say what might be included. The noble Baroness is talking about individual children as if these reports were going to be about individual children. What we are looking at is the performance of schools in aggregate, and of course when we see changes in terms of under-performance or over-performance against targets, we look for explanations. Some of the explanations may be in terms of social background, ethnicity, gender or whatever it may be. It is important that we should understand them but we do not have to say, for example, that gender accounts for 0.35 per cent. of the perceived deviation from the norm.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: These schools will be judged. The noble Lord opposite knows as well as I do that the business of value added has been studied by many bodies and has been the subject of considerable controversy—I repeat, considerable controversy. The noble Lord has been involved in it; I have been involved in it; and the noble Lord knows something about it. What he is proposing in this Bill is to make judgments on the schools on the basis, yes, of prior attainment and value added. But I fear I still must say—I am sorry to have to come back to this—that the noble Lord in his answers has not taken us into the disputes that have arisen and told us what his noble friend's department is considering, because it is going to have to make judgments on a subject that has been in great dispute among people who are supposedly experts. But executive decisions will be taken and I am sorry to say that the noble Lord has not helped us, beyond talking about generalities, as to what line will be taken on the issues which have been put to him. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, is sitting behind the noble Lord and he has spent many hours, I should think, and many nights, studying just this subject. But the noble Lord has not taken into account all the pages that have been printed. Even just giving us a clue—a candle in the darkness—would help; a mere candle.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendment is concerned with whether the conditions should be prescribed in regulations. I have described why it is unnecessary and might even be damaging for this amendment to be added to the Bill.
Lord Dearing: I recall some time ago I was chairman of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and it occurred to me that the purpose of education was to raise levels of achievement from what they had been. I invited the very clever people in higher education to help us develop a measure of value added. They applied their brilliant minds to this and added to the problem a degree of complexity which meant that we made no progress whatsoever. The great danger of value added is sophistication and the inclusion of so many variables that the outcome is not understood by parents or anyone else. It is the case that I offered some advice to the

1467
previous government on measures of performance and recommended in 1993 that we should introduce value added. I also recommended the setting up of a working party. The chairman is not a Member of this House but is in the Chamber; he led an excellent committee which produced a report amid many other reports.
I am inclined to say that, yes, we do want value added measures. It is important that if they are to be used schools know the criteria which are being brought to bear; otherwise it is an invalid process. However, I think it would be injudicious for your Lordships to prescribe what measures those should be. It is a matter for experts and for consultation, but before the measures are introduced they must be clear and known to all concerned.
Baroness Blatch: Having been involved in the early formulation of the ten-level scale, I have to say, "Save me from experts!". Having made that rather flippant remark, however, I do agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that whatever judgment is come to should be on the basis of proper consultation and taking into account professional advice. I still believe—this is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, was saying—that in order for the schools to understand what it is they are going to be judged upon and in order for them to make sure that there is consistency throughout the country—because it would be very unfair to have an ad hoc system built up, with one LEA measured against one set of criteria and another LEA measured against another set of criteria. Whatever the Government may intend, it should take the form of regulations and be introduced only after a great deal of consultation.
I agree with my noble friend when he says that the criteria should be set out in regulations. Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who said a moment ago that this is not about the attainment of an individual child, if it is not about that then it is about nothing. The performance of a school must inevitably be based on the attainment of the children within it and so, if the attainment of those children does not count, then how on earth can a school's performance be judged? It has to be judged on what the school achieves on behalf of the children within that school. Of course it is an aggregate and an amalgam, but the basis of that amalgam is the attainment of the children within a school, which adds up to what that school can achieve, through its teachers, head teacher and the governors and what they add in terms of value to the education of the children.
Lord Desai: Perhaps I may, as someone who has done a lot of work in this field, say a few words. The questions back and forth tell us why it is very complicated even for experts to give a simple answer. It is not an easy problem to which to give a simple answer. The noble Baroness is quite correct in saying that the performance of a school is an aggregation of individual performances, but it is not a simple aggregation: you cannot just add it up. One problem, both at the individual pupil level and at school level, is to be able not only to measure value added to initial achievement
1468
and the progress made, but also to be able to attribute some part of the value added to the school's or the pupils' activity and how much to attribute to other factors. I have spent about 35 years as a professional econometrician and this is not a simple problem. It would be very difficult to put anything on the face of the Bill, but what we can say is that in implementing this provision, when the notes are given to schools, and so on, perhaps the Government will try to make the matter understandable and uniform. But let us not think that this is going to be an easy problem.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I wholly agree that it would be totally unsatisfactory to attempt to put any definition or specific criteria related to value added on the face of the Bill. It would be a sheer impossibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said, and there are experts who have examined this matter and developed formulae of tremendous complexity.
At the risk of repeating myself, perhaps I may return to the briefing by the National Commission on Education published by Andrew McPherson in 1993. On reading that briefing, a Member of this place said that it alone would have justified the existence of the National Commission on Education. It set out a number of clear, simple, specific statistical criteria upon which this whole issue could be judged.
This is a circumstance where it is not necessary to have the criteria on the face of the Bill, but where one would hope that ultimately the Department for Education and Employment would be prepared to publish recommendations that would be implemented nationwide for the application of such simple criteria.
Perhaps I may pose a question to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It relates not merely to this amendment, but to the next two tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It is a well-hallowed principle of education that one defines what we may wish to call targets or, as some would prefer, goals and objectives. Once those are defined, one must be able to implement mechanisms to determine whether or not those targets, goals or objectives have been achieved. That requires specific techniques of assessment. Will the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, tell us in relation to this clause on education development plans—which in general terms I greatly welcome—in what way it is clear that the objective of assessing whether or not targets have been achieved will be fulfilled under the provisions of the Bill?
Lord Peston: I am totally mystified by much of this debate. I take it that we are still discussing Clauses 6 and 7 dealing with education development plans. Most of the remarks from noble Lords opposite do not seem to bear any resemblance to the Bill as I read it. Perhaps they have not noticed the subsection stating that the authority shall consult, or the subsection stating that toe documents will be submitted to the Secretary of State. I assume that all the documents will be in the public domain. The notion that this will be some kind of esoteric or closed area, ad hoc and lacking in consistency, seems to me to be about as far from the Bill I as written as one could possibly imagine. The problem is

1469
the usual one: noble Lords opposite do not seem to have read or understood the Bill that we are debating—to put it as tartly as I possibly can.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords, as my noble friend Lord Desai prompts me to do, that value added is not a concept in education; it was a concept invented in economics before the Second World War following on the economics of Lord Keynes. Essentially, it had to do with how we measured national income and what firms achieved in terms of output relative to the inputs that they had. It was taken over by people in education, often because they lacked any notion of educational theory. But the concept is still much the same. One is comparing what goes in with what comes out—the difference being the value that the organisations have added. It is essentially a concept to do with the organisation, not to do with what happens to a specific individual child. Noble Lords opposite ought to understand that, if I may go into professorial mode.
While in such mode, perhaps I may deal with one other matter. A great deal of educational research has been and will continue to be undertaken to examine the performance of schools and ask questions such as: why does this school achieve that and another school achieve something different? One examines a number of variables and, to use the word used by my noble friend, one comes up with an explanation. But certainly none of us on this side of the Chamber would misunderstand "explanation" to mean "justification", which is what troubles the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. So one might find one or two variables—ethnicity is one which has been established as correlating with, I am afraid, lack of educational performance. But that is an explanation; it is not remotely a justification. There are those of us who are saying that we must determine the causes. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, does not then go on to say that because we want to determine the causes we are trying to justify poor performance. I, for one, am certainly not, and I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench has no intention of doing so. We are not advancing the subject of education by pursuing this argument in this form at this time.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I approach a professor with great trepidation. What we are talking about is subsection (2)(a)(ii)—
"improving the performance of such schools".
We have to judge how we improve performance. Value added is one idea.
I was pointing out to the noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that in this debate we might even be able to contribute something to the part that value added could play in contributing to improvement in performance. That is what this debate is about: how we judge a school.
Now the professor may not think that we should debate these matters. The professor may doubt our brain. But the fact is, we are going to debate these matters, and we are going to carp on, because two years from now when this Government are in a much weaker situation, we shall be asking them why the performance
1470
of schools has not improved. So we make our point in this debate. The professor may not like it, and I am sure that in his college he would not allow it. But naughty schoolboys do what they want, particularly in this Chamber. So he has got to take it, I am afraid.
Lord Lucas: It may be helpful if I retaliate now so that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has the advantage of dealing with all his opponents at once. I find myself greatly enlightened by the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Dearing and Lord Walton of Detchant.
The discussion has fallen into two parts. the first on value added. I was heartened by the opening reply of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh; namely, that the measure of value added published by the Government would not include any biases in relation to underlying factors such as economic or ethnic circumstances. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that these are explanations, not justifications. If one takes, for instance, my daughter's school, the boys there do as well as the girls. That is not common. If one were to examine value added nationally, one would apply a discount to schools with more girls because they would be expected to do better. It is right to examine the matter on an even basis and then say, looking at the matter nationally, that boys do worse and we must find some way of dealing with that and improving matters. Let us examine the schools where that does not happen and learn from them. So we examine the explanations and try to work out from them what has been going right in those schools and transfer that to other schools.
In order to undertake that wholly admirable process, systems of measurement are needed which are common to the nation as a whole. As the Bill presently stands—and as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wishes it to be—one LEA can state that it will use one measure of value added; another may say that its measure of improvement in school performance is whether or not the children are happy, how many are excluded, or whether or not they are fighting. But we hear a whole variety of disparate measures in relation to school performance. The matter could be treated on an ad hoc basis within individual LEAs, with the Government saying, "Oh, that looks all right", and Ofsted waving its hand over the matter and saying, "Yes, we accept that that LEA's programme is an interesting one and at the end of the day it will produce some sort of measure of its own as to whether or not it has succeeded", and the Government again saying, "Well, that looks all right".
However, what I hope we shall arrive at is what the noble Lord, Lord Detchant, asked for; namely, some kind of nationally measurable, consistent system. I see nothing in the Bill, nor in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which enables the Government to say, "You will measure performance in a way that is consistent; you will produce your figures—targets against which you can be judged—in a way which is consistent across the country and can be judged by common measures". It is very important that the Government should do that. Even if they do not want to do so, it is important that this Bill should contain sufficient powers to enable a future, better-informed government to do it. I hope the noble Lord will reassure

1471
me that his initial reply was not sufficiently precise and that the Government have powers and intend to use them to make sure that the information and measures employed by LEAs nationwide are consistent and can be used to transfer information from areas of good performance to those where improvement is needed.
Lord Dearing: I wish to offer a further thought. Schools are little places. Four thousand schools have five or fewer teachers; they are not sophisticated analysts. They need objectives that are clear and simple which primary school teachers can understand. If the objectives are complex, they will be meaningless and useless.
The reality is that the teacher can understand the absolute level of performance and the increment from A to B, stage 1 to stage 2. That is it. Anything beyond that is an explanation or contribution to the understanding of what is happening. But one cannot set targets which are complex and where teachers must anticipate, such as how many schools meals will the school offer in X years' time? How many parents will be unemployed? That is meaningless. The targets must be simple and the rest should be explanation and interpretation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, kindly offered me the opportunity to reply to all my opponents at once. That was the way he described it. I do not see the debate in that way at all. It has been a helpful debate. I am grateful to Members of the Committee who have taken part.
I start by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that of course there is no such thing as an aggregate assessment of a school's achievement or underachievement in relation to targets except that which is built up on the basis of individual pupils. That seems to me self-evident and it is helpful to set it out. However, the use of that information is not related to individual pupils. As I am sure the noble Baroness will recognise, the use of it is related to the school as a whole. That is what the review mechanism referred to in Clause 7(5) means. When we talk about implementation, we are talking about it at the school level.
The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, in the course of two interesting and helpful speeches, made the valid point, first, that whatever the measure used it must be simple and understandable to individual schools. As I understand it, he also made the point that any measures must be comparable and that the same message must go to all schools. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, confirmed that point.
In the light of the correct observation by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that it would be impossible to put such a measure on the face of the Bill, I suggest that I write to him or that Ministers in the department write to him, with copies to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. The letter will set out the Government's thinking on what elucidation will go to local education authorities and individual schools.
I am quite clear in my mind, and I hope that the Committee will he clear, that we have planned adequate means of checking against targets. We have regular
1472
monitoring by the standards and efficiency unit of the DfEE, as set out in the draft EDP guidance. We have the annual review of the EDP performance by the standards and efficiency unit and the periodic inspection of the LEA by Ofsted. So I am in no doubt whatever that there are adequate provisions in place, without further regulation as proposed by the amendment.
However, we have enough time between now and Report stage for further explanation to be given for which Members of the Committee on all sides have called. I suggest that I do so in the form of a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. Meanwhile, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will not press his amendment.
Lord Lucas: That was an enormously gracious and helpful reply by the noble Lord. I am delighted to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 30:
Page 4, line 20, at end insert ("or
(iii) improving or enlarging school premises (particularly in successful schools),").
The noble Lord said: At Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was kind enough to say that she thought that additional cash going to schools to deal with the necessary expansion to reduce class sizes in early years should be biased towards successful schools and those which were popular and in demand. The guidance or regulation sent out by government would reflect that.
In the amendment I ask whether the Government agree that that principle should be applied also to later years where again additional capital expenditure should be biased towards schools which are successful and in demand. If so, how is that to be reflected in guidance or regulation? Anyone who has visited the enormously successful state schools in the north of London will be astonished at the state of dilapidation and decay in some of them. Over many years they have been neglected by the local authorities. The attitude seems in many cases to be that the money should go in other directions and towards schools which are less popular rather than more popular. One has the extraordinary situation of some of the most famous schools in the land existing in portacabins, with buckets strung out along corridors and no hope or prospect of improvement, let alone rebuilding, which is what should happen.
I hope that it is not too much to ask that the Government give a gentle push in the direction of suggesting to local education authorities that success should be supported and celebrated and that such schools deserve good premises, not just those schools which find themselves failing. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord asks what we plan to do in the future about improving or enlarging school premises, particularly in the case of

1473
successful schools. Perhaps he will allow me to start by saying what we are doing now and what we have done in the past 12 months. I think it is relevant.
In 1997-98 we provided £83 million extra for school building work through phase 1 of the new deal for schools. That was an increase of 12 per cent. over the existing plans. We expect the new deal for schools to result in £2 billion being spent on repairing, renewing and improving school buildings, security and information technology facilities by the end of this Parliament.
Central government allocations for capital work at grant-maintained, voluntary aided and LEA schools in 1998-99 will be £1.012 billion. That is a 50 per cent. increase on previous plans. So I hope it is on record that we are attacking the problem extremely seriously. Of course, we want to encourage popular and successful schools to expand. Parents naturally want to send their children to schools that are doing well and we want them to be able to do so. I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to say this and for his support, as I understand it, for the approach we are taking. However, I do not think that education development plans are the right place for that. They relate to the achievement of standards rather than school buildings.
Clause 25 would be an appropriate point to discuss this matter. The clause provides for each local education authority to prepare a school organisation plan which will set out how to secure provision of education to meet the needs of pupils in the local authority's area. As the statement on school organisation that has been placed in the Library makes clear, we do not intend to be over-prescriptive about the content of the plan. That is a decision to be taken at local level. But we expect the plan to include statements of the authority's policy for the provision of places that make a specific link to raising standards. I hope the noble Lord will agree that Clause 25 is the right place to discuss the matter. I shall be glad to consider it at that time.
We should also consider asset management plans on which we have recently consulted. We hope to issue guidance later in the summer. The plans set out the process through which LEAs and schools determine school premises priorities. They might also include LEAs' proposals for improving school premises.
Education development plans, which are the subject of Clause 6, rightly focus on raising standards of pupil performance through school and LEA targets and LEAs' school improvement programmes. That specific focus is the most effective way in which LEAs can make their contribution to the standards agenda.
There may be scope for LEAs to make reference to their school organisation plans and their plans for improving school premises in the supporting evidence part of their EDPs if those contribute directly to raising standards in schools. The draft guidance already proposes that any relevant outcomes from the plans, alongside other plans, should contribute to LEAs' audit and self-review and feed into the process of identifying priorities for action in the school improvement programme.
1474
I hope that the noble Lord will feel that we take his concerns seriously and that the Bill will provide the information he needs. On that basis, perhaps he will withdraw his amendment.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I can ask the Minister a question. He talked about the money that has been put in since 1st May last year in relation to this amendment. I have seen some of the applications that have come in bidding for some of that money. I do not remember anywhere, in either the bidding advice or the applications that came in, where there has been a link with popular and successful schools.
My understanding is that local education authorities have apportioned money consistent with their priorities; in other words, schools needing new roofs, buildings with outside lavatories and buildings needing new heating systems. Nowhere in the information that came from the DfEE has there been a link to my knowledge with the provision of extra capital for expanding and developing successful schools.
Linked with that point, is the noble Lord saying that in the future, if my noble friend's amendment is accepted at the appropriate place in the Bill—I believe that that is what he said—there will be capital which will be ringfenced for the expanding of popular and successful schools and which will be additional and ancillary to the money made available to meet the statutory duties of local education authorities and their own local priorities in terms of refurbishing and expanding their buildings?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: To get a potential problem out of the way, I did not say that we would be accepting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in Clause 25. I said that we would he properly debating these issues at that stage.
I am surprised that the noble Baroness should raise the point that she did. She is absolutely right to say that the £83 million extra for school building work in 1997-98, the beginning of the new deal for schools, is remedial. It is remedial because of the neglect over many years under the previous government, not by local authorities. It was lack of support from central government for local authorities in providing the necessary capital authorisation and finance for school buildings. If that has to be got out of the way first—and it does—it is the previous administration which should be taking responsibility. I am surprised that the noble Baroness should seek to lead with her chin in that way.
What I said about the future is that capital expenditure on school buildings will be affected by the demand for those schools. When we are talking about schools which are in demand we are talking about successful schools. When we are talking about successful schools we are talking about schools that achieve the necessary standards. That is the relationship between school building expenditure and standards and that is what this

1475
Government are determined to proceed with after they have remedied the shameful neglect of school buildings by the previous government.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Perhaps I can intervene in this fascinating debate to say how glad I am that the Minister has not accepted the amendment. However. I am not particularly reassured by what he said following his declaration that he was not going to accept it. Looked at from the point of view of an education authority, one might well—with great justification—decide to improve, for example, the laboratory availability at schools in order to improve the performance of that school in terms of education of its children. It is not sensible, in many places, to concentrate on improvement in one site or one school which is deemed at that time by parents to be the best school, often on faulty information. From the point of view of the education authority and the children who are being educated within that authority, it is better to concentrate expenditure where it is most needed—not just in replacing outside lavatories, but also for first-class equipment or as near as one can get to first-class equipment across a wide range of the curriculum. I hope that when this kind of matter is reflected in the discussions between the Secretary of State and the local education authorities, that kind of approach will be adopted.
Baroness Byford: The noble Baroness slightly beat me to it. I understood the Minister to say that the money would only go to schools which were achieving. We will read Hansard tomorrow, but if that is what he said, it is very strange. The development and help we need is often for schools that in many cases are not achieving. I was standing up to raise that issue; it may be that I misunderstood the Minister. I shall certainly read Hansard tomorrow unless he wishes to clarify the situation. I reacted in the same way as the noble Baroness.
Turd McIntosh of Haringey: I agree with every single word that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, said. Therefore, if I said anything in my previous remarks which confused the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I apologise. They are both saying what he Government are saying and the opposite of what the Opposition Front Bench is saying. They are both saying that the applications for expenditure on school buildings should not be linked to this part of the Bill, which is concerned with school standards. We are certainly not saying, and have never said, that capital expenditure should only be provided for those schools which are successful and attracting more pupils. However, the element of demand must be one element among all the others referred to in deciding where capital expenditure should be allocated. That is all we are saying.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister misinterpreted what I was saying. I was trying to obtain clarification from the Government who claimed that this policy was being
1476
pursued. I was simply saying that the money bid for so far in this past year has been on the basis—I believe rightly—of local authorities' priorities.
A policy that I would support—my local authority did this to great effect—is that when buildings are refurbished and schools reorganised, it is done on the basis of trying to root out of the system the buildings that are beyond repair or more expensive to repair. To get the best value for money and the best provision for children, the capital programme can be dovetailed into doing just that. That makes sense in local authority terms. I still say that the best people to determine how to spend the money and what the money should be spent on are the local authorities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: So do the Government.
Lord Lucas: I shall read with great interest this debate in Hansard. If it seems appropriate to return to it in the proper place in the Bill, I shall. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 4, line 21, after ("otherwise;") insert—
("() in the case of the second and subsequent such plans, a statement in prescribed form of the outcome of the previous plan;").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 31 merely asks the Government to make sure that when a local authority draws up its second or subsequent plan, it should include an analysis of what went right or wrong with the first or previous plans.
It is always the wish of those involved in forecasting—I am sure that economists are not exempt from this—that previous forecasts should be forgotten if they are wrong and trumpeted if they are right. It is a bad practice to allow local authorities to behave in that way. It is important that everyone is honest about what did not work as well as what did. I hope that the noble Lord can confirm that this sort of analysis will be included in the plans to be specified by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I may get in before the economists do, after that temptation! The noble Lord is certainly ahead of the game. We are still struggling with education development plans in the first round. Now he is trying to prescribe what we should do in the second round.
The education development plans will be three year plans subject to annual monitoring against targets and the implementation of the LEAs' school improvement programme. This will inevitably involve consideration of the outcome of the plan each year and their contribution towards the overall progress of the plan. LEAs will be required to submit information annually to the department to support this monitoring. Approval of the education development plan can be suspended or withdrawn if an LEA has not shown satisfactory progress. The details of all of this are set out in the draft education development plan guidance and will be

1477
reflected in subsequent regulations. This will allow flexibility over the precise details and timescale. In addition, it will provide the chance for us to see how the whole process works in practice before the second round of EDPs and to learn from the experience. It will also avoid adding unnecessary detail to the Bill and creating further bureaucracy, a point I rather think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, supported when he was in government. On that basis, I hope he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: It is important that we should not confuse the word "plan" with the word "forecast". I speak as a notoriously bad forecaster. Indeed, if I may say to the noble Lord, if he ever hears me forecasting anything, I suggest he backs the opposite. I am much worse than random.
These are plans. One of the things we have to bear in mind, much as we do not like it, is that some of the plans will be ambitious—we hope they will be ambitious—and therefore they will achieve less than they are saying. Yet, having done that, they will still have achieved a great deal of good. I am totally with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and with my noble friend. When it comes to assessing outcomes, which is vital—there is no point in having plans if one does not assess outcomes—we should not take it for granted that the only acceptable outcome is one that hits the plan's target. Sometimes an ambitious plan will not be met. Equally, sometimes an unambitious plan—I hope that the Secretary of State at the time will say that the plan is not ambitious enough—will hit the target but it is still not good enough in terms of performance. To go back to the point made earlier about the difficulty involved, we should not jump to too easy a conclusion on any of this.
One thing I would say in favour of the previous government—I say it most sincerely—is that they suggested that we should not accept poor performance Is being inevitable in the system. Some of their philosophy, much as I disagreed with other parts of it, was that we should be ambitious over what we can achieve in schools, and in the worst of circumstances their philosophy was that we could still do better. I agreed with that very strongly. But in trying to do better, we may not do as well as we would like. We must not then undermine schools by saying, "You did try to do better; you actually improved; but you did not do as well as your plan". I hope that the noble Lord is not preparing a frame of thought—I am sure he is not—for saying that, "You did not hit the target. Therefore, you are like those stupid economists and their forecasting and we are going to tell you off'. I do not think that is the way we should approach the matter.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, responds to the Minister, perhaps I may say how much I agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said. I think it is important that people should have ambitious plans, if I may use that as a basket phrase; not ludicrously ambitious but not just saying, "We can achieve this and therefore this will be
1478
our target". One of the merits of the noble Lord's amendment is that it would bring to people's attention what has worked in areas.
The whole of the development plan approach is based to some extent on good practice in certain education authorities. Some education authorities are doing this already. Other education authorities have had extremely interesting plans afoot as to how to bring the lowest performing schools and pupils up to a more average standard. They have undertaken extremely interesting and varied plans and activities to achieve that result. If the approach suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was adopted it would enable this learning from good practice to continue. I am sure that the Secretary of State would not slap down local authorities which had made a genuine attempt to achieve a good deal. Therefore, whether or not the requirement remains on the face of the Bill, I hope that the approach suggested by the noble Lord will be adopted. It bodes well for sharing good practice.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may respond to my noble friend Lord Peston because I think he made a valid point. I do not think I used the word "forecast" in what I said. I would not do so. I have quoted Robert Graves to the House before. In his poem Non Cogunt Astra he said:
"Come, live in now and occupy it well;
Prediction's no alternative to forethought".
That, I can grandly say, is certainly the view of the department.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and my noble friend are right. Targets are not forecasts. They are not intended to be seen in that way. It is important that they should be ambitious as well as realistic and it is important that we should not degrade the education development planning process by allowing targets which do not achieve our national objectives for improving school standards. But that does not mean that we need to prescribe on the face of the Bill now what
will happen in the second round of EDPs.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, made an important contribution. She suggested to the noble Lord that the amendment might be worth consideration and she gave the reasons for that. It would be a pity if the Government did not consider the amendment for the next stage of the Bill to see whether there is not something in it. The noble Lord said at the beginning of his remarks that my noble friend had moved on from the present to future years, as if that were an unfortunate thing to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, who has great experience in these matters, suggested that the amendment might have great uses. I wonder whether the Minister could consider it before the next stage of the Bill to make quite sure that it is not a good idea to include reporting back on where there were successes and where there were not. That would improve good practice in local authorities and would enable them to share with one another what they

1479
had achieved. To me that sounds absolutely excellent. I am sorry that the noble Lord the Minister pooh-poohed it a little.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not pooh-pooh it in the least. I referred to the draft education development plan guidance which talks about the annual monitoring of the three year plans against targets, the implementation of the school improvement programme and the consideration which that involves of the outcomes of the plan. That draft guidance will be reflected in subsequent regulations. There is no pooh-poohing at all of the sensible and forward looking thinking behind the noble Lord's amendment. It is just that the amendment is not necessary.
Lord Lucas: Nonetheless, I hope the noble Lord will bear in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, said. It seemed to be eminent good sense that there should be mechanisms for one local authority to learn from another. A local authority or LEA reporting in centrally to the DfEE and knowing what is happening in its own plan will not disseminate information between local authorities. As good practice is developed in one area it needs to be disseminated. There need to be mechanisms for that. I hope the noble Lord will bear that in mind. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addingtonmoved Amendment No. 31A:
Page 4, line 22, at end insert ('which shall include proposals for monitoring standards and exclusions by gender and ethnicity and for using evidence from such monitoring in order to raise standards").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 31A, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 31B and 33A. Amendment No. 38 has been removed from this grouping. These amendments are pleasantly straightforward, although the esoteric arguments we had earlier on may well colour some of the discussion we will have on them. Amendment No. 31 addresses a problem that has been recognised in virtually the whole education sector. Certain ethnic groups—for instance, white males from lower socio-economic groups (or working class groups as they used to be called in days gone by)—do badly in school and young males from Afro-Caribbean backgrounds tend to rank highly in the number of people who are excluded from school. Even if we do not want this provision on the face of the Bill, I look forward to the Minister giving some assurances that these issues will be looked at in the plans. Surely here is an opportunity to deal with one of the larger problems in our schools today, and that is the perception of a breakdown in discipline. I believe that is far more a perception than a reality. This is an opportunity to deal with the problem.
Amendment No. 31B asks for a very important provision to be put into the proposals, which is how these are to be achieved in certain areas. When one is dealing with such matters as discipline and performance in class, if one knows how these are to be achieved one will probably be able to allay a certain amount of public
1480
disquiet. In trying to reduce the number of exclusions, if one shows under what conditions pupils will be kept in schools, that may well prevent some panic measures which seem to occur in certain schools periodically. We all have had to listen to a great deal of parental reaction to very important matters such as a child being returned to school, and the ensuing arguments. This measure would provide people with information on issues that worry them.
As regards increasing inclusion of children with special educational needs within mainstream schools, that is a subject I know rather more about than I should. Over the past few years we have discussed this subject many times at a philosophical level. People do not know why certain pupils are not allowed in mainstream schools and why certain groups are asked to withdraw from them. Often one finds groups with special educational needs and individual parents fighting each other. Surely, if we have a clearer definition of what is in the plan, we shall once again be able to deal with this problem. It is a matter which takes up far too much time when people argue philosophically about things which are basically of a practical nature.
The last amendment is Amendment No. 33A, which also deals with special educational needs. It was said earlier in the discussion that there was probably a place in this Bill for special educational needs and for including a policy in the development plan. I suggest that those suggestions and plans could sit quite comfortably in Clause 6. I beg to move.
Lord Hardy of Wath: I would not disagree with the intentions which clearly inspire the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and his comments on this matter. I have two or three very brief observations to make. I believe that far too many young people are expelled from schools or suspended. Any steps which are taken to reduce that number are to be commended. The one anxiety that I have is based on my experience long ago as a senior schoolmaster and arises from conversations with former colleagues over the past decade or so. They have told me that they are over-burdened by bureaucratic demands. If one lets the bureaucrats loose and if the House were to approve this amendment, the bureaucratic burden may be increased more than it need be.
My main concern is with Amendment No. 31B. I entirely agree that, wherever possible, children should be brought into the mainstream of education and that is particularly the case with those who are physically disabled. It is good for such children and for their peers to work, live and enjoy life with those who are less fortunate than themselves. I have a reservation about schools for those who are not gifted mentally. Not far from my home there is a school which was established for the educationally subnormal. I knew it for many years while I was teaching. I kept in touch with it when it was in my constituency. It was, and is, the happiest school to be found in South Yorkshire. I believe that such a school gives rather more to those children than they might get in a mainstream school.

1481
Indeed, on one recent visit I left that school in a state of very real anger that the previous administration required its results at GCSE to be published. Year after year the school was offering "nil, nil, nil" in the entry for GCSEs as though it were an appalling failure. I found that to be distasteful and disgusting. I remember raising the matter in the other place. But that particular burden may not apply. However, in that school, with dedicated staff and fine people supporting it, the children are happier and have a greater sense of confidence. They attain more than they would in any other circumstances. I would not wish such schools to be in any way affected by the belief that we should draw the children automatically into the mainstream where they would not enjoy the advantages that are available in a school of the kind I have mentioned. When my noble friends consider the amendment they will bear that kind of condition and consideration in mind.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Like my noble friend Lord Hardy, I very much sympathise with the thinking behind the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Let me deal with them in turn. Amendments Nos. 31A and 31B both deal with exclusions from school. That is certainly an issue that we are determined to tackle. Amendment No. 31A would include among annexes to education development plans proposals by LEAs to monitor standards and exclusions by gender and ethnicity and to use the evidence so obtained to raise standards.
Amendment No. 31 B would require the statement of proposals within the EDP to set out how an authority planned to improve attendance, reduce exclusions and increase the inclusion in mainstream schools of children with special educational needs. The noble Lord is quite right that truancy and exclusions result in educational disadvantage. Children stop learning and the wider community suffers because of the high levels of crime into which some truants and excluded pupils are drawn.
The Social Exclusion Unit published an important report on 11th May on truancy and social exclusion. That is available from the Printed Paper Office. It sets out how the Government intend to bring the level of truancy and exclusions down and to secure a better deal for all children.
That depends—and it comes back to the thrust of the amendment—on setting clear goals and allocating clear responsibilities. As the Social Exclusion Unit's report says, we propose to set national targets to reduce truancy and permanent and fixed-term exclusions. These will be set out in LEAs' education development plans following consultation with local authorities.
Speaking as an ex-chair of governors for many years of a comprehensive school, I am personally very well aware of the difficulty which headteachers and governors have in making decisions about exclusion and what happens to those who are excluded. It is always tempting for teachers to exclude disruptive children without paying adequate attention to where they will go.
Therefore, I refer Members of the Committee, including my noble friend Lord Hardy, to paragraph 15
1482
of the draft guidance for LEAs on education development plans. It says,
"In planning for improvement in the three key areas, you should also reflect the following aspects in the priorities and/or the activities. There should be significant action in: improving standards in literacy and numeracy; raising standards attained by underachieving groups of pupils (gender, ethnicity. or background): particularly the underachievement of boys, where relevant; supporting pupils with special educational needs (SEN) and gifted and more able pupils;"—
I should have quoted this passage to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, in connection with the previous amendment—
"supporting schools which are causing concern; supporting school self-review; disseminating good practice; and using information and communications technology".
All these factors have to be considered and analysed by LEAs to support the drive to reduce truancy and exclusion and monitor and raise standards.
The result of all of this is that the draft guidance, subject to any further consultation that is necessary, will be reflected in regulations which, I hope the noble Lord will agree, will achieve the purpose of his amendments. We have to make it clear that the Government's response to the Green Paper would be linked to the availability of resources. Subject to that, I hope that our determination to deal with the problems which the noble Lord has identified is undiminished.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I welcome some of what the Minister has just said. The Government are fashioning a policy to deal with exclusions. We all await with interest the specific recommendations, some of which have been outlined. The rise in exclusions has been due largely to the extension of the development of local management of schools. As the noble Lord, having been a school governor, will know, before LMS, exclusions had to go before local education authorities, which often overruled the views of the headmaster or headmistress and of the governing body because they were not keen to expel unruly pupils. Since that responsibility has moved to schools, there has been a substantial increase in the number of exclusions. That must be of concern. Although the Government may hope to reduce the number of exclusions, that may be difficult to achieve, despite some of the noble Lord's statements. A policy to deal with truancy is not the same as a policy to deal with exclusions. They are very different problems indeed.
On the question of exclusions, I hope that the Government will develop a series of policies which recognise the fact that it is almost too late to deal with unruly children at the ages of 12 to 14. Behavioural problems should be identified at a very much earlier age, at primary school. Remedial action should be taken then, possibly within the school. The most difficult children should, however, be removed from primary school to a special school. I have seen some such schools operating. They are exceptionally good. They take children whose behavioural problems have been identified early—even at the ages of five, six or seven—and provide helpful and constructive action to try to improve their behaviour. That is much better than merely leaving

1483
matters until the behaviour develops into an almost intractable problem at the age of 12 or 14. As the Government develop their plans in this area and their guidance to local authorities, I hope that they will take such considerations into account. I believe that exclusions can be reduced in the years to come only if action is taken at a much earlier stage of a child's development.
Baroness Blatch: I support my noble friend Lord Baker in what he has just said. I believe that Section 3 of the 1993 Act was devoted to special needs. I understand that the department is now updating that provision. Indeed, I have had a constructive meeting with the Minister, Estelle Morris, about it. That earlier provision identified five stages with regard to early intervention. Stages 1, 2 and 3 related not only to children with learning difficulties, but also to children with behavioural problems, which usually manifested themselves in learning difficulties because the one was very often the cause of the other. The intention was that in the first three stages schools should resort to their internal processes for dealing with difficult children. If, at the third stage, the problem was beyond the capabilities of the classroom teacher or the school, outside advice would be sought and the school would move to the fourth and fifth stages, during which help would be received from the LEA special needs department. I am not sure how effective the monitoring of that five-stage plan has been. I do not think that it has been changed in the new proposals.
I understood with feeling my noble friend's point about when a school has come to the end of its tether and the governing body has agreed to an exclusion, not wishing to undermine the head teacher or the teachers, but is then overruled by the LEA. The result is that everybody's authority is undermined. The child with the behavioural difficulties which are deemed to be beyond the control of the school is sent back into the classroom. The knock-on effect and result is that the good education of other children is very much disrupted. That conundrum needs to be addressed.
Perhaps I may refer to the pupil referral unit which I know best, that in my own local authority. It is not used simply to take children out of school and to keep them out of school; it is used so that children can be taken out of school for a period of time during which their problems can be assessed. The unit works with the school so that the pupil can then be readmitted. It has been most effective. However, I understand that the number of pupil referral units, and the number of places in them, are reducing.
This seems an inappropriate time at which to put in place an aggressive process to reduce the number of exclusions. Frankly, if there is a case for exclusion, there is a case for exclusion and help has to be given. The school and the classroom teacher need to be helped. If the number of places at pupil referral units is reducing, where can teachers and head teachers turn if they are asked to keep within targets which I understand are pretty rigorous? I understand that the number of exclusions is to be reduced by two-thirds by the year
1484
2000. Schools can do that only with help and by the effective implementation of the policies. The earlier the intervention, the more effective the remedy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know whether I need to reply. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that the increase in exclusions has occurred substantially since the adoption of LMS. I was a chairman of governors before LMS, so perhaps I faced fewer and different problems from those facing governors and head teachers now. The noble Lord implied what the Government are saying: there ought to be some reduction in the number of exclusions. However, saying that there should be some reduction does not in any way reduce the need for pupil referral units, so I agree with the noble Baroness also.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: With due respect to my noble friend, perhaps I may add a couple of points. The Minister made a good point about the draft guidelines. They refer to raising standards for various groups of pupils, including those from ethnic minorities and white males, to take just two examples that we have used. However, that does not appear on the face of the Bill, but that is a different point.
Monitoring exclusions and attendances is a little different. With all due respect, I do not think that that appears in the draft guidelines. It is a new subject altogether. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister could consider whether provisions to that effect would make a useful contribution to achieving the purposes of the Bill. If so, perhaps such provisions could be introduced either on the face of the Bill or in some other way. As I understand the draft guidelines—the noble Lord can see that I have them with me; I have, indeed, read them—this is a new subject. The monitoring of attendances and exclusions is important in the context of improving standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, was absolutely right when he spoke about the need for early intervention with regard to children who are difficult in school. Something like two out of three pupils who are permanently excluded from school never return to full-time education. They are being deprived of something which the Education Act 1944 said was their right. Indeed, most people who are interested in ordinary human rights would say that education was a right. We, in this country, say clearly that a child has a right to receive a suitable level of education. This is an extremely important point. As has been pointed out, exclusions are linked to levels of offending behaviour. The noble Lord's Government are interested in trying to repair that problem and other problems of exclusion. I am asking the noble Lord to reconsider those two subjects and whether suitable provisions might add something useful to the Bill.
Lord Northbourne: I rise briefly to support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Baker. I believe that all noble Lords will agree that early intervention is important. However, so far no one has mentioned the involvement of parents. It is not for me to rewrite the brief of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but the

1485
Government have plans for the involvement of parents which I would have thought would be extremely important in this context. I urge that what is produced should include local authorities' plans for the involvement of parents to encourage them to support their children.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Baker, is correct in saying that truancy is not the same as exclusion, although they were both dealt with at the same time by the Social Exclusion Unit. I believe that I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. Paragraph 15 of the draft guidance does not include a reference to truancy and exclusion, but perhaps I should reread my introductory remarks which the noble Baroness may have missed:
"As the Social Exclusion Unit's report says, we propose to set national targets to reduce truancy and permanent and fixed-term exclusions. These will he set out in LEAs' education development plans following consultation with local authorities".
Lord Peston: Before my noble friend concludes, we are in agreement on a great many matters. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, spoke of exclusions. I speak with feeling on this matter since when I was a student I was excluded from seminars on macro-economics on the ground that I talked too much and no one else could get a word in. I am sure that most noble Lords find that very hard to believe.
While I agree with what has been said—I have read the remarks of the Social Exclusion Unit—I have a twofold fear. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, was right to remind the Committee about local management. We want to be supportive of teachers. I do not believe that teachers wish to exclude children if they are in any way educable. The problem is that if children are disruptive the cost is not borne by the teachers or indeed by any member of your Lordships' House but by the other children in the class. That is something that we should never forget.
I am aware of the rules under which the Government act. However, I am concerned about the belief that these problems may be solved without resources. I am not of the opinion that this problem can be solved by a free ride, if I may use that expression. Although I am totally supportive of my noble friend—he has struck exactly the right note—when we come to the practicalities of dealing with exclusion in particular it will not be a cheap option but will involve considerable expense. That is an expense that I support on the ground that I believe that in the end virtually everybody can be given a good education as long as the right circumstances are created and the right teachers are there. No one willingly gives up in this field, but we should not simply assume that this problem is caused by a bunch of incompetent teachers. I do not believe that for one moment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Addington: This debate demonstrates the value of tabling probing amendments. We have managed to get nicely under the skin of this subject. As my noble friend Lady Thomas has demonstrated, we may be able to enhance this Bill by putting something into it. However, that is an argument for another time.
1486
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, that the amendment will increase the inclusion in mainstream schools of children with special educational needs. I do not believe that anyone involved in that field at any level is of the view that everybody should be included. I take that back. There are one or two but they are in a decreasing minority. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has pointed out, many children with special educational needs who are not dealt with end up with behavioural problems. It is very important that this matter is dealt with early. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, said that it was important that these matters should be taken into account.
These amendments are all about trying to obtain information and demonstrating how it is to be used. I hope that the Committee has benefited from this discussion and that, in light of the information that has been drawn to the attention of the Government, we can return to this subject, if not these amendments, at a later stage with greater knowledge. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31B not moved.]
Lord Pilkington of Oxenfordmoved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 30, leave out from ("regulations") to end of line 31.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 32 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 33. At Second Reading many noble Lords, particularly on this side of the House, expressed doubt as to the excessive bureaucracy embodied in the Bill. The Minister's noble friend Lord McIntosh has said something to the same effect. I understand the dilemma faced by the Government, in that in the past there have been occasions when local authorities have been less than perfect in their management of education. In consequence the Government wish to have reserve powers to enable them to deal with local authorities who fail to fulfil their functions or have the desire to improve standards of education. They have decided to use the dirigiste method of holding power at the centre in the form of the Secretary of State and his department. Without making a judgment or political point on this matter, this is in total contrast to the stance of the previous government. Faced with the same problem of local authorities which failed to fulfil their function, they decided to give schools more authority over budgets and everything. That was the essence of the grant-maintained schools policy. This amendment is designed to question the Government's reliance on bureaucracy.
I emphasise that the Government have a choice in this matter. One can follow the grant-maintained approach, which the Government reject under this Bill, or use the bureaucracy at the centre. There can be no doubt that the object of both—I say this for the third time—is to deal with a problem that has bedevilled English education, namely, that some local authorities are not as good as others.
Under this clause, in the end every local education authority development plan coming from the 24,000 schools in England will be referred to the department

1487
and considered by officials, and the Secretary of State will make a judgment upon them. (I shall say more about that when we come to Clause 7.)
I do not wish to insult or question the Minister, her department or the galaxy of talented civil servants who fill every chair in the corner of the Chamber, but having had almost 35 years' experience of education, some of it spent dealing with the Minister's department, I know that speed has never been the essence of that body. I speak from deep experience. Without casting any doubts on the Minister's ardour or that of her civil servants, I have serious doubts whether the department, given its present size and resources, is capable of making a meaningful and testing contribution to the education development plans to be produced by every school in the country.
I accept the difficult position of the Minister in relation to some local authorities. I am not saying that the local authorities should be left in total charge. I provide two more easily accessible judgments on these education development plans. My first concerns the inspectorate. The inspectorate has looked at these schools, studied them and written reports upon them. The inspectorate, under Chris Woodhead, has contributed enormously over the past few years to the improvement of standards, to the extent that they have occurred, in English education. It has done an enormous amount of work and has a mass of evidence. The inspectorate should be the first port of call. My second approach involves governors of schools. Governors are responsible people. Later in this Bill great emphasis is placed on the control of governors and the type of governors to be appointed. I believe that they would also be good judges of the education development plans. Those people know the schools and know the areas. They are much better groups to judge the effectiveness of EDPs than the Secretary of State and his cohorts of civil servants, not very large cohorts.
I make no criticism of the department. In England and particularly in the Department for Education and Employment, we have never had the traditions and skills of a continental state which made it its business to judge from the centre every part of the administrative system of the state. England has never had a system of prefects or intendants. The French, who run a system rather like the Minister suggests where the central department of education judges individual schools, were first taught that by Napoleon in 1799. Therefore, they have a tradition of almost 200 years of that. The tradition of the Napoleonic civil service has not governed the Department for Education and Employment. Nor, I emphasise, is speed the essence of the French administrative system, as the English lorry drivers discovered. I fear that the experience of English schools and their EDPs in relation to the Department for Education and Employment will be the same as the experience of the English lorry drivers with the equivalent French department with which they have to deal.
Therefore, I commend this amendment to the Committee because I believe that the Government are making a mistake. I understand why they are doing it.
1488
I cannot understand why they do not like grant-maintained schools, but the Minister need not explain that to me. The Government are wrong but the hammer which they are using to crush that multitude of nuts will be very slow and not very effective. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendment No. 32 would remove the requirement for EDPs to be approved by the Secretary of State, as set out in Clause 7.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for saying that he understands our dilemma and that the Government should ensure that the plans are adequate. That is the Government's view. I do not wish to imply in any way that because the Government feel that something as central to our standards and objectives should come back to the department that we want to judge every single part of the system and require LEAs to report on every aspect of what they do. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, was drawn into flights of fancy when he drew comparisons with systems which exist in France and elsewhere on the Continent.
EDPs are a key mechanism in our drive to raise standards in schools. As such, it is necessary that LEAs should produce plans that are of sufficiently high quality to make a real contribution to the improvement of schools' performance. Likewise, it is just as important that when LEAs have implemented their plans, they should monitor how schools are performing and where there is a discrepancy between the plans and schools' actual performance, authorities should take appropriate action to put that right, if necessary by seeking the Secretary of State's approval for a suitably modified plan.
Perhaps I may clarify one matter. The noble Lord implied that EDPs are produced by schools and not by LEAs. It is of course the LEAs which will do that. I am glad that the noble Lord is nodding and is clear about that because he said something which made me a little worried that he had misunderstood the position.
The amendment would remove the responsibility of LEAs to produce EDPs of acceptable quality and to ensure that their plans, in being implemented, were adapted as necessary to maintain the drive to boost the performance of schools. The EDP would effectively be neutered by this amendment, relegated from being a means through which LEAs could help schools to make a real impact on the performance and achievement of children to a mere statement of good intentions. I am sure that the noble Lord does not want it relegated in that way.
The Secretary of State's powers to consider EDPs, to judge their quality and to take appropriate decisions in approving, rejecting or modifying them or in withdrawing his approval, will be crucial to the effectiveness of them. To remove those powers would represent a lost opportunity to raise standards of achievement.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, questioned whether the department can examine LEAs' EDPs. He has thrown some doubt on whether there are enough officials to support that work and whether they have the

1489
skills to do so. I hope that he will have confidence and be a little more optimistic about the quality of work done in the department and its ability to do something which we believe is extremely important in raising standards.
Amendment No. 33 would require LEAs to publish and send their draft EDPs to the Chief Inspector of Schools for England and the governors of all schools affected by the plan. That would involve an unnecessary exercise in bureaucracy and additional cost, both of which the noble Lord is rightly concerned to avoid. There would not be any benefit for schools or the Chief Inspector of Schools in doing that. LEAs are required to involve schools closely in the formulation of their EDPs. There must be a very deep dialogue between schools and their local authorities about that. That involvement means that schools will be able to enter into an exchange of views with their LEAs at the most significant stage of the development of the EDP. Sending the draft EDP to governors would be of little benefit after they had already engaged fully with LEAs in agreeing targets while the EDP was being prepared.
The prepared EDPs will, as a matter of course, be sent to the chief inspector. I hope that that piece of information is helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. The Chief Inspector and his Office for Standards in Education will play an absolutely integral part in the approval process for EDPs. It will not be simply left to officials in the department. It will be a joint exercise. With the Chief Inspector, Ofsted will be invited to comment on all the EDPs. The Secretary of State will take those comments into account when deciding whether to approve the plans. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: It seems to me that the education development plan is an addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said, which will give rise to additional work both in the department and the inspectorate and the LEAs. Does the noble Baroness have a figure for the additional number of employees and officials who will be required? Has a sum of money been allocated for the cost of that work?
Baroness Blackstone: I cannot give any specific figures. I do not know whether additional LEA staff will be needed to undertake that work. I should have thought that the work would be of such high priority for LEAs and, indeed, for Ofsted that they would find the staff from their existing resources to undertake that work. However, if they are unable to do so, I am sure that the department will be told.
However, EDPs are absolutely fundamental to the whole process of improving standards in our system. I believe that the LEAs are working very hard at this already. They are anxious to do the very best possible job. If additional resources are needed, I have no doubt that that will he reflected in the resource allocation to local authorities.
6 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: I was rather surprised to hear the Minister say that if the Secretary of State is not required to approve an EDP it will simply become a statement of good intentions. Surely the Secretary of State has adequate powers to ensure that it is much more than a statement of good intentions, without being required to approve every plan. He will see the plans in any event and will have the power to criticise them either in public or in private. Indeed, the Secretary of State will have considerable powers to close down LEAs if he feels that they are not doing a good job or if they are failing.
The Secretary of State also has powers over individual schools. In the light of the very considerable reserve powers which already exist, it is inconceivable that an LEA would draw up a plan without due care and attention that was simply a statement of good intentions. They will be serious plans and will be scrutinised. Why do the Government need to insert the specific power that each EDP has to be approved by the Secretary of State when he can actually influence them in a variety of other ways?
Lord Dearing: The Minister will doubtless wish to respond to that point. However, I have a few comments to make. I welcome the assurance that Ofsted will be inspecting. However, as one who for many years was on the receiving end of Whitehall, I know the immense frustration caused by long delays in getting decisions; and, indeed, the frustrations caused by interplay especially when, if a plan is not approved, there has to be further consultation with the schools.
I have seen the consequences in Japan of strong central control and vast mounds of paper slowing down all action. In pursuing this clause, I hope that the Government will ensure that there are procedures which require decisions to be made quickly.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may respond immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. It would, of course, be extremely unfortunate if there were to be very long delays in approving these plans. As I keep repeating, they are central to everything that the Government want to do to ensure that standards in our schools improve. Perhaps it would be helpful if I made clear that the standards and effectiveness unit of the DfEE has put together teams of senior education advisers precisely to work with LEAs on these plans. Those advisers are drawn from schools, from LEAs and from Ofsted and they are organised on a regional basis. They will also work very closely with Ofsted and with senior inspectors in both challenging and supporting LEAs as they develop these plans. We want an amicable partnership between all the parties who wish jointly to share this approach to raising standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said that we do not really need the power on the face of the Bill. I think that it is right for us to have this power. It will enable the Secretary of State to ensure that EDPs are of the highest possible quality, given their centrality to our policies. Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord's suggestion that the Secretary of State already has the power to close

1491
down LEAs. That may be true, but it would be a very draconian action to take just because an EDP did not reflect the kind of quality that we all want to see.
LEAs already undertake a great deal of planning. We want them to refocus their activities on improving standards. Therefore, I do not believe that there ought to be huge additional staffing costs. It is a matter of how they use their resources on something which is a very high priority matter for them, for us, for schools and for parents and pupils. Having further explained the situation, I say again that I very much hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: Can the Minister tell the Committee how many LEAs there are? Further, can she tell us whether all the EDPs will be coming in for the Minister's consideration and approval at the same time of year, or will they be spread throughout the year? I ask that question because I suspect that many plans will be submitted at the same time. Therefore, there will surely be quite a long delay as regards the approval of some of them.
Baroness Blackstone: EDPs will come in over a relatively short period of time. That is part of our wish to get on with ensuring that there is no delay in trying to do something about improving standards right across the system. I should like Members of the Committee to be a little more confident as regards the Government's ability to deliver a reasonably quick response. Indeed, that is most important. The Government will ensure that the resources are available to provide the answers to the 150 LEAs which will send in their plans.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I am still quite concerned about the matter. Perhaps I may emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, which reflected mine; namely, that the response must be quick. That is the essence of the matter. Perhaps I may outline my worries. First, there is no mention of Clause 6 in the financial memorandum. Either there are people at the DfEE who will receive 150 schemes who presently have time on their hands or, alternatively, greater resources will have to be found.
The plans are quite complex. Perhaps I should explain them. The Minister thought that I did not understand them so it is quite possible that some noble Lords may not. Each school prepares a plan and the LEA co-ordinates it. From my experience of administration I know that when a plan is to be judged the officials in the department will inevitably have to look at some of the individual schools. If an LEA prepares a plan which the department finds inadequate, the latter will have to say why it is inadequate. The department will then have to look at the bricks which make up the house; in other words, it will have to do a survey. No surveyor goes round a house, just looks at it and then decides whether or not it looks good or bad. Indeed, he will tap individual bricks and look under the floorboards, because that is where he may find the smell.
If the job is done properly, we are talking about an enormous task. Therefore, I am worried about the money and about the detail. I am also puzzled by what
1492
the Minister said about the inspectorate. The inspectorate will have to look at the plan as, indeed, will the governors. I was not suggesting that we should just leave them as bland statements; I was asking that the inspectorate should be used to judge them because I believed, and still believe, that that would be more effective than the department undertaking the task.
In summary, there is no money for this, either for the LEAs or the department. It will not be just a matter of a cursory look. Indeed, from her own academic life the Minister knows all about looking at plans which may be found to be inadequate and have to be sent back. The LEA will not say, "Thank you Baroness", and touch its forelock like the natives did to the bwana in the woods in the old imperial days. It will question the decision. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and I say that the process must be quick. The department will have to enter into such detail.
I believe that the Minister is being very optimistic. My experience is the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and he was closer to the engine room than I have been. Indeed, the engine sometimes ticks very slowly. Therefore, I fear that my worries remain.
Baroness Blackstone: I am an optimist. Indeed, life would be pretty miserable for all of us if we did not have some optimism about the changes that we want to make and the wish to make progress in everything we do. I respond again because I am a little worried. I believe that the noble Lord is confused about how the EDPs will be prepared. It is not a matter of each school preparing a plan individually. The LEA will, of course, have discussions with every school about its targets. However, it is the LEA which will be preparing the plan.
The noble Lord suggests that we will not have enough officials to go round. However, officials are working on a whole range of other tasks at the moment. For or example, they have been working on 150 early years development plans which have been provided by local education authorities to fulfil our commitment to expanding nursery education. They turned those round in six weeks. That is a pretty good record. Some of the officials who worked on that will be available to work on EDPs. Some of the officials supporting Ministers in taking two major Bills through Parliament will be able to work on EDPs. Heaven forbid that anyone should touch forelocks over this, but let us be a little more optimistic and less worried about long delays than the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness is optimistic. That is good, for if she is not optimistic heaven help us all. My local authority has over 300 schools. The negotiations with every school should be based on the progress of each child within a school. That is the way the plan is built up. If this exercise is to be meaningful, it will involve considerable work even in terms of getting around the large counties such as Kent, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire and my own authority in Cambridgeshire. The negotiations will involve many men and women hours. Then the plans have to b drawn up. That is a relentless process. Plans are sent to the department and if the department does not like them

1493
they are returned. If the DfEE is turning every development plan round in six weeks, it is not doing its job properly. This exercise must be based on the premise of improving educational standards. Then there is the monitoring of that.
The noble Baroness knows that the financial memorandum contains not one single pound extra for education authorities. The noble Baroness told my noble friend Lord Pilkington that many advisers have provided support to the DfEE. How many staff are now in the DfEE as opposed to the number who were in post on I st April last year? This measure constitutes work those staff do not do now but which they will have to do year on year in the future.
The DfEE may have the capacity to take this extra work in its stride. If that capacity exists, that is good as it will not cost the state and the taxpayer another penny. However, I can tell the noble Baroness now that local authorities do not have the capacity in their budgets to take on a whole new administrative burden. The noble Baroness may be optimistic about her department, but she has already said today that the costs of the measure will have to be met from existing resources. Every pound taken from existing resources is a pound that is not spent on the education of children in the classroom. If that cost is not met by the Government, a confidence trick is being played on local authorities. I cannot say that they will share the noble Baroness's optimism.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Much work has been undertaken in the DfEE since the new Government came to power because we regard education as our top priority. There have been many initiatives, most of which I believe have been widely welcomed by the public, parents and many others. I put on record my gratitude to officials in the DfEE for their enormous support in getting this work done. As I said, the early years development plans being turned round in six weeks is a good example of that.
I believe that the noble Baroness is being unduly pessimistic about LEAs. Of course we recognise that this measure constitutes additional work for LEAs. We have reached the end of the consultation period on EDPs. A large number of draft EDPs have already been s submitted by LEAs. There is no suggestion that people are dragging their feet and holding back. We have a timetable for completing this work which has been agreed with local education authorities. I am sure that, like us, they will want to keep to that. It is an iterative process in which we are working together. There will also be a two-stage process for submission which will perhaps make things a little easier. I hope that the Members of the Committee on the opposite Benches will have more faith. I am sure that the work that local authorities will carry out on this important task and the work of officials and members of Ofsted will justify having that faith.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I am puzzled to hear that so much work has been done when the Bill has not yet become an Act. We have been assured by the noble Baroness's colleague that all kinds of measures are to be
1494
included. Earlier today the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, assured us that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, would receive a letter. However, that would appear to be of total irrelevance to some authorities. I am sorry about that as I believe there are people in this Chamber, including the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, in particular, who could contribute to the noble Baroness's work. I hope authorities which have submitted plans will bear in mind any subsequent work that is done.
That said, I am not an optimist. I hesitate to say to someone of the noble Baroness's experience, sophistication and power that I think there is a degree of innocence in the way she approaches the matter. She is a poor little innocent in a savage world and she has my sympathy. However, she can be assured that, week after week, I and my colleagues will ask how many education development plans the department has dealt with. Believe me, that galaxy of talent will have its work questioned. I hope the noble Baroness can tell me how the EDPs have been submitted when, as I understand it, the consultation is not yet over. How many have been submitted?
Baroness Blackstone: I did not say that EDPs have been submitted; I referred to draft EDPs which are a totally different matter. The date for submission of EDPs is not until the end of the year. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I advise those who submit drafts that if they want a good draft it is best to have all the evidence in front of them or a draft just becomes a dream. I do not wish to continue this discussion any longer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 33A not moved.]
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 34:
Page 4, line 35, at end insert—
("() The authority shall collect such information for the purposes of preparing an education development plan in such form as may be prescribed, and shall make such information available to others subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is founded in two sets of experiences. One is in asking schools how they know that their pupils and their teachers are doing as well as they can. The answers fall on a scale from, "We talk about it among ourselves and really chat quite a lot", and at the other end of the scale, "We measure." I have been so impressed by the results coming from the schools that measure that I have become a convert to the use of information within education.
I hope that I may draw a particular example to the Minister's attention. She may have come across Greenhead Sixth Form College in Huddersfield which has taken measurement further and for longer than most other schools, certainly those in the state system. The state system is generally ahead of the private system in this area. I have spent time with the English department in that college. Those in the English department remember being up in arms about this mad, physicist scheme for measuring everything and looking at

1495
statistics and how a child is doing on one aspect compared with another. However, after a year or two of that, they discovered what an extraordinary difference it made to their experience of teaching their kids. They only have the kids for two years and they could get hold of them early on and see what was going wrong or right with the child and build on it right from the first few weeks that the child was there. That really gave them a feeling of being able to look after the individual children who were coming through their care and achieve much more with them than they were able to do when they did not have the measurements in front of them.
They also found that they could improve their own individual performances as teachers because they could understand what kind of thing they were doing badly and what aspect of teaching one teacher was better at than another. They could help each other to find new ways of overcoming problems and doing better with children who were performing relatively badly. The result is that the college, which has a broad and really very ordinary intake, produces the most extraordinary results at A-level. There is enormous value to be had by using information if you can get the right information in the right way.
The second experience was that of being in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and looking at what had happened with BSE. There, right from the early days of the epidemic, we had a team of excellent scientists doing excellent work. They collected a lot of information but they kept it all to themselves. Their capacity for analysing that information was limited by their numbers and their own intellectual experience and background.
When in the last year or two of our Government we started to release this information to others, we were astonished by the speed and variety of responses and at all the new understandings which suddenly became available to us.
There was a feeling in the department that somehow it would be disrespectful to the scientists to question their judgment in interpreting the statistics or the quality of what they were producing. Indeed, in both circumstances we would have been wrong to do so. Nonetheless, there was a great deal which we could have gained by releasing the information much more widely.
Looking at the performance of the [NEE in that respect, it is a great deal better than the performance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ever was, but it is not perfect. In particular, Ofsted has an enormous amount of information accumulating on how schools are performing in relation to each other and what their relative characteristics are. Ofsted produces occasional reports on that. But I do not find reports based on that data coming out of academia generally, and why not? Surely if that information were released we would see a great deal more benefit from it.
As regards the information which may become available from all the efforts which will be made by local authorities to plan for educational improvement, I ask the Government to ensure, first, that the information that is derived from that process is in a form
1496
which is useful to people who want to compare one system or initiative with another and to draw conclusions; and, secondly, that that information should be made widely available to anybody who can make use of it so that the best possible advantage is taken of all the good work and ideas which I hope will flow from the Government's initiative. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the noble Lord consulted his Front Bench before putting down that amendment. It is in direct contrast to the amendments that have just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is very concerned by the amount of work which is involved in the submission of these education development plans. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is proposing an enormous increase in the amount of information which should be prepared in a specified form and available for further circulation.
I have spent a lifetime as a survey researcher, so I am the last person to say that we should not have measurement wherever possible. That which is not measured in a real sense does not exist. But that is not to say that all the raw information which is used for the purposes of preparing an individual education development plan should be collected in such form as may be specified. That would mean that the Department for Education and Employment would have to specify all the information which different education authorities in different circumstances might need. It would ensure that anything that was collected for an individual education authority's specific need was included in the specification, otherwise the impact of this amendment would not be achieved.
In addition to my deep respect for measurement, I learnt in my business career something else which is called "data reduction". Data reduction means that you do not produce the raw data if you can make better sense of data which have been digested and analysed. We say in the draft guidance that local education authorities should indicate the broad results of their analysis of the information and show how it links with their proposals for action. We shall be able to get below the data by co-ordinating and exchanging available data within the department. That will avoid unduly imposing on local education authorities and asking for the same information twice.
We shall also be able to ask local education authorities for clarification and further details, if necessary, during the visits that our advisers will make to local education authorities to help them prepare and strengthen their plans. But to make all of the information available in a prescribed form, and to make it in such a way that it can be communicated between others—"others" presumably include academics as well as other education authorities—subject to such conditions as may be prescribed smacks to me of bureaucracy gone mad. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.
Lord Lucas: I am sorry that the noble Lord takes my amendment that way. I see no conflict between what I have proposed and what my noble friend Lord

1497
Pilkington was saying. I think that the noble Lord has put an interpretation on my amendment which is just not there.
I was suggesting that those parts of the data which the Government consider important should be collected in a particular way. That is something which the Government do extensively already; for instance, in specifying how data should be collected for the performance tables, in what is truancy, and so on. I am not saying that the contents of school meals should be specified down to every last chip. If the noble Lord has recently seen the health and safety manuals in schools he will realise how enormous these specifications can become.
That is not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting, and what I hoped the noble Lord had understood, is that the data, which are central to the ability to co-ordinate and understand what is going on between one local authority and another, should be in a specified form. I did not envisage that that would amount to more than 10 or so data items. I cannot see that that would create a difficulty.
Baroness Blatch: I, too, do not see the inconsistency. First, it will not be a unique experience to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, either when in Government or Opposition, for a Member on his Back Benches to come up with an amendment that he has thought through and has put forward as is his legitimate right in this place.
But I do not take issue with my noble friend on this amendment. I have read this document carefully. My understanding is that this is some pretty standard information which is required in a set format. There are suggested formats. There is very specific, mandatory information: a table of targets for each maintained school; LEA context and audit; action to address school improvement priorities; resource information for the school improvement programme; a strategy for monitoring and evaluating its plan; and the LEA's consultation on the education development plan.
Perhaps I may link that to something the noble Baroness said earlier. When reference was made to the schools affected receiving a copy of the plan, the noble Baroness said that it was too expensive. So we have a rather secretive process; schools in those authorities about which this plan is devised will not receive copies of it. That seems extraordinary.
Ofsted was also linked with the proposal. My noble friend's previous amendment proposed that this should stop at Ofsted and the governors of schools, so as to cut out the massive bureaucracy beyond. The reply from the noble Baroness was that it would be too expensive to send copies to Ofsted and copies to the governors. So we are to believe that Ofsted will not receive copies and yet Ofsted will inspect LEAs. I suspect that one of the key pieces of information it will use in its inspection will be their educational development plans, the way in which they were implemented and the degree to which they achieved the outcomes, or not as the case may be. And that would form part of the base information on which Ofsted would carry out its inspection of LEAs. I
1498
have spent many years as a school governor. I should find it extraordinary to be told that I could not receive a copy of my own local education authority's plan.
I refer to my noble friend's point. Unless it is possible to make some judgment about one LEA vis-à-vis another—where the strengths and weaknesses are, and how the country is doing as a whole—the plans will not be worth the paper they are written on. The information must be in a relatively common format. We are now a mobile society. People move from one area to another. It is important that someone moving from Newcastle to Buckinghamshire is able to make sense of their local authority's education development plan and understand what is going on in both authorities. He should be in a position to make a judgment on it.
There is nothing inconsistent on this point. It is not over-bureaucratic. Those of us who oppose the massive bureaucracy have two difficulties. The first relates to how we should like the system to work. LEAs should produce education development plans. They should be ambitious for their children. They should be accountable. The local schools should be involved. Ofsted should be the body that measures both schools and local authorities against those plans. We do not believe that it is necessary to involve the Secretary of State. But if he is to be involved, it is important that whoever reads the information can make sense of it.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: The main purpose of my noble friend's amendment is to ensure the diffusion of good ideas throughout the system. (I am making a point; if the noble Lord will listen I shall be grateful.) I am sure that the Government will accept that as the right objective.
Perhaps this mechanism can be improved on. I am sure that there are other ways of accomplishing the objective. But what is the mechanism at present? Is there a mechanism in the Bill to ensure that good ideas from a local authority development plan can reach other local authorities? Is there a way in which ideas can circulate and improve the system?
I was disappointed that the Minister gave a blanket rejection of what my noble friend said, without acknowledging that his purpose was good and suggesting an alternative method of achieving it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Without restricting the scope of what local authorities want to put into education development plans, this is not exactly the place for good ideas. These are development plans. They are designed to ensure that all local education authorities and schools concentrate on the improvement of standards.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, read out the mandatory information required in paragraph 19 on page 6 of the draft guidance. Perhaps I may read out paragraphs 17 and 18, which are relevant. They state:
"The supporting information you provide should underpin the proposals in Part 1 of the plan. Some of the supporting information must be included in mandatory annexes".

1499
That is what the noble Baroness read out. It continues:
"You may provide other information on an optional basis.
The information required in Part 2 of the Plan should not be overburdensome. The [NEE does not require any information direct from schools and the information sought is similar to that which LEAs already collect. The information will dovetail closely with that required by OFSTED/Audit Commission for LEA inspections".
That enables me to say what I omitted to say when I first responded to the amendment. In strictly comparable terms, we have a wealth of information available and coming on stream, including Ofsted, LEA and school inspection reports, Ofsted LEA profile information, and performance and assessment reports. It includes national curriculum data, examination results, bench-marking data, best value reviews of relevant services and many other sources of information. There is no shortage of information collected on a comparable basis. What is called for in the EDP report is the analysis, not the raw material, which is what is called for in the amendment.
On dissemination, there may be some misunderstanding. In response to an earlier amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that the draft reports would not be made available to governors. Of course all schools will receive copies of their LEA's education plans. That is set out in the draft guidance, and will be set out, if necessary, in regulations under Clause 7(9).
Baroness Blatch: The suggestion in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pilkington was that the plan should be submitted to Ofsted and to governing bodies. The amendment did not relate to the draft plan but to the plan. We shall read the Minister's reply in Hansard tomorrow. The noble Baroness said that it would be an expensive proposition to send copies to Ofsted and to the governing bodies affected by the plan. There was no reference at that stage to draft plans. The reference to draft plans came later when the noble Baroness said that draft plans had come already into the department and they would be updated with the definitive plans later in the year.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I saw my noble friend's speaking note and it referred to draft plans. But what is important is to repeat what I have just said. All schools will receive copies of their LEA's education development plans. That means that governors will be able to have access to them.
Lord Lucas: I find difficulty in trying to persuade the Minister about the virtue of consistency of information. The noble Lord may remember an earlier debate when we discussed inflation. We know today that our inflation rate is about 4 per cent.; and in America it is about 1 per cent. However, when considering the way in which those two indicators are composed, as regards the UK rate one can first take out taxes and interest rates and one then gets down to a rate of 2 per cent. If one takes out further indices of measurements, one gets down to 1 per cent. Unless the indicators of local authorities are compiled on the same basis, it becomes
1500
extremely difficult to understand how an example from one authority will apply to another. One needs a basic level, a bench-mark of consistency, in order to make the best of all the efforts which will be put into improving schools by individual local authorities.
We shall have to return to this matter, in a slightly different form, at a later stage of the Bill. The Government need to understand that introducing a measure of consistency at this stage will reap enormous dividends later. However, I see no point in trying to pursue the matter at this moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfenmoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 4, line 39, at end insert—
("() social services departments;").
The noble Lord said: The noble Baroness, Lady David, whose name is first to the amendment, has asked me to apologise to the Committee. Unfortunately she had a long-standing engagement which she was unable to break. Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas are grouped with the amendment. I shall not speak to them; I shall leave that entirely to him.
The Children Act 1989 requires that social services departments produce, after consulting relevant agencies, children services plans covering all "children in need". The Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health Joint Circular 13/94 states that,
"the services which meet the educational requirements of looked after children must feature prominently in these plans"
Despite that guidance, collaboration between education and social services departments is extremely ad hoc. Consequently the best interests of children in respect of their education are not being met. For example, 75 per cent. of looked after children leave school with no educational qualifications whatsoever.
This amendment seeks to enforce existing guidance and to ensure that educational departments consult social services departments in the preparation of education development plans. In addition, the social services departments are probably the departments most in touch with those families who have children with special educational needs of one kind or another, or those who are most likely to be excluded for reasons of poor or bad behaviour. It would be helpful. I am sure, to the education department to have advice in some instances from the social services department on what is happening outside school that the schools might be able to put right or which would have a bearing on the way in which they educated those children. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: If I may, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 36 and 37. I am principally interested at this stage in listening to what the Minister has to say about how she will address the particular points raised by these two amendments.
Amendment No. 36 suggests co-operation with the-, Further Education Funding Council, as the educational divide at 16 starts to be worn down with children indulging in vocational education earlier than that age,

1501
and greater co-operation, which I am glad to see, between further education colleges and eleven-to-sixteen schools and certainly eleven-to-eighteen schools. It seems to me that what the FEFC is up to has a bearing on eleven-to-sixteen education within an area, and that there should be some form of co-operation between the LEA and the FEFC in putting together plans for the improvement of education within an area. There may be much that further education colleges can contribute.
Amendment No. 37 deals with what one might call the London problem, although of course it exists at the boundaries of many other areas. Particularly in inner London, the ILEA never designed the pattern of religious education to be subdivided into boroughs. You can look at somewhere like Kensington and Chelsea, where four out of five of the secondary schools are Catholic and they therefore cater for many children coming from out of the borough while there are many children within the borough who do not wish to have a Catholic education and have to go out of the borough. Pimlico School, which is not unknown to certain members of the Government, is in Westminster, but only about 30 per cent. of its children come from Westminster. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, I think at Second Reading, complained about the effect that out-of-borough children were having on the description of his borough's schools. I find that rather a disappointing attitude. If you provide good education one should surely welcome children from out-of-borough; but there we are, and there is room for differences.
At least it is recognised that there is a considerable problem in asking an individual local authority to plan for its own children without recognising that in certain circumstances, particularly in inner London and, I imagine, in similar circumstances elsewhere, much of that provision will be undertaken by neighbouring local authorities and vice-versa. The local authority will be educating a lot of children for those neighbouring authorities and therefore will, perforce, he co-operative. I hope that the Government will say how they intend to encourage co-operation, rather than the sort of competition which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, seems to envisage between neighbouring boroughs.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Addington: The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is very important, for the simple reason that it preaches the benefits of horizontal as opposed to vertical integration and that attention must be paid to matters outside the educational world. I am not altogether sure whether it is right to put it all in the Bill, but certainly the intention behind the amendment is something to which I think everybody involved in this field or in any other type of legislation should pay far more attention than any of us do.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37 extend the requirements as to whom LEAs should consult in preparing their education development plans. We have kept the requirements minimal so as to avoid unnecessary and overburdensome prescription. Under existing provisions in Clause 6(6), proposed statutory
1502
consultees whose views must be canvassed by LEAs in preparing their EDPs consist of the heads and governing bodies of all LEA-maintained schools, diocesan authorities and other appropriate persons.
The inclusion by name of the first two categories will be understood—at least I hope it will—and accepted on all sides of the Committee. EDPs should be prepared by LEAs in partnership with their schools, while diocesan bodies have a direct interest in how EDPs will affect church schools. Beyond this we really do not want to set out precisely whom LEAs should consult. It is bound to vary from local authority to local authority, and we think that LEAs should be free to take account of local circumstances and needs without having this set out in legislation.
We have set out in the draft EDP guidance what further consultation LEAs ought to consider. This includes social services and other relevant educational institutions such as the Further Education Funding Council. However, I believe that it is very important, particularly for pupils with special educational needs, that LEAs and social services departments should consult each other. I intend therefore to consider this point further, and so I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and to my noble friend Lady David for raising this matter. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that of course we want to strengthen cross-service inter-agency work, and, where appropriate, we will try to improve consultation with social services departments. EDPs provide a very special and unique opportunity for LEAs to forge local partnerships and to agree on what needs to be done to drive up performance, and who will do it.
Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we are trying to encourage a great deal more contact than existed under the previous administration between the FEFC and particularly its regional committees and the local education authorities in their areas, because we think co-operation here is also important.
LEAs will also be required, as part of their audit within their EDP, to analyse the numbers of pupils with special educational needs and to include significant action to support such pupils in their school improvement programme. We also expect LEAs to consult neighbouring LEAs where it is appropriate when they are preparing their EDPs. However, it would be unduly prescriptive to specify on the face of the Bill too many additional consultees. For some LEAs additional consultees will of course need to include neighbouring LEAs, but this may be rather less appropriate for others. We think that LEAs will be best placed to decide who else they ought to be consulting during the consultation process.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that local authorities will not be able to circumvent either our or his expectations on this point, since the EDP will contain information about the nature of the consultation process, including what responses have been received. That LEAs have consulted appropriately, and with their neighbours where that would be proper, will certainly be one of the considerations the Secretary of State will bear in mind in deciding whether to approve an EDP.

1503
Guidance on EDPs will make it clear that neighbouring LEAs are among the bodies which may be included as consultees but, as I have said, we do not want to impose too many additional administrative burdens on the LEAs on the issue of consultation, irrespective of whether the circumstances are right. In view of what I have said, I very much hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I thank the Minister for what she has said. I will read her reply very carefully, as will my noble friend Lady David. We will consider whether it is necessary to come back at a later stage of the Bill, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.]
Lord Pilkington of Oxenfordmoved Amendment No. 38:
Page 4, line 43, at end insert—
("() No education development plan prepared under this section shall include proposals to—

(a) discontinue sixth form provision at a particular school;

(b) introduce pupils of the opposite sex into any age group or teaching group in a particular school in which that school currently offers single sex education; or

(c) eliminate selection by ability, in part or in whole,

unless the proposals submitted within the education development plan have previously been accepted by the governing body and parents of the school concerned.").
The noble Lord said: These issues, as noble Lords opposite will know, are very sensitive. School communities take many years to form themselves, and part of their achievement lies in the traditions of the past and the manner in which those are grown. To destroy those traditions often means the destruction of a good school. It has happened many times in the past 30 or 40 years.
Let me examine each of the issues. First, let me take the sixth form. As noble Lords opposite may remember, there was an intense battle fought some years ago over a school in London, the Oratory school—which I am told is so popular that parents go long distances across London in order to send their children there. So it obviously had some value. There was a proposal from the local authority to discontinue the sixth form. The then headmaster fought a long battle against his own diocesan authorities and the local authority. With the help of his trustees, his sixth form was retained. I think we would all acknowledge, especially those parents who take long trips across London, that it was a worthwhile battle. The school was, and remains, excellent. I point to that as one example of what can happen if you try to behead a school.
Secondly, I turn to the matter of single sex education, regarded by people who choose such schools—in many cases for their daughters—as particularly important. To destroy that tradition breaks a pattern which parents have deliberately chosen. Thirdly—and I realise that this will raise opposition from noble Lords opposite—a school develops its character by the manner in which it selects its pupils and chooses its staff.
1504
I am suggesting, not that changes cannot be made—I emphasise that point—but that in the case of these particular issues, equity and common justice demand that the governing body and the parents of the school concerned are consulted. Ballots are to be in vogue later in the Bill. I assume that the Government believe in consulting parents. I therefore hope that the Government will give attention to these matters. We on this side feel strongly about them and shall be very interested in the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I speak briefly in support of the amendment, in particular on the question of single sex schools. Members of certain religious communities specifically forbid their daughters to mix with the opposite sex without being properly chaperoned. That is of particular significance in relation to single sex schools. It would cause considerable distress to members of those religious communities were they to be forced to send their daughters to mixed schools.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for tabling the amendment. I have visited schools, as, I am sure, have other noble Lords, where those from religious minorities find suitable places particularly for their daughters. I know that there are varied views on whether schools should be of mixed or single gender. I think the received wisdom is that, on the whole, girls flourish in schools that provide for their gender only and that boys do not do so well in schools for their gender alone. Nevertheless, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is important.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question. I am afraid I am revealing that I have not done my homework in the way that I should. Am I right in thinking that the three limbs of the amendment—that an educational development plan shall not include proposals unless the governing body and parents of the school concerned have been consulted if it affects the discontinuation of the sixth form; if it introduces pupils of the opposite sex into any age group; or if it eliminates, say, selection by ability—are presently part and parcel of the changing of the character of a school and that therefore those issues presently fall under the well-tried provisions of public protestation if necessary and final decision by the Secretary of State? I apologise if I have got the matter wrong.
Secondly, the question of Church schools has been raised. What about the question of transfer age? Transfer age may be 11 or, in a middle school system, 11 and 14. That has affected the character of schools. Is a different procedure envisaged under Clause 6?
Thirdly—and this possibly reveals the reason for my suspicion—what does "or otherwise" mean in line 21 on page 4? Subsection (2) of Clause 6 states:
"An education development plan shall consist of … proposals for developing their provision of education for children in their area … by … raising the standards … or … improving the performance of such schools, or otherwise".
What does that mean?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that I can set the minds of noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate

1505
at rest fairly rapidly. It is the Government's intention to be much more strict than this amendment would provide. Perhaps I may ask noble Lords to look at the wording of the amendment, and I shall read out what is the Government's intention.
It is the Government's intention that no education development plan prepared under this clause shall include proposals to discontinue sixth form provision at a particular school, introduce pupils of the opposite sex into any age group or teaching group in a particular school in which that school currently offers single-sex education, or eliminate selection by ability in part or in whole. Period. Not whether or not the education development plan has been accepted by the governing body and the parents of the school concerned—but period. Under no circumstances will an education development plan do any of those things. That is not the purpose of education development plans. The plans are about raising standards.
Separate legislation already exists, or is planned in this Bill, regarding school organisation. It is referred to in Clause 25, which provides for the school organisation plan, and later in Clauses 94 and 98 dealing with the character of a school. That is not what education development plans are for. Noble Lords can be entirely assured that none of these issues will be included in them.
Baroness Blatch: That is a pretty unequivocal answer. However, I want to press the noble Lord further so that we get it absolutely, unequivocally, on the face of the Bill. If a local education authority took the view that it would be an educationally sound proposition to rationalise sixth form education and not have sixth forms in schools but another form of provision; or if its view was that co-education was preferable because it believed that educationally it was more sound, or that selection by ability was thwarting good education under that local authority, is the noble Lord saying that, even if it had come to those views on educational grounds, that would have no place whatever in an education development plan?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that local authorities would never come to those views except on educational grounds. Yes, it would not occur in an education development plan. If they took that view, then they would make other proposals which are dealt with in other legislation and later in this Bill.
In direct response to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, the statement of proposals is about developing education, first, by raising standards, and secondly, by improving performance. Those are non-exclusive examples, and if the LEA has other ideas for raising standards and improving performance then it can include them— but not about organisation, not about selection, not about single sex schools, not about selection by ability.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Would the Minister like to give me an assurance that he would be prepared
1506
to put on the face of the Bill in the clauses regarding school organisation committees that they would not break the conditions in this amendment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the noble Lord cares to put down an amendment to Clause 25 or a later clause, we shall consider it. But it is hardly for me to anticipate what will happen in the debate on those later clauses.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I should like to put this on the face of the Bill and therefore I wish to ask the opinion of the Committee.
7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 38) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 110.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

McColl of Duiwich, L.

Ashborne, L.

McConnell, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Butterworth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Naseby, L.

Cadman, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Caithness, E.

Northesk, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Chesham, L.

Palmer, L.

Coleridge, L.

Patten, L.

Cross, V.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dundonald, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Greenway, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller.]

Harlech, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sharples, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Inglewood, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Keyes, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinfen, L.

Lucas, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trenchard, V.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dixon, L.

Addington, L.

Donoughue, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Berkeley, L.

Eatwell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Blease, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Borrie, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gallacher, L.

Burlison, L.

Geraint, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Gilbert, L.

Carlisle, E.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

David, B.

Grantchester, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Gregson, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Grenfell, L.

Dearing, L.

Hampton, L.

Desai, L.

Hamwee, B.

1507

Hardie, L.

Parry, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Haskel, L.

Peston, L.

Hayman, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hollick, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hoyle, L.

Razzall, L.

Hughes, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Rix, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Sandberg, L.

Islwyn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Serota, B.

Jeger, B.

Sewel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shannon, E.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Shepherd, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Simon, V.

Kirkhill, L.

Slim, V.

Kirkwood, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Lockwood, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

McNair, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Maddock, B.

Tope, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Varley, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Mishcon, L.

Weatherill, L.

Molloy, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Monkswell, L.

Whaddon, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Whitty, L.

Orme, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.8 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Approval, modification and review of statement of proposals]:
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 41:
Page 5, line 9, after ("shall") insert ("publish it and").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44. It is a loose group of fairly minor amendments. Amendment No. 41 suggests that when the local authority sends an education development plan to the Secretary of State, at that point it should become a public document. The public should not have to wait until the Secretary of State has had his say before knowing what the local education authority proposes. They should have it in front of them, as the Secretary of State has it in front of him or her. The public should therefore not find themselves in the position where the plan has gone through all the approval procedures and has been set in concrete before the public have a chance to chirp up and say what they think about it. It would be advantageous to the progress of democracy and the production of a plan which will command local support generally if it is made available at that stage. I am not suggesting that it should be published in the thousands and sent round
1508
to everybody. However, it should be made available. A couple of copies could be sent to local newspapers and copies made available in council offices. Something on those lines would be useful so that people pick up what is going on if they wish.
Amendment No. 42 deals with the position where a local authority has taken advantage of this part of the section to propose modifications to the plan. There is nothing in the Bill as it stands which limits the extent of the modifications and they could be extremely wide-ranging. Amendment No. 42 simply suggests that the local education authority should consult such persons as it considers appropriate. Therefore, if consultation is appropriate, it should be undertaken. At the moment there is no requirement whatever for consultation, however wide-ranging the modifications may be.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are probably unnecessary, but it seemed to me that the plan should be provided to anybody who asks for it and not just to a prescribed list of people who are entitled to have it. I doubt the accuracy of my drafting, but that is the intention behind the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: It is perhaps time I joined the debate and I start by embarrassing the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, by saying that I agree with everything he said, including his comments in relation to his drafting on Amendments Nos. 43 and 44.
The intentions behind the amendments are obviously right and I am sure that they will be fulfilled. I was considering under what circumstances it may be possible for a local education authority to produce an education development plan and not publish it. At some stage it will be approved by the education committee. That alone will make it a public document. I cannot conceive of an LEA refusing to allow people to see it, so I am sure that it will be published. It certainly should be published and I cannot conceive of circumstances under which that would not happen.
Amendment No. 42 refers to the consultation, and of course that is right. Again, I cannot envisage circumstances under which that would not happen anyway. I wonder—it is for the Minister to reply and not for me—whether it is necessary for the amendment to be on the face of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was rightly a little bit more uncertain about Amendments Nos. 43 and 44, but again I agree with their intention. It is of course right that everyone who wishes to have a copy of either the summary or the full plan should have it. I would have thought—I am not a legal expert—given that it is a local authority document, people will be entitled to obtain copies under the access to information Act anyway.
On those grounds, though I support entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, and the intentions behind the amendments, I suspect that the Minister is about to tell us that they are unnecessary. On this occasion, if that is what we are told, I have to say that I agree.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Lord, Lord Tope, answered the point for me; there does not remain much more for me to say.
Amendment No. 41 would require LEAs, having consulted on and prepared their education development plans, to publish them prior to submitting them to the Secretary of State for his approval. I fear that the likely consequence of this amendment would be to add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, something that I am sure cannot have been intended by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
The LEAs will have agreed performance targets with schools and consulted schools and others on the means by which they propose to help them meet those targets. Everything necessary for the Secretary of State to consider the EDP should have been done. Publication at that stage, however, would be a tacit, but misleading, invitation for further comment. Yet any comments offered at that point would not only be superfluous but would lack the detailed significance of the direct exchange of views that would have occurred during the actual consultation period.
Amendment No. 42 concerns an EDP which has been approved by the Secretary of State but which the LEA in question wishes to modify. Clause 7 of the Bill already makes provision for LEAs to seek such modifications. The amendment would require an LEA seeking a modification first to undertake consultation with appropriate persons.
The noble Lord's amendment raises the issue of whether modifications to EDPs should always involve re-consultation between the LEA and relevant bodies or whether there are circumstances, as currently envisaged in the Bill, when the nature and circumstances of the modification sought makes further consultation unnecessary. In the latter case, to require re-consultation as a matter of course might on occasion introduce a gratuitous element of bureaucratic delay that I have no doubt the noble Lord would not wish to see.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 may be considered together. Their joint effect is to require LEAs to provide copies of their approved education development plans, or copies of summaries of their plans, or copies of both, to any persons who request them. The draft guidance on EDPs—on which we recently completed consultation with LEAs and others—provides details of the proposed publication arrangements and those will in due course be set out in regulations.
The draft guidance proposes that LEAs should provide a full version or, where appropriate, a summary of the approved EDP, on request and without charge, to a range of bodies including head teachers and chairs of governing bodies of their schools, the diocesan bodies, local training and enterprise councils, and the regional committee of the Further Education Funding Council. The EDP must also be provided, at a price no greater than the cost of production, to anyone else requesting it. Furthermore, to ensure that approved EDPs are made fully accessible, LEAs will be required to place copies of their EDPs in local libraries, to send copies to the local press, to place them on the Internet and to
1510
publicise them through media used to disseminate information about council services along the lines referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Regulations will formalise the contents of the draft guidance on that as well as other points concerning EDPs.
Given that, I do not believe that this amendment would add significantly to existing provisions to ensure that EDPs are widely available to those who need or wish to have access to them. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I am in full agreement with the intention of the amendment to see that access to EDPs is maximised; I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will agree with me that what is already proposed in this connection will lead to that outcome while avoiding the possibility that some authorities will find themselves unnecessarily burdened in having to distribute an unspecified number of EDPs.
In light of the reasons I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments.
Baroness Blatch: First, I accept all that the noble Baroness says regarding the number of documents that may be prepared on the way—drafts and redrafts of documents—until one arrives at the definitive document. I am not sure therefore whether my noble friend meant that all those documents should be widely distributed.
Perhaps I can ask two questions. The first is in relation to Amendment No. 42. If I understand the noble Baroness's point correctly, there will be modifications which are so small in nature that they are inappropriate for wide consultation, being either minor or technical. As I understand the amendment, it says,
"after consultation with such persons as they [LEAs] consider to be appropriate".
In other words, if the LEA considers it to be appropriate, there should be consultation. For instance, if there is an impact on a school, an aspect of the curriculum or some change of policy in some way, it seems appropriate that there should be consultation, and the amendment gives the local authority discretion to do that. I should have thought that this was a fairly inoffensive amendment. Even if it were not accepted on the face of the Bill, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could say that there would be an obligation on local authorities where the change was not just minor or technical but where there was an impact on policy or on the delivery of education.
There will be occasions—one hopes not very often—when there is a tension between the DfEE and the local authority. The local authority will submit its EDP and the Secretary of State and the people who will be judging on his behalf may reject it for one reason or another. That sets a tension between the local authority and the department. If I were a parent in that authority I would want to understand the nature of the disagreement between the DfEE and the local authority. I know that the system is that the DfEE will request the local authority to modify its plan according to what is deemed by the Secretary of State. I am not quite sure, because I do not understand the Bill, what will happen if the local authority refuses to accept the advice or the

1511
requirements set out by the DfEE. I suspect that the DfEE has the whip hand, but I do not quite know in what way that will be delivered in practice.
It ought to be a matter of public record if an EDP is rejected by the Department for Education and Employment so that not only the councillors in the local authority understand what the tension is between the DfEE and the authority—it is not just between one official and another—but the local authority understands what the tension is; and if it is serious, then the school, the head teacher and the governors and parents should know. I just wonder what facility there is for making it public that there is a disagreement pending the outcome of the definitive plan that is satisfactory to the Secretary of State.
Baroness Blackstone: I accept what the noble Baroness said about Amendment No. 42. It is inoffensive. On the other hand, we do not think it is necessary to put it on the face of the Bill. I accept what she said and we shall try to reflect that in the guidance.
With regard to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 and the possibility of disagreement between the LEA and the DfEE, the EDPs have to be agreed by the Secretary of State. She is right in saying that the department will continue to negotiate until agreement has been secured. That is entirely understood by local authorities. I think it would be a matter for the LEA to decide whether it wanted to indicate to its head teachers or others that there had been some disagreement and what the nature of that disagreement was. I do not think the Government would want in any way to restrict LEAs from providing that information. That is something we should leave to them.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. However, I still find some difficulty with what she is saying on Amendment No. 42. I entirely accept that there will be many circumstances where what is proposed by way of an amendment is minor. But let us suppose that what is proposed is major and has a significant effect on several schools or on a substantial part of the local education authority's area. The Government go to the lengths in Clause 6 of requiring that local authority to consult on the original plan but impose no conditions at all as to consultation under subsection (8). I would be content if she would say in terms that if the amendment was a major one the Secretary of State would not approve it unless there had been consultation. However, if we are not in that situation I really think that this is a matter which I would have to bring back at a later stage. Perhaps she would care to give me the comfort I seek, that, if there is a major modification, consultation will have taken place before the Secretary of State approves it.
Baroness Blackstone: I thought I had made that clear in my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. If
1512
there were to be a major change I think that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the comfort that he has asked for.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend responds, who decides whether it is a major problem?
Baroness Blackstone: That is a matter for the Secretary of State.
Lord Lucas: I am just as prepared to trust the Secretary of State as I would be to trust the local education authority. I am delighted to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I wish to oppose Clause 7 standing part of the Bill. I will not burden your Lordships too long over this before supper because I have set out most of the reasons why I am worried about Clause 7. Perhaps I may put it simply and concisely. I and many of my noble friends believe that the inspectorate, Ofsted, would be a better judge of these education development plans than having the whole paraphernalia of the Secretary of State. That is the essence of our situation. Under Clause 7 the Secretary of State first has to approve the plans. If he decides not to approve them or to make modifications, he notifies the authority. The authority can say whether it agrees with the Secretary of State. Then the authority may submit modifications. There is an elaborate process here and the Ofsted system could do it better.
I realise that I am burdening the noble Baroness with a good deal on this but I should like further reassurance that all the processes that are gone through will be done quickly. Again I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said. I should like a clear assurance from the Minister that even if the local authority questions it—there will be times when the local authority and the Secretary of State are opposed to each other—she can guarantee what the time span will be. Can she take the risk—she is an optimist, so optimists must put their money where their mouths are—and say how long she expects these processes will take in the case of an objection? Is it six weeks or eight weeks? Two months is a long time with a school and a local authority not knowing where they stand. Can we have nice, big optimistic assurances to send us to dinner in a happy frame of mind?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the noble Lord replies can he say clearly what will happen to a local authority which refuses to change the plan in the way the Government are insisting on? If there goes on being a problem, the Bill does not seem to say what will happen. The Minister said that the local authority will carry on arguing. There could be a confrontation. I think the Bill ought to resolve that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has described what Clause 7 involves.

1513
It involves the obligation on the Secretary of State to approve, to modify or to reject an education development plan. If he approves it, the LEA has to implement it. If he says it should be revised, the LEA has to revise it. He then has to review the proposals and the implementation. If he thinks it is not being properly implemented, he can withdraw his approval. Under subsections (5) and (6) he can require further modifications. The clause requires that the authority should publish the education development plan. Finally, subsection (10) says that the costs incurred are legitimate costs of an education authority. If the clause were to be taken out of the Bill, the education development plans described in Clause 6 would hang in the air. They would serve no purpose. Nothing could be done about them.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, made an interesting suggestion that Ofsted should be responsible for all the procedure. If he wants to do that he should table amendments to that effect, but what he should not do is to take out the clause without replacing it.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It is going to be basic, fundamental information for Ofsted anyway. It now has the responsibility for inspecting LEAs. It is a policy that we were about to implement and it has been picked up by the Government. We applaud the fact that local authorities will be inspected against their own plans. They will be inspected against the quality of their plans, their implementation and the output from them.
It seems that we now have two tiers and a raft of bureaucracy which will bypass Ofsted, going to the Secretary of State and to-ing and fro-ing the great paper chase. We are asking: why not have one bureaucracy instead of two?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness is right that Ofsted will be involved. The Secretary of State will take account of advice from Ofsted in approving the plans. If the Opposition suggest that Ofsted should take over the whole process it is perfectly open to them to propose amendments to do so. But the Opposition have not done so. Education development plans having been prepared, the Opposition's proposal would leave those plans completely in limbo.
The answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is that if a local education authority refuses to obey its obligations under this clause it will be in breach of its statutory duty. Although I cannot conceive of this happening, in the end it could come to the courts. I am perfectly prepared to argue a serious case about the involvement of Ofsted, but to take out Clause 7 does not make sense.
Baroness Maddock: I support the Government on this issue. I am a little mystified as to why we have had such a long debate about it. I raised the matter earlier in a debate on this Bill. To the best of my knowledge, much of what will go into an education development plan already exists in most local education authorities now. It is not called an "education development plan" but it exists. Good education authorities work in that
1514
way. I do not believe that it will be too difficult for most local education authorities to get their education development plan together.
We on these Benches often accuse the Government and others of too much centralisation, but there is a point in having central information when one is trying to target resources effectively to a service that is being provided. That is particularly true of education. On that basis, it is important for the Government to have a grip on what is going on in our schools so that they can ensure that the resources go to the right place. We had discussions earlier this afternoon as to how we target money for school buildings and so on. I believe that this type of information will enable better long-term thinking in planning budgets for education. If the Government move to budgets that cover three years, such information will be very important.
I was somewhat surprised by the concern that the department could not deal with 150 plans. There may have been times when people thought that it was not possible. Businesses regularly deal with that kind of situation; they believe that they can deal with 150 plans, or whatever, coming in. It is the same for the Department for Education and Employment.
There may be problems ahead when the department falls out with a local education authority. The idea behind these plans is that schools can work with local education authorities to help them develop standards. It will be a useful tool. From that, information will go to the department to enable it to deal with future planning, particularly financial planning.
We have not been inundated with representations from groups and local education authorities, including teachers, who normally say that they do not like what is going on. We have been inundated with briefing notes. The reason we have not been inundated with representations from local education authorities and others is partly because the Government are putting the issues out for consultation, although that is about to finish. It may be that at some future stage we shall need to return to these issues. We may receive representations from local authorities, teachers and other bodies when we reach Report stage.
The clause should stand part of the Bill. As I was rising to speak to the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill, I was reminded of the time when I arrived in this place. I could not understand what that meant. People used strange language. I am pleased to say that I now know what it means and I wish that this clause stands part of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I welcome the noble Baroness to our debate today. I agree with everything she said. We have designed the education development plan process in order to build on and develop existing processes and not to add unnecessary layers of requirements. As the noble Baroness said, most LEAs already prepare and implement strategic plans. Education development plans will serve to sharpen and refocus that activity on raising standards in schools. In practice, EDPs should reduce LEA bureaucracy since they will co-ordinate and streamline

1515
information-gathering exercises by the DfEE, Ofsted and the Audit Commission. On reflection, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his opposition.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: It has been a long evening. The noble Lord may remember Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 where I suggested that Ofsted should take over. I thank the noble Lord for his invitation to bring the matter back at Report stage. I shall give that consideration. I still believe that Ofsted would best fulfil the ideals behind these education development plans. It would fulfil the hope of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, of having central information. It would also provide the expertise which has been gained from detailed knowledge. But for the moment, I shall withdraw my opposition to this clause. I shall consider the noble Lord's strong urging to bring back a strong amendment at Report stage. I am glad that he is so keen for conflict.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, may I suggest that the Committee stage should not be resumed before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Anglo-Japanese Relations
7.37 p.m.
Viscount Trenchardrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to promote relations between the United Kingdom and Japan.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, 1998 is a special year for British-Japanese relations. Most importantly there is the state visit by the Emperor and Empress of Japan which takes place during next week. This will be the first visit by a reigning Japanese Emperor since 1971. The intervening 27 years have witnessed an enormous broadening and deepening of our relationship with Japan. In January the Prime Minister visited Tokyo and opened Festival UK 98, a year-long programme of events and activities designed to bring British culture, business and scientific achievement closer to the Japanese people.
I look forward to hearing the speeches to be made by other noble Lords, in particular that of my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, who makes such a positive contribution to British-Japanese relations through his chairmanship of the UK-Japan 2000 Group. I also look forward to hearing the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, to whom I am grateful for her interest.
On the one hand Japan and Britain have much in common. We are both island nations situated close to great continents from which we have imported most of our cultural traditions, including much of our language,
1516
script, music and art. We are both constitutional monarchies whose reigning sovereigns maintain strict political neutrality.
There are also many respects in which Japan and Britain are different. I believe that Japan's enforced isolation from the world, which lasted for more than 200 years and ended with the Meiji restoration in 1868, still has some lasting effect on Japanese society. The excessively consensus-orientated decision-making process and individual reluctance to state publicly an opinion on any specific subject prevent the emergence of "leaders" in the western sense in politics, business or other fields. Indeed, there is a well-known proverb, deru kui wa utareru—the stake that sticks out will be hammered down. Japanese society is extremely corporatist and an individual's social position and his or her very identity own much to the company or institution to which he or she belongs. Recent years have seen a rapid increase in "twinning" arrangements between Japanese and British schools and universities, involving the exchange of students and in some cases teachers. There are at any one time about 1,000 young British graduates in Japan, spending at least a year on the Japanese Government's Japan exchange teacher scheme.
Japan's recovery from the ashes of defeat in 1945 has been remarkable. In several industrial sectors, such as cars and electrical appliances, Japan's great companies have become household names almost everywhere and their products, of high quality and sold at affordable prices, have done much to improve the living standards of many millions of people. The structure of its government, civil service and business has provided a stable framework for what we were beginning to call "the Japanese miracle" until the "bubble" burst in 1990. The Japanese Government last month adopted an economic rescue package involving the injection of £77 billion into the economy through public works spending and fiscal stimulus; 1st April 1998 also marked the beginning of Japan's version of "Big Bang", involving the liberalisation of financial markets and the abolition of much cumbersome and bureaucratic regulation. The objective is to ensure Tokyo's future as one of the great financial centres of the world providing efficient, free, innovative and transparent markets, a centre in the Asian time zone to complement London and New York.
However, market reaction to the government's economic recovery package was lukewarm and the impact of the "Big Bang" seems evocative of T. S. Eliot's words,
"Not with a bang but a whimper".
Confidence and optimism are commodities in short supply in financial and business circles and it is not clear who is able to provide the commitment and strong leadership necessary to complete the reforms. What is necessary is for the government to take bold and radical action quickly, for example in completing their privatisation programme and reforming the post office savings system.
I believe that British financial firms are uniquely qualified to play an important role in assisting Japan in this area. Japanese financial institutions desperately

1517
need to improve the poor returns they derive from their investments and British investment managers have a golden opportunity to introduce their professional approach and international expertise, which I believe should win for them a significant share of an enormous market. Indeed, Japan's current difficulties provide an opportunity for improved market access in several areas by British and other non-Japanese firms and it may be that deregulation and the weaker yen will lead to some correction to the enormous imbalance between Japanese direct investment in Britain and British investment in Japan. Japan's trade surplus with Britain was £4·7 billion in 1996, but that was more than compensated for by a surplus in services and investment earnings, giving us a current account surplus of £1 billion.
In the year ended March 1997, Japanese investment in Britain amounted to more than £800 million, representing 40 per cent. of Japanese investment in EU countries in that year, and created or saved 8,000 jobs in total. There are more than 1,000 Japanese companies operating in Britain, including 271 manufacturing companies which employ 65,000 people directly and secure the continued employment of many others. Investment by Japanese companies in certain regions of Scotland, the North East of England, South Wales, and elsewhere have played a significant part in their regeneration.
Japan and Britain are increasingly co-operating in third countries through partnership in development assistance and collaboration in the provision of aid in developing countries.
British-Japanese co-operation in third countries is, of course, not a new phenomenon. It may not be widely remembered that Japan and Britain were military allies from 1902 until 1923 and fought together in the First World War. Many former Imperial Japanese Navy officers remember to this day with pride and affection the links that existed with and the traditions that they inherited from the Royal Navy. The letter from Mr. Sam Falle published in The Times on 29th April, describing his treatment at the hands of the Japanese navy as its honoured guest, on being taken prisoner in 1942, bears witness to the fact.
Unfortunately, the Anglo-Japanese alliance did not last longer. As your Lordships are well aware, Japan's disastrous involvement in the Second World War led ultimately to its catastrophic defeat that followed the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by atomic bombs.
I believe that history shows that mankind is capable both of great bravery and savage cruelty in war. In the Second World War, prisoners of war and civilian internees suffered horribly in both Asian and European theatres. The treatment of British prisoners in Japanese prisoner-of-war camps was often atrocious. The San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 recognised the extreme nature of suffering endured by allied prisoners and, in addition to the customary sequestration of overseas assets, required Japan to make direct reparations to former prisoners, which was a new departure in a peace treaty and I think remains the only case of direct
1518
payment of reparations by a former enemy to individuals. Inadequate though the payments were, the matter was settled by the treaty which became the rock on which we have rebuilt our very successful relationship. I do not think it right that Britain should try to renegotiate the treaty now.
I believe that many Japanese still feel an obligation to redress the wrongs inflicted on their prisoners. The Japanese Government have recently instituted a scheme to provide scholarships to grandchildren of former prisoners of war for sixth-form education. They have organised a number of successful reconciliation visits to Japan for former prisoners and their families which have been welcomed by the Royal British Legion, which is itself involved this week in a joint memorial visit to Burma and Thailand. Many Japanese companies operating here are exemplary corporate citizens and make a full contribution to deserving causes in their localities. The community obligations observed and constructive social participation shown by managers of Japanese companies here have been a tremendous force for good in many cities and towns across the country. Their conduct has helped to heal the wounds which remain so deeply felt by many, in spite of the passage of more than half a century since the end of hostilities.
As a trustee of the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund, I am pleased that we were able to disburse £14 million in direct charitable expenditure during 1997. Of course, what we and other similar organisations give is not enough and our beneficiaries' needs are increasing with their age. We will continue to try to give more and we depend on the continued support and generous benevolence of the thousands of individuals and companies who give us donations regularly year after year. Among our supporters are Honda and Mitsubishi Motor which save us several thousand pounds a year by providing courtesy vehicles at the Royal International Air Tattoo.
I do not think it will encourage them if those they wish to help insult their own head of state while he is here as a guest of our head of state. I suggest that to be discourteous to the Emperor at his welcoming ceremony would certainly be discourteous to the Queen. I agree with the views expressed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who is unable to be here today, in his letter to the Daily Telegraph of 24th May. The noble and gallant Lord expressed the hope, with which I hope and trust that noble Lords will agree, that when the Emperor arrives in London he will be received with the courtesy and understanding for which this country is renowned.
We will not, and we must not, ever forget the appalling suffering endured and the sacrifice made by British and allied prisoners during the Second World War. There are those who, understandably, cannot forgive or forget. However, I hope that they will not feel it right to attempt to put their interests above those of the country as a whole. It is not in their interests or those of any of us to jeopardise the development of closer relations between our countries as we look forward together to the new millennium.

1519
There are still those who will not accept the sincerity of the apologies given on various occasions by Japanese Prime Ministers. The point was addressed in another place on 29th April by the honourable Member for Reading East. Miss Jane Griffiths is, I believe, correct in her statement that the word used by the Japanese Prime Minister to express apology, owabi, is an appropriately strong and serious word. The representatives of the prisoners of war who want the word shazai to be used may be misled or they may misunderstand. Shazai is a rather legalistic word not commonly used in the spoken language. The actual words used by Mr. Hashimoto expressed his "deep remorse and heartfelt apology" and should be taken as sincere and at face value. I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister and other noble Lords will agree with Miss Griffiths' call for all of us to accept that the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty cannot be reopened.
Your Lordships may have noticed, and I trust will have welcomed, the investiture by the Queen of Mrs. Keiko Holmes, a Japanese woman, with an honorary OBE on 28th April. Mrs. Holmes has worked tirelessly over the past seven years to bring about reconciliation between former British prisoners and their captors.
We have heard that the Queen has decided to invest the Emperor as a member of the Order of the Garter, an honour also granted to his three immediate predecessors. I believe that the granting of this singular honour to His Majesty should be seen by the Japanese people as evidence of the importance we British attach to the relationship between our two countries and that it will inspire many to continue to work for national reconciliation and the further development of good relations.
I cannot agree with the opinion expressed by Mr. Simon Heffer in his recent articles in the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph in which he attempts to draw similarities between the award of an honorary GCMG to the late former President Ceausescu of Romania and the award of the Garter to the Emperor. I cannot think of a less apt parallel. Ceausescu was a communist dictator who ruled his people with a rod of iron. The Emperor of Japan is a constitutional monarch, as was his late father, and acts only on the advice of his Ministers. The Emperor was 12 years old at the end of the war and reigns over a state which has renounced the right to use military force except in self-defence. His interests include the protection of the environment and wildlife. To link his name with that of Ceausescu is quite absurd. The Emperor and Empress are coming here as the Queen's guests bearing the goodwill of the Japanese people. I believe that your Lordships' House and the British people will give Their Majesties a warm welcome and that the visit will lead to the further enhancement of the close relationship between Japan and the United Kingdom.
7.52 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing the debate. I am a little perturbed that noble Lords have been gagged to the extent of having only five minutes each in which to speak. This is a big economic, commercial and political subject. It involves the people of our country who fought for our country, who suffered and who made great sacrifices. They are the veterans. No one understands better the word "veterans" than Members of your Lordships' House. There are many in your Lordships' House but hardly any in the other place. No one sitting here, in the other place or in Downing Street would be doing the jobs they do today had it not been for the great sacrifice made by the veterans and their will to win a war against probably the most courageous enemy in Asia that Britain has ever fought.
No one is ever rude about the courage of a Japanese soldier, sailor or airman. What is resented is his behaviour. Many believe that this leopard has not changed its spots. The veterans require more proof. One can quibble over the use of Japanese words. It is difficult to find a word for "sorry" as we understand it. But I hope that we can come to terms with a proper apology as we see it, not as the Japanese see it.
There is the question of the loss of face if the Japanese use our terminology for "sorry". I believe that the Japanese would gain great face world wide and in this country—certainly with the veterans—if they made a proper, strong apology at the highest level. The omens should be good. Of course, we veterans support closer commercial and political relations. Veterans behave with great dignity and are also wise. They are more experienced than many of the young people involved in commerce, industry and politics today. They see a need for change, so little is required to bring them on side. But their resentment goes deeper because Britain today does not appear to bother about veterans. Naturally, it is the young who get into the frame.
The Government should pay greater attention to the veterans. I believe that since the end of the Second World War this nation and successive governments have lost face. We do not look after our veterans as countries like America, Canada and Australia do. We do not have veterans' hospitals, villages or all the other things provided for veterans. A man who has managed somehow to cling to life is brought back, given a tin of 50 cigarettes, a new suit and a railway warrant to his home. We send him off and forget about him. I speak completely non-politically. No government of Great Britain since the end of World War II have paid the degree of attention to the wellbeing, care and recognition of veterans that they deserve. I hope that this Government will listen and do something about it.
I support anything that furthers relations with Japan. I am a businessman. I also spend much time helping veterans in a small way. I believe that we should concentrate very much on the young. Young Britons and young Japanese should get to know each other. We should not preach to the veterans about whether to stand and shout or behave with their usual dignity. No one in your Lordships' House, the other place, the Church, or

1521
anywhere else, is in any position to preach to a veteran, particularly one who fought in Asia, and tell him what to do. He knows exactly what to do. Come the visit of the Emperor there may be a dignified silence. Not many veterans will be waving flags. But there will be no problems.
Only those among the civil internees are pushing hard for some form of compensation. I am worried. Most of the people affected are now dead and will not get compensation. Therefore, it is perhaps a rather pointless exercise. Maybe they were prisoners who suffered in a harsher and more barbaric way. For a number of political reasons of which noble Lords are aware perhaps compensation has had its time.
It has been suggested that the two governments should work together on these matters.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I apologise for intervening. I appeal to the noble Viscount to note the time.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I have one more sentence. It is up to the governments of today to look after their veterans and those who were prisoners. It is up to us to look after our own people.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Montague of Oxford: My Lords, in the late 1960s and early 1970s I had the good fortune to be responsible for exports to Asia, particularly to Japan. When we mounted British Week in 1969 I remember the accusation that it was rather difficult to sell coal to Newcastle, and so it would be when it came to selling to Japan. It is heartening to hear from the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, who has so ably reminded us of the benefits of our current relations with Japan and its great success, with a surplus in the past year of over £1 billion. There are other successes. I refer to the number of tourists who come to our shores. In the past year 700,000 came here. That is a sign of interest in this country and a further reflection of the identity between our two great nations.
I should like to make a few points in the brief period that is allotted to me. They may sound rather trivial but I hope that they are of help. What have we to learn? This debate reminds us about the future. What should we change? I have been reading that the Japanese are not as knowledgeable as they might be about our culture. But, equally, we are not as knowledgeable as we might be about their culture. Therefore, there is room to improve our understanding of the Japanese. I shall give a few examples which may seem rather petty but I hope that they will be helpful to those who have day-to-day relationships with the Japanese.
Japanese people do not like what I would call the hail-fellow-well-met, back-slapping endearments which we sometimes use with each other. They are a very reserved race and they expect that of others. Strangely enough, the Japanese do not welcome eye contact. It is more respectful when you are dealing with the Japanese slightly to avert your eyes than it is to stare them out, as it were, with a feeling of great sincerity.
1522
Of course, when it comes to putting on a great spread for your Japanese visitors, I strongly advise that, however good your culinary skills, you do not try them on the Japanese because they are really completely at home with their own palate. Japanese people like Japanese food. Therefore, if you wish to make friends, it is better to make contact with somebody who can provide the Japanese with the food which they like so much.
I mentioned the fact that in the late 1960s I had dealings with Japan. At that time, there was one Japanese restaurant in London. Today there are 150. That is an example of how things have changed.
It was my good fortune at that time to meet the now Emperor, the then Crown Prince, and to hear how impressed he was with our country and what great respect he has for it. Those were not just words. He was to go on to do something which no Japanese Emperor has ever done before: he decided that his son should be educated in our country. There could be no stronger personal example of his respect for this country.
I was most pleased to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, indicate that he anticipated that, in spite of the difficulties of which he justifiably reminded us, a warm welcome would be given to the Emperor. That is very encouraging. That would be extremely helpful as regards the way in which the press deal with this matter. We know that the press must sell newspapers and that colourful headlines are the main means by which they do that. Therefore, if our veterans do, very understandably, engage in gestures which draw attention to their feelings, I believe that that may be misrepresented by the media and will not do our country the certain good which will otherwise come from the Emperor's visit.
I end with a closing thank-you note to the Foreign Office and the Japanese Embassy for one of the arrangements that has been made. I was present when the previous visit of the last Emperor took place in the 1970s and I remember that he put on his reciprocal state banquet at Claridges. Some vision on the part of the Japanese Embassy means that on this occasion it will take place in the Victoria and Albert Museum. It may be that we shall see each other there and have a good evening.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, it is perhaps difficult, perhaps even arrogant, for those who did not have first-hand knowledge of Japanese atrocities to seek to suggest to those who did that they should now forgive and forget. But we must remember that it was a long time ago. When I was posted out east in the late 1940s, many of my British colleagues had suffered privations and suffering in camps, having been captured in Malaya, Singapore or China. They had fearful tales to tell. Indeed, British commercial companies which had opened up in Japan very often told their employees that if they did not wish to serve in Japan, they need not do so. The staff may not have appreciated that gesture, but I do not know anyone who asked not to be posted there.

1523
Indeed, during the three-and-a-half years which I spent in Japan, I cannot remember anyone speaking gloatingly to the Japanese about their humiliation and occupation. That was a lesson which I certainly took to heart. The Japanese man on the street was under no illusions because as a private soldier he had probably been thoroughly abused by his NCOs and officers, who had very little regard for the private soldiers.
Why have the Japanese Government never really said sorry or mea culpa? I do not know the reason. Why has the compensation been so derisory? Among other things, I believe that the Japanese find that it is difficult to articulate the shame. We are taught that it is not difficult to say sorry, but the culture of the Japanese world and the western world are not the same. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, made a good point—that Japanese culture makes it difficult for individuals to emerge as leaders and, therefore, it is also difficult for them to apologise on behalf of their country. Ideally, for the Japanese everything must be done by consensus. That is well illustrated by a Chinese thought, and the Chinese are nothing if not individuals. It is said that if one pits one Chinese against one Japanese, there is a Chinese victory; two Chinese against two Japanese, there is a draw; and three Chinese against three Japanese and it is a Japanese victory. It is a difficult position for Japanese leaders to take.
One must remember that there has been the same lack of apology to the inhabitants of Asia whose countries were occupied. Perhaps that is nowhere more apparent than in China, where people suffered more grievously and far longer than anybody else. As the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, said, the Chinese are ever mindful of leopards and spots and they are fearful of anything which suggests re-arming by the Japanese. But they have accepted that the atrocities are of the past and there is no real benefit to continue harping on them and about that period.
It is now well over 50 years since the end of the war, and I suggest that it is no longer appropriate, even for those who suffered directly, to continue to carry that torch. Many of those who were in Japanese camps were adamant that the Korean guards were more brutal than the Japanese. Korea was a colony of Japan at that time. But we do not seek apologies or restitution from Korea. Nor do we seek apologies from North Korea or Vietnam for the sufferings experienced in those more recent wars. Indeed, much suffering was experienced.
I began by saying that it is not easy for those of us who did not suffer directly to tell people to forgive and forget. It is not easy, but now I do appeal to them not to continue their protest and especially not to do so during the coming visit of the Japanese Emperor.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, spoke movingly on behalf of the veterans and his words merit our respect. Our concern is the relations between our country and Japan and I have two points which I wish to make.
1524
First, I believe those relations would be enhanced to our benefit if there were open and generous recognition of the contribution that the Japanese manufacturing industry has been making over the past 20 years to the regeneration and renaissance of the economies of the old heavy industry areas of Britain. I speak with some knowledge of the north-east of England where so much has been contributed. The headlines are made by major investors, by companies like NSK, the first to come to the north-east, Komatsu, Nissan, Fujitsu, Sanyo and many others. They have contributed to the lives of families in cities. That is very clear and obvious. However, less obvious is the influence that they have had on our thinking about manufacturing.
I was impressed by the commitment of the Japanese to quality. I remember being present in a large audience of north-east businessmen who were electrified by a senior manager of a Japanese company saying to them all those years ago that, by the year 2000, 100 per cent. quality would not be a competitive advantage; it would be the entry ticket to the marketplace. I have seen Japanese companies practising just that. I have seen the respect that they have for their workforce and their commitment to training those people. I have visited their factories and have seen that, for every man and woman, there is a training plan for the year. I have seen their progress being ticked on the charts. I have also seen their commitment to the development of long-lasting relationships with suppliers in this country.
I remember so well talking to a company which was tendering to one of those Japanese companies. It had been told that its prices were too high. The Japanese company said, "Trust us, supply at our prices, and we will re-engineer your manufacturing processes. You will prosper". The company did so and won contracts in other parts of the world. It is that kind of unseen and unsung contribution which has permeated so much of our thinking. I am not saying that many British companies do not think that way, but it has not always been the common practice. I believe that the Japanese have enriched our attitude as regards working effectively with people. It will help if we recognise that fact in terms of our relationship with Japan. Indeed, it will help if the Japanese people know that we are respectful of their contribution.
My second point relates to my consciousness derived from my dealings with Japan on visits to that country. For example, I recently visited Japan as the guest of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. I was struck by the commitment of the Japanese to learn from other people and by their respect for British education. I was invited to go across and, when I went to the Monbusho, I was astonished to find that a report of some 400 pages, which we had recently produced, had been translated into Japanese. Indeed, the Japanese had not only read it, they also understood it and debated it vigorously. I am not talking about just two or three chosen specialists; I am talking about the whole of the top brass of the ministry.
I have recently been impressed by the way in which Japan, notwithstanding its success in the international league tables in performance, has become concerned about its national language and mathematics and about

1525
its need to develop creativity among its people. Japan realises that its future competitiveness will depend upon that. There is also the admiration from the Japanese for the way in which we have engendered that among our people. The Japanese see us as being a creative and inventive people. Their response to that is to come here and learn.
I was invited to take part in a conference two weeks ago at which the Japanese were interested to see how they could learn from us; indeed, I was interested to know how we could perhaps best learn from their strengths. It would make for good relations between our two countries if we on our side were as anxious to learn from them as they are to learn from us. We have much to learn. For example, we are now concerned about developing citizenship, and about respect for other people and communities; in other words, a feeling of obligation to our fellows. That is engendered in children in the very earliest years in the kindergarten/primary schools in Japan. Perhaps we have something to learn from that example.
Perhaps in the British Council, for which I have much respect and admiration, we have a bridge which should become a broad highway and across which we can exchange information and learn from each other to our mutual advantage, thereby improving relations between our two countries.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, like other speakers, I am extremely grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for promoting tonight's debate. I am also grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, for his most moving reminder to us that we must respect our veterans and that it would be an impertinence to preach to them about what they should think after what they suffered and in view of the memories that they hold.
This is a difficult debate because the truth is that such issues have to be put in separate compartments. Indeed, the truth is that these atrocities happened and unspeakable brutalities occurred. No sweet words or preaching of reconciliation can wipe those facts from the memories of families in this country, nor, indeed, from the memories of veterans. Similarly, it is not acceptable to say, as many Japanese argue, that the whole score was settled by the dropping of the atom bombs.
Nothing we say can change Japan's past. It had a dark side and a bright side. Countries are what they are and what they have grown to be. Perhaps that is something that we could more usefully remember in the European context. Cultures are important; they do not just vanish, nor can they be brushed away.
In the Imperial War Museum there is a recipe which was written by my grandmother. It explains how you can survive on the daily Japanese rations in an internment and labour camp, like the one in Shanghai where my grandmother was detained. She was dragged there by the Japanese troops when they came storming up the driveway of her home. Colonel Shingo took all of her possessions—her car, and so on—and gave her a little note, which I still have. It is a rather small note, which, curiously enough was signed by Colonel Shingo but not in Japanese, promising to return all those things at the
1526
cessation of hostilities. Needless to say, my grandmother never saw any of her property again. Incredibly, although she lived to be over a hundred, she died without having received any compensation from Japan and was penniless.
I described that because it must have been the experience of many other people as civilian property was not compensated under the 1951 treaty. I should add that, although it cannot be forgotten, nothing of this kind should get in the way of the facts of today. As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, described, we have received enormous benefits from our contacts with Japan as regards their investment here. Indeed, we have learnt a great deal from our cultural, business and scientific exchanges, and we need to learn massively more from Japan about relationships in the modern industrial society. The co-operation of the Japanese with us in third world countries has been brilliant and dedicated, as well as being highly effective. Their co-operation with us in security matters is something which is often not so prominent, but in surveillance and in handling the Middle-East problems of Iraq and the Gulf War their efforts have all been dedicated and efficient.
The Japan of today may be in a different compartment to that of the Japan of the atrocities of Burma. Indeed, the people today are dedicated to helping build a better world and stabilising extremely difficult situations. Even now, with Japan in recession—indeed, perhaps more so now—this is the moment for us to build on that friendship. To put it crudely, it is directly in our national interest to do so and to gain greater access to the Japanese markets and to Japanese internal investment. Moreover, when a country is down—and we are friends with Japan—it is the mark of a true friend to offer help at that time.
Above all, at this time of very dangerous turmoil in Asia, perhaps we need to ensure that our support for, and bilateral links with, Japan reinforce degrees of stability and provide some kind of rock upon which Asia can be stabilised. As I have said before in this House, this is a moment of colossal danger. There will be many worse effects to come as a result of the Asian turmoil and there will be huge difficulties. It is vitally important that Japan should not be dragged down.
I do not agree with those who say that we should brush out the past; indeed, the past will remain fresh in many memories—and an awful past it was. In a separate compartment of life we have to build for the future with Japan, which is a brilliant nation. It has much in common with us: we are two islands with two monarchies. These people are our friends. Therefore, on that basis, we should not forget the past but we should build constructively for the future. We have an enormous amount to gain for all our people, including the children and grandchildren of all those who suffered and died, if we take a positive view.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield: My Lords, I, too, want to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, on having introduced tonight's debate. His speech demonstrated his knowledge and experience of Japan which he brings in an unrivalled way to your

1527
Lordships' House. It is a particular pleasure also to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who has so admirably led the UK/Japan 2000 Group for many years.
My experience of Japan is no doubt less deep and probably more recent than that of the noble Viscount. It goes back to 1982 when I led a small team of two to talk to the Japanese about strategic planning and arms control issues. At that time discussion of such matters with the United Kingdom was regarded in Japan as highly sensitive and almost taboo. While we had made great strides in our contacts on commercial and economic matters, this was the first time since the war that the Japanese had had direct official contacts on defence related issues with anyone other than the Americans. In 15 years we have come a long way.
A large part of the credit for this goes, I believe, to successive British Governments who have persisted in their efforts to establish not only a more open dialogue but a more co-operative and productive relationship. I recall a visit by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, in the early days of 1988 which marked a watershed in this development. Since then our contacts have grown at great speed across a whole spectrum of our relations, not just at official level. I shall not repeat the points made by previous speakers as there is not time, but I endorse the point that Japan is, and will remain, a vastly important country as regards the United Kingdom, as an economic player, as a market, as an investor, as a partner across a whole range of international issues, and as a partner too in a range of youth and cultural exchanges to which reference has already been made.
Not all of these matters are wholly, or even perhaps mainly, matters for governments. But, just as it took a concentrated effort on the part of the two governments to start a process which is now beginning to yield its fruit, so it will need the active stimulus and encouragement of governments to build on what has already been achieved. The visit to Tokyo of the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, shortly before the previous election is, I hope, a signal of the importance which this Government attach to Japan. I am confident that the Minister will be able to give us this evening an assurance that the expansion of Anglo-Japanese ties will remain one of Her Majesty's Government's top priorities.
Important as these bilateral programmes of co-operation are, they are not, however, the whole story. Other noble Lords have referred to the crisis now affecting the Japanese economy and its financial system. It is easy, not least in Japan itself, to underestimate the dangers of soldiering on, undertaking only minor tinkering with a system which has appeared to serve Japan so well for so very long. However, there is a need for major reforms, most of which will have to be carried through over the protests of deep and vested interests. It is in the British—indeed the wider international—interest that these reforms should be implemented, and soon. They will have to be targeted at the opening up and the deregulation of Japanese markets and, above all, the thorough cleansing of its financial system. The latter
1528
must include the establishment of clear and enforceable rules for the new regulatory authority prior to Japan's "Big Bang".
In this context it is essential that pressures from vested interests to delay the implementation of "Big Bang" should be resisted. The power of the yakuza or gangster must be curbed. Above all, the reforms must include legal requirements for transparency in business and banking and proper measures for corporate governance. It is a measure of how considerable these steps are for Japan that in Japanese there is no proper translation of the word "accountability".
Moreover, it cannot any longer be said that such matters are internal to Japan (or indeed to any other major economic power) in these days of globalisation. They matter deeply to the UK, to our industrial, scientific and banking businesses, just as Britain's intentions on economic and monetary union matter to Japanese businesses, particularly those with a significant investment in this country. Japan's industrial base is immensely strong, especially in industries with a major interest in exporting. But the self-perpetuating Japanese managerial oligarchies so common in large swathes of Japanese business will have to be reformed if Japan is to avoid major economic damage, with all the consequent and dire effects on the rest of the world.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has so eloquently pointed out, we have over the past two decades learnt much from Japan. I believe that there is every indication now that many influential Japanese think that they can with advantage pick our brains too. I hope that the Government will be ready to assist where they can—through sharing our experience of both general deregulation and the creation of non-governmental regulatory authorities, of the use of the private finance initiative, of reforms in systems of corporate governance and so on.
I know from personal experience that the Japanese are ready to listen to us. I hope very much that the Minister will give us an assurance tonight that this is in our national interest.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I greatly appreciate the excellent introduction to the debate by my noble friend Lord Trenchard for which I most sincerely thank him. While modern Japan has flourished economically and democratically, this debate has highlighted one hindrance to Britain's close friendship with Japan, one barrier in which a chapter of our joint history has not yet been fully closed on a terrible past. One of the most sensitive, difficult and painful issues of our time is the story of our former prisoners of war in Japan, many of whom still seek a formal and unequivocal apology from the Japanese Government as well as compensation so that those remaining survivors can end their days at peace with the past.
The pain and atrocity they suffered as captives in Japanese prison camps is still a vivid and daily experience for the survivors. One-quarter of those taken prisoner did not survive. It is incumbent on those of us too young to remember and those of us who were not

1529
yet born to ensure that we never forget what was endured by others so that we could know the blessing of freedom. In that context I fully endorse the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim.
Prime Minister Hashimoto gave an expression of deep remorse to people who suffered in the Second World War during the Prime Minister's trip to Tokyo and he announced that further resources would be made available to promote reconciliation. We on these Benches wholeheartedly welcomed that statement but regret the subsequent confusion about whether it was collective and made on behalf of the Cabinet or whether it was made personally by the Prime Minister. We on these Benches welcome the same active dedication shown by the present Government in continuing to work to resolve this most sensitive of issues. We regard the progress made on apologies as a natural advance on top of the work of successive governments.
Successive British and Japanese governments have regarded the question of compensation as legally settled by the 1951 San Francisco peace treaty which ended the state of war between the UK and Japan, although a number of former PoWs and civilian internees are pushing individual claims in the Japanese courts for additional compensation from the Japanese Government. The 1951 treaty gave the Allies the right to seize and to dispose of Japanese property within their jurisdiction, although this was done according to financial prosperity. The proceeds of Japan's overseas investments were taken in settlement of claims for compensation. However inadequate the terms may have appeared—indeed, they still appear so—Japan, economically ravaged by war, discharged its legal obligations. Whatever its historical rights and wrongs, its practical difficulties, and indeed the moral issues involved, the 1951 peace treaty continues to define the legal position on compensation today. Successive British governments have accepted that the question of compensation is covered by it.
I wish to mention the recent claims by veterans that they have uncovered documentary evidence in the Public Record Office at Kew that merits a new challenge to the compensation paid to surviving prisoners under the 1951 treaty. Article 26 of the 1951 treaty states that, should Japan make a peace settlement or war claims settlement with any state, granting that state
"greater advantages than those provided by that treaty"
those advantages should be extended to all other parties to the treaty. I understand that the Foreign Office has been conducting research into the historical facts and the legal implications of the documents, which we welcome. Can the Minister give the House an update on the Foreign Office's findings so far? As I understand it, the Government's preliminary legal advice suggests that nothing has changed and there will be no reopening of negotiations with Japan over payments. However, it would be most helpful if the Minister could give further details of what the Government's legal advice suggests and when the Government will receive a final opinion.
Whatever the legal buttress of the 1951 treaty, however, the previous administration took the view that it was not enough to close this sad and shameful chapter
1530
in history. Conservative Ministers discussed former prisoners of war with their Japanese counterparts. They expressed concern and explored possibilities for alternative, non-governmental initiatives. Our embassy in Tokyo, although unable to become directly involved in legal cases, has always helped ex-prisoners of war by offering advice and arranging meetings. I am pleased that under the present Government that is continuing.
The issue is once again in the spotlight as a result of the Emperor of Japan's impending state visit. Given that the Emperor has a non-political role under Japan's constitution, what steps have the Government taken to ensure that next week's state visit of their Majesties the Emperor and Empress of Japan will indeed be seen as testimony to the excellent state of Anglo-Japanese relations and that it will be a celebration of what the citizens of the two countries have achieved, as clearly outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and what they can go on to achieve in the future?
From these Benches we fully support any action which ensures that while we never forget the horrors of the last war and honour those who suffered and those who died, at the same time we build strong new ties with Japan that make such hostility unthinkable in the future.
I conclude by saying that differences between our two countries, whether historical or contemporary, should not be allowed to obscure the vast amount that Britain and Japan have in common. The twin histories of our two countries have shaped a common outlook on many issues. As island powers, Britain and Japan are, by history and by nature, trading nations. We are leaders of international commerce. As constitutional monarchies, as rightly pointed out by my noble friend, we share a commitment to democracy and a respect for tradition and stability, coupled with the capacity to evolve to meet new challenges. We share a belief in the continuing role of sovereign independent states and a sense of the international duty that properly falls to any major country.
We wish the visit of the Emperor and Empress of Japan every success. We warmly welcome the good relations between Britain and Japan that the previous government worked so hard to encourage, a relationship which I hope will be equally cherished and valued by the present Government.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for tabling this debate about our relations with Japan. Japan today is a key partner for the UK. The closeness of our relationship, which was highlighted by the Prime Minister's visit to Tokyo in January, reflects the transformation that has taken place in Japan over the past 50 years.
Japan is now the world's largest bilateral aid donor and the second largest contributor to the United Nations. It is a prosperous, peaceful and democratic country. In the field of international diplomacy, our shared values and similar objectives increasingly lead us to work together, sometimes bilaterally but more often in multilateral fora such as the G8 and the United Nations.

1531
As the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, reminded us, in the recent Iraqi crisis, for example, it was close co-operation between our diplomats in New York which produced consensus on the final Security Council resolution. On Indian nuclear tests today we are consulting closely. That does not happen by accident. It is the result of both our countries having similar approaches to solving the great problems facing mankind today.
The close relationship between Britain and Japan underpinned the success of the second Asia-Europe meeting in London last month. As co-ordinators for the summit preparations, we were able to share with our respective regional partners our experience of co-operation and the rewards it brings.
In many other fields, we can see partnerships between Britain and Japan. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, mentioned, there are exchanges on science. Our scientists are now engaged in some 200 collaborative projects. Britain's exports to Japan have risen rapidly in recent years, reaching a record of £4·3 billion in 1996. We export innovative products at the forefront of technology as well as more traditional items. We are working hard, with the support of the Japanese Government, to promote British goods in Japan.
A natural consequence of our growing commercial links is to find British and Japanese companies working together around the world. Our overseas aid agencies have similarly found ways to co-operate on projects from Bosnia to Africa, combining our skills and resources for the benefit of other nations.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, mentioned the contribution which Japanese inward investment has made our own prosperity. Just as important, perhaps, have been the new technologies and management styles which they have introduced to Britain, as instanced by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. This genuine partnership across cultures has been outstandingly successful.
As indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Gillmore, a quiet revolution is taking place in our relations with Japan which is laying the foundations for an even closer partnership in the future. Exchanges between the young people of Britain and Japan are blossoming. There are thousands of Japanese students studying in British universities and under the Japanese Exchange and Teaching programme there are over 1,000 British graduates in Japan at any one time teaching English in Japanese schools. These exchanges are creating a pool of thousands of young British and Japanese people with direct experience of each other's culture and each other's society. This familiarity is pervading our countries, encouraging contacts and co-operation at all levels.
Japan today is going through a period of economic difficulty, but that has not diminished the long-term commitment of world-class companies such as Toyota and Sony to the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, reminded us in a timely intervention. Such companies are part of the fundamental strength of Japan's
1532
economy. And, of course, they bring benefits to us, too. Over 40 per cent. of Japanese manufacturing investment into the European Union comes to Britain. Now more than 270 Japanese manufacturers are in Britain providing employment for over 65,000 people.
Short-term economic prospects, however, have been clouded by bad debts and financial markets and the reluctance of Japanese consumers to spend. The Japanese Government recognise this and have taken politically difficult measures to address the problems. We welcome the fiscal package announced last month to boost economic activity and improve confidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, reminded us, as he has done in previous debates in your Lordships' House, of the seriousness of the current Asian financial crisis. The Japanese Prime Minister, along with other G7 leaders, confirmed last weekend in Birmingham the importance he attaches to growth and stability. This is not only for our economies—that is, the G7 economies—but also for other economies in the world, particularly those in Asia.
In the medium-term Japan's deregulation programme has an important role to play in increasing efficiency and securing the economy's return to sustainable growth. Much has been done towards deregulation in Japan which we welcome. But we also have a unique expertise to share with Japan as its own version of the so-called "big bang" gets underway.
Several noble Lords, particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, today referred to the forthcoming state visit by their Majesties, the Emperor and Empress of Japan. This visit will be a celebration of the modern partnership between our countries and of the links which have been described in our debate this evening. The visit coincides with the British festival of arts, science, commerce and personal links which is underway in Japan. Already the festival has confirmed the rich vein of affection for Britain among Japanese people. Some 2 million of them have already visited festival events.
But, of course, there are the wounds from the past. Reference has been made in our debate this evening to the concerns of former prisoners of war and civilian internees. I am sure we all agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, that we must never forget the dreadful suffering and sacrifices by those held in Japanese prison camps. The noble Viscount was right to remind us that we all owe a debt to the courage of those who fought, who died and who suffered appallingly at that time.
On taking office, the Government raised the subject with the Japanese Government and made clear the feelings which it still arouses in this country. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, other colleagues and officials had intensive talks with their Japanese counterparts. The Japanese Government said that they fully appreciated the sensitivity of the matter, but stressed that the question of compensation had been settled by the 1951 peace treaty. When the Prime Minister visited Tokyo in January, the Japanese Prime Minister responded to our representations by making an official apology on behalf of his Government for the damage and suffering of the war. He repeated

1533
that to a British newspaper with a large circulation, and he announced a new package of measures to promote reconciliation between Britain and Japan.
These developments have been welcomed by the Royal British Legion and other organisations. Of course we understand and respect the views of those former prisoners for whom all of this is not enough, but we believe that it represents a significant step forward, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, indicated.
As Derek Fatchett said in another place on 29th April, we will continue to raise these matters with the Japanese Government as occasion offers and we maintain close contact with all groups that represent former prisoners.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked specifically about current legal advice on the reopening of the 1951 peace treaty. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the 1955 decision not to reopen the treaty, our legal advice is that it is not now in fact open to the Government to reopen the peace treaty, mainly because of the length of time that has elapsed.
However, I believe that there are other ways in which we can try to help. When the Prime Minister visited Japan in January, the Japanese Prime Minister announced a package for reconciliation. It included memorial visits to South-East Asia. The first of those trips is under way. The theme is remembrance and reconciliation. Groups of British and Japanese veterans will meet in Burma. There will be a chance for them to build friendships where once they were enemies. Central to this visit will be the joint memorial services in both British and Japanese cemeteries. We are very pleased that the visit is being organised by the Royal British Legion which has so much experience in arranging such trips. It offered to do so following its members' first ever and highly successful visit to Japan in March.
We have heard and discussed some of the many areas which constitute our special partnership with Japan today. There is much to celebrate when the Emperor and Empress of Japan visit Britain next week. I hope that they will be welcomed with warmth by the British people. There has been much written in the British press, and no doubt there will be a great deal more, about the tragic history of the war. We will never forget the sacrifices made by those who suffered in the Japanese prison camps. But there is also a time to look forward to the future, while never, ever forgetting the past.
I should like to end by quoting from the letter which the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, mentioned at the beginning of the debate, written by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, to the Daily Telegraph last week. The noble and gallant Lord said:
"We should now be looking forward in a spirit of reconciliation … For this country's good, as well as well as Japan's, we need to extend the hand of friendship. I hope therefore that when the Emperor … arrives in London, he will be received with the courtesy and understanding for which this country is renowned".
That is the hope of Her Majesty's Government, too.

School Standards and Framework Bill
8.43 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 8 [Reserve power of Secretary of State to secure proper performance of LEA's function]:
Lord Topemoved Amendment No. 45:
Page 6, line 46, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall by regulations specify the circumstances in which a local education authority shall be deemed to be failing to perform a function to an adequate standard.").
The noble Lord said: The clause gives the Secretary of State wide powers to intervene in a local education authority. We all accept, perhaps with varying degrees of reluctance, that those powers may be necessary. But I hope and believe that the Minister will assure us that they will be used only as a last resort.
The clause specifies that the Secretary of State may intervene in a case where an LEA is deemed to be failing to perform to an adequate standard. Nowhere in the Bill does it suggest what an adequate standard might be. It is reasonable that LEAs should know—the amendment suggests that it should be through regulation—what is expected of them and what will be deemed to be failure.
These are important and extensive powers for the Secretary of State to intervene, in effect to take away powers from a democratically elected body. I have accepted that there could be circumstances where that is necessary. However, in agreeing to the power, it is important that the Government give us some indication of what they consider to be failing to perform to adequate standards.
It is not only the view that this Government might take. I am sure that this Government will take a benevolent view and will use those powers only as a last resort. However, difficult though they might find it to believe now, there is a possibility—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, finds the concept hard to understand—that one day there might be another government who might possibly be less benevolent towards a Labour-controlled LEA, should there be such a body at that stage.
These powers are given to any Secretary of State. It is therefore beholden upon us to be clear what powers we are bestowing and what the Government have in mind when they refer to failing to perform to an adequate standard. I move the amendment in the hope that some light will be shed and to give the Minister an opportunity to explain exactly what the Government have in mind in seeking this power. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: As the noble Lord said, the clause gives the Secretary of State a reserve power to intervene to put matters right when he considers that a local education authority is failing in one or more of its education functions. Amendment No. 45 would require the Secretary of State to specify in regulations the circumstances in which an LEA may be judged by him to be failing to provide, in general or in particular, a function adequately. I understand what the noble Lord

1535
says. The amendment is no doubt intended to ensure that those powers would be exercised objectively with regard to proper criteria and with the fullest justification. We intend that to be the case. But perhaps I may give the noble Lord some reassurance about the kind of evidence which the Secretary of State would need to consider on those, it is to be hoped, rare occasions when he will need to decide on possible intervention in a local education authority.
When an LEA is thought to be failing, the Secretary of State may use his existing powers to order a full inspection of the LEA by the Office for Standards in Education before deciding whether or not to intervene. The evidence produced by Ofsted will provide an objective and comprehensive basis on which the Secretary of State may come to a decision on whether or not to intervene. Ofsted's report will be made public, making available to all the evidence on which any decision to intervene was taken. The example last year of Hackney LEA may be recalled. On that occasion on a voluntary basis the Secretary of State decided, with the agreement of the authority, to send in an improvement team to work with the LEA. That followed an Ofsted inspection that provided the Secretary of State with the evidence for making his decision. That was on a voluntary basis, but this gives it a power to do so without necessarily the co-operation of the local education authority. Nevertheless, Ofsted's criteria in all such situations are publicly available in the document and laid out in the framework for inspection of the LEAs.
Equally, the situation may arise where a seriously inadequate education development plan could trigger intervention in a failing LEA. Again there are published criteria for approval of education development plans and that again would provide some safeguards against undue interference such as the noble Lord fears. Also, to give a third example, the performance of an LEA could be questioned as a result of a complaint. Then the Secretary of State may decide to intervene, but only where the complainant can provide sufficient evidence. These powers are not new. Comparable powers already exist, and in those circumstances under Sections 496 and 497 of the 1996 Education Act.
If we were to attempt to specify all the circumstances under which an LEA could be deemed to be failing we would be faced with a substantial task. In each situation where there is failure there would be the possibility of intervention. In no case would the Secretary of State take his decision lightly and he would need to take account of all the available evidence, and much of that evidence, as I have said, would be made public. It is our contention that it would impede the Secretary of State in his responsibility to ensure that all children and all schools are receiving the education from the LEAs which they deserve if his power to intervene were to be limited to specific circumstances set down in regulations which would not be able to cover other circumstances which it may not be possible to foresee. We consider that we need the reserve power, but we cannot in regulations envisage all the circumstances where it might be required.
1536
I hope I have said enough to reassure the noble Lord, and that he will accept that in all those circumstances the Secretary of State would have regard to all published criteria and would give a full justification for his intervention. In the light of these reassurances I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas: I am rather puzzled by what the Minister said. I do not see anything in Clause 8 which would allow a Secretary of State to send in a hit squad à la Hackney. The provisions in this clause are all to do with existing employees of the authority. I do not see how under this provision the Secretary of State could, when this is in force, do with the authority of an Act what has been done in a voluntary way now. I do not see anything here which would allow that to happen, and perhaps the noble Lord will enlighten me.
Secondly, I do not see how the procedure set out here gets round the problems of a place like Hackney, which has rightly been described as "a conspiracy of incompetence", where the procedures for promoting and recruiting people were such that they made sure that nobody who was capable of doing the job better than the people who were already there was recruited. You are not dealing with a collection of people who may be capable of doing what the Secretary of State wants them to do.
Thirdly, if you are instructing on a temporary basis some employee of a local authority to do something which may be greatly disliked by the elected members of the authority, where are the loyalties of this person going to lie? Are his loyalties going to lie with the Secretary of State who has instructed him to do something or with the elected members, who after a year or two of interregnum will be back in control and, if he has done what the Secretary of State wants, will ensure his rapid departure? Surely his long-term interests will be in keeping in with the local elected members. I share the concerns which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has expressed but, listening to the explanation given by the Minister, I do not see how he thinks this clause is going to work at all.
Lord Whitty: In terms of the powers which are in the Act, the clause allows the Secretary of State to intervene to appoint persons to carry out functions which previously had been carried out by the LEA and to give directions to the officers of the LEA. Therefore, the powers are already there and there are also pre-existing powers, to which I have referred, under the 1996 Act. There is also the power to order a full inspection to provide the basis for intervention under Section 37 of the 1997 Education Act. So some of the powers are in this clause and others are in existing legislation.
The second half of what the noble Lord said referred to how officials of the local education authority, and presumably by extension schools, will react to that intervention. I think that if a local education authority were dealing with the Secretary of State in a serious way and was deemed to be failing in its function, then the responsibility of public officials, whether teachers or

1537
officials, must be to the Secretary of State's intervening measures in order to ensure that adequate education is provided within that local education area. Clearly we are hoping that in all such circumstances there would be co-operation from the local education authority, but there could be circumstances where there was a conflict. In such cases the powers are clear. The Secretary of State has the powers of direction and, if necessary, the powers of appointment within the LEA, and we would expect his directions to be carried out. Clearly the powers are there in this and existing legislation. I would hope that the conflict situation which the noble Lord outlines rarely arises but, if it does, the Secretary of State will take the necessary action.
Lord Lucas: I am sure it is my incompetence, but I should be enormously grateful if the noble Lord could point out to me exactly where in this Bill or in other legislation the Secretary of State will have power to appoint anyone to a local education authority or to give instructions to anybody who is not already an established officer or employee of that authority. I do not see anything in the Bill which enables people to come in from outside. I should be enormously grateful if the Minister could point me in the right direction.
Lord Whitty: I will give the noble Lord a fuller answer in writing, if he wishes. But under Clause 8(4) and (5) the Secretary of State can give directions to officers of the authority and can make sure that officers of that authority perform functions other than those previously designated by the authority. That can mean that an officer with the authority is given direct instructions or it can mean that somebody was put in by the Secretary of State to ensure that those functions are carried out. However, as I say, if the noble Lord, wishes to have further details I will gladly provide them in writing.
Lord Lucas: Yes; it is purely the point regarding the power of the Secretary of State to put in somebody else who is not already an officer of the authority to perform these functions. I should be happy for the noble Lord to write to me, but I should like to know exactly where that power comes from.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and I hope that, when he does write to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, he will send me a copy because I too would be interested, although that is not strictly the purpose of my amendment.
Reference was made to Hackney. I do not want to allow myself to be distracted into discussing one particular LEA or one example. But just to make the point, as the Minister said, what happened there was done on a voluntary basis, so that under the changed administration Hackney was, I think, in the top 10 of most improved LEAs. It might well be said, therefore, that Hackney was in a good place to start from in becoming one of the most improved LEAs. But nevertheless it was moving substantially and significantly in the right direction. One lesson to be drawn from that is this: it is always better to try to do
1538
these things voluntarily rather than by imposition, whether by hit squads or local officers. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that it puts an officer of an authority in a very invidious position if he has to act on instructions from the Secretary of State but in effect against his own employers, the LEA.
However, the purpose of this amendment was to seek from the Minister some idea of what the Government deemed to be a failure to perform to an adequate standard. I am grateful to the Minister for giving us information on that. Of course I accept what he says. These matters are difficult to put specifically in regulations, and one can rest assured that if regulations were drafted, very likely the first circumstances that arose would not be covered or envisaged by those regulations.
This was a probing amendment. It was an attempt for the first time in the process of this Bill to get the Government to say more clearly what they meant by an adequate standard and failure to perform to it. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. We shall read it carefully in Hansard and consider whether to seek further elucidation at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Education committees to include representatives of parent governors]:
9 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswoodmoved Amendment No. 46:
Page 9, line 3, after ("elected") insert ("without voting rights").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 47 and 48.
My honourable friends in another place are delighted, as we are, that the Government acceded to their suggestion that parent representatives on education committees should be representatives of parent governors. It is an important principle, and has already been established. My amendments build on that.
Amendment No. 46 seeks to oppose the principle of parents having voting rights on education committees. Again, the matter was discussed in the other place. My honourable friends proposed and defended that position. They felt, as we feel, that local education committees should be representative of the democratically expressed wishes of local people, and the only people with voting rights should be those elected for that purpose.
Responding, Mr. Byers thought that they should have voting rights because they are "consumers of the education service". We do not accept that argument. Challenged, he went on to say that elected members are personally liable for the way in which public money is spent, and it would be inappropriate for parents who do not carry that responsibility to vote on matters which have a financial implication. Since the great majority of decisions taken by education committees do have financial implications, it seems unlikely that the voting rights given to parent governors can often be exercised—in which case, what is the point of them?

1539
I stand on this matter of democratic principle; namely, that no pressure, or lobbying, group, however successful or significant, should unbalance the decisions of those members elected by the voting population.
The purpose of the second amendment is to probe Ministers and make sure that under present legislation the inclusion of teachers as non-voting representatives is still part of their purposes with regard to education committees.
Finally, Amendment No. 48 seeks an assertion that parent governors who have been elected or appointed by other parent governors should stay in dialogue with those who have elected them, and not, for example, with the political parties of which they may or may not be members.
It is interesting that among the papers arriving from lobbying groups is one from CASE, which very much supports this amendment. It states that parents should be both enabled and expected to consult parents in the area, and that that principle should be established on the face of the Bill. It would make clear that those representatives are expected to consult parents. It would help give the parent representatives the confidence that they speak for parents in the area. It would establish the right of parents to practical support from the LEA in carrying out their role of consulting with and reporting to parents. It would prevent cynicism eroding the initiative of having parent governors in the first place as representatives become remote from local parents.
As a member selected because of my community connections to serve on a hospital board, I have found myself in a position where I did not know whom I represented, to whom I should go or how I should consult the people I was supposed to represent. I feel strongly that this amendment addresses the difficult position of those who are not elected as representatives to a local authority or other body but who nevertheless are there as the result of a process of choice. They should be enabled, indeed required, to go back and consult with those who have put them into that position. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may address the final matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood; namely, that of the parent governor who is selected to sit on an education committee communicating with parents. It is simply not possible. I cannot think of a mechanism that would allow a single parent governor, or possibly two, since there are unlikely to be more, to do so. To take a county such as Kent, with nearly 2 million people and many hundreds of schools, what are the fora? How can those parent governors go back and consult with all the schools and parent bodies? In some very large counties we are talking about millions of parents. I cannot think of a mechanism. Are they to produce a newsletter? Are they delegates; or representatives?
My understanding is that they are voted as representatives for the time that they serve, and if parents find that their contribution on an authority is not what they want it to be, then it must be in the hands of
1540
parent governors within the authority to do something about it. Even if the consultation is only through the governors of schools, it is still a pretty tall order. They will be more concerned with taking notes and making sure that they take down all the information in an appropriate format than with making a contribution on a committee.
However, there is an important point on which I agree with the noble Baroness. I have grave reservations about parent governors being on education committees at all. There are serious problems in relation to that. There is almost a sovereign right of councillors who go out and talk to people on the doorstep and who are elected by their local communities to represent people on the education committees. I have found it difficult to remember a time during my experience on education committees when there were not parents. There were councillors who were parents, members of the education committee who were parents and officials who were parents.
As for the idea that somehow a parent is another person, when I was elected as councillor it was to represent the whole committee. When I served on education committees, one of my primary functions and concerns was how parents and their children were served by my local authority and in particular by my education committee. There is the suggestion that they should have voting rights and those rights should be confined to non-financial aspects. However, I find it difficult, going back in my memory, just as the noble Baroness did, to find any decision made by a committee that did not have financial consequences. It might have been the use of teachers' time or an aspect of the curriculum. Whatever the issue, there is a cost implication to the authority and/or the school.
It seems to me impossible to make fine judgments as to whether the people representing parent governors or parents could take part in the debate and vote. There would be constant calls on the county solicitor or some such body to make a determination as to whether it was appropriate for the person to vote. So there are huge difficulties. But there is something sovereign about a county councillor, district or parish councillor being voted in by the local community and being given the responsibility for the services of that council to the people they serve.
I hope the noble Baroness will agree with the only caveat I wish to add. There is a real role for county councils, and, within county councils, the education authorities, in meeting parents in fora and in meeting teachers. There are consultation groups in the authority I know best, Cambridgeshire, with the primary heads fora, secondary heads fora and parent groupings as well as all kinds of bodies. Public meetings are held all over the authority, some of them with statutory requirements and some being voluntary when a new issue arises. Therefore, local authorities find many ways of keeping in touch with their parent bodies. As long as they can be monitored from time to time to ensure that they are effective, that is the way to do it. The suggestion in the Bill is gimmicky.

1541
I agree with the points made by the noble Baroness. We have the Bill but the idea that such people should have voting rights would devalue the role of the councillor. I would not wish to do that.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, seeks to remove the voting rights of parent governor representatives. She is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. However, the Government believe that this would considerably weaken their impact on decisions taken by the LEA. We want to ensure not only that parents have a strong influence in discussions about education matters but that they can also play a full part in decisions taken by the relevant committees or sub-committees. Only by having a vote can they do so.
Parent governor representatives will be elected by their fellow parent governors from schools in the local area. They, in turn, have a mandate to represent the views of parents with pupils at their school.
We accept that parent governor representatives will make a difference to the vote on some issues. That is what we want to achieve. There would be little point giving them the vote otherwise. But we also accept that voting by parent governor representatives should not disrupt the committee's business and should not undermine local government democracy. There is little chance of this happening in practice.
Diocesan representatives already have a vote on the same committees to which parent governor representatives will be appointed. Local authorities have not complained about how they use their votes and, to the best of my knowledge, their contributions are welcomed. There will also be a number of safeguards to prevent any difficulties arising. On critical issues it is always open to a council to withdraw delegation to a committee and take the final decision itself. Also, as my honourable friend, Stephen Byers, the Minister for School Standards, pointed out when this was discussed in another place, the appointment of parent governor representatives with voting rights could not overturn the political majority on the education committee. If the size of the political majority on the committee were smaller than the number of parent governor representatives to be appointed, the council would be required to appoint more members from the majority party in order to tip the balance back again. We also propose to issue guidance at a later date which, among other things, will advise parent governor representatives on how to use their votes responsibly. I am sure that they will do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, proposes in Amendment No. 47 a requirement for teacher representation on local authority committees which deal with education business. I have some sympathy with that suggestion because teachers play such a vital part in determining the quality of education provided by schools. But parents are consumers of the service, and as such have the main interest in the range and form of provision as well as the quality of that provision. It is only right that they should therefore have a bigger say in the way the education service is run. Teachers are in
1542
a different category. Many teachers are also, of course, employees of the local education authority. They have interests to protect, but those will not necessarily always coincide with the interests of the pupils, whose needs must always come first.
Many councils have already co-opted teacher representatives on to their education committees. The Government hope that that practice will continue. Indeed, in the consultation paper issued last month, we gave a very clear signal to all authorities that we highly value the contribution made by co-opted members and that we see no reason why the introduction of parent governor representatives should result in any changes to the present composition of their committees. However, we do not propose to pursue that through regulations because of the varying range of interests which are relevant to different authorities. For example, other groups such as local business or community concerns, or further or higher education institutions could all make a legitimate case for representation on education committees. We believe that, apart from parent governor representatives and the existing diocesan representatives, co-option should remain a matter for local discretion rather than central direction.
Amendment No. 48 raises the issue of how those parent governor representatives will consult with other parent governors. It seeks a provision that would enable the Secretary of State to determine how such consultation should take place. Again, I have some sympathy with the intention behind this amendment. The Government certainly believe that parent governor representatives should not act in isolation. We believe that they should keep in touch, where they can, with those whom they represent. But we do not want to be prescriptive about who they consult or how they consult. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the practicalities of the amendment.
There are various methods of obtaining the views of local parents, for example through local parent forums or parent-teacher associations, or schools' annual parents meetings. Many options are available, and none is clearly the best. No other type of school governor or local councillor is under a statutory duty as to the way in which they are obliged to keep in touch with those they represent. It would be a mistake to introduce such a principle. We want parent governor representatives to adopt consultation methods which are most appropriate to local circumstances—in just the same way as other members of education committees are allowed to. My department proposes in due course to issue guidance on the conduct of parent governor representatives and will want to offer some suggestions about consultation, based on responses to the current consultation exercise. We believe that that should be sufficient to achieve appropriate consultation without introducing a requirement through regulations. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The Minister made a number of points and by the time she reached

1543
the end I had forgotten some of the import of what she said at the beginning. However, perhaps I may pick out one or two points.
Of course, diocesan representatives have voting rights. But the diocese provides a considerable input into church schools in the area. Therefore they have a financial responsibility for what they do and local authorities are obliged to consult and work with diocesan representatives about proposals for reorganising, closing, opening or changing the character of schools. In all those matters we are obliged to consult the diocese. The diocesan representatives therefore play a totally different role as providers of education from anybody else. They are more akin to local authorities than anybody else and I suspect that that is why they have voting rights in committees. It is a totally different matter to parent governor representatives having voting rights.
In relation to teachers, all we want to do is ensure that what is going through Parliament now does not prevent the existing arrangements whereby teachers are co-opted on to education committees. I believe that I received that assurance from the Minister. Most people who have served on education committees know how valuable the advice from those teacher representatives can be. They often know things which we do not know and, in particular, they know about education theory and how things work in practice in the classroom, which many members of education authorities do not know. I believe therefore that we have cleared up that point.
Perhaps I may return to parent governors. What we are suggesting is not that parent governor representatives on local authority education committees should be able to consult parents, but that they should be able to consult the parent governors who put them where they are. That is what the clause says. The amendment inserts,
"the way in which such persons"—
parent governor representatives—
"are required to consult parent governors whom they represent".
Members of a committee of an education authority or a committee of any local authority can usually get assistance from the local authority in getting back to the people who put them where they are now. He or she very often has the right to dictate letters or to have free postage. There are a whole series of accommodations which local authorities make for their elected members in order that they may keep in touch with their local electorate. If one has on the education committee of a county council, a borough council or a city council parent governors who are sitting as members, particularly if they are voting members—the matter becomes a little less acute if they are not voting members—they should be assisted in getting back to the people who elected them.
I do not agree that this is such a tremendously difficult thing to do. It depends on how big the local education authority is. If one is talking about matters which affect secondary schools, there will not be that many secondary schools—perhaps 50 at the most—in any major local education authority; and probably fewer
1544
because the number of secondary schools has been falling over recent years as they have been combined. It does not seem to be an intolerable thing to do to draft a letter to the parent governors in those schools who are listed in information available at county hall, the town hall or wherever it is and for them to get assistance in making sure that the letter gets to the place that it needs to get to.
That is the kind of thing we have in mind. How can representatives play a representative role if they are not assisted in getting back to the people whom they represent? Members of education committees who are county councillors, borough councillors, London borough councillors or metropolitan borough councillors are so assisted. Why should not parent governors be assisted in the same way? Why cannot we say something about that either in regulations or on the face of the Bill. This is quite an important point. I hope that the Minister will give it some consideration.
Baroness Blackstone: We have selected parent governors to be representatives and to take part in the election process because they already have a mandate from parents in their schools. That is something which the Liberal Democrat Benches both here and in another place have welcomed. But I must stress that parent governors will not go on to education committees just to represent the interests of other parent governors or of schools of which they are governors. They will be elected to represent the interests of parents whose children are being educated by the authority. Their introduction on to education committees, and with a vote, will give them a strong voice in discussions and rightly enable them to take part in decisions which affect the quality of provision and the range of provision in that local education authority. I am not sure why the noble Baroness is shaking her head.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I hate interrupting Ministers when they are speaking, but the quality and range of education that is offered by a local education authority involves decisions which affect finance. Therefore, under the very principles which Mr. Byers put forward in another place, the parent governors will not be able to vote on the matter.
Baroness Blackstone: I do not really accept that. Parent governors are elected in their own schools to take many decisions of a financial kind. They play a very important role. Those who are elected to come on to an education committee should be able to do exactly the same on an education committee. We want parents to have a genuine voice and a right to participate in decisions through being able to vote. That has been welcomed by many parents around the country.
As regards consultation, I do not believe that I can add very much to what I have already said. Of course, we would expect that parent governors do their very best to consult, as appropriate, but we do not believe that it is right to specify in regulations exactly how they should do that. That would be over-prescriptive and over-centralist in the way in which they perform their

1545
role. That is as far as I can go. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Young: This debate raises quite a number of rather important constitutional issues. I very much support what my noble friend Lady Blatch said. Whereas I am a complete supporter of parents on governing bodies, I am sceptical about the idea of elected parents, which, if I have understood it correctly, arises from indirect elections from parents who are already parent governors.
So there are three groups of people on an education committee: the directly elected councillors, the diocesan representatives, who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, explained quite correctly, have a very real role to play, and teachers, who are there by co-option. Now there will be parents through indirect election.
Everyone in local government knows that education committees are the biggest spenders. Therefore, in financial terms they are extremely important. They spend a lot of money. There will be people on the committee who are there by indirect election and not direct election from the community. That is rather curious because I thought that the Labour Party believed in that as a matter of principle.
If I understood the noble Baroness correctly, if the parent governors were in a position to hold sway on an education committee because there was a very narrow political balance, the council would have to put more councillors on that committee. My experience of local government goes back some time, but under our standing orders the number of people on committees was laid down. The idea that one could top up a committee because it suited one's purposes simply was not possible. I would have thought that it was a very undesirable constitutional arrangement.
The noble Baroness should look seriously at what the committee will look like. It would be helpful to have a letter setting out a committee of, say, 18 members, pointing out how the Government see the 18 split, or whatever is the appropriate number of members for the committee. I was in an authority in which there was always a very narrow political balance. So this is not an academic issue. This narrow balance could be represented by parent governors and it could be in relation to the biggest spending committee. Within the council there would be the committee putting up something which, if it proved to be difficult or impossible, would be overruled by the whole council. The problems that are being created are not academic but very real. They need to be looked at. It was helpful of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, to raise the issue.
Lord Lucas: I share the concerns of my noble friend Lady Young. I want to raise again the much smaller issue which the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, raised; namely, how the parent governor representatives pay their way. If they are to talk to, say, a thousand parent governors throughout the authority on even a quarterly basis, that will cost them the best part of £3,000 to £4,000 each out of their own pockets unless they have the right to have this kind of communication
1546
handled by the council. That is not a question which the Minister addressed at all. Therefore I ask her directly: will the parent governor representatives have the right to use council facilities to communicate with the people who elected them when that is necessary, if only to give a progress report on how things are going?
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness comes back on those points, perhaps I may respond to a matter raised by my noble friend Lady Young about the balance of a council and the number of people serving on committees. In an earlier response to this amendment the Minister said—if I understood her correctly—that the majority party would always hold sway because it could top up its numbers in order to counter-balance the number of parent governors. Many councils now are hung councils. One has only to consider the knife-edge balance on Islington Council, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, serves, to know that when the majority party increases by one, that has to be counterbalanced by an increase of two in the minor parties; otherwise one creates an imbalance. By "majority party", I mean not only the majority party itself but also the largest single party within a hung authority. If its numbers are increased in order to counterbalance the parent governors, an even greater imbalance is created for the minor parties because not only are they outnumbered by the majority party, but they are outnumbered to an even greater extent by the additional parent governors. My noble friend Lady Young is right. Messing around with the balance of membership on committees is not a simple matter.
In addition, it is not simply a question of looking for more councillors to serve on more committees, although that is not easy to do. County councils are very busy. They have many committees and many other departments. Trying to find more people to serve who are there only as a top-up to counterbalance the parent governors presents some real logistical problems. As my noble friend Lady Young said, they are not academic problems; they are very real, practical problems.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may deal first with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Yes, a parent governor who is elected to serve on an education committee will have the same facilities as any other councillor in terms of being able to communicate with parents, organisations, the local education authority and other parent governors. It is right that that should happen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, suggested that education committees spend a lot of money—probably more than is spent by most other local authority committees. That is true and I am glad that they have reasonable amounts of money to spend because, like many other Members of this Committee, we believe in the importance of education.
The noble Baroness also suggested that perhaps I should write to her setting out in more detail exactly what would happen in a hung council or a council where there was a very narrow balance of power. I am happy to do that. However, the Government intend to ensure

1547
that the balance is not disturbed by the small number of parent governors who might become members of an education committee. It is important that we do not exaggerate the number of parent governors who will serve on education committees. The number will be quite small, whereas, in my experience, education committees tend to be quite large compared with many other local authority committees.
Noble Lords opposite have not been as willing to concede as generously as I had hoped just how valuable it will be to have parent governors on education committees. I think that they have a role to play and a contribution to make. If they are to make that contribution, they ought to be able to vote also.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I must express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who raised a point that struck me forcefully when I was listening to the Minister's previous reply but to which I had forgotten to attend. I must confess that her thoughts and mine, and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, entirely coincide. I do not believe that it is possible to fiddle around with the representation of political parties on local authority committees. That is laid down in the Local Government Act which followed the Widdicombe Report. It must be proportional or as near proportional as possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is absolutely right. When there is no overall political control, or a very small majority—which is the situation now in a large number of education authorities—one cannot tinker with the representation without knocking askew representation in all the other committees. It is the total number of representatives of a political party on the committees as a whole which is at stake. If one begins to fiddle around with representation on the education committee one must alter it on planning, highways, social services and whatever else.
I do not believe that this point has been sufficiently taken into account. I disagree with the Minister on other points. I shall read very carefully what the Minister has said. I do not exclude the possibility of returning to these points at Report stage. I believe that this discussion has exposed a number of lacunae in government thinking on this matter. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Establishment of education action zones]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 49:
Page 9, line 40, after ("maintained") insert ("school or group or).
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 49 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. It will assist the Committee if at the outset I ask a number of questions. This is a policy which in terms of implementation is very well advanced and therefore information should now be readily available. I have read a number of times with very close interest in Hansard
1548
cols. 1146 and 1149 of the debate last Wednesday when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, responded to my concerns about education action zones.
Based on those columns I should like to ask a number of questions. The background to this debate is important in order for the Committee to view the other amendments in the context of those answers. When did the Local Government Association request to be involved in the assessment of education action zone applications, and on what ground was that refused? Why was it considered inappropriate for the Local Government Association to be involved formally? I was not aware that there was a panel. I understand that there is now an assessment panel involving DfEE administrators, Ofsted, the Government Offices of the Regions, the task force, head teachers, directors of education of local education authorities and business representatives. Given that the predominant bodies applying for action zone status were local education authorities—that has been borne out in practice—why was it thought unnecessary or inappropriate to include them as part of the assessment panel?
Who decided that the Local Government Association should see all the applications in detail in the large box that appeared on its doorstep? Most importantly, since when have officers of the Local Government Association, of which I am a vice-president, been asked to act as confidants to the Department for Education and Employment? What are my rights as a member of the Official Opposition vis-à-vis the rights of an official of the Local Government Association? Officials of the Local Government Association are no different from DfEE officials. DfEE officials are there to serve Ministers, just as local government officials are there to serve councillors.
Is it being said that Local Government Association officials have greater rights than their own councillors, or that local government officials and/or Local Government Association members have greater rights than I do as a member of the Official Opposition? At no time have I asked to see all the applications. I have merely asked who applied in the first place and have been refused that information. It is important that answers are provided to those questions. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave that information in the course of the debate on parliamentary process.
There is another piece of information which we need as background to this debate in order to clarify a matter once and for all and to lay to rest the ghost of the rumours which are flying about as a result of press comment following a meeting last week in London. What is meant by profit-making involvement in action zones? The Prime Minister said:
"Companies will he allowed to participate in the education action zones and to make a profit if they are successful".
That is private companies. He went on to say:
"Moreover, zones are run under the aegis of the education authority, so although nothing disturbs whether the company is profitable, companies will not make profits out of schools".— [Official Report, Commons, 13/5/98; col. 371.]

1549
If they are allowed to make a profit if they are successful but not allowed to make a profit out of schools, how will they make their profit if they become involved with an action zone which is part of a management which is running a school?
In the Guardian on 13th May—and I do not always believe what I read in the Guardian, but it did give direct quotes—DfEE officials confirmed that they are in talks with an American entrepreneurial company with a view to helping to improve education in failing schools for profit. The officials went on to say that they thought that the private sector running schools for profit might in fact be legal.
It is important that we understand at the outset the position in relation to the Local Government Association. We need to have clarification, for once and for all, as to whether we are talking about private sector involvement, which I know is part of the Government's planning; whether the companies are allowed to make a profit; and if they are, what are the criteria by which they would be allowed to make that profit.
Finally, will the noble Baroness confirm that action zones will be subject to EDPs? From the answers which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave earlier, I believe that they will be subject to EDPs. Is it right that LEAs have powers of intervention? In order to negotiate targets and to make them part of the plans, will the LEAs have monitoring powers and interventionist powers, with however light a touch? How will this Bill interrelate with action zones?
I understand that the employers of staff will always be the LEAs, except for those staff who are appointed directly by an education action zone. Therefore, any private company or consortium, a public/private company, or an exclusively private sector company and/or consortium, would not have employment rights over those staff who had been taken on from the LEA. Am I right in that understanding?
I have set out those questions at the beginning of the debate because this policy is so far down the road of implementation that it cannot be possible for the Minister to say that the information is not available. It is important that we have that information before I speak in detail to this series of amendments to Clause 10.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has expressed her concern about the role of the Local Government Association in participating in consideration of the applications for education action zones.
A letter was sent today by my noble friend Lord Richard to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, describing its involvement in the selection of EAZs and I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition has not been able to provide the noble Baroness with a copy of that letter. However, I shall refer to extracts from that letter.
The LGA was provided with details of the applications received. That was at officer level and was intended to be in confidence. I regret that that confidence was broken when an officer at the LGA
1550
wrote to leading elected members of all parties on 23rd April informing them that he had obtained a complete set of applications from the department. As a result, an official from the Conservative group office at the LGA was allowed to see the applications.
The letter says that the Government will today write to the promoters of each individual application asking whether they can seek the agreement of the parties associated with their application to make their involvement public. We welcome the opportunity to do so, but I am sure that noble Lords will understand that we do not want to be in the position of breaching the trust of those private companies which have indicated their support for this initiative.
As I mentioned earlier and, indeed, on a number of occasions when education action zones have been discussed, this is a developing area and the Government want to keep Parliament fully informed. Although the 60 applications have not yet been fully assessed, we would want to see full use made of the scope provided by Clause 10 to raise standards by introducing flexibility and innovation in schools, by tackling school exclusions and levels of truancy following the recent reports on these issues by the Social Exclusion Unit involving private partners in education and by linking with other government initiatives like the health action zones and employment zones.
The DfEE is in the process of considering the 60 applications, and, as my noble friend Lord Richard said in his letter to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, today, I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and will ensure that she receives the letter tomorrow. It will give her details of the locations covered by the applications. At the same time, my honourable friend Stephen Byers will provide the same information in a PNQ in the other place, which will be repeated in this Chamber, and he will be writing to Stephen Dorrell. That will enable us to set out and list all the areas from which applications for EAZs have come.
As I said, we shall also ask the individual applicants if they are happy for their application, and information regarding those involved in it, to be made public. As I am sure the Committee will understand, we do not want to be in the position of breaching the trust of those private companies which have indicated their support for the initiative. I am sure that the noble Baroness will accept that it is important for us not to do so.
I cannot give the noble Baroness the precise date on which the LGA requested that it should be involved in considering the applications. However, in the letter that I shall send her tomorrow, I shall be happy to indicate when that was. I can tell the Committee that the Government did not think that it was appropriate for the LGA to be involved in going through every application and giving advice in that respect. As I have already made clear, the department will look at the applications seeking suitable advice from wherever appropriate on their quality. We did not consider it appropriate for the LGA to be involved in that kind of process. I do not believe that that would normally be the case.
I should like to make it absolutely clear that we, or officials in the department, thought that it was perfectly reasonable in terms of the good relationship that we try

1551
to maintain with the LGA to give its officers access to the applications on an "in confidence" basis. I very much regret that that confidence was broken by officials at the LGA. Indeed, that was most unfortunate. I would not want a situation to arise in which the noble Baroness, or indeed any Opposition spokesman, would be at a disadvantage in relation to elected members in local authorities who are officers or who have positions, if I may put it that way, on the LGA.
I apologise for what has happened. As I say, I wish to do my very best to rectify this by giving the noble Baroness tomorrow a list of the areas from where applications have come. As soon as we can obtain the agreement of those who have made applications to making that public, we shall, of course, also provide a list. All schools will be part of an EDP. An LEA could therefore intervene in a failing school which is part of an EAZ. I believe the noble Baroness also made reference to that.
The noble Baroness mentioned profit-making. I can confirm that a private sector company might get a management contract for a fee, but for absolutely no more than that. I hope that I have answered the questions the noble Baroness asked and that we can now consider the amendments that she has tabled.
Baroness Blatch: We certainly cannot consider the amendments I have tabled until I have been given more clarification on the points the noble Baroness has just made. As to whether a company can make a profit in this regard, the noble Baroness did not mention or clarify the words of the Prime Minister. I repeat that he said,
"companies will be allowed to participate in the education action zones and to make a profit if they are successful … Moreover, zones are run under the aegis of the education authority, so although nothing disturbs whether the company is profitable, companies will not make profits out of the schools".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/5/98; col. 371.]
The only way they can make a profit in this regard is through being involved in the action zones, which involves the running of schools. Can they or can they not make a profit in this regard? If the noble Baroness is saying that a private sector company will obtain the management contract for a fee, but no more, on what is that fee based? What is that fee for? Will it be the money that is normally allocated for running a school? Will a company be allowed to make a profit out of that sum of money?
I return to the letter that I mentioned. It is not surprising that I did not see the letter because I was already in the Chamber when the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, arrived this afternoon. I was told quite firmly that the letter concerned the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. The letter was not copied to me. Before the noble Lord, Lord Richard, replies to that point, I must say that the noble Baroness has not answered the questions that I asked. I asked why it was considered inappropriate for the Local Government Association to be involved formally when it was agreed that the DfEE, administrators, Ofsted, government officers of the regions, the task force, head
1552
teachers, directors of education of LEAs and business representatives were all allowed formally to be part of the assessment panel, yet it was inappropriate for the Local Government Association, which represents all of the LEAs—the predominant body that has applied for action zone status comprises local education authorities—to be part of the formal assessment. Why then was it appropriate that it should receive every single detailed application in order for the Department for Education and Employment to make assessments and evaluations? I understand that the DfEE declined to do so.
The noble Baroness has not addressed the other question that I asked her as regards a breach of confidence on the part of an official of the LGA. The noble Baroness regretted that. What is the official of the LGA guilty of? Is the noble Baroness saying that it is possible for information to be imparted to an LGA official under confidential terms so that he cannot communicate it to the very people whom he serves—the local councils? That body exists purely to serve the needs of its councillors, just as the DfEE officials exist to serve the needs of their Ministers. So is the noble Baroness saying that it was even a breach of confidence to tell councillors that those papers existed and therefore it was an even greater breach for me to know that those papers existed with the Local Government Association?
Perhaps I could say to the noble Baroness that whatever comes in the letter tomorrow, I know the locations of the bids, I know who made the bids, I know what the costings of the bids are. I have that information now but sadly, according to the rules to which the noble Baroness is now referring, I received it illicitly. So my question is: what is the LGA official guilty of and what am I, as an official Member of the Opposition, guilty of? Why is it that I, as a Member of the Opposition, cannot have the material information that is provided for a third body under what is now described as "confidential terms"?
Baroness Maddock: I do not wish to delay noble Lords for long but I am rather astonished at this debate and the secrecy surrounding it. I thought that this Government were, like us, in favour of open government. I find it extraordinary that somehow businesses who want to be part of providing government services wish their names kept secret. As far as I am aware, in local authorities when private companies are bidding for local authority business, their names are there. Indeed, they have to be on a tender list. I am absolutely amazed at the tenor of the debate. Clearly we shall not get to the bottom of the matter tonight, but I shall be interested to hear the further replies of the noble Baroness. I feel sure that we shall be returning to it at Report stage.
Lord Skidelsky: Before the Minister replies, I wonder if I can add to those last comments. It seems to me that these are the vaguest and thinnest clauses dealing with major education reform I have ever seen in a Bill. Everything that has been said confirms my view that we have not had the information necessary to debate the quality of this legislation. Not only do we not know

1553
what has been happening about the bidding; there is actually no mention of bidding anywhere on the face of the Bill. I should like to ask the noble Baroness what is the purpose of education action zones. She talks about innovation. But will those zones have any freedom to innovate? We are told that of the 60 bids the vast majority are LEA led. We are told that the forums will be subject to the education development plans. We believe that the teachers will continue to be employed by the LEAs. LEAs will be the employer of the teachers in the zones. We are told that schools in the zones can vary their national curriculum requirements. But already schools have power to apply to vary these requirements.
It is a mystery what the education action zones are designed to achieve. I agree with the noble Baroness that they should have the freedom to innovate, and that they should have the freedom to vary things and to do exciting things. But the way the scheme has been set up, or at least the amount of information given so far in the Bill, does not suggest any of that. It does not suggest anything at all. It is rather as if we are listening to "II Trovatore". All the action is taking place off stage and unfortunately the tunes are rather better than in Clause 10 and 11.
Baroness Young: Before the noble Baroness replies, I am bound to say that this is the most extraordinary saga that I have heard in the course of an education Bill, and I have taken part in a great many in the course of my public life. I think it would be very helpful to the Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is present, if he can perhaps identify what was in this letter that has apparently gone to my noble friend Lord Cranborne, not copied to my noble friend Lady Blatch, which is presumably relevant. It would be helpful if he could explain.
10 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): I am delighted to do so. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, wrote to me on whichever day it was. I do not have the letter with me. A letter was drafted for me to reply to him. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, knew that the letter was on the way. I am told that this morning she inquired on a number of occasions as to whether the letter had arrived, so it came as no great surprise to her. Of course I replied to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, because he wrote to me. After the noble Baroness's intensive inquiries this morning as to whether the letter had arrived, I am staggered that she did not receive it before the debate started this afternoon.
The letter was passed to the Conservative Whips Office in the certain knowledge, so far as we believed, that the noble Baroness would see it. I find it extraordinary. I answered a letter which the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, wrote to me. Quite clearly, it was written to me at the behest of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I responded to the noble Viscount—he was the person who had written to me—and am now very surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, did not
1554
receive the letter about which she had been inquiring during the course of the morning. That is all I know about the intricacies of this argument.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord misses the point. First, there is a courtesy that the person to whom the letter is addressed sees the letter first. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was not in the House until about four o'clock this afternoon.
Secondly, the letter was meant to have been delivered before the weekend, then Monday, Monday afternoon, and then we were told Tuesday morning. I understand that it did not in fact arrive until lunchtime today.
Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has now thrown the letter across the Chamber at us. We can now see it.
Lord Richard: I am sorry to interrupt. My noble friend has not thrown the letter across the Chamber to the noble Baroness. He passed the letter over because she did not have a copy. It is a pejorative way of putting it.
Baroness Blatch: I apologise most profusely for putting it in a pejorative way. I did not mean it pejoratively against the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It was clear that the noble Lord had a copy of the letter. He brought it over so that we could read it.
I have now read the letter. It throws no more light. It does not answer the questions. The questions are these. Are we creating new rules now? Is the Local Government Association officer a hierarchical animal above the Local Government Association member or an official Member of the Opposition in this House? A Local Government Association officer was deemed not fit enough to be part of the assessment panel and was then told that he could have all the applications in detail so that an assessment could be given to the DfEE. Those people, having been told that they could not be part of the panel, saw the applications. Whether or not they read them I do not know, but they declined to be part of the assessment. They then wrote to their members of all political parties and told them that they had this complete set of applications.
As I have said to the Minister, I know that they are there with the Local Government Association. Is the noble Baroness saying to me that as vice-president of the association I have no rights? Does the noble Baroness say that the local authority members have no rights so far as concerns the LGA? The noble Lord, Lord Richard, stated in his letter that the poor Local Government Association official is being blamed for a breach: that he regrets this breach of confidentiality. Of what is the official guilty? Of what am I guilty now that I have seen the information for which I asked in my Written Questions?
Baroness Blackstone: I have not suggested that the noble Baroness is guilty of anything whatever.
It is a time-honoured practice for officials to share information at an early stage when an innovation of this kind is being introduced. I do not think that there is

1555
anything particularly unusual about that. I believe that it has happened in the past. This is an important new policy development which I believe the noble Baroness and other Members of the Opposition welcome and think important. I shall return to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in a moment. I believe that it is part of a mature administrative system that such information should sometimes be shared at officer level, and on that basis agreed confidences should not be breached. I do not think it should have been breached in these particular circumstances.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to endorse the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. We are talking about open government. We are talking about education action zones. What has emerged in the course of letters going backwards and forwards, with courtesies being observed and so on, is Byzantine in its complexity.
I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, about entering into a Committee stage when masses of people know certain things but they are not supposed to tell anyone else. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, on the Opposition Benches, knows nothing; I knew nothing until this morning beyond the vague rumours that were circulating. But, above all, this is a Government who believe in open government and this is the direct opposite of open government; and that is what concerns us. I am not interested in the letters exchanged by the noble Lord the Leader of the House and my noble friend Lord Cranborne. The concern on this side is that massive negotiations have been going on with your department—and I say this to the Minister, who is responsible, not to the Leader of the House. You are responsible for this: you did this—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is a convention in this House that noble Lords are referred to in the third person.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I apologise. Indignation goes too far. Let me say calmly that open government demands a rather clearer explanation than this. I do not accept the Minister's explanation that this is the way officials in a department behave. Quite honestly, it perplexes us; it perplexes the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock; and I think it worries quite a number of us. I think it has to be faced in the directions.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I might explain again what I thought I had explained earlier. The Government did not feel it was right to provide information about the promoters of all these individual applications without seeking their agreement first. I said earlier that I think this would have been breaching the trust of those private companies which had indicated that they wanted to support this initiative. For that reason we are now going to write to all the applicants for education action zone status to ask them whether they would be willing for us to make public their application.
1556
We have to remember that some of those applying for this status will fail, and I do not know whether they would feel it appropriate that their failed application should be published in the public domain. I think it is fair that we should ask them that first.
Baroness Blatch: Will the noble Baroness tell me whether they were asked if they minded their applications being seen by the DfEE administrators, by Ofsted, by government officers in the region, by the task force members, by the head teacher, by the directors of education of authorities, by business representatives—but not by me?
Lord Tope: I wonder whether I might intervene, although with some hesitation, because I do not want to delay your Lordships any longer since we have already spent about half-an-hour discussing private correspondence between two noble Lords, of which certainly I and my colleagues know nothing whatsoever. As this goes on I become more and more surprised, and so I must press the Minister on this.
I have many years' experience in local government and I have never known anything on this sort of basis. When companies apply and submit tenders, they know that the name of their company is going to be made public—not the amount, for obvious reasons, because that is commercial information—but they know that the name of the company is going to be made public. That is standard practice. It would be astonishing, and indeed the Government would come down on us like a ton of bricks, if we did not publish those names.
I would have expected that anyone applying to run an education action zone would assume that their application would become public knowledge. I would not have thought that they would have expected it to be confidential. Presumably they have some knowledge of how local government works and would expect that. I cannot understand why apparently the DfEE, when inviting those submissions did not tell people that this information was to be made public. It seems extraordinary that we should be here at this time of night making this sort of prolonged fuss to persuade the Minister, tomorrow, to ask those companies, individuals and organisations whether their names can be revealed. Why was that not done in the first place? Why is not standard practice? I find it quite astonishing.
Baroness Blackstone: I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that the private sector bodies involved in the education action zone applications are not tendering; they are joining in with a group of schools or a local education authority to bid for funding. That is totally different from tendering. I am sure that, on reflection, the noble Lord would agree.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, suggested that the applicants for education action zone status would not have known that there is a group of people, including DfEE officials, and a small number of advisers who have been selected because of their expertise in these matters to support DfEE officials in making judgments about the quality of these applications. I am sure that all the applicants would have thought, indeed did think,

1557
because it was made perfectly clear to them, that there would be a group of such people making those judgments. I do not think that the noble Baroness's remarks are in any way valid. She used words such as "Byzantine". I do not accept that.
To repeat, it is a central government panel of the DfEE, Ofsted, government offices, and the standards task force. Those people are all involved, rightly and legitimately, in assessing the way in which public money should be spent. That is quite different from the LGA being involved in assessing applications from local authorities. It would put the LGA in a rather difficult and invidious position to involve it in the actual process of selection. I am sure that on reflection noble Lords opposite will agree.
I wonder whether, in the light of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, we may go on to consider the amendments on Clause 10. Perhaps I may then respond to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, about the purpose of education action zones. Indeed, perhaps I may do so now.
Education action zones are at the heart of our—
Baroness Blatch: If the noble Baroness is moving on, I am afraid that I must continue to press her on this matter. She did not mention all the people involved in the assessment panel as I understand it. She did not mention the government offices, the task force, the head teacher, the director of education of an LEA and business representatives.
The LGA was not part of the formal assessment panel. That was made clear by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Therefore, were the applicants told, or asked for their permission, that their applications in total could be sent to the Local Government Association? If they were told, why was it that we could not have very modest information? I never at any stage asked to see all the detailed information-I am not making an assessment; it is being made by an assessment panel. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has said, I simply asked whether an application had been made by the local education authorities, non-local education authority interest or by commercial and business interest. I was not even asking who the applicants were or which LEAs were involved. However, I was told that I could not have that information.
First, were the applicants asked whether the information could be passed to a non-assessment panel member—that is, the Local Government Association? What is the convention that now says that Local Government Association officials—not members, but officials—can have information from the DfEE that is denied to their members and denied to me? Will the noble Baroness say what was so secret about the names of the applicants, or merely whether they were LEA or non-LEA interests? What was so secret about that information that it could not be imparted to me?
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I do not think there was anything particularly secret about the applications. As I said, there was a process of consideration and
1558
assessment of 60 applications, when only 25 could be successful. In the circumstances, the Government judged that it was right and proper to wait until that assessment had been completed and then make an announcement in an orderly way about who the successful applicants were.
The question was put by the noble Baroness about whether the bidders were asked whether bids could go to the LGA. The answer is no. As I said before, the bids were sent to the LGA in confidence. The panel entirely represented central government, if I may say so. I have already listed the groups that were represented or are represented on the panel, including government officers, whom the noble Baroness suggested I had omitted.
I hope that we can now move on to discuss the substantive amendments on Clause 10. Then I can explain to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, the purpose of education action zones. We hope that they will bring additional support in areas which are facing particular social and economic challenges. In too many of those areas, existing strategies for improvement are simply not working quickly enough and we are determined further to empower local schools to put things right.
In finding new ways of working to respond to these challenges, action zones will become test beds for wide-ranging educational reform. The legislation we are debating today will provide an enabling framework for schools to do whatever works in order to raise standards. I have no doubt that a number of valuable lessons will be learned from the strategies we will see developed within action zones and we shall want to put these lessons to good use in designing the schools of the future.
For action zones to achieve their fullest potential, a great deal of work will need to be done. We shall be asking all those involved—both the schools and their partners—to give to this programme their creativity and their willingness to work together. The commitment we shall be asking for will come from all the sectors involved: from LEAs, businesses, parents, voluntary sector groups and, above all, from the schools themselves. No school will be forced to join an action zone. Indeed, schools must convince the Government of their determination to take full advantage of the funding and freedoms offered by the policy before a zone will be awarded to that area.
The recent application round produced a very healthy response from across the country and a wide range of exciting ideas for schools in zones. Indeed, in recognition of the quality of the applications we received, the Government recently decided to increase their contribution to each zone, I am pleased to say, to up to £750,000 (with up to £250,000 coming from the private sector). As well as additional funds, of course, schools in action zones will enjoy a number of additional freedoms. As the noble Lord will be aware, they will be able to vary teachers' pay and conditions in ways which will reward excellence and attract staff to consultancy posts or hard-to-fill existing vacancies. They will be able to use the forum creatively to co-ordinate the work of these consortia of schools. Some zone schools, for example, may choose to pass or

1559
formally to cede powers to the forum so that it becomes a kind of supra-governing body for all the schools involved. In other zones, governing bodies will choose to retain their existing powers but, through the forum, they will set joint targets for improvements across the zone. Finally, zone schools might opt to take advantage of the freedom to vary the national curriculum so that it better suits the needs of the local community.
I hope that that answers in some detail the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. I should now be grateful if Members of the Committee opposite were able to go forward and move their amendments.
Baroness Blatch: In a sense, what the noble Baroness is saying is a repetition of what she has said before on these matters. I still want an answer as to whether or not a private contractor will be allowed to make a profit.
Baroness Blackstone: I believe I have already given that answer. The answer is no. They will be paid a fee. They will not be allowed to make a profit in the normal sense. As I have said before, they will be allowed to receive a fee.
Baroness Blatch: The Prime Minister therefore was wrong when he said on 13th May that schools will be allowed to participate in the education action zone and to make a profit if they are successful.
Baroness Blackstone: They will be receiving a fee and will make money from that fee. I believe that that is what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister meant.
Baroness Blatch: Can the noble Baroness say what is the difference between making money and making a profit?
Lord Henley: Answer!
Baroness Blackstone: I believe I answered the question.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness said that these companies will not be allowed to make a profit. On 13th May, at col. 371 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said,
"companies will be allowed to participate in the education action zones and to make a profit if they are successful".
Is the noble Baroness saying that they will not be allowed to make a profit? When she says that they will not be able to make a profit, but will be able to make money, will she define what the difference is between making money and making a profit, as the Prime Minister said?
Baroness Blackstone: I have nothing further to add to what I have already said.
Baroness Blatch: Those who read Hansard will make of it what they will. The noble Baroness gave a different answer from her right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
1560
Amendments Nos. 49 to 51 allow a single school to be taken over by a third party; whether or not that is a private concern, it is a third agency. It seems to us that it is consistent with the talks taking place in the DfEE at the moment with private bodies, with the possibility of making a profit—the noble Baroness has not yet denied that—to allow the flexibility of not simply a consortia of schools, but as few as one school to take part.
I know that talks have been taking place with the DfEE because I spoke to one of the participants who went to see the DfEE in relation to the possibility of turning around a particularly difficult school that is failing by anybody's standards—either the DfEE's or the local education authority's. On past record, certain bodies have been singularly successful in using their talents to work with a school to improve education and the great beneficiaries have been the children themselves. Given that the DfEE is apparently open-minded about the situation, we believe it to be important, at least in this Bill, to enable the possibility for one or a group of schools to be included in the new policy.
That relates to Amendment No. 49. Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 are consequential. There is one quite disturbing aspect of the Government's plans for EAZs. As there are only four clauses in the Bill to go by, it is difficult to make any judgment about what the detail will be. However, I notice that nowhere does it appear that the consent of parents is involved in any of this. If one accepted that a single school should be taken on by a third party, it is important that parents at least have the benefit of, first, being consulted and, secondly, having their opinion taken.
I happen to know of schools that are said to be participating in bids—I have now seen all the bids—where individual governors do not even know that it is going on. I attended a meeting in the past three weeks when participants met in a public house in London, yet a governor of one of the schools represented at the meeting did not even know that her school was involved.
Many thousands of parents simply do not know what is going on. They are not aware of the policy and they are not aware of what third parties are discussing on their behalf. There are many teachers who are hearing what is going on third hand or fourth hand and are simply not in the picture. That does not seem to be the best way of setting up a consortium which is there precisely to bring about improvements in educational standards and to improve the lot of children in those schools.
My plea is that all the governors of schools should be in the picture. Parents should certainly be in the picture and their opinion should be sought. Certainly, all teachers should be in the picture, particularly when the national curriculum could be disapplied. That would have an impact on the children, because who would determine what would take its place? In the case of teachers, pay and conditions could be disapplied. I know that in one of the back-up papers the noble Baroness said that there will be consultation at the time. I suggest

1561
that there needs to be preconsultation before an action zone is set up at all. The specific point in my Amendment No. 49 is that there should be flexibility for there to be as few as one school and as many as up to 20, which is proposed by the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: These three amendments are designed to allow individual schools to become action zones in their own right. I am not unsympathetic to the idea that more schools may like to take part in an action zone, but to set up "zones of one" would be to overlook a large part of what the policy is really about.
Education action zones are about groups of schools in disadvantaged areas working together to raise standards across the zone. Action zones are intended to support and encourage the development of effective working partnerships, both between the schools themselves and with the forum members they have drawn in from the public, private and voluntary sectors. In action zones, schools will set targets for the zone together; they will devise joint strategies for improvement; they will operate by consensus through an action forum; and they will work together, across phases and institutions, on specific local initiatives.
Allowing schools to become zones individually misses the point of what zones are about. They are about partnerships and working together to come up with creative and interesting ideas. I see little point in creating an action forum, specifically designed to co-ordinate work across a group of schools, if there is only one school in the zone.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about parents and whether they had been consulted. It seems more appropriate to respond to that point when we reach Amendment No. 54A. I hope that she will find that acceptable from the point of view of trying to be orderly. In the light of what I have said about the importance of groups of schools working together, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: In the light of the answer the noble Baroness has given, may I ask her another question? It is well known that DfEE officials are actively discussing the possibility of a single school being taken on by a third party with a view to improving education for those children. If the noble Baroness is not prepared to accept it being called an action zone, is she receptive to an amendment being brought forward to the Bill, not under the aegis of action zones per se, but to bring forward the possibility that a single school could be taken over by a third party which could include a public and/or private or voluntary concern?
Baroness Blackstone: I shall be happy to look at any amendment that the noble Baroness wishes to bring forward either at the next stage or at a later point in the Committee. I shall be happy to examine it and see
1562
whether it is acceptable. Until the amendment is tabled it is hard for me to give a categorical response as to how the Government would respond.
Baroness Blatch: My question was whether the noble Baroness was receptive to the notion. If officials are actively considering the possibility of a single school being taken over, then all one would put into the Bill is an enabling power to allow that to happen. It does not necessarily have to happen because at the end of the day the DfEE has the final say on even the action zones, let alone on single schools. Is it going to be possible or are the people addressing the DfEE talking in a vacuum and there is no intention of permitting a positive response through this Bill to the idea of turning around a single school that, by anyone's judgment, is deemed to be failing?
Lord Lucas: Or is it that officials are discussing the matter in confidence and therefore are unable to discuss it with the Minister?
Lord Skidelsky: It is a shame in a way that the grouping has meant that we have to have two discussions on exactly the same point at widely dispersed intervals. In Clause 12 I have an alternative kind of amendment designed to achieve the same purpose as that of my noble friend. We ought to have a combined discussion. We shall have to come back to it in half-an-hour or so.
Baroness Blackstone: I am very sympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky says. In the groupings that the Government put forward his amendment was grouped with those of the noble Baroness, but then de-grouped. It is the absolute right of the Opposition Front Bench so to do.
Perhaps I may respond again to what the noble Baroness said. Of course, the Government will look at any amendments that she wishes to table, but an amendment of the kind she describes has nothing to do with education action zones. They are designed to be groups of 10 or 12 schools working together with various other organisations, perhaps one or more private companies or voluntary organisations, to try to collaborate to raise standards. What she is discussing seems quite different. There can be no question of a private firm taking over a single school.
Baroness Blatch: That final statement makes it absolutely clear. Are serious talks going on in the department with a view to a company taking over a single school? An answer to that question would be enormously helpful. The noble Baroness says that there is no question that a company could take over a single school. I accept that as a statement of fact now it is on the record. Are talks going on in the department to that effect?
Baroness Blackstone: I do not think that that has much to do with the amendments. If we are to make progress at half-past 10, it is right to try to stick to the amendments on the Marshalled List rather than

1563
introduce issues that do not really relate to them. Discussions go on between the department and organisations, across government and outside it all the time. As a Minister in the department I cannot comment on every conceivable discussion that may be going on. As a former Minister, the noble Baroness will be aware of that and, no doubt, is sympathetic to it. As far as I know, there is no discussion about a private firm taking over a single school.
Baroness Blatch: I understand the point that the noble Baroness has just made: she cannot be responsible for everything going on in the department. However, it seems that the Guardian, the Daily Mail, the Mirror and all the other newspapers know about it.
Having said that, I am afraid that I find it almost offensive that the Minister said that that has nothing to do with the amendment. The amendment seeks precisely to allow a single school to be taken on by a third party—voluntary, private and/or public—in order to address failing schools. This part of the Bill—albeit only four clauses—is about addressing failing education. The Minister rightly said that education action zones represent more than one school and that they will be established in areas where education is failing. However, having seen some of the applications, I regard that as a loosely defined criterion. The Minister said that this matter has nothing to do with the amendment and that we should move on to matters more pertinent to the amendment. My remarks could not be more pertinent to the amendment, which relates to a single school being taken on by a third party. However, in view of what the Minister said and in the light of the unfolding saga, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Hooper): I apologise for having assumed that this amendment had been moved prior to my taking the Chair. Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
[Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.]
[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 52 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 52A:
Page 9, line 42, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall extend any disapplication of statutory provisions or regulations granted to schools in education action zones to other individual schools or groups of schools which apply to him for such a dissaplication.
() Where a disapplication of statutory provisions or regulations is granted to an individual school or a group of schools without education action zone status such school or group of schools may also be granted the status of the employer of all teaching and non-teaching staff at the school or group of schools.").
1564
The noble Baroness said: As we understand it, the policy is that action zones should be located in areas of the country where education is failing. It seems to me that if one can disapply the national curriculum and pay and conditions agreements in an area where education is failing, there must be an even stronger case for saying that where a school can convince the Secretary of State that it is delivering good education which is entirely satisfactory to the Secretary of State, the disapplication provisions should apply. I cannot think of a reason why the provisions could be disapplied for failing schools in areas where education is failing but could not be disapplied in areas where education is succeeding and where good and successful schools would like to innovate further in order to be even more successful. I hope the Minister will consider that point.
Turning to the second subsection of the amendment, referring to who employs the teachers, we seem to have the worst of all possible worlds in that in come the third parties—whether that is the LEA plus a consortium of people or a private concern plus the LEA plus a consortium of people—to manage an education action zone with the LEA as the employer. If education development plans apply, and if intervention powers apply to the quality and monitoring of education within those schools, those who are innovating and who are in the business of improving standards of education in those schools are not being given a great deal of freedom if they are not given the power to hire and fire staff, both teaching and non-teaching. It is, sadly, a fact of life that where education fails that is not always because the children cannot or do not learn or because not all families are supportive. Sadly, it can sometimes be because the quality of the staff is not what it should be.
We were all depressed by the Answer the other day to a Question about the fast-tracking procedure for removing seriously incompetent members of staff. According to that Answer, it seems that that policy is some way from being implemented. It appears to be very much part of a package. If one has responsibility for running schools one must have the power to exercise that responsibility; in other words, one must not tie the hands of these people behind their backs. The very thing that they cannot do is reorganise the staff in such a way that education in those schools is improved. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may take the amendment in two parts. The first seeks to extend action zone freedoms to other areas; the second seeks to change the employer of staff. I very much welcome the support for some of the principles of education action zones which is implicit in these amendments. I, too, am keen to encourage creativity and innovation throughout the education system. My concern, however, is to ensure that change and experimentation in schools are introduced with proper care. Action zones will be test-beds for the schools of the future and as such will be expected to go beyond the many existing flexibilities that are already available to other schools. I say without hesitation that the success of zone schools will inform

1565
future education policy. We shall be keen to ensure that the lessons with which they provide us are widely disseminated to other schools around the country.
As to disapplication of the teachers' pay and conditions Act, this will help to provide models for how recruitment and retention can be improved—which is terribly important if we are to raise standards in schools—and how schools in challenging areas can have more of the best teachers than they currently attract. It is a rather sad fact that many of the best teachers are not teaching in some of the particularly challenging and difficult areas of the country. We hope that we can attract more such teachers to those areas. The education action zone experiment will, among other things, provide valuable evidence for the school teachers' review body.
But action zones are pilot programmes and are intended to be areas of controlled innovation. They are to be targeted where support is most needed. For these reasons, it is surely only prudent to monitor and evaluate progress and select them very carefully on the basis of need and the quality of proposals put forward. I am sure that the Committee agree that that is the right way to proceed.
Schools in all areas of the country were invited to apply for action zones and many of them took up that challenge. This is an important and exciting initiative and we do not want to rule out any future useful contributions. That is why, subject to the comprehensive review, we hope to expand the programme during this Parliament to include other groups of schools and other areas. I am sure that the expansion will provide us with an even wider range of new ideas and valuable lessons, but it must be managed carefully.
Turning to the second part of Amendment No. 52A, the Committee may well be aware that in practice all governing bodies act as the employer of their staff, unless they have had that privilege removed for failing to provide an adequate education or because of unfortunate financial mismanagement. In practice, this would make very little difference to an individual school. Where a group of schools applies I fear that this can lead to confusion over who actually is the employer, unless the group has a separate legal entity. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the quality of staff is very important. For those reasons, we have decided that if an education action zone wishes to suspend normal teachers' pay and conditions it can do so. Governing bodies would know that they are losing their employment powers. That would reduce the number of governing bodies wanting to take part. Given that participation is voluntary, it is important that those governing bodies have a choice. Otherwise, there may be a reduction in the number of schools applying. If they want to cede that right, that is fine and is provided for in Clause 12(2)(b). However, it is for them to decide whether they want to cede it.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: I was extremely interested in the Minister's reply to the amendment. She has told us carefully that the Government are concerned to take
1566
proper care in setting up education action zones. We have made it clear that we support the aim of education action zones but throughout we have been rather concerned about how they will operate and how democratic accountability will be maintained.
My concern this evening, particularly on this amendment, is to keep democratic accountability. The Minister was obviously more concerned not to go ahead too quickly and was being cautious. But I did not hear her mention anything to do with democratic accountability.
Earlier on this evening, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was talking about the merits of local education authorities and how they could best deal with money for buildings and so on. There were several occasions on which she was singing their praises. This measure seems to me to work against keeping good democratic control through local authorities. That is one real concern which some of my colleagues and I have about education action zones. It is a matter which we shall pursue on the next set of amendments which deal with them.
I am disappointed that the Minister does not recognise that there is a problem, if we are not careful, in relation to where that leads us in the democratic process in the future.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that that matter arises on the next set of amendments. It may make sense for me to respond to those amendments when we reach them.
Baroness Blatch: I do not see any inconsistency here. This measure will bring about a diffuse accountability. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that she is in favour of action zones. There is a movement away from local authorities. Those schools will move away from local authorities. The noble Baroness will be greatly enlightened when she sees the list. The schools are to be run by a consortia of third parties. The running of those schools will be such that the LEAs will continue to involve them as part of their education development planning. They will continue to have a role in terms of intervention and monitoring the quality of education. They will continue to employ the staff.
In fact, one wonders just how radical, interesting and innovative this policy is. It sounds as though a third party is being given this exciting and challenging job to do which will change quite dramatically the quality of education in areas of the country which have dogged governments going back many years. But they are not to be given the powers to do that. One either believes in the policy or one does not. If one believes in it, then it seems to me that one should place the necessary responsibility and accountability within that body. There should not be that diffuse separation of functions. The LEAs are losing those schools in one sense, but not quite, and thap is sufficiently not quite to tie the hands of the third parties which are there taking on the job of innovating and improving the lot of children in those areas.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, I believe that this is an exciting adventure. It is being implemented in the most inefficient, incompetent and

1567
secretive way. It will not work. I believe that there is serious coercion going on out there and, indeed, I can prove that that is so. It will be for me to bring forward the evidence to sustain that allegation. I shall do so. I also know that there are many people who ought to be aware of what is going on but who do not know the facts. I am not just referring to myself in that respect. I was quite deliberately slighted by the Minister. When I saw the applications, I could understand why it was that I was not meant to see them at this stage.
I have to tell the Minister that I am disappointed by what she said. It would seem that areas of the country where education is failing will have all of these powers to disapply the national curriculum as well as pay and conditions of service. However, the Minister is not prepared to consider the extension of such provisions to schools which are successful and want to be even more so, thereby broadening out opportunities for young people. I shall reflect on the Minister's response. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Maddockmoved Amendment No. 53:
Page 9, line 46, at end insert—
("() When the three- or five-year period is concluded, it shall be the duty of the local education authority or authorities originally responsible for the participating schools to devise reasonable transitional arrangements either—

(a) to return the participating schools to the control of the local education authority or authorities; or

(b) to establish by agreement with the governors of those schools other appropriate arrangements for the management of those schools.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 54 and 55. However, perhaps I may return for a moment to EAZs. It is not surprising that authorities and other people are interested in bidding for them because it is a way of getting more resources into schools in areas which badly need them. It is right that we have welcomed the idea behind EAZs, but it is also true to say that, during the Committee stage in another place, we proposed amendments which would have ensured that LEAs were very much part of the process and that they would not drop off the end at some future date.
Amendment No. 53 relates to what will happen at the end of the period during which schools are involved in EAZs; in other words, what will happen to the participating schools at the end of the process. The amendment is set out in two parts. The LEA, which is responsible, must devise transitional arrangements,
"to return the participating schools to the control of the local education authority or authorities",
as the case may be, or,
"to establish by agreement with the governors of those schools other appropriate arrangements for the management of those schools".
The purpose behind the amendment is to provide at least a skeleton of legislation under which those schools which have been EAZs may return to normal.
Perhaps I may point out to the Minister at this stage that what concerns us most is what will happen to LEAs in the future if many EAZs are established. For example,
1568
where is the future for LEAs? Perhaps it is part of the Government's plan that they do not particularly want to have LEAs in the future. I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments in that respect because it is a matter of concern to some people.
Education action zones will be established for three years in the first instance. However, with the agreement of the Minister, they can go on for another two years. However, at the end of that period there could be a potential crisis. How will education action zone schools survive that post-zone period? It seems likely that some of their staff will perhaps have been paid rather more than other teachers. If the LEA then resumes direct responsibility for such schools, how will that financial burden be met? We cannot really expect those teachers to accept reduced salaries. So will they just leave? That is one of the areas which we are anxious to pursue when considering what happens at the end of the period for an education action zone.
Undoubtedly benefits will be gained by schools belonging to an education action zone. How can those be retained when a school ceases to belong to an education action zone? What will happen as regards the input from commerce and industry? I hope the Minister will enlighten us on those points. The amendments we have tabled propose alternatives for dealing with this matter. As I said in my opening remarks, we are anxious to get a provision on the statute book to determine the position of a school that no longer has education action zone status.
I now turn to Amendment No. 54. Under the Bill as drafted the Secretary of State can add to the number of schools in an action zone, but there is no provision for a school to leave an education action zone. For example, a governing body may wish a school to be removed, or other participants may no longer wish a certain school to participate in an action zone. This amendment would allow the Secretary of State—where a governing body has asked him to do so—to remove a school from an action zone. The decision to do that would rest with the Secretary of State; there is no question of failing schools removing themselves from an action zone. I know that during the debate in the Commons the Government were concerned that schools might be able to benefit from the extra funding of action zone status and then try to remove themselves from the zone. I believe this amendment addresses that worry. In the rare instance where a school becomes unhappy in a zone and the relationship with others in the zone may have broken down to the extent that the effectiveness of the whole zone may be undermined, the Secretary of State can—under the amendment—permit the school to leave the zone. It is not expected that such a provision would be used often. It would be used only in the rarest of circumstances. Nevertheless we think that it should exist in the event that it is needed. Some discussions we had earlier tonight revealed that we need to consider much more carefully how education action zones will operate.
Amendment No. 55 seeks to ensure that whatever the Secretary of State may do in establishing or ending education action zones, the local education authority is properly and adequately consulted at each stage. We are concerned about democratic accountability in the future

1569
in the event of an increasing number of education action zones being established. The Local Government Association and my colleagues in another place have supported the Government on the establishment of education action zones, but it is clear that a great deal of detail still needs to be considered as to how schools join education action zones. Tonight some of us have been somewhat concerned at the secrecy surrounding that. There have been suggestions that I and my colleagues may be surprised to learn who is applying for education action zone status. I look forward to finding out who it is.
Obviously there is a great desire on the part of all those involved in education to improve standards in our schools. If there is an opportunity to obtain extra resources to do that and to work together in partnership with others to improve standards in innovative ways, people will want to take advantage of that. I urge the Minister to consider carefully the amendments that we have tabled. We believe they would enable education action zones to operate in a satisfactory way. It has become clear that there are grave concerns among all those involved about how they will operate. I hope that the Government will look favourably on the suggestions here which are intended to be helpful for the future of education action zones.
11 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has raised some interesting points. Again, they are not covered in the four meagre clauses in this Bill. That there should be transitional arrangements that are appropriate is essential. If at the end of a three or five-year period these schools are to be returned to local authority rule and the education action zones do not enjoy an extension, it seems to me that there have to be proper arrangements. It is a great pity that that is not covered in more detail in the Bill.
I certainly support in principle the point that the noble Baroness is making. How it is done mechanically within the Bill I do not know. But that is simply not covered by the detail that we have before us. So I certainly support the noble Baroness in principle.
On Amendment No. 54, concerning where a governing body does not agree, what worries me is that it is possible for governing bodies in part not to agree even to go into an action zone, let alone disagree with what they see once in an action zone. Again, there is so little on the face of the Bill for us to go by. As I have already said to the noble Baroness, I know some governors of a school who are meeting clandestinely, in one case in a pub in east London, discussing all the details of going into an action zone, and governors on the same governing body are not aware of what is going on.
It seems to me to be important that if these actions zones are to work at all, there should be a body of consensus about the adventure upon which they are about to embark and there should at least be some degree of consensus that they think it is a good idea. What happens once it is up and running where governors do not agree? I understand that if they have
1570
ceded all their functions to the forum, they cannot be taken back under that arrangement. If they are partially ceded, they can do so, but if they are fully ceded there is a very real difficulty for a governing body that does not agree.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, need not worry about Amendment No. 55. The noble Baroness in this amendment is saying that regard must be had to the views of representatives of the relevant local education authority. I can say that in something like 59 of the 60 authorities the views of the LEAs are well known. When the noble Baroness sees the information she will understand what I mean. There is only one case, as I understand it, where the LEA is almost hostile to the bid. The bid is being conducted by a third party completely outside the aegis of the LEA. That is a very interesting state of affairs. So in terms of having regard to the views of the representatives of the LEA, that is well known.
My Amendment No. 54A brings into the picture the people who in my view matter most; that is, the parents of pupils who are attending the schools which will be part of the action zone. Subsection (4) of this clause states that no order shall be made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1), (2) or (3) except on an application made for the purpose with the consent of parents of pupils and governors at every school.
If the Government are not happy that parents should be involved in this process, then I have very real concerns about this proposition. It seems to me that parents of pupils at these schools are critical to the success of this scheme. After all, the backing that children receive from their home and their parents and/or guardians is essential. If these action zones take place without a body of consent from the parents, it seems to me that the Secretary of State will have started off with a very good, exciting idea that could go very wrong indeed. So I hope that when it comes to Amendment No. 54A, the noble Baroness will feel able to accept it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that it will be thought appropriate if I speak to Amendments Nos. 53A, 54B, 54C and 257F which are government amendments in this group. The purpose of the amendments is straightforward. An important aspect of action zones is that a group of partners work together for a set period of time. Stability in the partnership is important, but there is one particular circumstance where it may be necessary to allow a new school to enter. This is where school reorganisation has created new schools in the area after the zone has been created.
For example, if two participating schools are merged and a new school is created as a result, it is logical that the new school should participate. Amendments Nos. 53A, 54B 54C and 257F all permit the Secretary of State to include newly created schools in a zone. This could be important in some cases and I shall commend the amendments to the Committee.
Perhaps I may refer to the other amendments in the same group which have been moved or spoken to. Amendment No. 53 was moved by the noble Baroness,

1571
Lady Maddock. All these amendments concern the setting up and dissolution of action zones. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is right: good transitional arrangements for action zones will be essential. We expect all applicants to have considered carefully their exit strategies before they begin. But it is not necessary to take what I fear is a paternalistic stance with these zones. The local partners, with support, of course, from the department where they want and need it, will have put forward the ideas. They will be responsible for implementing them. They will be responsible for ensuring that they are sustainable, or, if not, that they can be ended in a sensible way. To legislate for one body, as does the amendment—the local education authority—to be responsible for devising transitional arrangements to cope with the zone's ending seems to me to miss the point that this is all about partners working together.
Of course, the local authority will have an important role in this. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who knows more than I do about the applications, has confirmed that in 59 cases out of 60. But what about the role of the other partners? What about the schools themselves? I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, will agree the principle that unless they are failing, schools, whether within or outside action zones, should be managed by no one but themselves.
It is important to realise that these zones are not just about additional resources boosting performance for a short period of time. The idea is that the zone allows schools in the zone, and their communities, to find different ways of working. We are looking to find ways which continue after the zone ends which can be useful models for other areas which are not zones.
Let me give some examples. Private sponsors will continue to be involved in supporting and helping to advise on the running of the schools. New curriculum models may be found. If these are successful, we would expect the schools in the area to continue to use them. We would also want to feed these findings into reviews of the national curriculum. New models for staffing may have been tried. If those are successful, we want to see whether they can be of benefit more widely.
I turn to Amendment No. 54, which would allow a school to exit in the middle of the term of an action zone. These zones are about a voluntary commitment to schools to work in partnership and try new ways to raise standards. In return for satisfying the Secretary of State that they and their partners have strong proposals for doing this, they stand to receive significant additional support. As well as funds, this will include priority access to many of our standards-raising programmes. Some of these programmes, once established, will continue indefinitely.
The Government are extremely happy to complete their side of the bargain because we know that we shall have tested the local proposals and will want to support them. But it would not be fair for a school, having received significant extra support—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, recognised the force of this point—to decide that in fact it did not want to meet the higher levels of achievement expected in zones, or
1572
did not want to continue working in partnership with other schools. Three years seems to us a minimum time for which such a commitment could legitimately be expected.
There is another issue. Zones will be set up in which each school has something to contribute or learn from. In some zones, schools will have much good practice to share with their partners. It would be a pity if such schools left when things became a little difficult. Surely it is better to stick it out for at least three years and make a real difference.
The noble Baroness explained that the amendment only gives the Secretary of State a power; he does not have to use it. It is surely important that the partners should know that they are working together for three or possibly five years. It would be very distracting if different schools were debating whether or not they wanted to continue. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that this would not happen very often, but the debate about whether or not they would continue might happen more often, and really that would not be a very good thing.
Amendment No. 55 requires the Secretary of State to consult before creating a zone. This was debated in some detail in Committee in the Commons. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment said—and I am delighted to give the same reassurance now—that:
"We have made it clear at every stage that we expect local authorities to be consulted. Clearly, if an application was made and the local authority had not expressed a view on it, we would take the initiative and ask the local authority why that was so."
Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has the advantage over me. She tells me it is possible that this has occurred only in one case. I can assure her that in that case, had we not done so already, we would take the initiative and ask the local authority why it was not supporting the application. When that assurance was given in another place, I understand that the Liberal Democrat spokesman accepted that assurance and withdraw the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will do the same.
Finally, and with apologies for the length of this reply, I turn to Amendment No. 54A, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I am sympathetic to the idea that parents will have an important voice in the creation and running of an education action zone, but we really do not need a parental ballot to achieve that. The governing body of each school should be close to the views of parents and of course will have direct parental representation on it. The governing body itself, as the noble Baroness knows, will have to agree to participate and the applicants will have to demonstrate not only the school's agreement but their commitment to working in this way.
We do not really want to have this kind of obsession with structure and procedures getting in the way of innovative policies of education action zones. In the applications we have received—and I look to the noble Baroness to confirm or correct what I am saying—there are tremendous examples of initiatives to improve the way in which the whole community can be involved in education, encouraging children to learn with parents

1573
and parents to further their own education alongside their children In many of the disadvantaged areas where the zones will be set up, one of the most challenging issues is how to promote the importance of education.
I urge the Committee to allow this task to be undertaken and to allow those working and living locally to make judgments about the need to apply, in discussion with parents, pupils and staff as necessary. But, please, let us not saddle the procedure with unnecessary bureaucracy.
I hope that noble Baroness will in due course decide not to move Amendment No. 54A. I commend the Government amendments to the Committee and, with great respect for the motivation of the others, ask the noble Baronesses concerned not to press them.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for the long reply he has given and for the clarification of where the Government stand on these issues. I would perhaps take issue with him on being regarded as "paternalistic". What we are trying to do is to ensure democratic accountability. I do not believe that that is paternalism. Perhaps earlier this evening we saw the Government being very paternalistic in the way they were guarding the secrets surrounding people who were applying for education action zones, and so I would take issue there.
The Minister did not quite get to the bottom of how schools would manage so far as resources are concerned if they came out of education action zones. He rather skated around the point. I shall read his remarks carefully, and we may return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 53A:
Page 10, line 5, at end insert ("; or
(b) with a view to enabling it to achieve improving standards in the provision of education once it becomes a maintained school, any new school which has a temporary governing body.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 53. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatchhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 54A:
Page 10, line 7, at end insert ("parents of pupils at every school and").
The noble Baroness said: I am deeply saddened that the noble Lord has dismissed parents as a bureaucratic irrelevance. His words were "an unnecessary bureaucratic process". Those parents are likely to have children in schools with a formation which is not yet properly set. These systems will be up and running in a matter of 12 to 14 weeks' time. Parents are not aware of what is going on and are not party to the consultation. Governors are discussing the detail of the proposals without any consultation with parents.
If a school is about to become part of an education action zone where the national curriculum might be disapplied, do parents not have a view about that? Do
1574
parents not have a view as to the pay and conditions of the teachers who may or may not be pleased about that? The parents are the most important key. This very radical proposal will take schools out of local authority control and place them in the hands of third parties, some of whom the parents do not know and have never met. They do not know the background and are not party to the consultation. They should be formally consulted.
This proposal is not very bureaucratic. We are talking about a group of schools where the parents could be asked to give their consent, which could easily be done by means of one ballot box resting in the school for one day when the parents can vote on the proposition. It should be put before them in some sort of detail so that they know what to expect over a three-year and/or a five-year period. Some of these applications exist because there is money on the table. There is no secret whatever about that. Many more include European money, and DfEE project money, with the emphasis on the action zones and not, sadly, on some of the schools in the area whose needs may be just as great.
There will be endless publicly funded bodies. There will be business enterprise organisations. Lottery funding forms part of the bids. There will be training and enterprise councils. Single regeneration budget moneys, work-related learning programmes—all are involved. And there are contributions in kind. Is it not fair that the parents should have some understanding of the proposition for their particular action zone? If the noble Lord considers that a bureaucratic irrelevance, then a very distressing message is being sent to parents. Where an LEA is known to be hostile to an application, the DfEE already knows very well the views of that LEA.
[Amendment No. 54A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 54B:
Page 10, line 13, after ("Chapter") insert—

("(a) references to a governing body shall be read as including the temporary governing body of a new school;

(b)")

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 53. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 54C:
Page 10, line 15, at end insert—
("(6A) In this section "new school" has the meaning given by section 69(3).").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Establishment of Education Action Forum for zone]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 55A:
Page 10, line 20, at end insert—

1575
("() An Education Action Forum shall be the employer of all teaching and non-teaching staff at all schools within the education action zone.").
The noble Baroness said: The third parties are being given the power to take over a group of schools, to disapply the national curriculum, to substitute another innovative novel curriculum and the power to disapply pay and conditions of service for their teachers. Why should they not be trusted to employ the staff, both teaching and non-teaching? I think the case is very powerful and I beg to move.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I am unaccustomed to joining in an education debate and I shall try to intervene peacefully. I wonder whether the Minister can answer one or two queries about Clause 11(3)(b). It concerns a new animal called an education action forum. I understand from reading the Bill that the Secretary of State can appoint two members, while others will be recruited from the LEAs.
Are we to understand that these are to be LEAs in miniature, minuscule LEAs or will they embrace outside experience as well? For example, will the education fora simply be the current LEAs in miniature or will they have some fresh air let in from faraway experience, possibly of an unusual kind? I notice that scattered in the Times Educational Supplement last week is a whole batch of ideas on new non-local experience. In one case a teacher of phonics and word/sound association was mentioned. Another was a Scottish Office staffer with experience of school standards and effectiveness and of premier football club study centres.
Also mentioned in the Times Educational Supplement was a former ILEA chief inspector who was used to investigating institutional cultures. Are those new bodies, the education action forums, simply the LEA in miniature or are they to be LEAs plus outside experience that might enrich them? I ask this in a peaceful way, I am not trying to stir up trouble, I do not usually join in this kind of debate anyway. I hope that in the circumstances we may be given information by the Minister.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful for the opportunity afforded by this amendment to clarify further the employment aspects of education action zones. That said, I must admit that I have some reservations about the effect of the amendment.
The amendment seeks to make all education action fora the direct employers of staff in the zone. This means that any governing body joining the zone does so in the knowledge that it loses its employment powers. This may be appropriate for some, but not for others. As I said earlier, it is better to give a choice of routes through which to enter.
In anticipation that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may wish to come back with a further amendment offering this choice, perhaps I should say that it is not necessary. It is already dealt with in Clause 12(2). Under paragraph (a) of the subsection, governing bodies can use the forum as an agent, with the governing body retaining the legal responsibility. Under paragraph (b)
1576
of the subsection, governing bodies can decide formally to pass all their powers to the forum. That would include employment powers. This flexible menu of options is perhaps better than the proposed set meal which, I think, would deter many governing bodies from wanting to become zones.
In reply to the noble Earl, the legislation allows each governing body to put forward a member and the Secretary of State can appoint members. Other appointees may come from business or voluntary organizations—all those the applicants feel can contribute. They are not local education authorities in miniature in any way.
I have considered each of these amendments, but, for the reasons I outlined, I do not believe that they are an improvement and that the policy will be better for them. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Swinfen: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she can help me. I understand that in an education action zone the contracts of the teachers can be changed in relation to salaries and various other aspects. However, I also understand that the teachers are employed either by the school or by the local authority and that therefore their contracts are with the local authority or with the school.
If the education action zone can change that contract willy-nilly, and the teacher wishes to go to court in order to enforce the contract to which he or she agreed with the original employer, against whom does the teacher take the action? Is it the school, the local authority or the education action zone?
The teachers have no contract with the education action zone but, as I understand it, the EAZ will have the power to change the contract whether or not the teacher likes it. There is therefore a great deal of merit in the amendment. I go further. When an education action zone takes over the contracts of the teachers they should take over the existing contract, otherwise they would have to negotiate a completely new one with every single teacher.
Baroness Blackstone: I hope that no teacher who is involved in an education action zone will want to go to court about the changes that the education action zone may want to make in relation to his pay and conditions. After all, the whole purpose of the zone is to give teachers greater freedom and to give the education action zone the opportunity, if it so chooses, to pay higher salaries.
The contracts will remain either with the local authority or with the school, but it is the governing body which has employment powers. The forum does not have power over that unless the governors cede that power or the teacher takes up employment with the forum. Whoever the employer is will obviously be the agency with whom the teachers, if they wish to go to court—as I say, I hope that no teacher would want to do so—will be in dispute.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I have been listening to this discussion with a bit of difficulty at this

1577
hour of the night—my brain does not seem to be functioning too well. As I understand it, in some cases teachers may be, and in others they may not be, transferred from one employer to another. In those circumstances, does the transfer of undertakings regulations—TUPE—govern the transfer of those employees?
Baroness Byford: The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, has again beaten me to it: I must rise more quickly, though I know it is late.
When schools come into the action zones, presumably not all the teachers in those schools will necessarily have their contracts continued. Part of the action zones' objectives is to improve standards in the school. I presumed—maybe in my innocence—that some of the teachers, and let us hope the majority, will still have contracts that continue to run, but some may well find their contracts not continued.
My question to the Minister is twofold. First, what happens to those teachers who, once the school has joined the action zone, find that their contracts are not renewed and kept up? In fact, to whom does the teacher look in that situation? At the other end-I first raised it with the noble Baroness after Second Reading and she kindly wrote back to me-what happens at the exit?
Teachers whom the zones feel will do a good job will have been taken on and presumably, as a result, their pay may have been increased. But what will happen when the zone ends? Will they revert to their previous level of pay? By whom are they employed? What will happen to their pension rights? I refer particularly to those who were not taken up in the first place and, more importantly, to those who have had an increase in their pay during their time in the zone, which will presumably have an effect on their pensions as well.
I should be grateful to the Minister if we could have a little more clarity on the matter. Perhaps it is the time of night, or perhaps it is because the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, keeps beating me in rising to speak, but I am still a little confused about what exactly the situation is for those teachers as the zones develop.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: It is not just a question of the finances. It could well be the hours of work or the length of holidays. It may well be that in an education action zone it is decided that the school day should be longer or that the school term should be longer in order to make certain that the pupils are given sufficient time to learn more. It may be wished to break up the school year not just into three terms but into four, five or six so that everything comes in short, sharp bursts and the pupils can learn together. All those points need to be taken into account. The education action zones that will be putting this into effect should be responsible. I wonder whether the Government have really thought this through yet. The idea of an education action zone is a good one but there are all kinds of other points that we need to consider.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, have posed a
1578
number of questions which need to be answered in detail. Many members of staff will be following our proceedings very carefully and they will want to know the answers to these very detailed questions on matters which will affect their careers.
The Minister said that the function of employer can be passed on or can be ceded. Perhaps I may remind her that paragraph 14 of the background paper says that the establishing of an education action zone would not alter who employs the staff. In other words, the employer of staff will continue to be the local education authority. The teachers would remain employed on contracts within the teachers' pay and conditions document unless the governing body was given permission to disapply that document and renegotiated contracts with staff. But before giving permission to disapply, the Secretary of State will want to see that consultation has taken place with staff and their representatives.
Consultation is one thing, but what are the rights of teachers in these situations? Paragraph (c) says that where governing bodies cede their powers to the forum the forum will only become the de facto employer of the school staff in place of the governing body, although the legal employer will not change. In other words, the LEA will continue to be the legal employer and that cannot be ceded to the forum, to a governing body or to anyone else. It is only for the day-to-day purposes of employing a teacher that the power to disapply pay and conditions will be ceded, and the actual legal employer will go on being the local education authority. The only way in which the forum can be an employer in the full sense of that word will be for those teachers which it employs directly.
The question posed by my noble friend Lady Byford is an important one. What will happen to them at the end of a rather short period like three years? Is one really going to find these superhero teachers, who will come in on a contract for just three years, with perhaps an extension of the contract of two years? However, there is nothing in the Bill to say that it can be extended beyond that period.
The question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, is quite important. Under what we have colloquially understood to be called TUPE, does the transfer of undertakings apply? My understanding is that when public authority employees move from one public body to another or to a private body, then the transfer of undertakings does apply. It would be very helpful to know from the noble Baroness whether it applies in this case.
Lord Skidelsky: Before the noble Baroness replies, can she clear up the confusion in my mind? My noble friend has just said that the legal employer is the local education authority. The Minister has said equally certainly, in my recollection, that the legal employer is the school governing body. They cannot both be legal employers: which of them is the legal employer?
Baroness Blackstone: As I understand it, it is the governing body that is the employer although the contracts remain with the local authority. However, they can be with the school and it will depend on what kind

1579
of school it is. All the things that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, raised might happen on fixed-term supplementary contracts. If we are talking about new teachers who are taken on by a zone, they will operate on fixed-term contracts.
As regards the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, if teachers return to normal employment under the existing terms of the teachers' pay and conditions set-up, when they return to work with a school governing body or a local authority they will return to the existing terms and conditions which will only be suspended while they are new teachers working for an education action zone.
I return to what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, asked. As I believe I made clear, the legal employer depends on the type of school. If it is a community school, it is an LEA, but if it is an aided or a foundation school, it will be the governing body. I hope that that clears up his question.
I shall be very happy to write to Members of the Committee on both the Liberal Democrat Benches and on the Front Bench of the main Opposition party, and to Back-Benchers too, setting all this out in detail rather than, at this time of night, enter upon complex aspects of the suspension of teachers' pay and conditions under the education action zone proposals where that may happen. I hope that that will be acceptable and that in the light of it the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry that it has not been possible to bring this kind of information forward. The debate was well predicted. The teacher trade unions have shown a very real interest in the answers to some of these questions. I know that education authorities are particularly interested. The DfEE knows that. It is quite extraordinary that the information has not come down to the Minister in order that she can answer some of these questions.
For example, the answer as regards TUPE must be that either the provisions apply or they do not. It would have been very helpful to have had an answer on whether the transfer of undertakings applies in this case and if not, under what powers is there exemption from it. Does not the noble Baroness agree that when one disapplies pay and conditions provisions, just like investments they can worsen or improve? The noble Baroness has spoken a great deal about teachers getting more money and more generous conditions. Equally, there is no control over that, for once they are disapplied they are disapplied. Under this application it is possible for a third party, especially if given a fee and able to make money—as the noble Baroness said earlier and as the Prime Minister has agreed, profits can be made—it will be possible to vary one way or the other. Nothing in the Bill says that pay and conditions can be disapplied as long as they are disapplied more generously. It states merely that they may be disapplied. It would be helpful if the Minister would agree that they could be more generous or even less generous.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may add to the confusion in this area. It is clear the employer is the local authority.
1580
Schedule 16, and others, contain detailed provisions whereby the school decides who should be appointed as a teacher and the LEA then has to make that appointment. Nothing in this part of the Bill gives the education action zones the right to impose on the LEA changes to the terms and conditions under which it is employing teachers. It is not clear to me, therefore, how this mechanism is supposed to work its way down from decisions of the education action zones. As my noble friend Lord Swinfen said, perhaps teachers will be told to attend for an extra two hours and to provide extra tuition in games after school to improve pupils' performance. Clearly, the education action zone has to have the right to tell the LEA to do that so that it can change the terms of employment of its teachers. The teachers will then have a cause of action against the LEA, which is their employer. The Government have set out the route (in Schedule 16) by which those instructions are given for the ordinary course of events, but they have not done so for education action zones, and I hope that the Minister's letter will make the way in which the chain of command will work absolutely clear.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Further to the comment just made by the noble Lord. Lord Lucas, in relation to voluntary aided schools, it is not the case that the LEA is the employer; the governing bodies of such schools are the legal employers.
Lord Swinfen: Where the LEA is the employer, the pension arrangements are probably that the LEA pays a set percentage of the salary, but if the education action zone gives the teacher an increment, who pays the extra on the pension? Will it be supplied by the education action zone or will the LEA be forced to pay the extra on the amount due as a pension? I wonder whether such points have been taken into account and properly thought through.
Baroness Blackstone: Of course that has been taken into account. I think that I have already said—if I did not, I apologise—that pensions will be unaffected by these arrangements. The pensions organisations for teachers will cover this and the employer—whether the governing body or the LEA—will be responsible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked me whether teachers' pay might go up or down. In theory, she is absolutely right: it is possible that under these arrangements teachers' pay could go down, but in practice I should have thought, as I have already implied, that it is fairly obvious that it will tend to rise. After all, we are trying experimentally to find a way to encourage good teachers to work in areas where raising standards is a big challenge. Therefore, it would not make much sense for an education action zone to lower the pay of teachers. However, I entirely accept that, theoretically, teachers' pay could go down under this legislation.
The noble Baroness also asked about the transfer of undertakings. Again, as I understand it, TUPE does not arise because employment does not formally transfer.

1581
With regard to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I shall certainly set out clearly in a letter how the change, as he put it, will work when an education action zone decides that it wishes to suspend teachers' normal pay and conditions.
I hope that I have responded to the questions that have been put, but I repeat my offer to set this out at length in writing.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: We will have to wait for the letter from the noble Baroness, which will have to cover a very large number of points. In response to my noble friend Lord Swinfen the Minister said that pensions would be unaffected. How can they be unaffected? If someone receives considerably more, perhaps by way of merit pay or another system for enhancing pay, that will give rise to enhanced pension contributions, including contributions by the employer. Is the noble Baroness saying that a teacher can receive pay on a better scale and yet the pension will be frozen at a lower salary rate? I cannot believe that that was what the noble Baroness meant.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: This point is particularly relevant where senior teachers are coming to the end of their career—precisely the very senior classroom teachers who may be the most desirable ones to become involved in action zones. Those teachers' pensions will be affected. Their employer will have to pay the additional pension no matter what happens because they will have earned it. I do not see how it can be unaffected. We appear to be receiving a series of contradictory answers.
One is also concerned about conditions, for example contact hours and so on. Those teachers whose salaries are not to be raised but who nevertheless have to work in less advantageous circumstances may have their noses put out of joint, to put it mildly. Does the noble Baroness suggest that teachers who are not worth additional money—all of these expressions are in inverted commas—will be dismissed or their employment terminated in some way and only teachers who are worth higher salaries will be employed in education action zones? When one looks at the detail it is hard to see how the system will operate.
Lord Swinfen: Will the Government top up local authority funding? They will not have budgeted for the increase in pensions that they will have to pay to the pension company. They will be bound to pay that if the salaries of some of the teachers in the action zones are increased. They will be paying a proportion of that salary as pension, for which they will not have budgeted.
Lord Tope: As I listen to the debate I become more and more concerned. We will have to await the Minister's letter to make the situation clear. It has already been said quite correctly that if a teacher's salary is increased then the pension contribution
1582
increases. The teachers' superannuation scheme is a final salary scheme. The teacher will be entitled to a pension based on his best salary in the last three years, normally the last year for obvious reasons. That is an ongoing commitment.
I speak from experience as a local authority leader. One agrees to a relatively small increase in salary but when the employee retires one has a very substantial commitment to the superannuation scheme. If that is to fall on the LEA at the behest of an education action zone perhaps for very good reason, the LEA will look for considerable reassurance and, I expect, recompense for the extra costs incurred over a very long period of time over which it has little or no control.
Baroness Blackstone: I said that pension rights will continue for teachers who move from a school or LEA employer to a forum, just as if they had moved from a foundation school to a community school, when the employer also changes.
These are complex issues associated with the teachers' superannuation scheme. It would be much more sensible if I were to set out exactly what the impact of this will he on the scheme and, indeed, the local education authorities which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said will not have budgeted for such an impact. I should point out that we are talking about only 25 education action zones, a relatively small number of schools and a relatively small number of teachers who will be affected. Not all the education action zones will wish to suspend teachers' pay and conditions. It is important that we do not exaggerate the impact of such changes. But as I have already promised. I shall set this out in writing in detail.
Baroness Blatch: We shall have to wait. It is a great pity. The debate and the questions raised should have been anticipated and the information available. It was highly predictable that we should have a debate about the effect of this policy on teachers.
When the noble Baroness writes the letter covering the points raised in the debate, will she take into account also the way in which some of those outside bodies work? Certainly from the information I have already seen on the applications, longer days and more days in the year are being talked about. There is a suggestion of using hours before school starts for breakfast clubs. There is a suggestion of after-school clubs. All that will add considerably to the burden on teachers unless there are more members of staff. Therefore, it is conceivable that teachers will receive more pay. However, as my noble friend Lord Swinfen said, they may have to do a great deal more for it. Therefore, the benefit to teachers is neutral. They are working longer hours and therefore receiving more pay.
The noble Baroness said that pensions will he unaffected. Pensions will indeed be affected. As pay rises, so too will the contributions both from the teacher and the employer. As the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, pointed out, we may well he talking about senior teachers because it may be the most experienced teachers who will move into those positions. Therefore, there will be an impact on pensions

1583
and final salary arrangements for local authorities. Some of those local authorities will be serving the most difficult areas. There will be pressures on them to find extra money and, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, that extra money needs to be found for the life-time of those teachers, not simply for one or two years. It will be well beyond the period of time during which those action zones are in place.
These are complex issues to which we need some answers. We look forward to receiving the letter from the noble Baroness. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Topemoved Amendment No. 56:
Page 10, line 28, after ("appointment;") insert—
("() no fewer than two persons representing the local education authority responsible for maintaining the participating schools or, if there is more than one such authority, at least one person appointed by each of them;").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 56, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60, 63 and 64. In view of the hour of night and the amount of business we have yet to transact, I shall be extremely brief because all these amendments very largely speak for themselves.
Amendments Nos. 56 and 59 are concerned to ensure that the local education authorities are represented on the education action forums. If what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has told us is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, it would be bizarre in the extreme if the vast majority of those education action zones, which are run by or involved with local education authorities, were not to be so represented. But it is appropriate that it should be stated clearly on the face of the Bill that they must be represented. Thereby they will retain the proper contact and influence that they should have, not least for the reasons which we discussed on the previous amendment.
Amendment No. 57 refers similarly to representation of teachers. They should be represented on the education action forum. That is right and proper. They are represented as of right on governing bodies and education committees. I should have thought it entirely right and appropriate that they should be represented, as suggested, also on the education action forums.
As regards Amendment No. 58, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has waited extremely patiently for a very long time to pursue the matter, not only this evening but also on the previous Committee day. I really do not want to steal his thunder by speaking to it now. Perhaps I may simply say that we warmly and wholeheartedly support his amendment and look forward to hearing what he has to say and, indeed, what the Minister has to say in response.
Amendment No. 60 seeks to preserve the general balance of interests and experience that exists at present so that no expertise and experience is lost in that way. Amendment No. 63 refers to the importance of maintaining proper interests in gender and in race. In
1584
passing, I should point out to the Committee that if there is any ethnic disadvantage these days it probably rests far more with white, young males than it does with any other members of ethnic minorities.
These are important amendments. I have spoken to them very briefly because of the hour of night. However, that should not in any sense indicate that they have any lack of importance in our view. They are extremely important and self-explanatory. I hope that we shall receive a positive response from the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: In speaking to Amendments Nos. 58 and 64, I seem to have been granted a solo spot on the Cross-Benches, which is perhaps appropriate for a rapidly ageing thespian at this hour of night. The Minister and a handful of noble Lords who were present on Second Reading, some of whom are present tonight, may recall that I confessed to studying the 248-page document while waiting for a train—any train—to get me back to Euston from Crewe. But the enforced delay did allow me to note that there were few substantial references to special schools or special educational needs in the Bill, and I reported that fact on Second Reading. The Minister responded quite positively. I shall not quote her response now because of the lateness of the hour.
As my concerns arose in Crewe and as the Government—or, rather, a senior Minister in the Government—fairly recently decided that Crewe can be bypassed, I am naturally concerned that special needs, too, can be treated in the same cavalier fashion unless specific commitments are made to them on the face of the Bill. Hence my amendments today and others for future days, or nights, in Committee. They have the support not only of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth but also from outside this Chamber. That support comes from the Special Educational Consortium, which includes such renowned voluntary bodies as Mencap, the Council for Disabled Children, Barnardos, The National Autistic Society, Scope (plus many others), as well as teaching unions and local government organisations. No one can be in any doubt as to our sincerely held convictions.
The purpose of the two amendments is as follows. Amendment No. 58 is designed to ensure that at least one person is included in an education action forum who has experience and expertise in special educational needs. Amendment No. 64 would ensure that everyone who is part of an education action forum has to have regard to the code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs.
I hope and believe that the Minister will accept my amendments or propose others worded in a similar vein on Report. If she does not, I can only paraphrase the late, lamented Marie Lloyd:
"Oh, noble Baroness, what shall I do?
Excellence for special needs, left behind at Crewe".
Furthermore, I think I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to use his undoubted operatic talents to underline the point in song once this session is over. That, I am convinced, will persuade the Minister; of that I am absolutely certain.
Midnight
Lord Lucas: I hope the Minister will agree with me that Amendments Nos. 60 and 63 are particularly "daffy". Amendment No. 60 suggests that the governing body of an education action zone should reflect the,
"balance of interests and experience"
of a set of governing bodies which have, almost by definition, failed in what they might have thought of as their mission to provide education up to the standard they wish. I hope that the Government will not seek to hamstring an education action zone in this way. Amendment No. 63 introduces the concept that standards in the provision of education can have due,
"variation by sex or race".
Surely no such variation can possibly be acceptable. The concept expressed in Amendment No. 63 must be totally unacceptable.
Lord Whitty: All of these amendments, directly or indirectly, deal with the membership of education action fora. Clearly we had to consider how we establish the membership, given all the constituencies which have various demands they wish to be represented. There are, however, two difficulties with the concept that we allow all such constituencies to be represented. First, the education action zone will bring together 10 or 20 schools. That could mean the membership of a forum swelling rapidly—if everyone were included—to 50 plus. That is unlikely to constitute an effective decision-making body.
The second issue is one of flexibility. Within the education action zone concept, different relationships will exist between governing bodies and the fora in different areas. As we have heard, in some cases governing bodies will cede their powers to the forum; in others they will not unless formal arrangements apply. In any case the way in which the fora will operate will require consultation and consensus so that the views of teachers and of other bodies will be represented through their governing bodies and other means of consultation within their areas. It is therefore, in our view, not sensible to lay down that all these constituent bodies should always be members of an education action forum. The compromise we arrived at was to leave membership decisions on the forum to those who were putting forward the proposals. They will know the ways of working they have in mind. It is important that we do not restrict them in that way. It is important on the other hand that we ensure that each governing body in an education action zone area which wishes to be represented should be represented. That is the only thing we have laid down.
On the point about local education authorities, we expect local education authorities to be represented on the action fora. Of the 60 applications we have received so far, LEAs are a partner in 58 of them, and so will naturally be represented on the fora. We need to bear in mind exceptions. There is the possibility that a different set of partners—for example, a group of schools working with a private sector company, or a voluntary organisation—make a strong application that deserves consideration, but which is not involved with a local
1586
education authority. In an extreme case it is possible that a local education authority is either not interested or is deeply opposed to what is being proposed. Obviously that opposition would be given due weight, but where we seek to go ahead with the education action zone it would not be sensible for the LEA to have a veto over an application by reserving to itself a place, even if all the other parties know that is done only to be obstructive. That situation is extremely unlikely. but nevertheless we must recognise that it could arise. It is certainly not borne out by the experience of the applications received under the non-statutory programme so far, but nevertheless we must preserve that flexibility.
Amendments Nos. 60 and 63 contain the phrase,
"without undue variation by sex or race".
We would expect the organisations involved in the forum to reflect the make-up of the schools involved in the wider communities in which they operate. We would not expect to see any gender under-representation.
The Minister for School Standards has already had some discussions with the Commission for Racial Equality on this issue. Sir Herman Ousley has indicated that he supports the EAZ concept. It will be necessary to design strategies to make sure that we raise achievement in particular sections of the community which are under-performing. That will be reflected in the requirements on EAZs rather than in the formulation in these amendments.
On the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, particularly Amendment No. 64 relating to the SEN code of practice, I can assure the noble Lord that there is no question that regulations would allow the SEN code of practice to be disapplied or bypassed in education action zones, whether in Crewe or anywhere else. These regulations will—indeed, from the wording on the primary legislation, they can—only affect the way in which certain functions are passed from governing bodies to the forum where both the governing bodies and the forum agree that such a transfer is sensible. That does not affect the need to observe other responsibilities in other important documents and regulations which would certainly include such fundamental documents as the SEN code of practice. Therefore, in our view the objectives of Amendment No. 64 are met and the amendment is unnecessary.
We are therefore adopting a process of flexibility in this area. The prime proposals for membership of each education action forum will be from the proposers themselves. Obviously the department will have to make a judgment on those proposals, but that is the original flexibility which we would wish to see. With that understanding and that principle of flexibility, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: When inviting proposals from people who are prepared to set up special education zones and fora, will the Government be asking the proposers what their ideas and proposals are on dealing with special education needs and how they intend to handle them? I know that this only covers, as a general rule, a small

1587
proportion of pupils but it is a highly specialised and highly skilled sector which needs special handling. There is a danger, because of small numbers, that these specialist cases could fall through the net and be neglected. Although they may have special education needs, they are people who, if properly taught, could offer a great deal to the country in due course.
Baroness Blatch: When the noble Lord replies, can he also pick up my point? The noble Lord said that gender balance, ethnicity and even special needs interests would be addressed. But each school is an entity within the zone. Each school will put forward its representative on to the forum. How will it be addressed? Will the school be told, "Sorry, you cannot have another woman from your school", or "You cannot have another man from your school", because the numbers seem to indicate too many women or too many men?
What will be the means of seeing that those issues are addressed—for example, if the area has a high ethnic presence in the community but not enough ethnic people are put forward by individual schools? The schools will be dealing with the most appropriate representative of their schools. It may not reflect the local community, gender balance, ethnic balance or, indeed, specific interests in special needs. How will that be managed?
Lord Whitty: As far as gender and ethnic balance are concerned, clearly we are saying that there will be a general guidance that there should be no undue variation, but we are not operating on mathematical formulae. Therefore, any intervention would be only if there was a serious distortion of the gender balance and the community ethnic balance. We do not propose mathematical formulae here or rigid rules. But clearly one could have a situation where there is a severe imbalance which no doubt the department would draw to the attention of those proposing the forum.
Baroness Blatch: I do not follow that. Who would intervene? The noble Lord has already said that the schools are their own entities. They have control over who they put forward. The DfEE will have its two appointees. Who will intervene; and under what power will that body intervene if it believes that there is an imbalance?
Lord Whitty: There will be an ongoing relationship between the education action zones and the department. At the end of the day the department would intervene, but I am sure that these matters can be dealt with on a consultative basis. We are not asking them to meet a specific formula. We are asking them to be reasonable about the balance of the membership of the education action zone.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, the issue of special educational needs would be included in consideration of the proposals from those putting forward the action zone. The curriculum still provides equal opportunities for all pupils, including those with special educational needs. Therefore any proposition
1588
would have to be assessed to ensure that it met those objectives as part of the original proposition. If it were not adequately covered within the proposition, suggestions would be made to ensure that it became part of it.
On representation, the main point is not the exact balance of the membership, but how it raises the standards for all pupils in the areas. In agreeing the membership, the Secretary of State will bear those objectives in mind rather than any mathematical formula.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask about Amendment No. 58. The noble Lord states that the Secretary of State can intervene in the education action forum if appropriate people are not placed on the body. Why cannot we make sure that someone with expertise is specifically included—someone who has regard to special educational needs? Someone in the education action forum will need to make a sound assessment of a course of action, an experimental approach—a change in staffing or a change in curricula. Such assessments require experts. They do not require a well-meaning person with some knowledge. They require someone with specific knowledge.
I accept the assurances on Amendment No. 64. However, Amendment No. 58 refers to,
"One person with experience and expertise in special educational needs".
The rejection of that amendment seems in direct contravention of the Minister's response at Second Reading when she said:
"I agree that we should be judged by our ability to meet special needs, including ensuring that they are taken into account in all education development plans".—[Official Report, 17/4/98; col. 714.]
I should have thought that the simple amendment, Amendment No. 58, which stands in my name, that of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, took care of that neatly and would satisfy the special educational consortium.
Lord Addington: The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is right. The commitment which the Government have given is not strong enough to guarantee that one will have the people with the knowledge to be able to respond, and quickly. If a mistake is made with special educational needs the child invariably loses years of schooling. When examinations dictate the way one's life may progress, that is an important omission. One must have a person who responds quickly. Expertise will enable that to occur. In these zones, such expertise will be vitally important. You have a person who will be under even more pressure than is normal. I would suggest that something very like what the noble Lord has proposed is actually essential.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I support the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and wish to make just one additional point. There is a vast difference between a forum listening to those who may be experts and a forum having among

1589
its membership somebody who was able to speak with authority as a member of that group. That is the point this amendment seeks to press.
Lord Whitty: The forum will have access to expertise in this area. I have already given a commitment about what the forum's proposals will need to take into account before any approval of the provision for special educational needs. It is the same commitment as that given by my noble friend on Second Reading. We are anxious not to specify too tightly the membership of the forum. Clearly, were there to be a major absence of anyone with expertise on these fora, the Secretary of State may well want to intervene, but the original proposers of the action zone will come up with their own propositions for membership, which need to be flexible.
Therefore, we are not happy about specifying in the Bill a range of people who should be represented, beyond saying that each school should have the right to be represented on that forum. Clearly, some of the representatives from the schools will have special educational needs expertise. If that should be absent, clearly some intervention would be necessary; but it is not always appropriate for a forum to have a senior representative with ESN experience. If the proposers themselves come up with something positive, then that will be part of the package that the Secretary of State and the department would have to assess. We would have to assess whether that needed to be rectified in a particular instance. However, if we put a provision on the face of the Bill, it would introduce inflexibility in an area where we want to have maximum flexibility.
Lord Rix: I thank the Minister for that response, but I am not happy with it. Clearly, as I am not moving these amendments I can only say that I shall have to return to this matter at the Report stage.
Lord Tope: This has been a useful debate. I can understand—indeed, I share—the Government's desire not to be too prescriptive in the membership of the forums. I can understand that each forum, if it is actually to be a workable body, should not be too large, although I could not quite understand how the Minister got to the number 50—I think he suggested it could rise to that number—because it would need to be a much larger action zone than I understood was envisaged to reach the figure of 50, even if all these amendments were accepted.
We are not talking about prescribing whether it should be this businessman or that businessman, this person from here or there: we are talking about three additional categories of people, all of which are important. One is the local education authority, or authorities if it covers more than one area, where we are talking about two people. If, as it seems, they are going to be there anyway because they are involved in the education action zone, that is good. There is no harm
1590
therefore in it being in the Bill. I did not understand why the Minister said how inappropriate it would be to have them there if they had opposed the setting up of the education action zone. If that is what he said—and I think it was—then I entirely disagree with him. He actually used the words that they should not have the right of veto, and I really did not understand that at all. It is one thing to oppose the establishment of a zone, rightly or wrongly—and the Secretary of State will make a judgment about that after consultation, and if he judges that it is right to set up the education action zone then it will be set up. The LEA will have to face the reality that it has in its area an education action zone, whether it likes it or not. It will be there.
It must be in the LEA's interests, and particularly in the interests of the EAZ and the schools, that the LEA then works co-operatively with that zone. It certainly will not have any right of veto, but it should work co-operatively. It is not too dissimilar from what has happened in a number of areas with grant-maintained schools. LEAs have sometimes opposed the establishment of a GM school; but once that has gone ahead a productive partnership has ensued. It does not necessarily mean that people have changed their original views, but they work together in partnership. I therefore suggest that having the LEA represented on the education action zone is important whatever the original stance, but it is particularly important if it has been one of initial coolness or even hostility that they should learn to work together in partnership.
Similarly, teachers are enormously important to the success of any education action zone. We are not talking about a teacher representative from every school; we are talking about two teachers from schools within the zone. If an education action zone is to be successful, it is important that the teachers "own" it; that they are part of the zone in every sense and play a part in directing the practice and policy. Therefore teachers are an important category to be prescribed.
I do not need to add anything further to what has already been said about a representative for special educational needs. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is absolutely right. The right reverend Prelate was right to say that access to expertise—which I should certainly hope such people would have—is very different from having that expertise among the membership. It is not the same at all. That is the point made in this amendment.
At this time of night and at this stage of the Bill I shall not press these amendments. However, I remain very unhappy with the replies given. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has already given notice of his intention, and we shall return to an examination of this matter at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 57 to 60 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Provisions relating to an Education Action Forum]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 61:
Page 104, line 31, after ("State") insert ("and to the Comptroller and Auditor General").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 62, 62A and 257M.
Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 require education action fora to send their accounts to the National Audit Office and for the NAO to report on them to Parliament. It is important that the fora which run action zones are subject to financial scrutiny. That is why, as well as being sent to the Secretary of State, accounts should also be available to the Comptroller and Auditor General. In this way, reports on the use of funds in education action zones will be available to both Houses of Parliament.
Amendments Nos. 62 and 62A propose exempt charitable status for those education action fora. An important aspect of action zones is the partnership between the public and private sectors. We know from discussions that contributions from the private sector are more likely if the action fora are charitable. Increasingly, private sector contributions will improve the value for money of the programme. Action fora should be exempt charities, which means that they are free of some of the powers of the Charity Commission and the Charities Act 1993 because they are already accountable to the Secretary of State, and, through Amendments Nos. 61 and 62, already open to inspection by the National Audit Office. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to ask the noble Lord two questions. First, whether it is making money or making a profit, how does charitable status fit with a surplus being made from the fee that is paid for taking on an action zone? It is important to consider that point. Perhaps the noble Lord can throw a little more light on the technicality of how charitable status would work.
For example, as I understand it, there are bodies that are likely to be part of the partnerships that set up the action zones. But equally, the same bodies are likely to receive funds for providing services to the action zone. If they are already part of a consortium and are receiving funds from the consortium for providing services to the group of schools, will they receive money as though they were charities? How will that interrelate?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Exempt charities are outside the supervision of the Charity Commission because they are considered to be adequately supervised. But they are still subject to the legal rules generally applicable to charities and a few of the provisions of the Charities Act 1993. For example, they must meet certain accounting guidelines, but these are less stringent than we would expect from education action fora in any case. They do not have to be submitted to the Charity Commission.
1592
The fiscal benefits of exempt charity status are the same as those for registered charities. They have relief from income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. They have exemption from inheritance tax and relief from business or non-domestic rates. They are not VAT-exempt as a class but some of their activities are.
That leads me to the second part of the noble Baroness's question. As she knows, many charities which are themselves unable to make a profit—and the education action fora will not be able to make a profit—are able to have trading arms which are companies usually in charitable circles limited by guarantee. Alternatively, they are private companies to which the charities contract to perform a service for them as could, for example, the Prince's Trust. Those private companies can make surpluses on the fees they charge. I hope that that answers the questions put by the noble Baroness. I should be glad to go into more detail if she needs it.
Baroness Blatch: No, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that answer. However, if the companies are part of the consortium and provide services to it and they are allowed to make profits for the services they render to the consortium as members of it, they will be making profits from schools within the consortium.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has left the Chamber. He has been advising me on this matter and is a great expert on it as the Committee knows. As my noble friend Lady Blackstone said in response to an earlier discussion, what happens is that the trading part or private companies who are carrying out contracts on behalf of the fora can charge fees. Part of those fees can be a profit, but the fora, because they will be exempt charities, will not be able to make a profit.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I understand the explanation which the noble Lord gave about charitable status. I welcomed the first two amendments. If I remember correctly, at Second Reading my noble friend Lord Tope referred to the desirability of involving the Auditor General. I am happy to see the two amendments.
I am much less happy about the charitable status element of the group for a much more general reason than the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady B latch. It seems to me rather curious that in education some organisations have charitable status and some do not. Private schools have charitable status. I think I am correct in saying that grant-maintained schools have charitable status. I believe I am also correct in saying that in this Bill foundation schools, which are the successors to grant-maintained schools, will have charitable status. But ordinary maintained, about to be called community, schools do not. That is quite indefensible. Either all education establishments ought to have charitable status or none of them. I urge the Government to think carefully because the matter of

1593
rates is important to large secondary schools. It is not a small amount of money in terms of the business rate paid by large secondary schools out of the funds given to them by local authorities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness is tempting me way outside the scope of these amendments. They are about the charitable status of education action fora. If the noble Baroness wants to have a debate on charitable status for schools, let us have it at some decent time of day.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 62:
Page 104, line 39, at end insert—
("() The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on each statement received by him in pursuance of this paragraph and shall lay copies of each statement and of his report before each House of Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 62A:
Page 105. line II. at end insert
("Charitable status
An Education Action Forum shall be a charity which is an exempt charity for the purposes of the Charities Act I993.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule I, as amended, agreed to.
12.30 a.m.
Clause 12 [Functions of Education Action Forum]:
[Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 not moved.]
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky moved Amendment No. 64A:
Page 11. line 25, at end insert
("(7) A Forum may lease out any school in its zone designated by the Chief Inspector for England as failing to an approved educational body on such terms and conditions as it may specify.
(8) A school leased out under subsection (7) above shall remain accountable to the Forum but shall not be subject to its direct management control.").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry to return to a subject we started two hours ago. We just have to continue with it.
The aim of Amendment No. 64A is to use the machinery of the forum which Clause 12 of the Bill sets up for a rather more flexible purpose than envisaged by the clause. I move the amendment in a constructive spirit. I would have moved exactly the same amendment had I been on the Benches opposite and I hope that the Minister—I do not know which Minister is to reply; perhaps I should say the ministerial zone—treats it no less sympathetically because I am here rather than there.
The amendment seeks to give effect to what I believe was the main idea behind the action zone concept; that is, to give the worst performing schools new leadership and fresh ideas. That is what Mr. Blair proposed in his
1594
Ruskin College speech in December 1996 and somehow it has been lost in the complicated legislation before us tonight. I want to put it back.
Action zones are defined as clusters of schools up to around 20. Not all of those schools will be failing. No doubt the whole zone might benefit from what the Minister called improvements across the zone. That is not in dispute. But seriously failing schools may well require special treatment—often a different school ethos; often a different, special kind of stimulus for that specific school which might in turn light the way for other schools.
Mr. Stephen Byers talked about beacon schools. Schools such as those I am proposing might become beacon schools—beacons to others throughout the land—and the amendment is designed to make that possible. Why should not groups of teachers, parents or other educational bodies be allowed to bring their enthusiasm and energy to bear on the task of raising standards in schools which, year after year, defy the best efforts of local education authorities to do that? We know that that can happen.
We have heard of the spectacular successes of the charter schools. There are now 1,000 charter schools in the United States; it is the largest growing educational reform movement in that country. We have seen what can he done by dedicated groups of teachers in East Harlem. In all those cases, school district boards have been courageous enough to say to the proposing group, "We think your ideas are worth a try. Here are your targets. You have three to five years to achieve them. Get going." But that movement could not have got going with this legislation.
The trouble with the present legislation is that no educational trust, no groups of parents and no groups of teachers can ever get into the bidding system. They cannot apply for a charter to run an individual school as they can in the United States. I am appealing to the Government to be bold enough to allow a charter school movement to develop in this country out of the idea of the education action zone. There is a great deal to be said for studying how charter schools in the United States deal with the difficult problems of pay and conditions, which were raised earlier in our debates.
My amendment has roughly the same purpose as Amendment No. 49 moved by my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lord Pilkington, but with this difference, which I want to stress. My leased out schools will be inside the action zone forum framework set up by the Bill. The individual school will be in the zone and responsible to the forum. It would be the job of the forum to decide which of its schools to put out to tender and on the terms and conditions of the charter, if I may call it a charter. The school will he responsible to the forum for its results but it will not be managed by the forum. It will be the proposer's task, and the proposer's task alone, to make a success of the job, and the proposer will be accountable to the forum for results but

1595
not for processes. I believe that this extra flexibility is needed to round out what is a valuable concept—that of the education zone—to make sure that the seeds which Ministers have talked about actually fall into fertile beds and not on stony ground. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I rise briefly to support my noble friend. The flexibility which he proposes is entirely within the aims of the Government. The Government want to see education changed and standards raised. If the forum has determined that it would like to take this route, and if it is to be trusted to raise standards and to retain the responsibility for seeing that that happens, there is nothing to fear and everything to gain by accepting the amendment.
Lord Whitty: This amendment deals with the leasing out of schools already covered by an education action zone. Action zones are partnerships which cover whole areas. We are building those partnerships between all the schools in the zone, between the wider partnership with business, with parents, with the voluntary sector and with the local authority and other aspects of the public sector. This proposition effectively sees us hiving off one school out of this partnership and asking it to work to a different set of rules without the support of its neighbours in the zone. Having established the zone with a coherent approach and a partnership base, it seems to me that what is proposed would have a negative and divisive effect.
Having said that. I think that some of the objectives alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, can be achieved within the existing proposals. We do not want unnecessarily to restrict the freedom of the forum to take decisions to improve the management of particular schools. Clearly, there will be many situations where they wish to improve the management and other forms of expertise available to those schools. If the governing bodies of an action zone have chosen to cede their powers to the action forum, that forum itself will already have the authority to subcontract strands of work within its schools to a private educational consultant. That could include an educational management consultant. But the point is that under our proposals all the schools would remain within the action zone and the consultant would work directly to the forum rather than manage a hived-off school. In those areas where the governing bodies have not ceded any of their powers, a private educational body could still be hired by the forum to act on its behalf either across the zone or in one particular school. Of course, where the governing body retained its powers the consultant's powers would be more limited than in the first example. Nevertheless, they could be brought in to improve the management and the leadership of the particular schools and schools in general.
The ability of the forum itself to bring in expertise is a better solution already available within the rules we are proposing than the idea of leasing out, hiving off or pushing away from the forum's general approach to a separate organisation as suggested in the amendment. There is already substantial flexibility in the rules and
1596
I do not believe that we need to go that one step further. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Skidelsky: I appreciate that reply which is sympathetic to the purposes I put forward. Has the Minister considered at all seriously what has been achieved by charter schools in the United States? Has he looked at what has happened in Springfield, Massachusetts, and East Harlem where spectacular results have been achieved by exactly the method I have been talking about? That success has been achieved precisely because they have been able to bring in fresh energy and commitment by groups of people to a single school. That is worlds away from the language that the Minister used about bringing in management consultants and that kind of thing.
As explained to me, not in this House, but outside, one of the main philosophies of the education action zones seems to be to rationalise services across the area. That is why a company like Capita is involved in so many of the bids. I am sorry; I am revealing something. I know that to be the case. It is a management consultant body and believes that one should rationalise services across the forum such as financial, administration and management services. It has a good case.
However, that is not what I am talking about. It worries me that in his reply the Minister should talk about consultancy and management skills. I am talking about the energy, enthusiasm and zeal of groups of educationalists who believe they can turn a school round. I want them to be given a chance. If one says that that will be possible within the forum structure I would be very happy. But the Minister needs to say more than he has said to persuade me that that would be possible.
Lord Whitty: There is quite a degree of flexibility built into the action zones in bringing in anyone—educationalists, management consultants or whoever—who can offer expertise. To some extent the noble Lord is addressing a slightly separate and different problem. We are debating here action zones directed at changing the educational attainment of whole areas and co-operation between schools. I believe that what is at the back of the noble Lord's mind is the question of failing schools where clearly innovative measures would be contemplated. Indeed, any measures which offer improvement for failing schools identified by the department and the local education authority would be contemplated on a one off school-by-school basis. That seems to me a slightly different issue than how we conduct the education action forum and zones.
Certainly, we are deeply concerned about failing schools and the need to turn them round. We would welcome expertise and innovative ideas in those areas. We are dealing here with the management of the whole of the education action zone. That concept requires co-operation and, to some degree, co-ordination, but not necessarily uniform co-ordination, across the schools rather than having established an education action zone and then removing one school from that approach. The whole question of failing schools was addressed earlier

1597
in the debate. I take some of the noble Lord's points about the issues and expertise which exist in America. That is relevant in that area. As I say, I do not believe that it is relevant here or appropriate.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Skidelsky: I shall make just this one further intervention and then I shall shut up in order to allow the debate to go forward. If it were true that all the schools in an education action zone were of the same kind and were roughly of the same standard, there could be uniform treatment. If 10 people were suffering from the same disease or were in the same mediocre health, you would give them one medicine and they would all improve. The Minister talked about education action zones as though they contained schools of a similar type. That is not true. Within any education action zone some schools will be failing. The whole object of education action zones is to target some of the worst schools—and some of the worst schools in the country will be in the education action zones.
My proposal was to use the machinery which the Government have created in order to enable those schools to be dealt with. I was not trying to use machinery that is not in the Bill. The machinery is there; it is set up. Charter schools have been successful. I emphasise that failing schools will not be chucked out of an education action zone; they will remain in the zone and will be accountable to the forum for their performance, but they will not be under the same degree of management and control precisely to allow some new flowers to bloom.
I cannot believe that the Government do not intend that to happen. However, I do not think that the machinery is sufficiently flexible at the moment for it to happen, and I am suggesting a way in which it may be made so. If the Government felt that there was a different way of achieving this, for heaven's sake I wish that they would say so. At the moment, a bit of stonewalling seems to be going on, with the Minister saying, "I share the objectives, but they can be met within the existing framework". I am not sure that that is true.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps the Minister would like to take the opportunity to enlarge a little on what exactly the regulations under subsection (3) of Clause 12, but possibly also under subsections (4) and (5), will look like. Will they be regulations which will allow a great deal of flexibility? Will they allow an education action forum which wishes to experiment with one of its schools to say, "What happens if we let this group of teachers take on the school in their own way and see where it goes? Why do we not try that in this school, see whether it works and take that experience around the rest of the zone?". Will that be allowed, or will the regulations state that all that is allowed is to pursue initiatives across a range of schools, and that those initiatives will have to be fairly universal and similar within the zone?
If the regulations are to allow a lot of scope for a forum to decide that it will pursue individual experiments—or trials—of particular ideas, ways of
1598
managing schools and degrees of freedom and innovation within an individual school to see whether they work (with the support of the rest of the zone, but with the rest of the zone looking on and learning) perhaps we can do something to make possible my noble friend's ideas within the perhaps regrettable limits of this initiative, but at least allowing it to happen, if that is what is wanted.
I am concerned by all the fog and uncertainty surrounding the regulations. Having heard the Minister, I was uncertain about whether the regulations would be drawn in such a way as to allow that to happen or whether they would be so restrictive in terms of how a zone may operate that no initiative of the sort proposed by my noble friend would ever be possible.
Lord Whitty: I am not sure why noble Lords give the impression that I have suggested that education action zones should treat all their schools in a uniform way. Clearly, there will be a mix of schools, attainment, performance, demography and history. All of those schools will be treated differently. As to the regulations, they will provide a very high degree of flexibility. Neither I nor the regulations advocate—and the Bill does not imply—a uniform approach. The bulk of the regulations will be procedural rather than substantive and a good deal of discretion will be left to the education action zone. A substantial amount of innovation about how the schools are run will be available to the forum in the individual zones. Nevertheless, the zone consists of a number of schools which support, challenge and learn from one another. The forum will be responsible for the education attainment within the zone as a whole and therefore it must be approached as a whole. That does not imply uniformity or exclude the input of energy, initiative, ideas, new management and educational techniques for which the noble Lord is looking. Indeed, quite the opposite. We hope that the education action zones will deliver those differentially according to the needs of the schools in their areas.
What we do not want to see, and fear slightly given the noble Lord's amendment, is one school completely outside that mutually supportive system dealing with an entirely different management structure. Nevertheless, I believe that most of the objectives of bringing in expertise and so forth can be achieved within the structure that we propose.
Baroness Blotch: In the light of the answer just given by the noble Lord, and as I understand my noble friend's amendment, it is only if the action forum, having looked across the diverse range of schools, decides that a particular school has specific needs that it goes to a third body to which it will give its authority. It will stay within the family of the zone but will buy in expertise, turn that school around and give it different measures from those required by all the other schools because the forum has defined it as a specific issue. It is the forum which gives birth to the proposition and retains control, because that body will be accountable to the forum for as long as it exists. If that is so, what is there to fear? It is not outside the control of the forum because the

1599
forum has the final responsibility to ensure that education is improved in that area. That will be the contract between the forum and the body given the specific job of turning the education around in one of its schools.
Lord Whitty: Certainly, there is no barrier to the forum bringing in particular expertise and managing the school in that way, subject to its overall control. It may be that the terminology adopted in the noble Lord's amendment gives us greater cause for concern than it should. However, "lease out" means that for a period one can lease out a school to a separate educational institution. Although it will remain accountable in that it must fulfil its contract, it will be separate from the overall structure of the education action zone. Perhaps there is some terminology that is half-way between us, but the concept of leasing out gives the impression of not simply an arm's length relationship of the kind to which the noble Baroness referred but one in which the school is treated completely outside the education action zone when we want to see a mutually supportive system between all the schools in the zone.
Lord Skidelsky: If there is some terminology that is half-way between us, why do the Government believe that it is not appropriate to put it on the face of the Bill?
Lord Whitty: It may be that that is something which will be covered by the regulations and I shall think about that proposition. However, I am not sure that we want to start hares running by suggesting a new approach which would mean that an individual school could be treated separately from the whole action zone.
Lord Skidelsky: I welcome the assurance that the Minister will reflect on the matter and possibly go half way somewhere in the Bill to meet the arguments which my noble friends and I have been putting forward. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Disapplication of pay and conditions order in relation to teachers at participating schools]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 65:
Page 11, line 26, leave out ("For") and insert ("After").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 66 and 158. If I understand the Bill correctly, if Clause 13 is passed in its present form there will be a substantial invalidation of part of the 1991 Act which deals with disapplication of pay and conditions in existing participating grant-maintained schools.
As the Minister will see from my amendments, I wish to ensure that grant-maintained schools do not disappear in the course of the new proposals. But whether or not they do and whether or not we succeed in convincing the Government, we believe that those provisions should be transferred to the newly formed foundation schools.
1600
One argument used in the past by the Minister and no doubt destined to be used again is that although there has been this provision for grant-maintained schools, not many of the schools have made use of it. If only one finds an advantage doing it, first, there is no fear on the part of the Government that it will be operated wholesale; and secondly, the fact that it benefits one or two schools seems to me an argument for at least allowing the flexibility for that provision to remain in place.
My case is that that part of the 1991 Act should not be repealed. Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 158 seek to preserve what has existed in the past and what we believe will still be a useful facility for schools, particularly as we now have this widespread facility for action zone schools. It may be that if the provision works for action zone schools, it will become more popular over time. But whether or not it becomes more popular and whether it is taken up by one or 101 schools is not relevant to the case I am putting. I am simply saying that the facility has been beneficial, has done no harm, and does not get in the way of good education. Perhaps the Minister has interpreted the disapplication measures as meaning, in practice, better pay and conditions for teachers rather than a worsening of the provisions. I await her response.
The case is a good one. It would be unfortunate if that part of the 1991 Act were to disappear. Therefore, I wish to ensure that those provisions are retained in addition to the Clause 13 provisions. I beg to move.
1 a.m.
Baroness Blackstone: It is important that education action zones are able to apply to opt out of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act, even though there is considerable flexibility within the legislation. However, these amendments are about allowing other types of school to opt out. Grant-maintained schools are already able to do so, but, as the noble Baroness admitted, only two schools have in fact taken up the opportunity. She is absolutely right to anticipate that, in these circumstances, the Government do not think it right to continue with the arrangements.
The Government do not want to extend those freedoms to large numbers of individual schools at present. It would be more appropriate for schools working collectively in education action zones and with additional resources to have that added scope. I make the point again that EAZs are for experimentation of this kind; they are a test bed. They may well point the way to the future, as the noble Baroness suggested. For all I know, there may well come a time when large numbers of schools will benefit from greater flexibility in teachers' pay and conditions. However, these are pilots. I really do believe that it would not be right to allow any grant-maintained schools to do so; that is, if they were to survive. I know that the noble Baroness has tabled further amendments in that respect. The intention is that they should become foundation schools. It would not be right at this stage for any foundation or voluntary school to be able to opt out. We must wait and see how a properly monitored and evaluated experiment operates

1601
before we move down that particular path. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: That was a deeply disappointing answer. This is not an experiment, nor are we asking for schools to opt out. We are saying that schools should have available to them the facility for disapplying the pay and conditions of service for teachers. There is no question of schools opting out and no question of experimentation. Indeed, this has been tried and tested over many years since grant-maintained schools were established. Therefore, we know the consequences of disapplying, albeit in two schools. Nevertheless, we have seen it work in practice and observed that it actually means a better deal for teachers when it happens.
I took note of what the Minister said. She said specifically that the Government do not want to extend this to a large number of schools at the moment. But that is precisely what the Government are doing: they are extending it to cover over 300 schools. If there are to be 12 zones with a possible number of 20 participating schools in each zone, that is nearly 300 schools, with another 325 schools in a matter of six months' time. So the contention that the Government do not wish to extend this to a large number of schools at present is simply not true.
There is a proposition built into the Bill that this facility will be afforded to hundreds of schools. So, first, it is not an experiment because it has been tried and tested. Secondly, it has not been a great threat to teachers. In fact, those teachers who have enjoyed the benefits of it have received more generous pay and conditions as a result of the move. I simply cannot understand the arguments put forward by the Minister. I am clearly not making much headway with the amendment, but I shall return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 67
Page 11, line 39, leave out ("by them") and insert ("at the school").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 68 and 69. These are technical amendments, which are necessary to ensure the effective working of Clause 13. The clause is most important because it will allow governing bodies to apply for permission to opt out of the teachers' pay and conditions document in order to find new ways of working with and rewarding staff. It will also help governing bodies to improve the recruitment and retention of staff, and to make effective and flexible use of the school's human resources.
The amendments will give governing bodies which use the clause the power to offer alternative contracts. Amendment No. 69 clarifies that existing contracts will continue to have force until any new contracts are put in place. It ensures that, where the LEA is the employer, it must implement the decisions of the governing body.
1602
That is, of course, already the case where the pay and conditions document is in place and the school is operating a delegated budget. This is an important clause. In order to ensure that it works effectively for all types of school, I ask Members of the Committee to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: I wish to discuss Amendment No. 70 which in many ways is closely connected with the amendments just spoken to by the Minister. We are concerned that councillors, governors and teachers are fully consulted when new arrangements apply within an education action zone to suspend the present teachers' pay and conditions. As the noble Baroness has said, under Chapter III of the Bill education action zones are established and there are powers to disapply the teachers' pay legislation. Many people are concerned about that. As the Minister said earlier, no one is particularly anticipating that teachers will receive lower pay, but the consequences of this measure may be serious for local authorities, particularly as regards teachers' pension rights.
I appreciate that the Minister will give us further information on this matter after today; namely, how the provision will affect local authorities. Important matters are involved in the provision. The Minister recognises that there must be some consultation. However, matters remain to be ironed out, for example the responsibilities of local authorities in this area, particularly any extra financial responsibilities they may incur. I hope that at a future date the Minister will give us further information on this important matter.
The Minister referred to the recruitment of teachers. That is a matter of concern. I do not think I am as optimistic as the Minister. Schools already have considerable difficulty recruiting teachers. I have received quite a long letter from the headmaster of a school in Southampton that my children used to attend which mentions his concerns about this Bill. He states that the school is experiencing considerable problems at present recruiting teachers even where additional salary points have been awarded. He wrote that the school had sometimes advertised twice for staff but had received only three applicants for a post. I can confirm that it is a reasonable school. In the foreign languages department of that school only four candidates applied for a fairly attractive job. As I said, I am not as optimistic as the Minister on this point. I believe there will be problems in recruiting teachers.
We should all be concerned about what may happen to schools adjacent to education action zones if teachers are attracted to schools within those zones. People must be consulted properly on this important issue. As I said, we must consider the knock-on effects on schools adjacent to action zones as well as the effects on teachers within action zones. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. As I said, I realise she may not be able to say too much tonight as she will write to us on some of these matters in the future.
Baroness Blackstone: We are strongly in favour of consultation, and indeed applications to opt out will not be considered without evidence that this has taken place.

1603
I hope that is helpful to the noble Baroness. We maintain that the requirement to consult is best placed on those putting forward the proposals, not on the Secretary of State. It makes no sense at all for the proponents to put forward a proposal without discussion with teachers. That is why the requirement is built into the Bill.
In terms of the consultation we would expect to see from the governing body when it applies for this opt-out, the Minister for School Standards has made it clear that he expects consultation with teachers, teacher representatives and LEA representatives if the LEA is the employer. There may be other groups which are particularly relevant in some local contexts, such as diocesan bodies, parent groups or governor associations. However, there is no reason why this needs to be on the face of the Bill. Assurances have been given that we will expect consultation of all those affected, and that the Secretary of State will take account of this consultation in reaching a reasonable decision. But this will vary depending on the type of school which is putting forward the proposals and the nature of what is proposed.
With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
Baroness Maddock: We have only one amendment in the group; the others belong to the Minister. Our amendment has not even been moved. But in replying to the Minister's response to our amendment, let us get it right. It is ten past one in the morning. I hear what the Minister says. In view of the discussions we have had tonight, we shall all need to look carefully at what was said and at further information we receive from the Minister on some of these issues. When we reach the Report stage we may wish to tidy it up a little more. But we shall have to look carefully at what has been said. There has been a great deal of discussion about this matter tonight. I know that we shall be getting further information so I shall not press the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 68:
Page11, line 46, leave out ("by them") and insert ("at the school").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 69:
Page 12, line 10, at end insert—
("() Where by virtue of an order under subsection (4) above a pay and conditions order ceases to apply in relation to any school, the statutory conditions of employment of the school teachers employed at the school shall be—

(a) such as may be determined by the governing body, or

(b) so far as the governing body have not made any determination with respect to any such conditions of employment, those having effect under the order immediately before it ceased to apply;

and (so far as necessary) the local education authority shall give effect to any such determination of the governing body.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Cases where LEA may exercise powers of intervention]:
1.15 a.m.
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 71:
Page 13, line 11, after ("notice") insert ("in writing").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 71, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 72. I can be brief. These are minor drafting amendments to make explicit the need for the LEA to put in writing the warning notice and the intention to use the powers available. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 72:
Page 13, line 32, after ("notice") insert ("in writing").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Power of LEA to appoint additional governors]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 73:
Page 14, line 35, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 73, I shall speak also to Amendments No. 74, 75 and 76. Amendments Nos. 77 and 77A are in the same group, but before responding it might be better if I wait until the right reverend Prelate has spoken to Amendment No. 77.
Amendments Nos. 73, 74, 75 and 76 put right an omission in the Bill. They are concerned with the period immediately following failure when a school and its LEA have to send plans to the Secretary of State for improving the school: these are the school's action plan and the LEA's statement in response.
The effect of our amendments would be to bring into line the point at which the appropriate appointing authority for voluntary-aided schools can use its powers to appoint governing bodies with that already in the Bill for LEAs to exercise their powers. In both cases, this will be 10 days after the Secretary of State has received both the action plan from the school and the statement from the LEA. That was unfortunately omitted from earlier stages of the Bill, but it replicates existing arrangements in the School Inspections Act 1996.
Amendment No. 75 provides for the same 10 days waiting period before, in the case of voluntary aided schools, the appropriate appointing authority uses its powers to appoint additional governors. The other amendments are matters of drafting following on from that. I shall gladly respond to the right reverend Prelate when he moves his amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 77 which stands in my name and also Amendment No. 77A which amends my amendment.
Amendment No. 77 refers to the provision which enables the Secretary of State to appoint additional governors to a failing school. This measure replaces the

1605
existing provision for the Secretary of State to appoint an educational association. Under the existing provision, the authorities referred to in my amendment have to be consulted before the Secretary of State takes that decision. There is therefore a prima facie case for the same arrangements to be in place.
The argument for doing so is not that these authorities should sway the Secretary of State in a decision to appoint additional governors, but to allow the Secretary of State access to local knowledge in deciding whom to appoint. The appropriate authorities may feel that they know the person they think would be right to sort the matter out. But they may have no power to appoint such a person. Amendment No. 77 requires the Secretary of State to consult the appropriate diocesan authority so that with local knowledge of the situation that authority can advise the Secretary of State.
The Minister may say that with good practice this would happen. However, under this provision the foundation majority on the governing body of an aided school would be lost. It seems only proper that consultation should be a right, as is the case at present. The Secretary of State does not have to listen when he consults; he will be free to take whatever action he chooses. But the provision allows him access to local knowledge. It is in everyone's interest to deal with a failing school. A partnership is more likely to achieve a successful result.
On Amendment No. 77A, I entirely welcome the intention of the amendment. I believe that the point is already met by paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 77: that the person or body that appoints the foundation governors would be the appropriate authority in the case of all other religious schools. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response to the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for that explanation. I am not certain that that position is true in every case. The governors of each of the schools may be the appropriate body, but there may be the equivalent of a diocesan authority for Jewish or Moslem schools. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, is not with us, but he has a number of amendments down to protect the interests of Methodist schools. There will be others too.
I do not wish in any way to take issue with the right reverend Prelate. However, when the Minister responds, I wish to be absolutely assured that paragraph (b) totally subsumes my Amendment No. 77A and that no single denomination other than the Anglican and Catholics will be left unprotected by these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate and to the noble Baroness for explaining their amendments, and I am also grateful to the right reverend Prelate for this opportunity to record the valuable role played by the Churches in supporting their weak and failing schools. They strengthen the local partnerships needed to raise standards.
The power to appoint additional governors is an important element in the range of measures needed to provide support for schools in difficulty: failing schools
1606
need outside help. In a voluntary school, both the diocese and the LEA can bring in support and expertise by appointing additional governors to the governing body. Where this, and the support of the LEA more generally, is clearly not working the Secretary of State needs the flexibility to move quickly and decisively to bring in extra help.
Before deciding that appointing additional governors is the right course of action, there will already have been discussions with and about the school. Having decided that additional governors would help to improve the school, we shall need to find out about the strengths and weaknesses of the existing governors, to make sure that we appoint the people who can make the necessary contribution. It is inconceivable that we could do all of this without talking to the LEA and the diocese. This will have to be a temporary solution, because the Secretary of State will appoint his governors for a fixed term. What this will be will depend upon the circumstances of each case.
This is not a permanent takeover of the governing body. To be brutal, the school will either be improved or it will face closure. The comparison is made with the power to set up an education association. I suggest that a closer match to this power lies in Clause 19 of the Bill, which gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the closure of a school. Before issuing a direction to the LEA, the Secretary of State has a duty to consult the appropriate diocesan authority, among others. If the Government were to accept the case made for this amendment, consistency would seem to dictate that we would need to have a parallel provision for LEAs to be consulted. The need to consult would have to be extended to all categories of school and not just voluntary-aided schools.
I think this could complicate what ought to be an informative dialogue to find solutions which, up to that point, all parties have failed to find. I am not convinced that a duty to consult placed on the face of the Bill will increase the pace of the improvement of standards in badly performing schools, which is at the heart of this clause. So I am afraid I must ask the right reverend Prelate not to press his amendment.
So far as Amendment No. 77A is concerned, of course I accept that schools of a religious character, other than those listed in Amendment No. 77, provide a valuable contribution. I will certainly ensure, in accordance with the assurance I have already given to the right reverend Prelate, that in appointing additional governors for any such schools, whether they be Jewish, Muslim, Methodist or whatever, we shall be in dialogue with the appropriate authority for the school.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance about consultations that will take place. However, I have to say that I am disappointed that he is not willing to see this on the face of the Bill, and I do not immediately accept his argument that there would necessarily have to be parallels in other cases. I do not intend to press the amendment, but reserve the right to return to this issue at a later stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
1.30 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 74 to 76:
Page 15. line 22, after ("may") insert ("(subject to subsection (9A))").
Page 15, line 23, at end insert—
("(9A) The power conferred by subsection (9) is only exercisable if the following conditions are satisfied, namely—

(a) the relevant document has been sent to the Secretary of State;

(b) the appropriate appointing authority have received a notice in writing from the Secretary of State informing them he has received that document; and

(c) a period of not less than ten days has elapsed since the date of the notice.").

Page 15, line 45, at end insert
("(13) In this section "the relevant document" means a copy of a statement prepared—

(a) under section 18 of the School Inspections Act 1996, or

(b) under section 17 of that Act, if the school does not have a delegated budget within the meaning of Part II of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move these three amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Power of Secretary of State to appoint additional governors]:
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Baroness Blatchhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 77A:
Line 6, after ("authority") insert ("and in the case of all other religious schools, the appropriate authority").
The noble Baroness said: I share the right reverend Prelate's disappointment with the answer that he received. The confidence of the denominational sector would be much increased if this provision appeared on the face of the Bill. If the right reverend Prelate returns to this matter at another stage, I may well seek the same assurances as I have sought this evening.
[Amendment No. 77A not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [New categories of maintained schools]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 78:
Page 18, line 9, at end insert—
("() grant-maintained schools;").
The noble Baroness said: Late as the hour is, this amendment is extremely important to me and to my colleagues. I ought to deal first with Amendment No. 81, which is coupled with this one, since in a sense that is the way I wish to approach this amendment.
School by school, across the country, sometimes against the most incredible physical, as well as mental, opposition to becoming grant-maintained, grant-maintained schools were established and were democratically voted for by bodies of parents. Parents painstakingly went through all the processes that it took. Under this Bill, at the stroke of a pen, or so it seems, they
1608
lose their status and their autonomy. There is absolutely no case whatsoever in a modern democracy where the views of parents has been cast aside in such a cavalier way The least that can be offered to these schools is that, should they wish to become foundation schools, controlled schools or voluntary aided schools, it should be a matter for the parents to make that determination. It may well be that overnight the schools will all want to become foundation schools. It may well be—though I suspect that it is not entirely true—with all the measures in place for foundation schools, which are meant to be the successors of grant-maintained schools, although I see a number of significant differences, that all the 1,000 to 1,200 grant-maintained schools will wish to become foundation, or community, or voluntary schools. If that is the case, and the parents support the decision, so be it.
In these two amendments, and in Amendment No. 81 in particular, I ask only this. The parents, of their own volition and against considerable opposition on occasions, having opted for the schools to become grant-maintained, it is only right and democratic that there should be afforded them the opportunity to give up that autonomy and return to local authority control.
The noble Baroness has read a letter a number of times which was written by the Grant-maintained Schools Triumvirate Association. That organisation and many individual grant-maintained schools have viewed realistically the Government's majority. They know that whatever we do in this place, however well we argue our case and whatever the strength of the intellectual underpinning of any argument advanced, another place will reverse the amendment. They do not agree with that; they do not like it. But it is a fact of political life and they have accepted it. They have therefore fought for the best deal possible. It is very much second-best. For many of them, it is decidedly second-best. What they would really like is for the schools to be left as they are, as grant-maintained schools—which surely must be open to them if that is what parents voted for. There is nothing in this Bill which gives parents a pre-eminent role—not in the creation of action zones or any other measure.
In the formation of grant-maintained schools they were given a pre-eminent role. The parents themselves elected that the schools should become grant-maintained. I am simply asking that they should be afforded that privilege, to exercise their own preferences, and for the schools either to remain as grant-maintained or to become foundation, community or voluntary aided schools.
Amendment No. 78 makes it technically possible. It retains the category of grant-maintained school which may or may not disappear over time, depending on how parents exercise their choice. No doubt the noble Baroness will find some argument that, however undemocratic it is, for the purposes of deciding what kind of school it shall be the views and preferences of parents do not count. That will be a great pity. It was a unique opportunity for those parents to vote for the schools to become grant-maintained. I believe they should be afforded an equal opportunity to determine their fate in the future. It may well be that they will want to go down

1609
the road that the Government wish, which is that they should become foundation, community and/or voluntary aided schools. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: I wish to support my noble friend Lady Blatch. It seems to me ironic that we have just spent the early part of this evening debating the education action zones which give freedom and independence to achieve excellence in schools. Now we will debate reducing that opportunity for grant-maintained schools. I know the time is late, but it seems ironic.
I also support my noble friend Lady Blatch in her request that if this is to come about, whatever we say on these Benches and whatever happens in the other House, at least the parents should be able to have a vote on the outcome. All in this Committee would acknowledge the good academic record of grant-maintained schools. It has not happened overnight; it has been worked at steadily. It seems to me a great pity that we will dismiss the very success that the schools have built up over recent years. I support my noble friend's amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: I begin by reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that I shall not read out the same letter again. I read it out at Second Reading and I do not wish to repeat myself. The noble Baroness made much of the success of grant-maintained schools, and of course the Government agree that there are some aspects of the grant-maintained initiatives that were positive. For example, it demonstrated that schools are capable of managing their own affairs. It showed that schools welcomed greater responsibility in controlling their budget. That is why the new schools framework will retain the best aspects of the grant-maintained initiative. As school self-management and greater budget delegation are key principles in the new framework, perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, so is a much more sharply defined role for LEAs.
Intervention in schools will be kept to an essential minimum, with a code of practice on relations between LEAs and schools. There will be no return to the kind of unnecessary intervention by LEAs in controlling schools, as sometimes happened in the past.
However, there were also major flaws with the grant-maintained initiative. The GM/LEA divide was not a sensible basis for a school system. Opting out divided school from school and schools from LEAs. I think it led to a rather unhealthy preoccupation with structures and status which distracted schools and LEAs from their central task of raising standards.
The new framework will promote partnership and stability. We believe that it is based on principles of fair funding, fair admission, partnership and equal treatment. There will not be preferential treatment for a few schools at the expense of the many. That was one of the problems that marked the GM schools: they were getting preferential treatment in certain ways, which was unfortunate.
Every school under this framework will receive fair funding through new local management of schools' arrangements. Every admission authority, whether the school or the LEA, will have to follow the code of practice
1610
on admissions. All schools will work together in a local partnership to raise standards. But each category of school in the new framework will be distinctive. The foundation and voluntary aided schools will have many of the characteristics that grant-maintained schools value most. Foundation and voluntary aided schools will own their premises, employ their own staff and take primary responsibility for their own admissions arrangements. Again, I say specifically to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who was implying if not actually suggesting that grant-maintained schools that become foundation schools will lose all those aspects of their independence, that they will not.
The noble Baroness has criticised the Bill for being focused on structure and not on standards. It is therefore surprising to hear that she believes that grant-maintained status in itself raised standards. Of course it is true that on average grant-maintained schools have achieved better test and examination results than LEA-maintained schools. But there is no evidence that that has anything to do with their legal status. Grant-maintained schools have tended to serve more advantaged areas than LEA schools. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools' most recent annual report confirms that when similar schools are compared, quality of teaching and progress made by pupils in the grant-maintained and LEA sectors are very similar.
That is not to deny the success of some grant-maintained schools. The Government praise all successful schools, whether they are grant or LEA maintained. We want our standards agenda to help all schools, including former grant-maintained schools, to go on performing well and, where possible, where they are not performing so well, to raise their performance.
Grant-maintained schools have nothing to fear from the new framework. Our manifesto promised that they would prosper, and we will deliver that promise. We have been working closely with the organisations representing grant-maintained schools. In their own words, they are looking forward to the new framework and not backwards to old divisions. That is a reassuring response from them.
In contrast, the amendments of the noble Baroness seek to allow repeated ballots about whether or not a school should remain grant maintained. They also attempt to enable other schools to change category to become grant maintained. That would perpetuate the very divisions which the new framework is designed to heal. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before I respond more fully, will the noble Baroness give me specific examples of the preferential treatment that GM schools received and therefore what they will lose as a result of the Bill?
Baroness Blackstone: Over a number of years, grant-maintained schools—I use this word with some hesitation but I believe it is the case—were bribed. Many schools were bribed to become grant-maintained schools by being offered generous capital provisions. They were far more generous than those for local education authority schools. We will have a fair system for the treatment of schools.
Baroness Blatch: Apropos that answer, perhaps I can ask the noble Baroness if it is right that earlier today the

1611
noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, boasted of a £1.2 billion capital allocation which he said was extremely generous—more generous than the previous government had made available to grant-maintained schools.
Baroness Blackstone: I completely reject any suggestion that he boasted. He was giving factual information about a decision the Government have made. The Government will apply capital in a fair way to all schools with improvement needs whether in respect of science labs, repairs to leaking roofs or any other aspect where they are not up to scratch as a result of neglect by the previous government.
1.45 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: I make the point only because the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he treated grant-maintained schools in terms of capital allocation more generously than the previous government. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot accuse us of having treated GM schools more generously and then boast, as they did earlier today, that they are treated more generously by the new Government than by the previous government.
This policy was so successful that the Prime Minister—not simply because he sent his children to a grant-maintained school—was attracted to it. Hence an aversion to perpetuate something invented by the previous government and therefore labelled a Tory policy. But in fact an attempt was made to reinvent it.
I happen to believe that there is a real tension between the Department for Education and Employment and Number 10 about the understanding of just how similar the foundation school provisions are to those for grant-maintained schools. I know, for example, that the Prime Minister is under an illusion that somehow or other what the Oratory enjoys as a grant-maintained school will be enjoyed by foundation schools. I can say to the noble Baroness that that is not the case if one reads the Bill and if one reads the distinction between grant-maintained schools and foundation schools.
The Oratory school, as a grant-maintained school, will not be as free to run its own affairs as it would as a foundation school under the provisions of the Bill. Hammersmith and Fulham, which has no role whatever in the Oratory school at this time, will indeed have an involvement under the new arrangements. So I am saying that this policy was very attractive to the Prime Minister; so much so that he actually sent his children to such a school. The same applies to Ms. Harriet Harman. She sent her children to a grant-maintained school because that school was attractive to her. And I say strength to the elbows of parents who look around for what they consider to be the best school available.
Perhaps I may also say to the noble Baroness that it is not just this Government who praise all successful schools, whatever their character—whether they are denominational schools, LEA schools, grant-maintained schools, special schools, or whatever. Wherever good education resides and wherever schools are well run, we
1612
equally would wish to recognise that. But we did see very real distinctions and we did see very real benefits with them becoming grant-maintained schools.
However, my amendment is not about that. It is a matter of record that grant-maintained schools have worked. It has been a very successful policy. It has moved forward the way in which LEAs manage their own schools. The amendment says that these parents chose the status "grant-maintained" and some of them went through great difficulties to become grant-maintained schools. We are simply asking the Government to afford them the same privilege to stay as they are. If the foundation schools are so attractive in the way that the noble Baroness has spelt out, and if they are to enjoy almost the same facilities as they do now as grant-maintained schools, there is really nothing to fear. The chances are that they will all accept that option and become grant-maintained schools. But it was a democratic right that they had to become grant-maintained schools in the first place and therefore that democratic right should be afforded to them in the future.
The noble Baroness invoked the code of practice as one way of saying that grant-maintained schools should not fear this new government policy, as the exhortation in the code of practice, which I have read from cover to cover, is that intervention should be in inverse proportions to needs. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that that is all it is. The code of practice is mere exhortation. It says to the local authorities that they must have regard to the code of practice. There is no penalty for not doing so. There is nothing in the Bill to explain what would happen if a local authority were more heavy handed then it ought to be. There are so many clauses in the Bill which give local authorities a rationale for intervening in a school.
For example, if the local education authority has a responsibility to monitor, and if the LEA has a responsibility to be concerned about good education in the local authority area, it does not wait on the outside until the school has failed. If it is doing its job properly, it will argue—and I think with some force—that it ought to be on the inside of those schools where it thinks the problems are beginning to happen in order to intervene early.
In the discussions on a previous amendment we were talking about the virtue of early intervention to deal with disruptive behaviour. The earlier one intervenes, the more likely one is to remedy the problem. The same will apply for local authorities. They will have a legitimacy in making sure that those schools perform well. Some local authorities which gave the schools a particularly hard time when they became grant-maintained will have a very real opportunity for some score settling. Far from the tension being resolved, as the noble Baroness said, I can say that in some cases tension will increase. I know of a number of grant-maintained schools which are very worried about returning to local education authorities which were very threatening at the time they became grant-maintained.
I do not believe that the foundation schools necessarily offer the same facilities and opportunities as grant-maintained schools. But that is not my central point. It is that under the Bill there will be a range of schools. I am simply saying let that range of schools include the existing grant-maintained schools, but give the parents the opportunity to exercise their own choice.

1613
My final point is in the form of a question to the noble Baroness. She emphasised the point that these schools, particularly foundation schools, will be their own admissions authority. I believe that was in response to my noble friend Lady Byford. Will the schools be subject to the admissions code of practice or exempt from it? If they are their own admissions authority and are exempt from the admissions code of practice, then the answer is that they will have control. If they are subject to it, as I believe they are because there is nothing in the Bill that says they are not, the fact that they are their own admissions authority will not be worth the paper it is written on because it will be possible for the organisational committees and the all-powerful adjudicator to have the last say. Therefore, it will invalidate their freedom to have control over their admissions.
1.45 a.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I can answer straightaway the last part of the question asked by the noble Baroness. They will be subject to the admissions code of practice. The Government consider that is the right thing to do in order to secure a fair deal between different categories of schools.
Perhaps I may put her mind at rest. There is absolutely no tension, conflict or disagreement between the Department for Education and Employment and No. 10 on this matter. That is pure fantasy and I do not know where the noble Baroness got it from. Grant-maintained schools will really have nothing to fear from these changes. I can only repeat what I have said, but I do not want to at this time of night.
I also dispute what the noble Baroness said about score settling by local education authorities. That is very unfair to LEAs. I do not believe that any LEA would want to indulge in such behaviour. I am sure that they will not. The Secretary of State would take a very dim view were it to happen.
Many of these schools will be foundation schools rather than community schools. Grant-maintained schools will have a choice of category in the new framework. Parents of such schools will be able to secure a ballot on the schools' future category by presenting a petition. The rules of the ballots will be very similar to the ballots for the grant-maintained schools. Those schools will not have the choice of remaining grant maintained. As I have already explained, that would simply perpetrate the divisions within the school system which the new framework is designed to heal. In the light of that answer, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Tope: Perhaps I may intervene in the dialogue that has been going on. I am sure that it will come as no surprise that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches strongly oppose this amendment. That will be self-evident both from what I have said on many occasions and from the amendments which are to follow on the issue of foundation schools.
We are not talking specifically about grant-maintained schools. I accept that most of them provide an excellent standard of education. I do not deny that, but rejoice in it.
1614
To my belief, had they had the same leadership, and even more particularly the same resources within the LEA framework and worked within a proper partnership with it, they would have achieved at least the same success and excellence. One could argue that it would be even more so. It is not a question of being jealous or envious of GM schools or of wanting to destroy them. Of course we do not. We are as much committed to excellence as everyone else. As the Minister said, this is about the framework within which GM schools operate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has made much of democracy. When schools opt out of LEA control and take GM status, that has an effect also on neighbouring schools, on pupils and on parents who have been unable to send their children to GM schools. They have had no part in this "democracy". They have had no say in whether a GM school would opt out or on the impact of that on their area, their children and their opportunities. That democracy applied only to parents who happened to have children in that school at that time. Because of the nature of such schools, many of the parents of pupils would not have lived within the LEA area. That was certainly the case in my borough. "Democracy" is a much over-used and misunderstood word, and in this case the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is using it in a particular and extremely limited way. It is not the sort of democracy that I recognise.
Similarly, I find it impossible to understand why the Conservative Party when in government (and now in opposition) proclaim GM schools as a great success. I have acknowledged that individual schools are successful, but it is wrong to suggest that the policy was a success. When it was launched, it was expected that vast numbers of schools would leap at the chance of GM status and that before long virtually all schools would have opted out and become GM schools. That is what was proclaimed. I wish that I could remember the figures that were quoted when the policy was launched. It was said that there would be thousands. However, in spite of all the increasingly desperate inducements over the years, only a tiny number of schools opted out. Most did so solely for financial reasons and because of the inducements offered. A number opted out because the LEA was attempting to reduce the number of vacant school places, or because of other particular problems. Nevertheless, only a tiny number (relative to the total) opted out. In recent years, almost no schools have opted out.
I really do not understand how the Conservative Party can claim that GM schools were a great success. To my mind, it was one of the biggest failures of a much proclaimed Conservative government education policy. It did not work. It did not happen. Most schools decided that they were very happy working within an LEA partnership and chose to continue to do so. Quite a number of schools which tested the opinion of parents found that they too shared that view and so the school stayed within the LEA.
I reject the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I reject the concept of GM status, as I always have. As we may discover in a few minutes'

1615
time—personally, I hope that it will be in a week or so—we have considerable differences with the Government in their view on foundation schools.
Baroness Maddock: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Tope. I quoted earlier from a letter from the Cantell School in Southampton. The headmaster has written to me at some length about the Bill. He is extremely concerned and makes some important points about the role of LEAs and the effects on other schools of a school being able to opt out of LEA control. Perhaps I may quote from the headmaster's letter. He is writing on behalf of his staff, governors and the community that they serve because this issue has been discussed in the community. He states:
"We want equitable funding for our children; we want to be part of the developing education ethos of the City of Southampton. I would not wish Cantell to be resourced at the expense of neighbouring schools when I believe in the opportunity for all children in all schools".
That is a very important point and one that we have been making for some time in the debate about GM schools. That headmaster gives good examples of how LEAs help schools and how schools work together in Southampton, stating:
"Southampton schools share a significant amount of teacher in-service training especially at Key Stage 4; the structure of post 16 education in the City demands collaboration at Key Stage 4. Southampton Secondary Hcadteachers' Conference is a powerful expression of partnership with the LEA for the improvement of education achievement in the City".
I know that to be so. He goes on:
"I strongly request that there must be strategies to enhance the resourcing of ambitious and successful schools which will reinforce collaborative education".
That has been the theme when this House and another place have discussed this Bill. He goes on:
"My conviction is that disintegration of partnerships within the Local Education Authority will only serve to weaken a structure which could offer answers to other challenging issues".
He refers to inclusion policy and continues:
"My concern is that schools like ours should be able to secure substantial resourcing within the context of local partnerships. I believe"—
this may be relevant to discussions later tonight or at another time—
"that we should not have to follow a shadow 'grant maintained' route which from experience we know puts at risk the welfare and opportunities of other local schools and their communities".
That explains the fears that many Members of the Committee have expressed about what happens if certain schools receive special treatment and funding. It means that somebody else misses out unless one puts into education a lot of extra money.
Baroness Blatch: I am not surprised by the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, because they do not believe in foundation schools either.
Baroness Maddock: The contribution came from a headmaster, not me.
Baroness Blatch: Does the noble Baroness say that she supports foundation schools? I have looked at some of the
1616
amendments on the Marshalled List. I understand that the Liberal Democrats are to table amendments intended to take foundation schools out of the framework.
Baroness Maddock: I made it clear where we stood on foundation and grant-maintained schools. I merely point out that the evidence I gave the Committee this evening came from someone other than a politician; namely, someone who ran a school and who had been on the receiving end of changes he did not like.
Baroness Blatch: The point is still made for me. My understanding is that the Liberal Democrat amendments are intended to take foundation schools out of the framework. Therefore, a letter such as the one just quoted which refers not only to grant-maintained schools as they presently work but the perception of how foundation schools will work under the new framework is not surprising. I repeat that I was not surprised by that contribution.
I must press the noble Baroness. If the noble Baroness offers the one example which clearly in her perception is one of the differentials between grant-maintained schools and the funding of other schools—the initial capital funding—will the noble Baroness confirm whether there are any other distinctions that are unfair in terms of funding? I do not mean "unfair" because more of the central moneys go to grant-maintained schools simply because they take on those central responsibilities. Is the noble Baroness saying that there is any other feature of the funding of grant-maintained schools which creates disproportionate unfairness for other schools? If so, the corollary is that under the new framework grant-maintained schools will lose some funding. It would be helpful to have that quantified in some way by the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, condemned the idea that grant-maintained schools were a success. I will have to leave him with that view. I believe that they were a success. As to their number, I do not want to get into the arithmetic and discuss whether there were 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000. Those who made the transition to grant-maintained status did so entirely of their own volition. The school in Southampton made it clear that it would not wish to go down that road. That must be a matter for the school. I believe in choice. That school made its choice and I support that.
But the noble Lord, Lord Tope, did not have the experience that I had in the department when these ballots were taking place. On one occasion I invited to my office a group of head teachers who had undertaken the balloting process and lost. They came to talk about that experience. I can honestly say that I have never been more moved than when listening to the horror stories of how it was that they lost the ballot. Colleagues in the LEA and even colleagues in other schools made threatening phone calls in the middle of the night and were carrying out the most awful,

1617
and sometimes physical, threats on key members of the schools and sometimes even on the head teachers themselves.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Did they go to the police?
Baroness Blatch: They tried very hard indeed to identify where the threats were coming from. They were frequently anonymous. They were frequently not able to identify the people involved. In some cases they tried to go to the police and certainly in Birmingham I know that a case was pursued but it never came to anything because it was always difficult to pin down the people involved.
On one occasion, I asked the head teachers what they would have done to make things different. One reply that I received was that in another situation the school would never remain neutral. "We believed it was the best way forward for our school but we played fair by the parents. Parents contacted us, as head teachers and members of staff who supported the proposals. They asked us for our views". But in order to play fair, the head teachers said, "I must not influence you in this decision. It is something about which you must make up your own mind".
Parents are often greatly influenced by head teachers. Head teachers did not wish to influence them unduly and parents became suspicious and did not vote. I am merely saying that considerable distress was caused. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wants evidence of those incidents, he could talk to some of the head teachers, chairmen of governors and governors who went through extremely difficult times. Many members of staff in those schools did not like what was happening and made life difficult for them. Many of them changed their minds once grant-maintained status was secured.
Therefore, I am not surprised that some schools saw what was happening and did not want to go down that road because they felt that it was too difficult and controversial a road to follow. Others tried and failed. Very often they failed for what I regard as the wrong reasons.
Lord Tope: I am sure that the noble Baroness will accept that I do not, for one moment, condone the sort of behaviour which she is talking about. I accept that, sadly, in a number of cases—although, I suspect, exaggerated—it did happen and condemn that at least as strongly as she does.
I am sure that she will accept that, equally, I could swap horror stories with her—and I do not intend to do so at this time of night—about some of the threats, intimidation and wild exaggerations that were made by some of the more extreme proponents who wished to opt-out. I am afraid that it was the divisive nature of the whole practice that caused some of the more extreme proponents on both sides to behave in ways that none of us would condone.
However, I wish to return to the so-called success of that policy. I am not arguing about whether GM schools, as schools, have been successful. I question whether the policy has been successful. The noble Baroness does not wish to swap numbers with me and I do not wish to become involved in a numbers game either. The noble Baroness could not remember whether it was 1,000,
1618
2,000 or even 3,000. From memory, I believe it is nearer 1,000 than 2,000 schools which have opted out. Even if we accept the suggestion that a number of others have either chosen not to do so or have lost on a ballot because of whatever fears they may have had, there are more then 24,000 schools in this country. The noble Baroness cannot be suggesting to us that more than 10,000 of those have been intimidated into not opting out.
The reality is that out of 24,000 plus schools, just over 1,000 have chosen to opt out. To me, that is not the mark of a successful policy.
Baroness Blatch: I was not ignorant of the numbers. I know the numbers. I was simply saying it was irrelevant whether it was 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000. That is not the argument. I am one of those people who genuinely believes in choice. If a vast majority of the schools do not wish to go down that road, that must be for them. I support that. I support the freedom to choose. That has always been the basis of the policy.
It may only be about 1,200 schools, but about 25 per cent. of those are secondary schools. A very large proportion of secondary schools are in the grant-maintained sector. With my amendment, I am seeking to allow the parents of those schools to exercise their choice.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for saying that he would not condone such practices, but they were very widespread. Indeed, there are officials sitting not too far away from me tonight who know about some of those practices. They were aware of them in the department. If the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wishes to discuss the matter with officials, I have no doubt that they will be told about some of the difficulties, especially as regards the early schools which opted for grant-maintained status.
I can remember the chief education officer in my local authority handing round anti-GM leaflets at public meetings. I did not regard that as fair game when the schools themselves were not allowed to present their own case, particularly when the head teachers very often played it fair and were neutral in these cases. I support the principle and the policy that fairness should be applied in the first instance and that the schools which chose of their own volition to become grant-maintained schools should be afforded the opportunity to exercise the choice of whether to remain grant maintained, to become foundation schools, or, indeed, to become voluntary aided and/or community schools.
However, with the great Lib/Lab alliance which is alive and kicking both in this and another place, it is clear that I shall not make much progress on the matter. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that I shall return to the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Topemoved Amendment No. 79:
Page 18, leave out line 11.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I feel that I should pronounce the end of the Lib/Lab alliance that the noble Baroness seems to have spotted. We have consistently held the view—and, indeed, still retain it—

1619
that there should broadly be two categories of school; namely, what are now to be called community schools, with which we are content, and voluntary schools along with the categories which fall within that sector.
There should not be three categories of schools. I believe that that is a view which is shared widely within the maintained education sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has said that she sees many differences between foundation schools and grant-maintained schools, although, perhaps out of deference to the time of night, she did not elaborate on the nature of those significant differences. I am bound to say that they have eluded me. The only significant difference that I can see is that they have a different name. There is very little other difference between the two.
It is the view of my party, and remains so, that schools which are not voluntary aided should come within the framework of a light-touch LEA working in partnership with those schools. I acknowledge that not all LEAs achieve that goal. In my view, all LEAs should achieve that and I hope that the better parts of the Bill will enable them to do so. That briefly restates my party's principled objection to the concept of foundation schools.
I am moving the amendment at this stage because it seemed to be the most appropriate place in the Bill to do so. In the unlikely event of our amendment being accepted, I acknowledge that there would need to be other consequential amendments throughout the Bill. However, I did not feel it appropriate either to trouble the Public Bill Office or, indeed, the Committee in trying to move every conceivable amendment to delete every reference to foundation schools, or anything consequential upon it. I recognised that fact but just wanted to move the amendment, although I had hoped to do so rather earlier in the night and at greater length. Nevertheless, I wanted to put that on the record.
I move on to the other amendment which deals with the new concept of foundation special schools. That is something which, in a way, concerns me even more. We have had a difference of view with the Government about foundation schools ever since they proposed the concept when in opposition. It is a different matter with foundation special schools. In common with everyone else, we believed that the Government did not believe in foundation special schools. That belief was based not only on their statements when in opposition but, more importantly, on statements made since they have come into office. The White Paper Excellence in Schools, issued only last year, proposed that special schools would become community schools, and the Green Paper regarding excellence for all children also proposed community status for special schools.
Therefore we had the belief—as did everyone else and particularly those working in that sector—that that was what the Government were proposing. All those who were in agreement with that had nothing to say because they agreed with the Government's stated view. If I remember correctly, on Second Reading the Minister in
1620
addressing this point said that the Government had changed their mind and had decided to go for foundation special schools because of representations received from grant-maintained special schools. However, that comprises a small number.
That seems to me to be rather strange. It is inevitable that those who have some disagreement with a proposed policy will say so, but to change the policy without giving those who had assumed the Government would stand by it an opportunity to express their views seems to me to be rather less than fair. There are many reasons—they have been stated previously and will be stated again—why it is particularly inappropriate for special schools to have foundation status. One of the most important reasons is the need for LEAs to be able to plan and to target their special needs resources effectively. That is difficult under any circumstances, especially as resource demands seem to be growing enormously, but it is even more difficult when a special school is no longer properly within the LEA framework. It is much more difficult to plan and to target scarce resources so as effectively to meet the broad range of special needs that need to be met today.
While I have no grounds for optimism that our plea on foundation schools will fall on fertile ground, I urge the Minister, and the Government she represents, to adhere to their original view of only a few months ago that they expressed for the reasons they gave in both the White Paper and in the Green Paper, and to reject the concept of foundation special schools. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: In the spirit of a Liberal Democrat Party of Wales alliance I rise to support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and to speak to Amendment No. 82 standing in my name which is grouped with them. This is concerned with the position of grant-maintained schools in Wales. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, claims that they were a roaring success in England. However, a total of 17 schools opted for grant-maintained status in Wales. That is fewer than 1 per cent. That is hardly a success. The majority of the schools that adopted such a status did so because they were faced with closure because of falling rolls or because they were denominational schools seeking particular advantage in capital funding arrangements. Those issues have been covered earlier in this discussion.
The new foundation category—New Labour, new foundation, I am tempted to say—introduced by the Bill is certainly designed to accommodate the substantial number of grant-maintained schools in England. I believe it makes no sense in the context of Wales to have such a category. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that it makes little sense in England either. As regards my amendment to Schedule 2 I argue that this category should not become primary legislation in relation to Wales and to the work of the national assembly, which will be responsible for implementing the Bill when the Government of Wales

1621
Bill passes through all its stages in this Chamber and the assembly is established in a little under a year from now.
Therefore there is no case to legislate formally for a category which appears to me to be redundant both in terms of numbers and in terms of a principle. It makes little sense to establish a category in law to indicate the position of such a tiny minority of schools. I am much in favour of diversity of provision—as mentioned in later amendments to this Bill—but it seems to me that this category is not really about diversity; it is a complication in the structure. What is important is that all the schools in Wales are perceived to be of equal standing within the maintained sector of schools. It is not helpful therefore to have such a category. This is the position also of the Welsh Local Government Association. I hope that for all the reasons I have mentioned the Welsh Office and the Minister will consider this provision sympathetically.
Baroness Blackstone: We are committed to creating a new school framework which strikes a better balance between the interests of individual schools and those of pupils and schools collectively. To do that we need to start from where schools are now, not where they were 10 years ago. The school system in this country has never been monolithic, and we value the principle of diversity. Schools have traditionally had different degrees of autonomy. But in the past these differences have almost always been linked to religious character.
GM status gave secular as well as religious schools greater autonomy, and a fifth of all secondary schools took up the GM option. But as we have already discussed in dealing with the last group of amendments, grant-maintained status was a flawed initiative, although it demonstrated clearly that schools are willing and able to run their own affairs.
Our new framework is designed to preserve the benefits of self-management while removing the divisiveness of opting out. Creating a new foundation category is essential to achieving that. It will allow former grant-maintained schools to retain many of their existing characteristics—employing staff, owning premises, acting as admission authorities—within a framework based on fair funding, fair admissions and partnership between schools and LEAs. In time, the foundation category will also give community and voluntary controlled schools the opportunity to take on additional responsibilities.
The alternative would be to deny schools this choice and to force most GM schools into the community category. Apart from being intrinsically undesirable, that would create substantial practical problems. It would mean the transfer of land ownership and staff employment at around 1,000 schools. That would create an unacceptable level of turbulence and distraction for these schools when they should be concentrating their energies on raising pupils' achievements. I am sure that cannot be what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, wants.
1622
The noble Lord has said that LEAs were initially opposed to the foundation category. It is true that in responses to the White Paper and the technical consultation document a number of LEAs expressed reservations about the three categories of school. But much of their unease came from the proposals to require all schools to choose their new categories simultaneously. They felt that this process would create too much turbulence.
We listened to their concerns and have phased schools' choice of category. Only grant-maintained schools will have a choice of category when the new framework is implemented. LEA schools will be assigned to the nearest equivalent category. All schools will be able to seek an alternative category, if they wish, from a year after the new framework is implemented.
I turn now to those amendments concerning the foundation special schools. They would deprive special schools of any choice by removing the foundation special category. Our White Paper and technical consultation paper suggested that there were advantages in all special schools becoming community special schools. But of those who responded to that suggestion, the majority said that it would be wrong to deny parents at grant-maintained special schools—who had voted for greater autonomy for their school—the right offered to parents at mainstream schools to participate in choosing the school's future category. That was a powerful point, and the decision to give special schools a choice of category was made in that light.
We are very conscious of concerns about foundation special schools developing in ways that do not reflect local plans for SEN provision. We thought about those concerns carefully before deciding that special as well as mainstream schools should have a choice of category. In the new framework, both community and foundation special schools will be expected to participate in and be bound by local and regional planning arrangements.
I turn now to Amendment No. 82, which is about changing indicative allocations in Wales. Schedule 2 provides for grant-maintained schools—special as well as mainstream—to be indicatively allocated to the new category which most closely resembles their current characteristics. For example, former county grant-maintained schools employ their own staff and own their own premises. The nearest equivalent category is foundation, not community. That is just as true in Wales as in England.
The purpose of indicative allocations is to simplify the process by which GM schools move into their new categories. Schools which accept their indicative allocation will move automatically into this category. But governing bodies will be free to choose an alternative category if they wish.
With only one exception, all the grant-maintained schools in Wales are ex-county or ex-voluntary. We understand that most of those schools are content with their indicative allocation to the foundation category. Grant-maintained schools and LEAs in Wales are

1623
starting to work together. So transition to the grant-maintained category should be achieved smoothly in virtually every case.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, would mean that to become a foundation, grant-maintained schools in Wales would have to choose the foundation category as an alternative category. Their final category would then have to be decided by the Secretary of State for Wales. This would cause complications, much uncertainty, and delays, which are unnecessary.
In conclusion, the foundation and foundation special categories are integral to the new framework for the organisation of schools. They will minimise disruption when the new framework is introduced. In time they will give community schools an opportunity to seek greater autonomy while maintaining their partnerships with LEAs and other schools. The amendments seek to remove that opportunity or to complicate the process by which schools choose their new category. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord, Lord Tope, responds, can the Minister confirm when the Government will allow community schools under the new framework to opt to become foundation schools?
Baroness Blackstone: I cannot confirm the precise date. If we have a precise date I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: I asked the Minister to confirm the date because during the course of speaking to the amendment the noble Baroness referred to a year after the Bill comes into force.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sorry. I think the noble Baroness is absolutely right. That is the period of time which we shall deploy.
Baroness Blatch: This is important. It is a fact that one year after Royal Assent for the Bill local authority community schools will be allowed to make a choice, if they wish, to become foundation schools.
Baroness Blackstone: Yes.
Lord Tope: I predicted that we were unlikely to reach agreement here. However, I was encouraged to hear that the Minister is concerned about turbulence in the education sector. The relative turbulence of 1,000 schools across the country returning over a period of time to LEA seems fairly minor compared with the welter of new initiatives pouring out of the noble Baroness's department every day: the creation of education action zones; the development—which we support—of education development plans, and so on. The added turbulence, to use her word, of a relatively small number of schools in a relatively small number of areas returning to the LEA framework, it is to be hoped in a spirit of friendship and co-operation, will be minor. That is not an argument I accept.
1624
We have a difference of view about the desirability of a foundation status. I hold to my original view. I regret even more the response on foundation special schools. I make the point again. Had the Government indicated in their White Paper or Green Paper that they were in two minds and had a balance of view, I am certain that the responses they received would also have been more balanced, and more accurately weighted in favour of simply having community special schools.
I did not expect to win the amendment at any time, let alone approaching half past two in the morning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]
Lord Whittymoved Amendment No. 81 A:
Page 18, line 42, after ("day"") insert ("(except in Schedule 31)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 81A, and in doing so I need also to refer to the large batch of amendments grouped with it. For the record, these are Nos. 83A, 83B, 85A, 90A, 90B, 90C, 90D, 90F, 90G, 91B, 91C, 114A, 114B, 122A, 129A, 145A, 156A, 206A, 206B, 256B, 257C, 257E, 257G, 257J, 257L, 257N, 257P, 259A.
Following that, I have seven pages of notes explaining what each of the amendments does. However, I would hope that at this hour your Lordships will accept my assurance that all are technical and consequential, intended to clarify the Bill's substantive provisions relating to the new school categories. None of the amendments makes any additional substantive changes not already dealt with by other amendments. I am of course prepared to answer any questions on any of the amendments to the best of my ability, but I hope that the Committee will accept that they are technical and so allow us to proceed to the rather more substantial amendments which are to follow.
Baroness Blatch: I do not rise to ask for the seven pages of explanation regarding these amendments, but I do ask this. Consequential on what? And in relation to what?
Lord Whitty: Consequential on the definition of the new schools framework, with definitions of the new foundation schools. They also relate to timing and provisions on property and status.
Lord Lucas: I, on the other hand, would like to ask the noble Lord a few questions. It may be convenient if I do so amendment by amendment. I start with No. 145A. My question is: like what? As I am sure the noble Lord realises, the amendment introduces additional words, in this case "rights and liabilities". Therefore I ask: like what?
Lord Whitty: The whole amendment deals with property transfers and makes it clear that rights and liabilities which are attached to properties will transfer with such properties. That is what Amendments Nos. 145A and 90C are about.
Lord Lucas: If the noble Lord would prefer to write to me I will allow him to, but I should like to know: like

1625
what? What sorts of rights and liabilities which were not subsumed in the original wording are now brought in by this wording? I cannot think of any, because "property" subsumes it all. Doubtless the noble Lord knows, though he may not be able to recall the knowledge at this time of the morning, and I would be happy for him to write to me. But I do wish to know.
Perhaps we can move on to the next one. I very much welcome his removing the wording in Amendment No. 114A, which was extremely obscure. I should also very much like to understand Amendment No. 206A and what exactly has been done there. It appears that some tax or rating concession has been removed from schools, but the noble Lord will doubtless be able to inform me better.
Lord Whitty: I regret to say that the noble Lord will have to rely on a letter from me because I cannot immediately find the necessary information among my notes. I can inform him about Amendment No. 206B, but I will write to him about No. 206A.
Baroness Blatch: This is actually a rather serious point. I accepted what the noble Lord said at the beginning, that these are minor technical amendments and entirely consequential, but if one reads subsection (2), which is to disappear from the Bill, it says that:
"The code may include guidelines setting out aims, objectives and other matters in relation to the discharge of their functions under this Chapter by local education authorities and such governing bodies.
It shall he the duty of…the bodies and persons mentioned in subsection (1) when exercising functions under this Chapter, and…any other person when exercising any function",
and so on. These provisions are more than merely technical, minor and inconsequential. Therefore, I wonder whether the noble Lord will agree—because we do not want to hold up the progress of the Committee—to write with an explanation to my noble friend and have the letter copied to other noble Lords, and we will deal with these amendments at the next stage and, it is to be hoped, without any difficulty.
2.30 a.m.
Lord Whitty: I am happy to confirm that I will write to the noble Lord. The bulk of these amendments are fairly straightforward. I have now found my briefing on Amendment No. 206A in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. That relates to the issues arising from discussions with the charity commissioners. I will put all this in writing to the noble Lord, with a copy to the noble Baroness.
Lord Lucas: If I have a full explanation of all the amendments in this group I shall be content. But there are certainly others on which I had questions.
1626
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will remember the trouble he gave me in the past on technical amendments. It is a lesson I learnt well at his hands. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will be better prepared—as I learnt to bev—on a future occasion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I doubt whether I did that at 2.30 in the morning.
Baroness Blatch: On more than one occasion when I was a Minister noble Lords opposite did that at 2.30 in the morning.
To put the record straight, I read from page 59, not page 57. The section I ought to have read was that dealing with mandatory and discretionary rate relief, a point raised by my noble friend.
If the noble Lord was not prepared to write ahead of our voting on these amendments, then we should feel it necessary to vote against them tonight.
Lord Whitty: The only amendment moved is Amendment No. 81A dealing with the question of the appointed date, simply making the difference between that referred to in Clause 20 and the same expression used in Schedule 31 dealing with transitional provisions. It just makes the point that these are different appointed days. That is the amendment that I have moved. The other amendments are within this grouping. No doubt if my letter does not satisfy the noble Baroness or any other noble Lord in the interim, they will return to these matters on a subsequent Committee clay.
Baroness Blatch: Am I mistaken? I understand that we are going as far as Amendment No. 96, which means that Amendments Nos. 81A, 83A, 83B, 85A, 90A, 90B, 90C, 90D, 90F, 90G, 91B and 91C would be dealt with this evening.
Lord Whitty: My recollection is that none of those amendments was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I will move them at the appropriate point if the noble Baroness wishes to come back on them. The amendments referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, were beyond Amendment No. 96.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is missing the point that we are making. Because my noble friend has raised at least a couple of points that do not fit the description of minor, technical and no more than consequential amendments, they raise issues for debate, of which rate relief is one, and there may well be others. We took it as read that that was of no consequence. We believe now that it possibly is of some consequence. The noble Lord has promised to write to those of us on this side of the House, including those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, so that we understand what these amendments are about. I am sure that the noble Lord does not want to spend all night reading out these matters. It would be a very minor matter, and I suspect that these amendments will be passed when we have all received a proper explanation. But perhaps he will let us have

1627
that proper explanation and allow the amendments to be dealt with at the next stage of the Bill. Otherwise, we have to accept them without question.
Lord Whitty: I do not know what the noble Baroness means by her reference to the next stage of the Bill. I will certainly provide subsequently tonight an explanation of all the amendments which are within this group. It will then be up to noble Lords as to what they do at a subsequent stage of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: Once we agree tonight, there is no subsequent stage for these amendments. If amendments up to Amendment No. 91C are dealt with and are accepted, then they will be part of the Bill. I am simply saying that it would be helpful to have the letter of explanation and then deal with the voting at the next stage of the Bill. Nothing is going to happen in relation to these amendments between now and the next stage of the Bill. They will be dealt with relatively quickly because we will have had a detailed explanation from the Minister.
Lord Whitty: We may proceed as far as Amendment No. 96 tonight. I have already moved Amendment No. 81A and if the noble Baroness objects to any subsequent amendments being moved, she can do so at that point. Either she can return to the issues at Report stage or I can do so. I do not see the difficulty. I suspect that had I read out the seven pages, we would still have the problem, but I now wish I had read them out. Nevertheless, if we proceed we will see which ones the noble Baroness or any other noble Lord objects to.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may help my noble friend on the Front Bench. It seems to me that we are talking about government amendments about which the Opposition have some reservations. They seek explanations for them, but the amendments have been put down and debated. If they are moved and agreed at this Committee stage, then if, following the further explanation which the Government have said they would provide to the Opposition, the Opposition has further difficulty with the amendments, then further amendments altering them could he put down for Report stage. That would satisfy all parties.
It seems to me to be quite in order for the Committee to agree to the government amendments at this stage, with the opportunity for the House to consider the Bill prior to Report stage. If the Opposition or even the Government, following further consideration, felt that other amendments should be made, that could be done at Report stage.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Perhaps I may suggest a compromise. We are all facing the fact that it is the middle of the night. The amendments are technical and it is highly probable that a letter would do everything. Possibly we should postpone these technical amendments; it would not affect the Government's business and they would pass without
1628
trouble. I am sure that when the arguments are written down, without the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, reading them all through, we are reasonable people on this side of the Committee and we would accept them. I think a letter on the technicalities would solve the problem. I assume, from what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said—which I accept absolutely—these are legal matters relating to property and similar technicalities. But doubts have been expressed; people will worry about them. I suggest a letter. Then assuming that what the Minister said is correct that no whale is hiding behind the amendments, that course is the one we should take. That is what I suggest, otherwise we will be here until 5 o'clock in the morning, and at my age that is more than I can take.
Lord Whitty: I do not believe that. However, in the circumstances, in order to make progress, if we withdraw the amendments for today we could undertake to bring them back at Report stage, following a letter. But we should not then have procedural difficulties in the Government bringing amendments forward at Report stage. If that is understood between us, on that basis I shall not move them, but I intend to re-submit them. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 81A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Allocation of existing schools to new categories]:
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 83:
Page 106, line 14, after ("paragraph") insert ("1 or").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 83 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 84 to 90. They were tabled because I believe it is necessary to give the local education authority schools (what will be community schools) an opportunity to exercise their choice as to the kind of schools they would like to be on Royal Assent of this Bill. It is an amendment which I should still like to succeed. However, I am much heartened by the previous statements of the noble Baroness that at least the end is in sight for local authority schools and they will have an opportunity to exercise their choice within a foreseeable length of time.
Baroness Blackstone: I want to clarify a point I made earlier where I may have given inaccurate information.
The noble Baroness asked when local education authority schools—community schools—could change categories; whether it is a year after Royal Assent. It is in fact a year after the new framework comes into force, not a year after Royal Assent. The new framework will come into force in September 1999, so it will be one year after that, in September 2000. But that is quite soon.
Baroness Blatch: That is unacceptable to me, and I will go back with full force to my amendments.

1629
I do not understand the turbulence argument. There will not be any ballots; the schools will not have to go through great procedures; they simply choose whether they want to be a community or a foundation school.
The Government's supporting argument for foundation schools has been that they are part of the family of LEA schools and it gives them a greater degree of autonomy—I do not know to what extent because it is difficult to work out precisely what that will mean. But I do not understand the turbulence argument.
I agree with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that the pressure from LEAs was because they did not like the policy for foundation schools. However, given that there are going to be foundation schools and given that grant-maintained schools are to be given the option to become foundation schools, I see no reason whatever why community schools should not also be given the option. It may well be that none of them wants to take the option; it may be that many of them do. But there is no good reason why they should be at least two years away from making that decision. The schools should be given an opportunity as soon as the framework comes into being. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: We are all committed to giving all schools a choice of category. The problem that arises is the problem to which my noble friend alluded. It is true that in our technical consultation paper last summer we proposed that all schools should have a choice when the new categories of school were introduced. However, it was quite clear from a large number of respondents to the consultation that they were concerned that making all 23,000 schools choose simultaneously could he extremely disruptive. We have taken that into account and revised our proposals.
All schools will have a choice of category in the new framework, but the opportunity to make choices will be phased. GM schools will have a choice of category under Schedule 2 at the point when the new school categories are introduced. That is because the new framework involves more changes for GM schools than for LEA schools. Parents were balloted when most schools became GM, so we believe it is right for them to have an opportunity to express their view, through a ballot, immediately.
Conversion of LEA-maintained schools is different. The new framework will involve little change for those schools, so they will be assigned to their nearest equivalent category when it is established. After the moratorium referred to by my noble friend, any school will be able to change category under the provisions of Clause 34 and Schedule 8. That moratorium, I repeat, will last for one year after the new categories are introduced, after which community schools will be able to propose changes to their status at that point or at any time thereafter. That will give all schools time to experience their new categories and make a considered decision as to whether they want to change. By then the new system on local
1630
determination of statutory proposals should be operating. So the Bill provides for changes of category proposals to be dealt with in the same way.
All schools within the framework, whether they were formerly LEA-maintained or grant-maintained, will be free to consider a change after that period. In contrast, these amendments, if adopted, would force all 23,000 schools in the system to undertake their choice and to go through the choice process at the same time. We do not believe that would be sensible. We agree with the aim of giving all schools choice, but we cannot agree with the method proposed by the amendments. The 23,000 all deciding instantaneously would not enhance the introduction of the new framework. A year's moratorium seems to us to be a sensible process. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that all schools will, after that moratorium, have the choice.
2.45 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: It is not surprising that GM schools are being given that opportunity early. It is not that they are being given it out of the generosity of the Government's heart. It is that the Government cannot wait for the GM schools to disappear from the scene. They have made no secret of that. That is why grant-maintained schools are going to be first in line.
Will the noble Lord point me to the specific place in the Bill where the commencement order for the framework in terms of the particular date is set out? Perhaps I may also correct something the noble Lord said. He said that my amendment would force all schools on day one to make the choice. My amendment does no such thing. My amendment and the amendments coupled with it simply make the provision available. Schools may not exercise it for years, or perhaps never. It is simply there as an option. There is nothing in my amendment, unless the noble Lord can point me to it—in which case I shall go away and make sure that it is removed—to force schools to make a choice to become foundation schools.
Lord Whitty: On that point, they are not forced to make a decision. They are required right at the beginning to decide whether they wish to take the category of community school or not.
Baroness Blatch: There is nothing in the amendment to require them to do anything of the kind. If they do not want even to give a passing thought to it, they will not have to give a passing thought to it. But if they want positively to give a passing thought to taking on the new status, they are free to do so. There is nothing in my amendment, unless the noble Lord can point me to it, that requires them to do anything whatever once the Bill comes into play. But it would help me to know where in the Bill I can find the commencement date for the framework and where in the Bill I can find that one year after the commencement date for the framework

1631
the opportunity will be given to local authorities to make their choices if they wish to become foundation schools.
Lord Whitty: The framework date is the date designated the appointed day in Clause 20(6). The moratorium is not defined as one year, but we are indicating the intention that it would be one year after that appointed date.
There is at least a passive decision required of community schools to remain community schools if the amendment were carried. That is why I am saying that everyone would have to make a decision. All 23,000 schools would have to make a decision. Clearly, the vast majority would be expected to take the decision to take on the community status that they had been assigned. Nevertheless, they would require to take that decision. The clause under which the moratorium date is specified is Clause 34(2).
Baroness Blatch: The subsection does not name the appointed day, it simply states that the power to do so shall rest with the Secretary of State. Nowhere in this Bill does it say that the moratorium will be one, two, three or four years. I would like to have confirmed yet again the precise date that the Secretary of State intends to put into regulations for the commencement of the new framework, and also to have it put on record that it shall be one year after that date that local authorities will be free to make a choice.
Can the noble Lord point to anywhere in my amendments where local authorities have positively to make any decision or choice whatsoever? If on day one they carry on as now and they do not think positively about anything and take no action, such inaction is entirely acceptable under my amendments. Action or inaction is acceptable. Local authorities do not have to make a choice, unless I am misreading my own amendments. I ask the Minister to point to where in my amendments a choice has to be made.
Lord Whitty: I thought I had made the point that a passive choice is a choice, as in many things in life. They have to have made that choice before the framework comes in or not challenge the framework. That would have to apply to 23,000 schools which the authorities would have to assign to one category or the other rather than the automatic assignment to community schools which applies under our proposals.
As regards the date, if we ever finish this Bill, the date proposed by the Secretary of State for the commencement of the framework will be September 1999. It is the intention under Clause 34(2) to specify that the moratorium before which community schools can propose changes will be one year. That would be provided in regulations under that clause.
Baroness Blatch: This is positively my final question. Will that include all community schools?
Lord Whitty: I am not quite sure what lies behind that question. All community schools would be able
1632
to propose a change from that point or from any subsequent point. It does not mean that at that point all 23,000 schools would have to make a decision.
Baroness Blatch: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 83A to 90A not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Kinds of foundation and voluntary schools and types of foundations]:
[Amendments Nos. 90B to 90D not moved.]
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 90E:
Page 20, line 11, at end insert—
("(aa) with respect to the revision or replacement of the instruments of government of schools joining or leaving the group in such circumstances and the reconstitution of their governing bodies;").
The noble Baroness said: The Government have considered what the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers says on Clause 21(7). We accept that the scope of this clause needs to be narrowed and have brought forward Amendments Nos. 90E and 91A to address fully the concerns raised by the committee.
Clause 21 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the establishment, membership, functions and winding up of group foundations. As it stands, subsection (7) enables those regulations to apply or modify any part of the Bill for those purposes.
Subsection (7) was intended to make it possible to do three things for schools joining and leaving group foundations. First, to enable the Education Transfer Counsel to help with land transfers; secondly, to apply the provisions of Schedule 21 to such transfers. Schedule 21 sets out rules for land transfers, but it applies only to transfers made when the new framework is implemented. Ongoing provision for transfers linked to group foundations will be needed. Thirdly, it was intended to deal with changes in instruments of government and reconstitution of governing bodies.
We have thought very carefully about these three functions in the light of the committee's comments. We have concluded that the first two could be dealt with in other ways and that the provision required to deal with governance could be much more specific.
I will be proposing a new schedule to the Bill, dealing with the functions of the education transfer council. Among other things, this will enable the council to help with land transfers for schools joining or leaving group foundations. As for the rules applying to land transfers, the regulations made under Clause 21 will provide for those directly by including provisions based on the relevant parts of Schedule 21.
This leaves governance. Amendment No. 291 adds a new paragraph to subsection (6) of Clause 21. This enables the regulations to provide for changes to

1633
instruments of government and the reconstitution of governing bodies where schools join or leave a group foundation.
Amendment No. 294 removes the present subsection (7) and replaces it with a much narrower provision relating to a single paragraph of Schedule 12—
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister, but those amendments are not in this group. As far as I know, we are dealing only with Amendments Nos. 90E, 91 and 91A. At this hour of the morning it seems inappropriate for the Minister to introduce many other amendments that we have not even considered.
Baroness Blackstone: I accept what the noble Baroness says. Unfortunately, my speaking note seems to have gone beyond the grouped amendments I believe that the amendments to which I have spoken meet the Select Committee's concerns about subsection (7). In doing that, they cover the same ground as Amendment No. 194, which has been proposed by the noble Baroness, so I hope that she will feel able to withdraw that amendment. Once again, I apologise for speaking to amendments which are not in this group. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for the efforts made by the department to respond to the scrutiny committee's report. My copy of the Bill now resembles a Damien Hirst exhibit for an art exhibition. I have tried to make sense of the amendments that have been tabled to this part of the Bill in response to the committee's report. I do not know what was intended by officials when they designed the note without giving us the benefit of knowing that the Minister would speak also to other amendments. I accept the Minister's apology, but it is now difficult for us to make sense of the limited amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 90E, 91 and 91A.
I turn now to the proposals by which I am unnerved and about which I should like to think a little more. I refer to the Secretary of State's powers and functions in relation to modifying, changing or amending the instruments of government. I do not quite know the implications behind that suggestion. I am concerned about instruments of government, to which we shall come later. I am particularly concerned about the idea of having model instruments and articles for all schools. Different schools will have different requirements and will need tailor-made instruments. I am not sure whether this provision cuts across that. I shall need to concentrate on that point a little more. Unlike the other very large group of amendments— we have yet to learn what they mean—
I shall not object if the Minister moves her amendments and they are accepted on the face of the Bill as long as the Minister accepts that I may well have to return to this and possibly table an amendment at a later stage.
3 a.m.
Baroness Blackstone: The intervention of the noble Baroness is helpful. The problem is that the amendments in my speaking note are wrongly numbered. To return to
1634
instruments of government, Amendment No. 90E adds a new paragraph to subsection (6) of Clause 21. This enables the regulations to provide for changes to instruments of government and the reconstitution of governing bodies where schools join or leave the group foundation. Amendment No. 91A removes the present subsection (7) and replaces it with a much narrower provision relating to a single paragraph of Schedule 12. This is needed to allow a revised instrument of government to be made before a school joins or leaves the group foundation so that changes to the governing body can be arranged in advance. The previous instrument of government would continue to determine the composition of the governing body until the date of the change. That would be incompatible with paragraph 1 of Schedule 12— hence the need for regulations which could modify that paragraph in relation to instruments of government.
I believe that these amendments meet the concerns of the committee, but in view of the muddle I shall understand if the noble Baroness wishes at a later stage to return to her amendment. But I believe that when the noble Baroness has a chance to study this matter she will discover that we have fully met the suggestions of the committee and that what we put forward is in line with her amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 90F and 90G not moved.]
Baroness Blatchhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 91:
Page 20, line 30, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Baroness said: I believe that Amendment No. 91 is subsumed in Amendment No. 91A.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 91A:
Page 20, line 30, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) Regulations made in pursuance of subsection (6)(aa) may, in connection with the making or variation of instruments of government in preparation for schools joining or leaving the group, modify paragraph 1 of Schedule 12 in its operation in relation to such instruments of government.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 91B not moved.]
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 91C not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Funding of foundation, voluntary and foundation special schools]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 92:
Page 111, line 1, leave out ("new").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 92 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 93 and 94. In anticipation of the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 95 and 96. Amendments Nos. 92, 93 and 94 are technical amendments that clarify that where a local

1635
education authority has a duty to provide an additional or alternate site for a voluntary aided school, the authority must always transfer ownership of the site to the school trustees or foundation body if there are no trustees. The amendments do not change existing responsibilities for voluntary aided schools but simply put the provisions and existing practice beyond doubt.
Amendment No. 95 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, does not take account of the grant payment system and therefore is defective. In practice, payment and acceptance happen simultaneously because grant is paid direct to school governors' bank accounts by the Bank Automated Clearing Service. I understand that the noble Lord seeks to protect voluntary aided school governors by offering them an opportunity to consider the grant conditions before accepting payments. I reassure him that we recognise the implications of the grant condition systems for school governors. We shall ensure that, where a condition of grant is to be applied, the governors will fully understand and can comply with the requirements being stipulated before any building work starts and grant is paid. In those circumstances, I hope that when the noble Lord comes to speak to his amendment he will understand the points that we make.
Amendment No. 96 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon is concerned with the grant condition system. The grant condition system will protect public fund investment in voluntary aided schools. Where any voluntary aided school property is bought or enhanced with public funds and ceases subsequently to be used for a maintained school, we want to ensure that if the assets are not recycled within the maintained school system, public funds will be appropriately compensated. The Churches have always made it clear that they support that principle.
I understand the right reverend Prelate's reservations about the Secretary of State's power to set a condition of grant after the grant has been paid. Therefore, I propose to bring forward an amendment on Report which I hope will meet his concerns. We cannot agree to forfeit completely the power to set a retrospective condition of grant. However, we expect to use the power rarely and only when it is reasonable to do so. The amendment I shall table will modify the power so that it is exercisable only where the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is reasonable to set a retrospective condition.
It may help if I give a couple of examples where we judge that it will be reasonable to use the power; for example, where, as a result of clerical oversight, the grant condition is excluded from the formal grant letter which sets out how much grant is to be paid. In such a case, the governors will already be aware of the intention to set a condition and it would be quite reasonable, in our view, to correct the error and set the formal condition after grant payment has commenced.
Another example may be that when grant is requested, the school trusts appear to secure satisfactory recycling and a condition is not set. However, it may be
1636
that the terms of the trust deed have been misconstrued or that the trusts are subsequently changed and satisfactory recycling is not secured. In such circumstances, we should want to have the power to set a condition after the grant has been paid and we believe that that would be entirely reasonable.
As I have said already, we expect such cases to arise rarely. I do not consider that there is a real threat to Church schools. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will accept my proposal for an amendment on Report and therefore will in due course see fit not to move his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: After the disappointment of Amendment No. 77, I am delighted at the announcement by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. As he said, the Churches have always accepted the principle that if public money is used to enhance trust assets and those trust assets in due course may be realised, then any public money should be returned. We have no difficulty with that.
The difficulty lay only in the power of the Secretary of State to impose requirements at any time after the making of a grant. Once again, we accept entirely the situation which the noble Lord has described, that there may, on occasions, be administrative oversights, and in those circumstances we are prepared to accept that a retrospective imposition would be right.
However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the assurance that he has given that that power will be rarely used and for outlining the amendment which he will bring forward on Report to make it clear that such a retrospective condition would be imposed only when the Secretary of State regarded it as reasonable to do so. In those circumstances, I shall not move the amendment.
As Amendment No. 96 is the last amendment which we are considering this evening, I should say that at least one of your Lordships will be returning home tonight with a lighter heart.
Perhaps I may also express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and her colleague, the Minister for Schools, for their graciousness in receiving representatives of the Churches to attempt to sort out some of those difficulties. Also, I thank the officials of her department for the way in which they worked so closely with staff of the Board of Education, the Catholic Education Service and the Free Church Federal Council. I believe that those consultations have enabled us to iron out most of the remaining difficulties that we have in this Bill, and I am delighted by the announcement made the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, this evening.
Lord Lucas: I should just like to thank the Minister very much for what he said. Indeed, I am quite content.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 93 and 94:
Page 111, line 14, leave out ("new").
Page 111, line 22, leave out ("new").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 not moved.]
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past three o'clock.

  Stonehenge
  Stonehenge
  Retired Civil Servants: Personal Memoirs
  Retired Civil Servants: Personal Memoirs
  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Cruelty to Animals: Number of Convictions
  Cruelty to Animals: Number of Convictions
  Firearms (Amendment) Acts
  Firearms (Amendment) Acts
  Prisoners: Consumption of Alcohol
  Prisoners: Consumption of Alcohol
  Sheikh al-Jamri
  Sheikh al-Jamri
  Guatemala: Murder of Bishop Conedera
  Guatemala: Murder of Bishop Conedera
  Chittagong Hill Tracts
  Chittagong Hill Tracts
  Sudan: Humanitarian Crisis
  Sudan: Humanitarian Crisis
  Land Use Database
  Land Use Database
  Welfare-to-Work Programme: Remploy and the DSS
  Welfare-to-Work Programme: Remploy and the DSS
  Christmas Bonus for Pensioners
  Christmas Bonus for Pensioners
  Asylum Seekers: Social Security Benefits
  Asylum Seekers: Social Security Benefits
  Assisted Places Scheme: Savings from Abolition
  Assisted Places Scheme: Savings from Abolition
  Maintained Special Schools: Inspection
  Maintained Special Schools: Inspection
  National Childcare Strategy: Green Paper
  National Childcare Strategy: Green Paper
  Cancers: Incidence and Screening
  Cancers: Incidence and Screening
  Cancer Research: Funding
  Cancer Research: Funding
  Northern Ireland Agreement and Sinn Fein
  Northern Ireland Agreement and Sinn Fein
  Fisheries: Research Information
  Fisheries: Research Information
  Agricultural Census
  Agricultural Census
  Bees: Treatment of Varroa Disease
  Bees: Treatment of Varroa Disease
  Angling: Protection Orders and Migratory Species
  Angling: Protection Orders and Migratory Species