Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 220: debated on Wednesday 3 March 1993

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Wednesday 3 March 1993

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Prayers

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Private Business

Alliance & Leicester (Girobank) Bill

Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers To Questions

Scotland

Primary School Buildings

2.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the capital spend on primary school building works in Scotland in 1992; and what was the figure in 1979, adjusted to 1992 prices.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland
(Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)

Information on capital expenditure on primary schools is not available separately.

I welcome the recent additional funding given to Grampian regional council, which has enabled it to prevent the closure of—and to rebuild—a rural primary school at Logie Coldstone in my constituency. The doubling of many primary school rolls in my constituency in recent years has placed a significant strain on buildings, which require rebuild and extension. Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of primary schools, particularly to rural communities, in which they play a key part? Does he further recognise that Grampian regional council has paid insufficient attention to the growing population of Kincardine and Deeside? Will he urge it to put that matter right at the earliest opportunity?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Rising pupil numbers is an issue which should be properly taken into account by the regional council as it comes under the council's jurisdiction. I am glad that progress has been made at Logie Coldstone primary school. My hon. Friend's constituency is suffering from the benefits associated with success, which brings in its wake problems which should be borne in mind by the regional council.

Is the Minister aware of the vigorous campaign in Ayr to keep Castlehill primary school open? The campaign has the support of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and me, so it must be right. If the campaign is successful, the temporary buildings will be inadequate. Will the Minister therefore given an assurance that Strathclyde regional council will be allowed capital building consent to ensure that a new purpose-built school is provided for the pupils of Castlehill?

In distributing allocations to the regions, account is taken, as far as possible, of the needs throughout Scotland. Councils can supplement their education building programme by the use of capital receipts from the disposal of assets, by the use of revenue expenditure on capital works and by transferring resources from other capital programmes. The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, which also apply to many other parts of Scotland, will be borne in mind.

Rural Housing

3.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the chairman of Scottish Homes to discuss rural housing.

My right hon. Friend and I met the chairman of Scottish Homes in January to discuss a number of issues, including rural housing.

It is now two and a half years since, with a great fanfare, Scottish Homes launched its rural housing strategy. Does the Minister regard the more than 7,000 homelessness applications in rural and remote areas of Scotland in the past complete year as a sign of a strategy that is working? While Scottish Homes may have made a laudable effort to concentrate on 10 demonstration projects, they will not be of much use unless the lessons learnt can be applied to other rural regions of Scotland. When will Scottish Homes do that, and will the Government provide it with the resources to do so?

I am glad to report that Scottish Homes' programme for rural areas of Scotland will include more than £55 million—an increase of almost 22 per cent. over the planned expenditure for last year. That represents about one fifth of the total development programme. Scottish Homes is giving priority to the issue of homelessness in a number of ways. It has said that 7,000 units will be made available for waiting-list applicants and the statutorily homeless, and is developing a series of initiatives which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome, including one for £2 million to be made available for three years for furniture grants to housing associations.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that Scottish Homes is a major beneficiary of the autumn statement? Will he also confirm that a local authority should sell as many council houses as possible because it can reinvest all the proceeds during the current financial year?

I can confirm that Scottish Homes benefited considerably from the autumn statement when a £250 million debt was written off. Processing council house sales can be a substantial advantage and Scottish Homes does that to the benefit of its programmes.

When, on 17 February, the Minister cut next year's housing support grants to three quarters of the current year's, was he aware of the shocking findings of the Scottish Homes survey into the condition of Scottish housing which was posted to Members of Parliament on 22 February? Was he aware on 17 February that some 94,000 dwellings failed to meet the tolerable standard, 32,000 of them in rural areas and 62,000 in urban areas? Did he also know that one fifth of Scotland's housing stock has damp, condensation or mould? Whether or not he knew then, he knows now. What does he intend to do about it?

Scottish Homes is facilitating repairs or replacements of 1,000 below tolerable standard houses per year through the housing associations and other suppliers in Scotland. Since 1979, more than £1 billion has been spent on improvement grants and local authorities can target their resources on below tolerable standard housing. The house condition survey made it clear that 2 per cent. of Scotland's houses are suffering from severe damp and condensation and we shall give top priority to eradicating that as soon as possible.

Constitutional Change

4.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what speeches he has made in his ministerial capacity in 1993 on the subject of constitutional change in Scotland.

It sounds as though the Secretary of State has been in constitutional purdah. Is there anything in the "taking stock" proposals which has not already been leaked to the press? If not, they seem to be mainly about increasing the Secretary of State's job description. Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that there is a world of difference between increasing the democratic power of the Scottish nation and increasing the Secretary of State for Scotland's personal power of patronage? Will he undertake to put his proposals against independence in Europe and against devolution to the Scottish people in a constitutional referendum? If not, why not?

The hon. Gentleman will need to contain his impatience for a little longer; he will then discover precisely what our proposals include. But let me reassure him nothing in our proposals will do anything to undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom or Scotland's place in it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the arrogance of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) in this matter defies belief'? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that at every general election without exception the Scottish Conservative party has returned more Members of Parliament to the House than has the Scottish National party, and that with our history, our record of commitment and our geographic spread of representation it is the Conservative party which is Scotland's national party?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Scottish National party talks readily about democracy, but I invite it to accept the verdict of the electorate who at the general election reduced its parliamentary representation by 40 per cent.

Does the Secretary of State begin to comprehend that constitutional change is not an end in itself but a means to an end? Does he not understand that 75 per cent. of Scottish voters want their own Parliament not for its own sake but because it frees them to make their own decisions about the future of Scottish water, Scottish local government and Scotland's railway system? Will he at least try to understand that whatever he announces next week about the stock-taking process, unless it frees Scottish democracy from the chains of the Westminster Parliament it will be decisively and deservedly rejected by the mass of the Scottish people?

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a member of that small band, Scotland United, and a great evangeliser for his cause. I am indebted to The Scotsman, which points out:

"Scotland United has a new friend in the redoubtable form of none other than Fidel Castro, the president of Cuba."
On their return from a visit to Cuba, the doughty trio concluded:
"We had two hours with him and he was really interested in what Scotland United was about."
They added:
"Which is more than we've had from John Smith."

Can my right hon. Friend explain the Scottish National party's continual obsession with breaking up the United Kingdom? Is it not a fact that a united Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland comprises one of the most influential and powerful nations in the world? Would not a fragmented Scotland become like a big county council? That is not what Scotland or Great Britain wants—we want the Union.

I absolutely endorse every word said by my hon. Friend. We on this side of the House are proud not only of what Scotland has derived from the Union but of the benefits that Scotland has brought to the Union.

Is the Secretary of State aware that any company which took as long to stock take as he has done would be in compulsory liquidation by now? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the extent of his tinkering with our business arrangements over the next week or two will be no substitute for allowing the people of Scotland to determine their constitutional future?

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the time that we have taken. We have been thorough and careful in our deliberations. I note that Labour has not even begun to take stock.

Does the Secretary of State recall that of the 72 Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies, three support independence, 11 support the Conservative party, and 49—a very clear majority—represent the Labour party and support a Parliament within the United Kingdom? Does the Secretary of State intend to consult the people of Scotland? If not, will he accept the Bill that we shall present in the coming weeks and submit these matters to a referendum so that the people of Scotland can decide their future?

No, we will not. I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying hard to cobble together some kind of unity among his divided Back Benchers, but to suggest that the secretary-general of the Scottish Trades Union Congress can somehow act as an honest broker over the future of the Scottish Constitutional Convention is to clutch at straws. I know that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) supports that approach, but the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) described it as a non-starter and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) described it as a red herring. I do not have much hope for the prospects of unity in those discussions.

Local Government

5.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his timetable and what are the proposals he expects to implement in connection with legislation concerning local government in Scotland.

My Department is currently analysing the responses to our consultation paper on local government reform, and the Government will take account of those responses when we make our decision on the new structure of unitary authorities in Scotland. We intend to publish a White Paper this summer setting out our proposals.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the strange and undemocratic practices of Monklands district council under Labour. Can he give an assurance that the legislative changes that he proposes will deal with them? In view of the Labour party's own admission that those practices are wrong, can my right hon. Friend further assure me that the £75 million of taxpayers' money spent annually by Monklands district council is properly spent? What does he think of the letter written to me the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), about the £200,000 of Monklands and taxpayers' money that has gone astray in the last few years?

I will want to consider the points that my hon. Friend put to me. Certainly the Labour party is in my hon. Friend's debt, because it was as a result of his interest in the matter that Labour established its own inquiry—the future of which we look forward to learning tomorrow. I hope that at that stage Members of Parliament who represent Monklands constituencies will finally take a close interest in the matter. After all, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said in a recent speech on standards in government:

"Having the same party in power for fourteen years, and the abuses of that power which we now witness, have served to expose serious systemic weaknesses."

Unemployment

6.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairs of the local enterprise companies in Scotland to discuss unemployment in their areas.

My right hon. Friend and I frequently meet chairmen of local enterprise companies to discuss a range of economic development and training issues.

How can LEC chairmen make plans for training, or deal with unemployment, when companies behave like Timex in Dundee, which sacked all its workers in the middle of a dispute? What have the Minister and the Secretary of State been able to do about the abuse of employment legislation that that company has visited on 343 workers since I raised the matter last Thursday?

The hon. Gentleman has indeed raised the matter with my right hon. Friend and me. As I believe, he knows, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service stands ready to assist if both parties to the dispute agree. That has not happened so far, but I know that the local enterprise company in his area is widely supported by the private sector and by local authorities.

Will my hon. Friend accept the thanks of all Ayrshire Members for the tremendous achievement of Scottish Enterprise in retaining Digital in the constituency of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), which is adjacent to mine, thus saving some 1,000 jobs? Scottish Enterprise deserves our compliments.

I find myself in an unusual position: not only do I agree with my hon. Friend, which is fairly usual, but I endorse the public tribute paid by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to Locate in Scotland, which worked extremely hard to ensure the continuation of that highly successful operation in Ayrshire. I am sure that it will go from success to success.

Is the Minister aware that Fife Enterprise is struggling to deal with the second highest unemployment rate in Scotland? In south and east Rosyth, for instance, it has already reached 12–1 and 12.5 per cent. respectively, and unless the submarine refitting order is awarded to Rosyth dockyard it will soon be 30 per cent. or even higher. When does the Minister intend to meet representatives of Fife Enterprise—and, indeed, Fife regional council—to discuss the creation of jobs for the Fife area? When does he feel confident that he will be able to celebrate the award of the refitting order to Rosyth, thus saving 18,000 jobs related directly and indirectly to the dockyard and ensuring that they have a future in the Fife area?

The whole House will understand the hon. Lady's concern about what is an important matter for her constituency. As she knows, I am a Fifer myself. She will also know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is carefully considering the position of the dockyards. I assure her that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are in constant touch with Fife Enterprise, and we have every confidence in that body. It is widely supported, by the private sector, the regional council and the district councils.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Opposition Members, as well as myself, attended a meeting of Nomura International, the well-known Japanese merchant bank? Is he aware that Nomura identified the social chapter as the single factor which would increase unemployment throughout the United Kingdom? Does my hon. Friend not find it amazing that Labour supports the social chapter?

I note from the cheers of Labour Members how strongly they agree with the sensible point made by my hon. Friend. Having been in Japan for a time last September—

Let me tell the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) that Japanese companies in Lothian provide an enormous number of jobs and are constantly expanding and investing. I hoped that Opposition Members would join me in welcoming that.

Has the Minister had an opportunity to meet the chairman of Argyll and the Islands local enterprise company to discuss the effect on unemployment in Argyll and Bute of the announcement that it was to be excluded from objective 1 status?

And the effect on Moray, Arran and various other places. What has happened? Why has there been such confusion? Whose fault was it? Can the Minister assure us that Argyll and Bute will be included in objective 1 status when the matter goes before the Council of Ministers?

I appreciate the hon. Lady's point. As I think she will know, the territorial definitions are made by the European Commission itself. She will also know that the Government have consistently made the case for the whole highlands and islands enterprise area.

Reverting to the question asked by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms. Squire), does my hon. Friend accept that those of us who have the honour and privilege to represent the south-west of England look at the question of the dockyards from a very different point of view and that we maintain firmly that, on any objective assessment, the submarine refitting order should go to Devonport?

I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will read my hon. Friend's comments.

Returning to the question of the enterprise boards in Scotland, has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss with Forth Valley Enterprise and other enterprise schemes around Grangemouth port the deep concern that they feel about the dirty tricks which appear to have been played against the Forth ports, including Grangemouth, by Scottish Enterprise? Is he aware that the report compiled by PEIDA did not include a substantial number of facilities at the ports? It would appear that Locate in Scotland and Scottish Enterprise are attempting to sell the idea of a port at Rosyth, which might be welcome, by doing down and hiding from people facilities at the port of Grangemouth and elsewhere which have already received substantial investment. I have written to the Secretary of State for Scotland about this. Has the issue been raised with him by the enterprise board chairman?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's letter to my right hon. Friend. Scottish Enterprise has been involved in a study of a possible port development at Rosyth; I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is apparently opposed to Scottish Enterprise considering developments which might involve net additional jobs for Scotland.

Local Services

7.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of COSLA to discuss the provision of local services.

My right hon. Friend met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 18 January. Further meetings, as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters, will be held later this year.

Is the Minister aware that while he spends his time trying to save Tory Eastwood district council from the effects of his own reforms, the people of Scotland spend their time worrying about the bread and butter issues that they face daily, such as damp, decaying housing, the upsurge in violent crime, the lack of proper community policing, the threat of water privatisation and the Government's failure to prepare properly for the community care of our elderly and disabled people? As they are all vital local services which are in the hands of local government, why does the Minister waste so much time trying to dismantle and destroy local government instead of strengthening and supporting it?

Aggregate 'external finance for local government in Scotland for the forthcoming year is £1,013 per head, compared with £690 per head in England and £812 per head in Wales. That is not destruction; that is a massive investment by the British taxpayer in local authority expenditure in Scotland, which is far higher than anywhere else in the country.

The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions. He will know that Scottish Homes is taking action in Foxbar. With regard to his concern about the policing of his constituency, why does not he take up with Labour Strathclyde regional council the fact that consistently, over a long period, it has been the only police authority in Scotland to keep its police manpower below the Scottish Office authorised level?

When my hon. Friend meets representatives of COSLA will he draw attention to the article in the Glasgow Herald which said that the Monklands mafia were to be taken to an industrial tribunal by those great friends of the Conservative party, the Transport and General Workers Union? Is not it about time that something was done about what is going on in that district council?

I know my hon. Friend's concern about those matters. His concern is shared by the Labour party —with the notable exception of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). We all hope that the inquiry will come to sensible conclusions. We have received many letters of complaint about what is going on in Monklands. I hope for the support of Opposition Members in wishing the Transport and General Workers Union well in its complaint to the industrial tribunal.

I notice that the Minister carefully did not refer to water privatisation when he answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster). The Scottish Minister with responsibility for agriculture and environment was more forthcoming when he replied to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). He suggested that the Government intend there to be meter options in April 1993, but the Minister has not mentioned that. May I give him a message from the people of Scotland? We do not want meters; we do not want water privatisation. If the Government franchise or privatise water the 49 Scottish Members of Parliament intend to take it back into public ownership.

I always listen to what the hon. Gentleman says, because he lives in a part of my constituency in which I cannot afford to live. I assure him that I completely support what my hon. Friend said in his letter. My hon. Friend will be answering a question on the subject shortly.

Does the Minister recall that he failed to answer the serious question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South about community care? Does he agree that the concerns are widely shared throughout Scotland—concerns about elderly people and the care gap in residential and nursing homes, concerns about people leaving long-stay psychiatric hospitals and going into the community, and concerns about the multiply handicapped? Local authorities must address those issues, because of the changes that will happen on I April. In view of the absence of proper funding, how do the Government intend to deal with those matters—or do they intend to leave elderly, disabled and handicapped people and their carers with the impression that the Government simply have no strategy whatever and have even ignored the report from Sir Roy Griffiths, who warned them that if they did not act, chaos would prevail in community care?

The House expected the hon. Gentleman to defend Monklands district council and its employment policies and religious discrimination. Does the hon. Gentleman not defend every action of Monklands district council? 1 see that he sits silent and I am not surprised. In answer to his specific question, the Government have increased the resources for community care by more than the Department of Social Security would have spent in Scotland. The commitment to community care is absolutely clear and has been backed by massive extra resources.

Legal Aid

8.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people received legal aid in each of the last five years.

In 1987–88, there were 305,148 grants of legal aid and advice and assistance. This rose to 366,580 in 1991–92—an increase of just over 20 per cent. in five years. I will, with permission, Madam Speaker, arrange for the detailed numbers for the last five years to be printed in the Official Report and sent to the hon. Gentleman.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that information. Can he say why the Government, having gone some of the way towards reinstating the eligibility criteria for legal advice and assistance, are not prepared to go the whole way and raise the £44 threshold for eligibility for free civil legal aid? Why are the Government determined to deny easy access to justice for people on low incomes such as the disabled, pensioners and others with low basic incomes? Do not they care about justice in Scotland?

Indeed we do, and those on income support levels will continue to receive free civil legal aid and advice and assistance. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, in the light of consultation, the Government have decided to retain the contributory band in the case of advice and assistance. However, the hon. Gentleman should not seek to imply—I do not think that he meant to do so—that we are somehow cutting legal aid in Scotland. Expenditure on legal aid has doubled in the past six years and we are budgeting for a 40 per cent. increase between now and 1995–96.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that statistics provided by his own Government actually deny the figures that he has just given and that there has been very little increase in gross civil legal aid payments? The major jump has been in administrative costs. Is not the reality that changes in civil legal aid in Scotland are being tacked on to the changes in the English legal system, where there have been substantial increases? When shall we see the regulations which he is prepared to debate?

The answer to the hon. Lady's last question is shortly. In regard to comparisons with England, we would expect such issues to proceed broadly in line, taking account of the different circumstances north and south of the border. Let me assure the hon. Lady that, over the next two years, we expect that more people than ever before will receive legal aid and advice and assistance.

Does the Secretary of State accept that it is a mark of a civilised society that all persons, irrespective of means, may have access to the legal system? It is perfectly clear from the proposals that he is about to bring forward that a substantial group of people who previously had access to the system through legal aid are to be denied that. Why is the Scottish Office following like a lapdog the experience in England? If the right hon. Gentleman were as independent as he claims to be, he would tell the Lord Advocate that we do not need to do in Scotland what the Lord Chancellor feels compelled to do in England and Wales.

As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have responsibilities north of the border, just as my right hon. and hon. Friends do south of the border, for ensuring that public resources are sensibly spent with proper care and attention to the interests of the taxpayers. However, as I have said already, we expect that more than ever before, not fewer, will be able to receive legal aid and advice and assistance over the next couple of years—something like half the households in the country.

Following is the information:

Number

1987–88304,148
1988–89288,904
1989–90298,824
1990–91328,688
1991–92366,580

Access To Justice

9.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on equality of access to justice.

The Government are fully committed to ensuring that all citizens have, so far as possible, ready access to a high standard of justice.

Why have not the Government published the figures on which their claims for an increase in civil legal aid are based? The figures for 1987–1992 show that there is a tiny increase and the claim for changes in the regulations is based on the figures for this year. Will the right hon. Gentleman publish those figures when he releases them to my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram)? Why are we having a cut when the citizens advice bureaux report that in significant areas of Scotland there is no civil legal aid because lawyers cannot afford to do it?

If the hon. Gentleman cares to table some specific questions, I will ensure that they are answered, giving such figures as are available. As I have said, expenditure on legal aid has doubled in the past six years from £49 million in 1987–88 to an estimated £100 million in the current year. That is a substantial increase and we are budgeting for a 40 per cent. increase by 1995–96.

Is the Minister aware that, over the past 20 years, many thousands of women have used legal aid to raise actions aimed at protecting themselves and their children from violence? Will the Government therefore support the campaign against domestic violence launched by Edinburgh district council's women's committee and the Edinburgh Evening News by ensuring that the cruel legal aid proposals are scrapped and by giving a more generous donation to Scottish Women's Aid? Its grant is not keeping up with its funding requirements and is falling behind all the time as a proportion of its total expenditure.

Homelessness

10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is taking to alleviate homelessness in Scotland.

Local authorities have the statutory responsibility for dealing with homelessness. Their capital allocations this year total over £456 million and the Government have consistently emphasised the need to give due priority to homelessness. We have backed this up with extra capital allocations of over £22 million earmarked for homelessness projects over the period 1991 to 1993.

These are empty words when one considers the fact that there were 7,000 applications last year in rural Scotland under the homelessness legislation. Over the past eight years, the total figure has increased by 180 per cent., which is a shame on the Government. Do not the Government recognise that the simple way in which to deal with the problem is not to talk about more hostels and more bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but to give the local authorities money to build houses for reasonable rent? There is no other way in which to deal with the problem effectively.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this afternoon we are making a £2.5 million supplementary allocation. Inverness district council will benefit by £100,000 owing to a shortfall of receipts. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the fact that over the past 10 years £10 million has been allocated through urban aid for homelessness projects. More than 1,200 housing association units have been grant aided over the past three years and some 450 homeless persons and families were provided with permanent accommodation by housing associations in 1991–92. Local authorities are expected to give priority to homelessness within their mainstream allocation.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) used the phrase "empty words". Will my hon. Friend comment on the vast number of empty council houses in Labour-controlled councils throughout Scotland?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We want to bring empty houses back into use wherever they exist. Several study groups are looking into the matter and are considering not only local authority housing, but housing in the charge of Government Departments. We will take every possible measure to ensure that empty property is brought back into use.

Is the Minister aware that the extra money that was allocated to the homeless in Renfrew district will give us three houses? Is he aware that Scottish Homes has thousands of houses in Renfrew district and in Scotland generally? It is not playing a meaningful role in helping the district council to alleviate homelessness because it continues to sell houses that should be allocated to people who live in the local area.

Scottish Homes has taken action with local authorities on nomination agreements, which many local authorities have, and it has said that 7,000 units will be made available for waiting list applicants. I shall check on the position in Renfrew district. However, it has a good record overall and the many strategic agreements formed with local authorities take that factor into account.

Bank Charges

11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings he has held with banks in Scotland about bank charges and the effect of changes in the charges on the viability of Scottish businesses, jobs and individuals with low fixed incomes.

My right hon. Friend and I have frequent contacts with the Scottish banks which enable matters of this kind to be discussed as necessary. The levels of charges that the banks apply for particular services are, however, a matter for their commercial judgment.

Is the Minister aware that thousands of people are suffering from high bank charges? I give him one example, that of Mrs. Margaret Reid who lives at Easthouses in my constituency. A miner's widow, she is being charged £3 by the Royal Bank of Scotland for every transaction, for which she must pay out of her small pension. When she told the bank that she wanted to withdraw her account, she was told that she would be charged £10 to do that. Does he believe that people on such low incomes should be fleeced by the greedy banks?

I cannot comment on the case which the hon. Gentleman raises. I am surprised that, as the lady's constituency hon. Member, he has not taken the opportunity to raise the matter with the Royal Bank. In general terms, I refer him to a recent survey by the Forum of Private Business, which concluded:

"In almost every aspect, the Scottish banks were perceived in a superior light to the English banks, including bank charges, interest rates, collateral, indices of quality and banking relationships."
I should have thought that, in the light of that, hon. Members might praise the Scottish financial community.

Knives

12.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding Operation Blade carried out by Strathclyde police; and if he will make a statement.

19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce proposals to amend the law relating to sentences available to sheriffs for those convicted of carrying knives or other such instruments.

My right hon. Friend has received no representations concerning Operation Blade, but we strongly welcome the steps that have been taken by Strathclyde police to deal with the serious and growing problem of the carrying of knives. Operation Blade is an innovative strategy by the force and the first of its kind in Scotland. More than 4,500 weapons have already been surrendered. The Government will be supporting the Bill introduced yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) to strengthen the law on the carrying of knives in public.

Will the Minister confirm that I have been raising with him the issue of crimes of violence For the past five years? Will he further confirm that last year I asked him to declare an amnesty and that he refused, on the basis that to do so, so soon after 1988, would debase its value? Is not it a fact that as Operation Blade has resulted in nearly 5,000 weapons being removed from the streets of Strathclyde, it is the Government who are debased? Why has it taken campaigns by the Glasgow Evening Times and the Scottish Daily Record to get the Government to act?

Is the Minister aware that horrific weapons of war are widely available in shops in our towns and cities? Will he now introduce legislation to ban the importation and sale of weapons such as the one I hold in my hand—[Interruption.]

Order. Before we proceed further, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he is not allowed to bring such an implement into the Chamber, or indeed into the House.

The hon. Member has been here long enough to be aware of such matters. [Interruption.] I am sure that, at my request, he will remove it from the Chamber. I should be most grateful if he would.

Order. Before we proceed, I am sure that the hon. Member will agree to do as I say.

Will he do it quickly, so that he can then hear the Minister's reply to his supplementary question?

I welcome the fact that Opposition Members are coming round to the Government's way of thinking on the need for a really strong law and order policy in this country. Only a short time ago they opposed the police having powers of search. The importance of the Bill is that it alters the onus of proof, which will make prosecutions easier. The existing provisions under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 relate to the carrying of weapons and require the Crown to prove intent to injure. Under the Bill, it will not be necessary to prove that intent and that will take the policy much further forward. If the hon. Gentleman feels passionately about the issue, however, will he please make representations to Strathclyde regional council's Labour group and ask it to strengthen the police force, which is some 200 under strength at present?

Will my hon. Friend accept my thanks for the time given by Scottish Office officials in preparing the Bill that will make the carrying of knives in public an offence? Will he welcome the support given by Opposition Members and does he agree that this is only one small step to redress an unacceptable position?

Yes, I can confirm that there is no stronger supporter of law and order in the House than my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr. I have no doubt that, with a general consensus of support for tightening the measures in relation to knives, we will strengthen law and order.

In 1992 there were 201 attempted murders in Strathclyde in which knives were used, compared with 126 the year before. The number of knife assaults has increased considerably. We have to take further measures and my hon. Friend's Bill will assist in that process.

In January we had the planted question; now we have the planted Bill. Despite enormous public concern in Scotland at the ever-increasing incidence of violence involving knives, the Minister of State only last week stated that the Government were unwilling to make parliamentary time available to fulfil the Conservative party's election manifesto commitment on knives. Eight days after that statement and one day after I presented my Bill to ban the carrying of knives, the hon. Member for Ayr was furnished by the Government with a Bill to do just that.

We accept, however, that the main issue is the carrying of knives in public places. Given the serious nature of the issue to the Scottish people, will the Minister agree to meet me and a small number of my hon. Friends to discuss aspects of the Bill, thereby ensuring the swiftest progress in its passage through Parliament?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes, of course I will meet him. May I add that maximum penalties are now available. For example, if someone were to use a knife, he could be sentenced to life imprisonment on indictment. The Bill ensures that those who carry knives where no intent is proved can be proceeded against. That strengthens the powers of the police and also makes it easier to prosecute. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports the measure.

Before my hon. Friend jumps on the bandwagon of Mr. Boutros Boutros's Bill, may I remind the House what the law is? It is more than adequate. Under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, it is an offence punishable by two years' imprisonment—more than is sought in the Bill—to carry any offensive weapon in any public or private place, the proof of the carrier's intention, being neutral, being upon him. Furthermore, the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1961 provides for the prevention of sale of offensive weapons. If the Government do not know what the law is, it is time that they did.

My hon. and learned Friend is a brilliant man, but he is not always right. The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr changes the burden of proof by requiring the accused to demonstrate lawful authority or reasonable excuse for carrying the implement. That undoubtedly takes us further forward.

Economy And Employment

13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss the economy and employment.

I have frequent meetings with the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss a range of economic, employment and training issues in Scotland.

Leaving aside for the moment the intense local speculation concerning Mimtec and Faulds Farm, Gourock, may I remind the Secretary of State that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), told me just 13 days ago that more than 48,000 people in Strathclyde, 2,000 of whom live in Inverclyde, have been unemployed for more than 12 months? Will the Secretary of State ensure that Scottish Enterprise involves itself in the sale of Scott Lithgow so that more employment may be provided in the area? Does he agree that if Scott Lithgow were brought into the enterprise zone it would be very attractive to a potential inward investor in shipbuilding or shiprepairing?

The hon. Gentleman must know that I cannot hold out any hope that it will be possible to change the boundaries of the enterprise zone. However, the very existence of the enterprise zone, together with the other benefits, schemes and initiatives that the Government and Scottish Enterprise bring to Inverclyde and other parts of Scotland, has helped to sustain the area's economy quite effectively during the period of recession. The hon. Gentleman mentioned unemployment. He should not overlook the brighter signs. Unemployment in his constituency, far from rising in the past year, has fallen. Although the level is still too high, it is more than 4,000 lower than it was six years ago.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under the rules governing assisted area status and enterprise zones and the European Commission's rules, only 15 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom may have assisted area status? In view of the great success of Scottish Enterprise in bringing jobs to Scotland, is not it now time for the assisted area status of some Scottish areas to be given up to other parts of the United Kingdom? It is clear that those parts of Scotland no longer need assistance.

As my hon. Friend knows, the assisted areas map is drawn on an even-handed basis across the United Kingdom, taking account of objective criteria that have been agreed. In this respect, Scotland is no different from Northern Ireland, Wales or England. However, the assisted areas map is under review. The issue is being carefully considered to ensure that we get the right structure and the right map for the future.

What progress has the Secretary of State made in pursuing companies that came to Irvine, were given massive grants and have now left without repaying any money to Scottish Enterprise? What progress has been made towards recovering this money?

Regional assistance is carefully controlled. Resources have to be repaid if the investment to which they relate is not undertaken within a certain time limit. That happens on rare occasions. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any cases in his constituency, I shall certainly follow them up and give him a detailed and specific reply.

Scottish Charities(Eastern Europe)

14.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the work of Scottish charities in eastern Europe; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has received no specific representations and while the Scottish Office has no responsibility for the work of Scottish charities in eastern Europe, he associates himself with the widespread appreciation of their efforts.

Will my hon. Friend congratulate Scottish European Aid—formerly Romania Project UK —on the excellence of its work at lonaseni orphanage and Podriga hospital? Will he support Scottish European Aid's appeal for a mobile medical camp for Bosnia's stricken refugees?

I will consider my hon. Friend's request for assistance for the Edinburgh headquarters and I will write to him as soon as possible with regard to ways forward. On the question of training schemes, we should need detailed information, but we will consider the situation sympathetically. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work, not only in founding the all-party campaign for inter-country adoption but for the orphanage in Ionaseni, Romania, and the psychiatric hospital at Podriga. I understand that rehabilitation of buildings at Tuzla, too, is proceeding. We warmly welcome the work of Scottish European Aid and wish it every success.

Stobhill Hospital

15.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet received the health board's recommendations regarding the future of Stobhill hospital.

The Greater Glasgow health board has yet to conclude its review of acute and maternity services. Stobhill hospital features as part of that review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State looks forward to receiving the health board's recommendations in due course.

Will the Minister tell the health board and its new chairman that Stobhill is an excellent facility at the north end of the city? It serves not only my constituency but many other constituencies in Glagow—and, indeed, Strathkelvin and further afield as far as Kilsyth and Torrance. To lose the facility will mean a lot of harm to the health of many thousands of people. I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that we have a first-class team in Stobhill from the doctors down to the domestics. I hope that the hospital has a good future.

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. The review to which I referred is about putting patients first and providing patients with important services. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that, once the recommendations of the board are with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the Minister of State, they will be happy to meet him to discuss the matter in detail.

Points Of Order

3.31 pm

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am seeking your ruling on the procedure used by Health Ministers yesterday to announce a record increase in prescription charges without an oral statement on which they could be questioned. The written details purported to be "pursuant to" a written answer to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on 16 February, although the original question did not mention prescription charge rates or prescription charge increases, and it was answered in full.

That practice was condemned by the Select Committee on Procedure in its third report, Session 1990–91, paragraph 129, in which it said:
"It is hard to see how a matter can be of such urgency that an announcement must be made without prior notice on a particular day, and yet not be of sufficient importance to justify an oral statement to the House."
Would you agree, Madam Speaker, that such practice is
"inherently undesirable and an abuse of the procedures of this House"?

Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I am a Member of the Procedure Committee, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has taken the opportunity to emphasise from the Front Bench the points which the Committee made.

You, like your predecessors, have rightly deprecated the custom whereby journalists—indeed, the world at large—are given information by the Government before the House. This is an important announcement, which undoubtedly penalises the sick in our society. It is controversial. What possible justification can there be to give the announcement to the Lobby and the rest of the country and not make an oral statement in the House on which the Secretary of State for Health can be questioned while you are presiding?

If it is too late now, would you make it clear that such statements should be made to the House in future? We should be given the first opportunity; otherwise, the remarks which you and your predecessors made are simply made a mockery of by Ministers—

Order. I can deal with the point of order.

The written answer given yesterday, which is in columns 95 and 96 of Hansard, is concerned almost entirely with the proposed level of prescription charges for the year 1993–94, and is described as "pursuant to" an answer of 15 February to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), which is at column 162.

I have noted that the Select Committee on Procedure, in its third report of Session 1990–91, stated its belief that
"the use by Ministers of 'pursuant' answers is inherently undesirable".
The report goes on to say:
"The offence is compounded when…an answer is given which claims to be 'pursuant' to an earlier reply but which in fact has only the most tenuous link with it."
As we well know, the House has not yet had the opportunity to debate the Procedure Committee's recommendations on how the practice should be dealt with. But I wish to make it clear that I deprecate the use of the "pursuant" device by Ministers to make written statements such as this without giving proper notice to the House. I hope that that clears up the points of order, and that we can now get on with our business.

Mrs. Ewing, on a separate point of order.

On a separate point of order arising out of Scottish questions, Madam Speaker. You will know that considerable interest in civil legal aid was expressed during questions. On at least two occasions, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he believed that the cost of civil legal aid in Scotland had doubled in the past five years. That is in direct contradiction of written answers which were provided to me on 12 February.

It is important that such inaccuracies should not be written into our records. Is there something that you can do to ensure that, within the Scottish Office, answers communicated by junior Ministers are relayed to the Secretary of State so that information is accurately recorded in all our records?

I am sure that the hon. Lady is wily enough and has sufficient imagination to put her point across. It is a matter of policy, not one for me.

Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker.

Order. There can be no further points of order on that matter. I have dealt with it.

On the procedures of the House, I fully accept your ruling on the previous point of order—

Order. I have dealt with that. There can be no further point of order on that matter. I have dealt with it adequately. We must now move on.

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman challenging that ruling? He told me that it was a separate point of order before he got to his feet. I accepted his word as an hon. Gentleman. Is it a separate point of order now?

The Procedure Committee two years ago made a recommendation which the House has not yet had chance to debate. Is it not an indictment of the Government's handling of business that it takes two years for such matters to come before the House? Is that not a way for Ministers to gag the House of Commons on embarrassing statements such as the one on prescription charges?

I have no doubt that what I said earlier will have been noted. Now perhaps we can—

Order. It seems that Members in the last moment or two have ideas in their mind which they can raise as a point of order. Some of them are bogus points of order. I have no intention of letting the House be delayed by bogus points of order. I shall now proceed.

I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. May I remind you that, on 26 January, I raised with you in a point of order the advisability of documents which are the basis of ministerial statements being placed in the Vote Office for Members some 30 minutes before the statement is due to be made? You advised me to raise it with the Leader of the House, which I did on 27 January. I have heard no more. Has the Leader of the House been in touch with you on this legitimate point of order?

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be in order for the Opposition to use an Opposition day debate to discuss prescription charges so that Conservative Members can point out that a Labour Government first proposed prescription charges—

Coal Industry (Abolition Of Statutory Manpower Limits)

3.39 pm

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 36(2)(a) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946; and for connected purposes.
The present furore in the coal industry and in the country, following British Coal's and the Government's October announcement of their intention to close 31 pits, has brought into focus many aspects of the coal and energy market, which are the subject of on-going reports and debate.

The future of those 31 pits remains in the balance, with 21 working and 10 closed but subject to a review procedure. My view of the way in which the announcement was made in October is well known, and I do not intend to go over that ground again today. All I shall say is that I look to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to produce a balanced energy programme which will allow a substantial number of those pits to remain open under British Coal management.

I continue to press that view, on the basis that we must save not only the jobs of the majority of the 30,000 miners involved, but also the livelihoods of the estimated 50,000 additional people employed in associated industries or small local businesses, and those involved in this country's wider manufacturing base.

For some mines, there is an alternative to remaining under British Coal management: they could be leased or sold for private licensed operation. I have positive information that a consortium could be interested in operating Markham Main colliery in Yorkshire, and that the well-known mining company, Ryan, would be interested in operating Betws colliery in Wales; and I am sure that there could well be others.

The chairman of British Coal has publicly said that he would not be opposed to pits within the 10 under review being transferred to licensed status and operated privately. I and others intend to keep him to that offer, to maximise the number of mining jobs retained and to enable the removal of the so-called easily mined coal from these pits. That is where the problem arises—hence the need for my Bill.

Present legislation limits to 150 the number of workers employed underground in licensed mines at any one time. For many mines to operate efficiently and safely—I stress the word safely—that number is inadequate. Without becoming involved in a discussion about the number of men needed to run a privately operated mine compared with the existing number, a limit of 150 underground workers at any time in a licensed mine is too restrictive.

There is a stronger case than ever for removing the restriction. If it remains in place, the pits that British Coal plans to close will have no future, because virtually all of them employ many more miners than the licensing limit. Some of the pits that British Coal may not want to work remain viable, with good short-term coal reserves and good industrial relations. They could operate profitably. I cite as an example Grimethorpe colliery in South Yorkshire, which the international mining consultants Boyd have recently shown to be viable.

If the restriction is removed, there is a chance that at least some of the pits, and therefore some of the miners, could find a future in the private sector. I am sure that the House is well aware that the Coal Act 1938 and the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 provide the basic legal framework for the coal industry. The 1938 Act removed the freehold ownership of coal from the private sector and vested it in the Coal Commission. The 1946 Act created the National Coal Board, which acquired all the interests of the Coal Commission and was given the exclusive duty of working and searching for coal.

Section 36(2) of the 1946 Act, however, empowered the NCB to license coal mining or, as an ancillary, the mining of other materials. Until 1990, the size of licensed deep mines was severely curtailed by the statutory manpower limit of 30 men employed to work underground. The Government went some way towards liberalising the regime for the licensed sector by section 4 of the Coal Industry Act 1990, which increased the limit to 150 men.

The scope of my Bill is totally to remove the restriction, by amending section 36(2)(a) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946. I hope that the House will support me in my endeavour. I am convinced that there is no shortage of individuals and companies interested in creating a future for some of the pits. There is certainly no shortage of energy and commitment among the people at the pits, who believe that there is potential there. Some of them may prove to be over-optimistic.

There should be no pretence that the amending legislation would save as many jobs as some of us would like. However, the new operators would want to run the pits as efficiently as possible—as I am sure British Coal do —which might mean fewer jobs. There should be no illusions that the measure would be a cure-all for the coal industry. At least the operators would provide the opportunity—a second chance—for the operations to succeed and for some jobs to be saved. It would be wrong to allow an anomalous restriction to prevent that second chance.

On behalf of miners, their families and the wider energy needs of the country I ask the House for leave to bring in the amendment to the outdated and unnecessary legislation.

3.46 pm

I was first.

I wish to oppose the Bill, as I want to place on record the fact that the Opposition do not want to go back to the era of privatisation in the coal mines. The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) wants to increase the numbers that are allowed to work in a private mine. Just before the last election, legislation was passed which increased the numbers from 30 to 150, and every Labour Member voted against that proposal. I hope that they will do the same again today. If we as a Labour party were against increasing the number of people working in a pit from 30 to 150 it should follow that we are against any further increase.

The reason that we are against the privatisation of mines is fairly simple. The Mines and Quarries Acts, which form the backbone of the legislation on the supervision and extraction of coal, have been etched in blood—miners' blood. Over the years—in fact, decades—several disasters have taken place. Following each disaster, well-meaning people have told the House of Commons that we needed another regulation to ensure that such a disaster never happened again.

That is how many of the Mines and Quarries Acts have been built up over the years. They have grown up as a result of 80 miners losing their lives in one place and another 200 losing their lives somewhere else. The Opposition are not prepared to cast away provisions that exist to ensure the limited safety of miners when they are engaged underground and at the pit top.

None of us would claim for one minute that it is totally safe in a pit—of course it is not. But we must preserve the Mines and Quarries Acts, and the present health and safety provisions. We all know that the main reason for the coal industry being nationalised was that, at the end of, and during, the war, privatisation was seen to be failing the nation, as it would again.

We cannot provide the necessary energy through coal on the basis of private enterprise. During the run-up to the second world war and beyond, the Government had to intervene. Many of the Tories who were then involved were private coal owners, and they collaborated over the idea of public ownership.

The Opposition would be the first to admit that public ownership has not been the bees' knees in the mining industry. But why? Not because of the philosophy of public ownership, but because of the Tory people running it. There is one running it now who is called Neil Clarke. His salary increased from £98,000 to more than £200,000 when he took the job. Why did this rotten Government increase his salary? Because they knew that he would be a patsy for privatisation and running down the pits.

It is interesting that both the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Neil Clarke went on television on 13 October and said the same things. They talked about having a tiny industry. Why, one might ask, would British Coal want a small coal mining industry? Simple—because Neil Clarke and his acolytes at Hobart house wanted to run the privatised industry, and they did not want competition. They did not want 30, 40 or 50 pits; they wanted a small number of the most productive pits so that they could make a big fat profit running the industry. That is why we are opposed to this Bill.

If the hon. Lady or any other Tory Members who have spouted about supporting the miners in the past want to support the Opposition—they have been good talkers, but they have been no good in the ring, with the exception of the hon. Lady and, I think, two others on the day in question—to save the 31 pits, they will not do it by back-door privatisation. They must have the guts to tell the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that they support the millions of people out there in the country who believe that the mines should stay open.

If the Government really believe in cutting unemployment, they have an opportunity to save 100,000 jobs in the course of the next few weeks—the 30,000 miners' jobs that would be lost and the 70,000 others. If they do not do that, those Ministers, including the Minister for Energy, who are smirking away on the Front Bench, will be adding to that enormous unemployment total in Britain which is now more than 4 million in real terms.

What will that unemployment cost? It is already costing £30 billion to finance that pile of human misery known as the dole queue. It is economic madness. We should not be adding to it, and nor should the Government. Anyone who wants to help the coal industry should be calling for a cut in imports—20 million tonnes this year coming from slave labour economies, some of it much dearer than the coal that is mined in Britain.

Bolsover pit in my constituency was producing coal the other week at 67p per gigajoule, yet the Government talk about pits not being competitive. Now that the pound has been devalued by between 15 and 20 per cent., we should not be importing coal but exporting it to every country in the world.

If the Government want to save some more pits, they can cut down on opencast mining, which produced 18·5 million tonnes last year. We can do without it. Let us reduce it to the level it was when the Labour Government left office. Let us reduce the imports to the 5 million tonnes when the Labour Government left office. If we did that, we would save another 12 or 13 pits. Let us close the Magnox nuclear stations and save six more pits. Let us cut the French nuclear link and save another half a dozen pits.

If the Government or any Tory Member had the will or the guts to save the pits, it would be relatively easy to do so. The result would be that, instead of spending £900 million to finance 100,000 people out of work, with a subsidy only half that which Nuclear Power gets for 22 per cent. of the energy market, we would be saving the British taxpayer several hundred million pounds. It would not be a subsidy; it would be a saving. Those who want to help us to save the pits have plenty of opportunities to do so.

I finish on this note. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) knows a little bit about private mines, because the north-east has one or two. He told me about one incident fairly recently when the haulage rope in a private mine snapped. Because the mine was trying to save money, a knot was tied in the rope. That would not be allowed under the Mines and Quarries Act 1954.

How will private mines cope with pumping out water from the adjoining collieries that have been closed? Have the Government ever stopped to think about that? If Silverhill colliery were sold to a group of entrepreneurs, they would have to pay £250,000 for every pump to pump the water out of another pit five miles up the road. Would they do it? Of course they would not. They would go running to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry asking for a subsidy to pump out the water from somebody else's pit. How will they pump out the methane from an adjoining colliery? That would have to be done. It sounds all right to have a little private mine, but mines are not little and they are not private, if you want to compete in the energy market. The environmental problems of the water and methane would have to be dealt with. The whole thing is a load of nonsense. That is why those who took part in a private mine in Scotland are, despite their sterling efforts, realising that they are having to carry the costs that belong to somebody else. So do not let us talk nonsense.

The mines have always been a case of battling against mother nature. It is not like working in a factory. The strong mines help the weak, and sometimes the strong mines become weak and the weak mines become strong as they find a better coal seam. Let us have some common sense.

People think that they can come up with tinpot answers and solve the problem. The problem is staring the Government in the face. Save the 31 pits, and if we start exporting coal, the balance of payments problem will be solved—

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):

The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 180.

Division No. 167]

[3.55 pm

AYES

Adley, RobertHarris, David
Ashby, DavidHill, James (Southampton Test)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Banks, Matthew (Southport)Hunter, Andrew
Blackburn, Dr John G.Jenkin, Bernard
Bonsor, Sir NicholasJessel, Toby
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)Kilfedder, Sir James
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir RhodesLidington, David
Butler, PeterNicholson, David (Taunton)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)Pawsey, James
Carttiss, MichaelPeacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Cash, WilliamPorter, David (Waveney)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)Shaw, David (Dover)
Clifton-Brown, GeoffreySmith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Congdon, DavidSpink, Dr Robert
Cormack, PatrickSweeney, Walter
Couchman, JamesThompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)Townend, John (Bridlington)
Day, StephenTownsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Deva, Nirj JosephTracey, Richard
Dickens, GeoffreyViggers, Peter
Dunn, BobWalker, Bill (N Tayside)
Dykes, HughWaterson, Nigel
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)Whittingdale, John
Fabricant, MichaelWilletts, David
Fry, Peter
Gallie, Phil

Tellers for the Ayes:

Gorst, John

Mr. James Cran and

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Mrs. Angela Knight.

Griffiths. Peter (Portsmouth, N)

NOES

Adams, Mrs IreneDarling, Alistair
Ainger, NickDavidson, Ian
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Armstrong, HilaryDavies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Ashton, JoeDavis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Austin-Walker, JohnDenham, John
Barnes, HarryDewar, Donald
Battle, JohnDixon, Don
Bayley, HughDobson, Frank
Bell, StuartDonohoe, Brian H.
Bennett, Andrew F.Dunnachie, Jimmy
Berry, Dr. RogerDun woody, Mrs Gwyneth
Betts, CliveEagle, Ms Angela
Blunkett, DavidEnright, Derek
Boyce, JimmyEtherington, Bill
Boyes, RolandEvans, John (St Helens N)
Bradley. KeithFatchett, Derek
Burden, RichardField, Frank (Birkenhead)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)Fisher, Mark
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)Flynn, Paul
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Campbell-Savours, D. N.Foster, Don (Bath)
Cann, JamieFoulkes, George
Chisholm, MalcolmFyfe, Maria
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)Garrett, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)Gerrard, Neil
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)Godman, Dr Norman A.
Clelland, DavidGolding, Mrs Llin
Cohen, HarryGraham, Thomas
Connarty, MichaelGrant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Corbyn, JeremyGriffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Cousins, JimGriffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Cunliffe, LawrenceGrocott, Bruce
Dafis, CynogGunnell, John

Hain, PeterMudie, George
Hall, MikeMullin, Chris
Harvey, NickMurphy, Paul
Hill, Keith (Streatham)O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Hinchliffe, DavidO'Brien, William (Normanton)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)O'Hara, Edward
Hood, JimmyOlner, William
Hoon, GeoffreyParry, Robert
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)Pickthall, Colin
Hoyle, DougPope, Greg
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Hutton, JohnPrimarolo, Dawn
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)Purchase, Ken
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)Quin, Ms Joyce
Jamieson, DavidRaynsford, Nick
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)Redmond, Martin
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)Reid, Dr John
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Jowell, TessaRoche, Mrs. Barbara
Kaufman, Rt Hon GeraldRoss, Ernie (Dundee W)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame ElaineSalmond, Alex
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)Sheerman, Barry
Khabra, Piara S.Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Kilfoyle, PeterShore, Rt Hon Peter
Kirkwood, ArchySimpson, Alan
Leighton, RonSkinner, Dennis
Lewis, TerrySmith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Litherland, RobertSmith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Livingstone, KenSmith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)Snape, Peter
Llwyd, ElfynSpearing, Nigel
Loyden, EddieSpellar, John
McAllion, JohnSquire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Macdonald, CalumSteel, Rt Hon Sir David
McFall, JohnStott, Roger
McKelvey, WilliamStrang, Dr. Gavin
Mackinlay, AndrewStraw, Jack
McMaster, GordonTaylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Madden, MaxTipping, Paddy
Mahon, AliceTurner, Dennis
Mallon, SeamusTyler, Paul
Marek, Dr JohnWallace, James
Marshall, David (Shettleston)Walley, Joan
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)Wicks, Malcolm
Martlew, EricWigley, Dafydd
Maxton, JohnWilliams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Meale, AlanWilson, Brian
Michael, AlunWinnick, David
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)Wise, Audrey
Milburn, AlanWray, Jimmy
Morgan, RhodriWright, Dr Tony
Morley, Elliot
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)Tellers for the Noes:
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)Mr. Eric Illsley and
Mowlam, MarjorieMr Michael Clapham.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders Of The Day

Education Bill

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

We shall now proceed to consider amendments up to the end of schedule 12, and the Government motion relating to clause 214.

Clause 197

Appointment Of Additional Governors

4.6 pm

I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 119, line 17 leave out 'controlled' and insert 'voluntary'.

I understand that with this it will be convenient to take also the following amendments: No. 17, in page 119, line 18 after 'may', insert—

'(a) forthwith and without any obligation to consider representations made by or on behalf of any person affected, remove from office any person who is a governor appointed by them or a co-opted governor, and
(b)'.

No. 18, in page 119, line 19 at end insert

'whether by way of replacement of persons removed from office under paragraph (a) above or as additional governors'.

No. 19, in page 119, line 20 after 'appointment', insert 'of additional governors'.

No. 20, in page 119, line 32 at end insert—

  • '(3) Subsection (1) above is without prejudice to section 8(5) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (general power of removal of governors by those who appoint them).
  • (4) The local education authority shall not exercise the power conferred by subsection (1)(a) in relation to a voluntary school unless they have consulted the person who appoints the school's foundation governors.
  • (5) In this section "co-opted governor" has the same meaning as in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.'.
  • This group of five amendments to clause 197, which deals with the appointment of additional governors, aims to increase the local education authority's powers over schools which are considered to be at risk or over any voluntary school considered to be in the same position. The amendments provide an alternative—perhaps one could even argue that they complement what the Secretary of State is choosing to do in transferring a school considered to be at risk to an education association.

    It is the Government's intention in clauses 197 and 198 to provide the LEA with a set of additional powers to try to turn around a failing school. However, the powers contained in those two clauses are insufficient, and our amendments would reinforce the powers already provided to local education authorities in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. They also propose a new power intended to be more closely equivalent to the powers that the Secretary of State has taken to himself in clause 58 over the governing body of an at-risk grant-maintained school. We seek parity of power and esteem for a local education authority to act in respect of a maintained school or a voluntary school in the same way as the Secretary of State would act in respect of an at-risk grant-maintained school.

    Let us look at some of the detail of the amendments. Amendment No. 17, the first of the main elements of the group, provides for an unrestricted power summarily to remove any local authority appointed governor or co-opted governor, which would effectively enable a majority of the governing body to be replaced. As I have said, that is equivalent to the Secretary of State's power under clause 58 to replace the first governors in a grant-maintained school which is a former county school.

    The amendment would provide a power to remove co-opted governors, which is an innovation, proposed mainly in order to provide a power to remove and replace a majority of the governing body of a county school without affecting parent governors or teacher governors. In the case of voluntary schools, local education authority appointees and co-opted governors do not constitute a majority, but the person who appoints foundation governors already has a power, albeit a restricted power, to remove them.

    Thus, the powers in clause 197, even with the amendments, would require the person with that power over the foundation governors to be involved in order to replace a majority of the governing body. The local education authority's existing power to remove LEA appointed governors, and the equivalent powers held by others to remove foundation governors, come from section 8(5) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. There have been legal challenges to that power, as in the case of Brunyate v. ILEA in 1989. Thus, the intention of amendment 17 is to make local education authorities' powers in the case of an at-risk school entirely unambiguous, and to extend them to cover co-opted governors under the same terms.

    Amendment No. 16 may be contentious in that it proposes to widen the scope of clause 197 to include voluntary-aided schools as well as voluntary-controlled schools. Nevertheless, that is not intended to shift the main weight of responsibility for removing governors, which lies with the person who appoints the foundation governors. In the exceptional circumstances—I repeat and emphasise the phrase "exceptional circumstances"—in which a voluntary-aided school may find itself at risk, and for as long as it remains at risk, the amended clause would permit the local authority to appoint extra governors so that the foundation governors would not comprise a majority.

    The new subsection (4) of clause 197, suggested in amendment No. 20, would require that the local education authority's powers over the governing body of a voluntary school be used only after consultation with the person who appointed the foundation governors. In other words, unlike the clause as currently drafted, the clause as amended would provide for such consultation in the case of voluntary-controlled schools. As the clause stands the Government seem to have no intention of allowing such consultation.

    The second element in the group of amendments is to be found in amendment No. 18, which would completely change the thrust of clause 197 from being concerned exclusively with additional governors to a balanced approach of replacement or additional governors. The thrust of our amendments is to give local education authorities exactly the same opportunities and powers in respect of maintained and voluntary schools as the Secretary of State has or will have over grant-maintained schools which are former county schools and which may become at risk. We hope that the Government will accept that it is preferable to give the local education authority extra power similar to that of the Secretary of State to turn round a school which is at risk.

    Even under existing powers, local education authorities occasionally intervene effectively to turn around failing schools. I can cite one school, which I shall not name, to show how a local education authority can work effectively. A couple of years ago, the school was between one third and half full. The local education authority determined that it would have to take action, and within two years that same school is now over-subscribed. Local education authorities can do that job.

    I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, and I very much applaud what he had to say about the LEA that turned the school around, but I expect that he would be the first to agree that, sadly, not all LEAs can do that. Failing schools exist despite the best endeavours of local education authorities. That is where my right hon. Friend's admirable initiative comes in. The education association is a long stop, but it sorts out that problem. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming my right hon. Friend's views on the matter.

    I shall turn to that in a moment. Let me point out to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who I know has a long-standing interest in education—although it is sometimes misguided—that our amendments seek to strengthen the powers of a local education authority to deal with an at-risk school and to place those powers on a par with the powers of the Secretary of State in respect of grant-maintained schools which might become at risk. We know that that has happened, and that there were tremendous difficulties in dealing with that problem.

    One reason why LEAs often encounter difficulties, whether or not they are entirely justified, is the question whether they have untrammelled powers to take action against a school that is at risk. Our amendments, by giving LEAs the same powers as the Secretary of State, will make it abundantly clear that they should take action. If they fail to act, the Secretary of State's own powers to create an education authority will come into play.

    I applaud the heart of the hon. Gentleman, but is his head working too? He said that the school was one third to half full. Does he accept that there are 900,000 surplus school places in Britain, including 19,000 surplus secondary school places in Lancashire? The money that is spent on those surplus places should be funding other schools, and in Lancashire providing more places at the overcrowded Lancashire primary schools. The hon. Gentleman is moving the pieces round the chess board. We want to get rid of surplus places.

    I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, although it is at a tangent to my argument. Surplus places cannot be discussed under the issue of failing schools, unless the hon. Lady is suggesting that, as soon as a school is seen to be failing, it should be closed completely rather than being given a second chance.

    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that there is only one chance for any child in his or her school career; there is no second chance. Does he agree that, in the case of a school such as the one to which he has referred—which he properly has not named—if the local education authority does not move swiftly and effectively, the next thing to happen, once the Bill is enacted, will be for the education association to become effective? If the education association does not move in, the school will wither on the vine, and with that withering process may come the ruin of the careers of the declining number of children in the school.

    The whole point of the amendment is to give the local education authority the power to move in unambiguously, as the Secretary of State hopes that the education association will do.

    Our hope is that, if the Government give a favourable wind to our amendments, the powers of the LEA to act to stop schools failing will be on a par with the Secretary of State's powers. At present, LEAs do not have the same powers. I do not pretend to be an expert on how local education authorities work vis-a-vis all schools that are at risk. There was a fear that LEAs might not have sufficient powers to carry out a full-scale exercise if the head of a school at risk put up a fight. One can hardly imagine that a head would do that, but it seems that they have in the past.

    I do not seek to give an LEA any powers that the Secretary of State will not exercise. I hope that, by giving new powers to the LEA, which are on a par with his own, we will help it to move into schools at risk at the earliest stage, instead of wondering how effectively it can act. The amendment would obviate the need for the education association to move in in such cases.

    There is no guarantee that the education association will be successful. By definition, it could involve men and women who have been retired from education for some time and who may not be fully conversant with all the problems in a local authority area. For all the good will that the Secretary of State sees behind the concept, the education association may not be the best body to act. Local education authorities, equipped with the powers proposed in the amendment, will be able to move effectively against falling schools.

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the principal virtues of the education association is that it will be new, independent and unbiased? It will not be touched by association with the LEA. There may be a dispute, an argument or a background problem, but the education association will come into the school absolutely impartially. The LEA may not be seen as impartial, and that may hold it back.

    We are moving on to new ground with the education associations, so there is nothing against which we can test the hon. Gentleman's argument. It must be supposition and hope at this stage, as there is no evidence on which he can base a valid argument. We do not know how the Secretary of State will act in appointing education associations. An association might turn out to be a good friend of the head of a school at risk and might, because of that, feel a constraint. We can only speculate about what an association might do.

    On the other hand, a local education authority with a determination to deal with a failing school, particularly with the powers that we propose it should have—powers which are no greater than those possessed by the Secretary of State in respect of a grant-maintained school at risk —would be able to act effectively. If for some reason, in a minority of cases, it turned out not to be effective, that would become apparent quickly and the education association might then have a chance to act.

    Many people perceive the education associations as a rather confrontational group of educational SAS people parachuted into a situation about which they might know little, and the result could be much heartache and no success. On the other hand, if the LEA were given the powers that we propose, it would be able to act effectively. The backstop position of the education association would remain in the unlikely event of the LEA not having done its job properly.

    On the basis that we would not be giving the LEA more power to deal with maintained or voluntary schools than the Secretary of State has to deal with grant-maintained schools, we trust that the Government will accept the amendment.

    This group of Opposition amendments raises important issues about educational standards in schools and in particular about who carries responsibility for improving standards and how those responsibilities shall be implemented. We are concerned with part V of the Bill, which sits uncomfortably on the Education Act 1988 and the Education Act 1992 because it fails to establish a clear framework of what should be done, who should be doing it and how it should be carried out.

    The 1988 Act delegated more responsibility to school governors and the 1992 Act provided for schools to be regularly inspected using nationally defined criteria, with the governing body carrying the responsibility to act on the findings of those inspections. Sadly, the clause that we are discussing concentrates on only that small proportion of schools which, when inspected, are found to be at risk.

    Such schools undoubtedly need help, but I suspect that it may be too late for many of them. In a recent intervention, the Secretary of State referred to the way in which education associations might be able to provide assistance to schools. But schools which have been defined as being at risk may be beyond hope of redemption. So we should also be examining what support can be offered to the governing bodies of schools at an earlier stage, rather than concentrating on the crude interventionist procedures in the Bill. More work should be done with governing bodies in a constructive way long before schools are defined as failing schools.

    4.30 pm

    It is a great pity, therefore, that in our debate yesterday constraints of time prevented us from discussing some of the new clauses and amendments that had been tabled. For example, my new clause 15 and amendment No. 29, which Madam Speaker had been kind enough to select, would have extended the requirements for governors' annual reports to give clearer information to parents and other interested observers about what the school had achieved each year within the framework of the national inspection criteria. New clause 17 and amendment No. 32 would have ensured that the annual appraisal of the performance of the school's headteacher was properly independent and objective. My amendments Nos. 30 and 31 would have placed much greater emphasis on a governing body's financial planning. A much broader approach to quality assurance is needed in our schools, reinforcing the leading decision-making role played by school governors.

    Clause 197 and the amendments rightly address the question of governing bodies—even though, as I suggested, the remedy would come rather late in the day and only in extreme circumstances. In such circumstances, the question must be whether the local education authority has sufficient powers to turn round the school governing body's problems. Without amendments No. 16 to 20, the answer must undoubtedly be no.

    The Government themselves have shown that to be the case. Their proposed remedy in clause 58 for grant-maintained schools in similarly extreme circumstances gives much greater power—the power to replace the majority of the governing body. Yet clause 197, dealing with local education authority schools, only offers the local education authority the power to acquire a majority by adding more and more governors to the governing body, increasing the size of the governing body almost without limit. Clearly, that is not a sensible approach. The amendments provide a sensible approach and I hope that they will be accepted.

    The amendments would give more power to local education authorities to deal with failing schools. I shall concentrate on the only alternative provided by the Government—that of establishing education associations—which manifestly fails to solve the problem in hand. The amendments would obviate the need for education associations by giving local education authorities more powers to act.

    No reasonable hon. Member would impede any measure that addressed the problem of schools that are failing their pupils—whether LEA-maintained, grant-maintained, independent or private schools or city technology colleges. I am led to wonder why the provisions for the establishment of education associations—which we seek to remove from the Bill—deal only with LEA-maintained schools. If the Government were genuine in their alleged concern for pupils in failing schools, they would have introduced measures which dealt with problems in all schools.

    We have not tackled the question of how big the problem is, and it needs to be quantified. On Second Reading and since, the Secretary of State has referred to his "little list", which we are led to believe consists of just over 100 schools.

    On a matter of information, the list to which I referred is not in my hands but in the hands of the inspector, who is entirely independent. I have seen no such list. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is Her Majesty's chief inspector who will make representations to me about schools that he regards as failing, and I repeat that he is totally independent.

    I am grateful for the Secretary of State's clarification. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that in his evidence to the Select Committee he referred to the report of the chief inspector which indicates that about 200 schools are at risk. The Secretary of State has referred several times to the existence of a little list. On 28 October he admitted to the Select Committee that the proportion of the 23,000 to 24,000 schools was not large. I am glad to say that, for once, I agree with him. In fact, the figure is between 0·5 and 1 per cent. May I assume, therefore, that the Secretary of State will congratulate the LEAs on their conduct of the 99 per cent. of schools that are clearly being run well? If a similar survey throughout Brtitish industry could reveal a success rate of 99 per cent. and a failure rate of only 1 per cent. the official receivers would be far less overworked.

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that the majority of schools are functioning well. However, a very small number are not functioning so well as he and I would like. Surely the object of the education association is to come in as a long-stop and sort out those that are failing.

    I wish that the hon. Gentleman's assertion were correct. My point is that LEAs have been very successful in dealing with schools that have problems. That was indicated in the Secretary of State's evidence to the Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that 99 per cent. of schools were functioning extremely well. The amendments with which we are dealing would give local education authorities more power to deal with the remaining 0·5 to 1 per cent. Our assertion is that the LEAs are best placed to do for those schools what they have done for the other 99 per cent., and we want the authorities to have the necessary power.

    I suspect that there is very little difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself. I acknowledge the point that he makes, and he is right to make it. All I am saying is that the LEA will already have had a good crack at turning a failing school round. In such circumstances, authorities try very hard. Unfortunately, in a very small number of cases they are not successful. It is in respect of the 0·5 to 1 per cent. of schools that the education association will come in. This will happen right at the end of the line—after everything else has been tried. As I have said, there is little difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself.

    If there is so little difference between us, why does the hon. Gentleman keep bobbing up and down? If he will stay in his place and contain his excitement for a few moments, I will say why I believe that the Government's alternative is utterly disastrous and why our amendment would be far more efficacious. There is one matter in respect of which there may be less agreement between the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and myself: I wonder whether the creation of education associations has more to do with the establishment of grant-maintained schools by the back door than with genuine concern about schools that are failing.

    As an act of supreme generosity, I will give way to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). Unlike the Secretary of State, I know the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

    I have achieved a hat trick of interventions in the hon. Gentleman's speech.

    There is no need to talk about the introduction of grant-maintained schools by the back door. Grant-maintained schools will be established because parents want them. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that literally hundreds of grant-maintained schools have so far emerged. By 1996, or thereabouts, there will be thousands of such schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am obliged to my hon. Friends for their support. There is no need for us to try the back-door approach because, frankly, schools will be flooding in through the front door that we have opened.

    We have not been surprised by any avalanche of schools going grant-maintained recently. The Bill is before us because of the Government's supreme disappointment that more schools have not gone grant-maintained in the past four years. I shall deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth in a moment.

    We need to contrast the power which the local education authority could have under our amendments and what the Government are proposing. The proposed education associations would be a sort of flying squad of four or five members going into a school to sort it out. The powers given to the education associations deserve some examination.

    During the Committee on the Bill, it became clear that a third sort of school will be created when an education association is sent in. This may help the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth because I shall contrast my point to that which he made. If an education association is sent in to a school, the school will no longer be a local education authority school, nor will it be grant-maintained. The school will lie somewhere between the two.

    During the Committee, the Minister—unlike the Secretary of State who was unable to attend any of the sessions of the Committee—said that the school will be in a state of limbo. The Minister was clear about this in Committee and I quote:
    "If an education association has been established for a school, ipso facto that school ceases to be maintained by the LEA … Schools under an education association are not grant-maintained schools"—[Official Report, Standing Committee E; 2 February 1993, c. 1247–48.]
    At a stroke, a new school had been created which was neither local education authority nor grant maintained. The Minister also told the Committee that the education association would employ the people in schools.

    As the debate went on, it became clear that funding for the education association for a school would come through the funding agency. Once the education association has done its work, what are the alternatives? The alternatives in the Bill are clear: first, the school should cease to exist—it should close. Secondly, it should become grant-maintained. There is no suggestion in the Bill that the school then goes back to the local education authority and that it should be controlled by the authority.

    The Bill does not tell us whether there will be a ballot of parents to send the school grant-maintained after the education association has done its work. Will parents have a role in deciding that their children's school will become grant-maintained after an education association has been in? There is no provision in the Bill to do that.

    In the White Paper, the Government said that the only significant extra funding provided in the Bill would be additional expenditure for the establishment and operation of the funding agency. We were disappointed because we felt that there were many areas of concern in the education system which could have done with extra funding.

    In Committee, it was revealed that funding will be required for the operation of education associations. In the first instance, the charge for administering the education associations will fall on school budgets. A failing school which may already be underfunded therefore will have a further burden of cloying bureaucracy in the shape of the education association put on it. We were told that the education association could call in specialised advice and set up committees.

    I am listening with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I do not necessarily criticise this, but he seems to be straying widely from the original amendment.

    4.45 pm

    I said that I found the hon. Gentleman's remarks interesting. There are considerable powers for local education authorities to find ways in which to improve schools which are likely to come into the category of failing schools. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that? Bearing in mind that he is talking at some length about the whole concept of education associations, I fail to understand why Opposition Members have continually sought to wreck the Bill by removing the whole idea of a new initiative to improve and help children in failing schools. Can the hon. Gentleman explain that to the House?

    I am sure that hon. Members have noted the bid by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) to take over the job of the Chair by keeping this debate in order. If he does so again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will put him right.

    Order. I will correct any hon. Member who veers outside the provinces of the debate, but so far no one has done that.

    It was certainly not my intention to suggest that you had not kept any hon. Member in order. I was simply a little surprised that the hon. Member for Norwich, North appeared to be trying to do the job on your behalf.

    My point is that our amendments suggest methods by which local education authorities could be more successful in tackling failing schools. I am contrasting that with the proposal in the Bill for education associations to tackle failing schools. I think that the proposal in the Bill will manifestly fail because it sets in place a further level of bureaucracy to be imposed on schools. The costs of that bureaucracy will also be placed on schools.

    We were told that education associations could call in specialist advice and set up committees. What will be the cost of that new bureaucracy? Who will pay for that additional paper-shuffling? Will education associations pay fat fees to advisers? I should like an answer.

    A number of hon. Members seem to want to intervene. I give way to the hon. Member for Croydon North-East (Mr. Congdon).

    I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is going on about the cost. I thought that the cost would be a small price to pay in those extreme cases where a school is failing and the education of the children is suffering thereby. We are talking about those extreme cases in which the local education authority has tried various measures and failed. I thought that the price was a small one to pay to improve the education for those children. They do not get a second opportunity.

    Certainly, children do not get a second opportunity. I should add that such schools are those to which a majority of Labour Members send their children.

    In the White Paper, the Government said that the only significant funding would be for the funding agency. What I am saying today is that the Government are also proposing that moneys will be spent on the education associations. The question of who the members of the education associations will be also bears examination.

    I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that the Financial Times is well known for its accurate reporting. On 29 July, the Secretary of State is reported to have said:
    "The education associations will be composed of retired teachers and people 'good at running things'."
    Later we heard that retired head teachers and business men were likely to be enlisted. I know several retired head teachers and teachers and the last thing that they would want to do is to undertake work on a voluntary basis running failing schools. Will the appointees be vetted? Yesterday we heard the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) ring alarm bells about retired head teachers. He was worried that they might not be politically correct.

    I am afraid that the education association would be yet another layer of expensive bureaucracy packed with Tory placemen on fat expense accounts paid for by children's books. They will not begin to resemble the excellent teams of advisers and inspectors which LEAs were previously able to maintain. Instead, we shall have a rather elderly Dad's Army of Tory appointees, accountable to no one except the Secretary of State.

    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education
    (Mr. Tim Boswell)

    In the limited time left to me, I shall attempt to summarise the main points that have come out of the debate. Two points seem clear to me, although the Opposition have hardly told us about them. First, the Opposition have strangely failed to mention the concomitant powers in clause 198. We are offering huge powers for the first time to LEAs to withdraw delegated budgets. That is a powerful sanction, about which we heard nothing whatever from Opposition Members.

    Secondly, the clear difference has been revealed between the acceptable face of the Opposition put up front by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and that of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who was only too anxious to reactivate class war and made most of his remarks around that theme. The hon. Member for Bridgend admitted, although his admission was heavily qualified, that there might be a case for an education association going into a school in certain circumstances, or where the alternative might otherwise be limbo or the abolition of the school.

    Perhaps I could deal with the hon. Member for Devonport by assuring him—even if he is unable to pay attention to my remarks, having taken up the greater part of the debate—that no effective cost will fall to the LEA from any arrangement to transfer a school to an education association. It is an entirely administrative matter.

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) eloquently said, anticipating the intervention that I would have made, the internal costs would be entirely reasonable given that the alternative would be a failed school which had ceased to exist.

    Does the Minister agree that we have a strange and fearful precedent in hospital trusts? We have spent more money for more quangos and we are having to close more beds.

    I am sorry. Much as I like the hon. Gentleman, he is going rather wide of the mark. If I am to answer in eight minutes, I cannot go into hospital trusts. I should enjoy debating it on another occasion with the hon. Gentleman.

    The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has an entirely proper interest in the standard of management in schools and the accountability of governors. All that I would say to him is that some of his remarks, as he acknowledged, related to an earlier stage in a school's decline than imminent fall. His remarks did not entirely relate to the amendments, but I noted what he said. It is within the spirit of some of the things that we would like to happen.

    The amendments tabled by the official Opposition make no reference to the huge new power which is being given to LEAs to withdraw delegated budgets. Opposition Members made inadequate reference to the other significant power that we are providing. Where a school has received an at-risk report and the school and the LEA have considered an action plan, the LEA will have a power to appoint additional governors to county and controlled schools. I shall explain why the power is defined in that way.

    The power has never existed under a Labour Government. We are now making it available. The hon. Member for Bridgend would do well not to look a gift horse in the mouth. We are giving local authorities sufficient powers, if they are capable of using them and if the people whom they select are appropriate, to turn schools round. They did not previously have those powers. We do not require the additional power which the Opposition propose in the amendments. That is why I shall advise my hon. Friends to resist the amendments in due course.

    The reason why we do not want the further powers is that in the debate and the remarks made by Opposition Members there was a certain confusion—possibly it was a misunderstanding—between the power to appoint additional governors, which is enshrined in our proposals, and the powers of replacement of governors, to which Opposition Members referred.

    I shall deal with the replacement matter first. We believe that it is proper for the local authority to be able to replace its own governors. The hon. Member for Bridgend referred to a particular case and cast doubt on whether that was possible. He referred to the relevant legislation in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. In the case to which he referred, the LEA sought to remove LEA-appointed governors precisely because those governors planned to vote against the wishes of the LEA on the closure of the school to become a city technology college. That was a specific, not a general case.

    In general, the LEA has the power to remove its own governors. The Opposition's proposal would enable the LEA to intervene and, if I may put it this way, "dis-appoint" governors whom it had not appointed. Co-opted governors whould be those appointed by the governing body as a whole, not by the LEA—although, undoubtedly, by LEA nominees. Foundation governors would have been appointed by the foundation. The House will wish to know that the foundation may in turn replace its governors of aided or special agreement schools. We are in discussion with the churches on a parallel power which does not exist now to enable the foundation to appoint additional governors. Such a power would be analogous with the power that we propose in clause 197.

    So we do not believe that it is right to enable the local education authority to go beyond the power of appointment of additional governors to replace existing governors. The main reason why we feel that that would be inappropriate is that the LEA did not appoint the governors in the first place. In aided schools the foundation has the primary responsibility for appointing the majority of the governors. As he will know, the foundation contributes to the capital, maintenance and repair costs of the school and has a close and central role in preserving and enhancing the special ethos, often religious, of the school. So we believe that the position should be protected.

    Our proposals provide full and sufficient powers to LEAs to appoint additional governors. I should say in parentheses that it would be a good idea if LEAs made sure that governors whom they had appointed functioned properly, unlike the gentleman who used to turn up for the first 10 minutes of meetings so that he was not recorded as an absentee and then left, about whom we have received a recent complaint.

    It has nothing to do with the Secretary of State, except that he received the letter. I am pleased that he is here to hear the debate.

    Opposition Members do not seem fully to have appreciated that the number of additional members which LEAs can appoint is not constrained. One would normally expect it to be one or two. If it were necessary in order to seize control of a majority, the LEA could appoint up to the number which represents the majority of the committee so that it could turn matters round. That is fairly closely analogous to the Secretary of State's powers in grant-maintained schools to appoint additional members up to the number which would outnumber the first governors.

    Amendment No. 17 is outrageous even by the standards that we have learnt to expect from the Labour party. It would enable the LEA to replace LEA or co-opted governors
    "forthwith and without any obligation to consider representations made by or on behalf of any person affected".
    That is summary justice with a vengeance.

    I remind the House that we do not want the powers because we wish to use them regularly, or for some hidden agenda that the hon. Member for Devonport has contrived. We want them because we recognise the essential importance of saving failing schools if that is at all possible. We want local education authorities to have a reasonable chance to do so, but as a last resort we need to stand behind them with fall-back provisions so that we can take over with an education association. I am sure that my hon. Friends support the concept because we believe in putting parents first.

    I advise the Opposition to consider the powers that we are offering to local education authorities to enhance their part in the process. I hope that they will understand that if local education authorities cannot come up with the goods, which might occasionally happen, it may be necessary to go to the next stage. We do not welcome or canvass that, but believe that it is absolutely necessary, in the interests of parents and their children.

    It being Five o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [15 December] and Resolution [2 March], put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the amendment be made:—

    The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 274.

    Division No. 168]

    [15 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms DianeDafis, Cynog
    Adams, Mrs IreneDalyell, Tam
    Ainger, NickDarling, Alistair
    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)Davidson, Ian
    Allen, GrahamDavies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
    Alton, DavidDavies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
    Armstrong, HilaryDenham, John
    Ashton, JoeDewar, Donald
    Austin-Walker, JohnDixon, Don
    Barnes, HarryDonohoe, Brian H.
    Barron, KevinDowd, Jim
    Battle, JohnDunnachie, Jimmy
    Bayley, HughDunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
    Bell, StuartEagle, Ms Angela
    Benn, Rt Hon TonyEastham, Ken
    Bennett, Andrew F.Enright, Derek
    Benton, JoeEtherington, Bill
    Bermingham, GeraldEvans, John (St Helens N)
    Berry, Dr. RogerFatchett, Derek
    Betts, CliveFaulds, Andrew
    Blair, TonyField, Frank (Birkenhead)
    Blunkett, DavidFisher, Mark
    Boyce, JimmyFlynn, Paul
    Boyes, RolandFoster, Rt Hon Derek
    Bradley, KeithFoster, Don (Bath)
    Burden, RichardFoulkes, George
    Byers, StephenFraser, John
    Caborn, RichardFyfe, Maria
    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)Gapes, Mike
    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)Garrett, John
    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)George, Bruce
    Campbell-Savours, D. N.Gerrard, Neil
    Cann, JamieGilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
    Chisholm, MalcolmGodman, Dr Norman A.
    Clapham, MichaelGodsiff, Roger
    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)Golding, Mrs Llin
    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)Graham, Thomas
    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
    Clwyd, Mrs AnnGriffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
    Coffey, AnnGriffiths, Win (Bridgend)
    Cohen, HarryGrocott, Bruce
    Connarty, MichaelGunnell, John
    Corbett, RobinHain, Peter
    Corbyn, JeremyHall, Mike
    Cousins, JimHanson, David
    Cryer, BobHarvey, Nick
    Cunliffe, LawrenceHattersley, Rt Hon Roy
    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)Henderson, Doug
    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr JohnHeppell, John

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
    Hinchliffe, DavidO'Brien, William (Normanton)
    Hoey, KateO'Hara, Edward
    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)Olner, William
    Hood, JimmyOrme, Rt Hon Stanley
    Hoon, GeoffreyParry, Robert
    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)Pendry, Tom
    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)Pickthall, Colin
    Hoyle, DougPike, Peter L.
    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)Pope, Greg
    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
    Hutton, JohnPrentice, Gordon (Pendle)
    Ingram, AdamPrescott, John
    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)Primarolo, Dawn
    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)Purchase, Ken
    Jamieson, DavidQuin, Ms Joyce
    Janner, GrevilleRandall, Stuart
    Johnston, Sir RussellRaynsford, Nick
    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)Redmond, Martin
    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)Reid, Dr John
    Jowell, TessaRobertson, George (Hamilton)
    Kaufman, Rt Hon GeraldRoche, Mrs. Barbara
    Keen, AlanRogers, Allan
    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)Rooker, Jeff
    Khabra, Piara S.Rooney, Terry
    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
    Kirkwood, ArchyRuddock, Joan
    Leighton, RonSedgemore, Brian
    Lewis, TerrySheerman, Barry
    Litherland, RobertSheldon, Rt Hon Robert
    Livingstone, KenShore, Rt Hon Peter
    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)Short, Clare
    Llwyd, ElfynSimpson, Alan
    Loyden, EddieSkinner, Dennis
    Lynne, Ms LizSmith, Andrew (Oxford E)
    McAllion, JohnSmith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
    McAvoy, ThomasSmith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
    McCartney, IanSnape, Peter
    Macdonald, CalumSoley, Clive
    McFall, JohnSpearing, Nigel
    McKelvey, WilliamSpellar, John
    Mackinlay, AndrewSquire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
    Maclennan, RobertSteel, Rt Hon Sir David
    McMaster, GordonSteinberg, Gerry
    McWilliam, JohnStott, Roger
    Madden, MaxStrang, Dr. Gavin
    Mahon, AliceStraw, Jack
    Mallon, SeamusTaylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
    Mandelson, PeterTipping, Paddy
    Marek, Dr JohnTurner, Dennis
    Marshall, David (Shettleston)Tyler, Paul
    Martlew, EricWallace, James
    Maxton. JohnWalley, Joan
    Meacher, MichaelWardell, Gareth (Gower)
    Meale, AlanWicks, Malcolm
    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)Wigley, Dafydd
    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
    Milburn, AlanWilson, Brian
    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)Winnick, David
    Moonie, Dr LewisWise, Audrey
    Morgan, RhodriWorthington, Tony
    Morley. ElliotWray, Jimmy
    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)Wright, Dr Tony
    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)Young, David (Bolton SE)
    Mowlam, Marjorie
    Mudie, George

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Mullin, Chris

    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

    Murphy, Paul

    Mr. Eric Illsley.

    NOES

    Adley, RobertAtkinson, Peter (Hexham)
    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
    Amess, DavidBaldry, Tony
    Ancram, MichaelBanks, Matthew (Southport)
    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)Bates, Michael
    Ashby, DavidBellingham, Henry
    Aspinwall, JackBendall, Vivian
    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)Beresford, Sir Paul

    Biffen, Rt Hon JohnGarnier, Edward
    Blackburn, Dr John G.Gillan, Cheryl
    Body, Sir RichardGoodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
    Bonsor, Sir NicholasGoodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
    Booth, HartleyGorst, John
    Boswell, TimGrant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)Greenway, John (Ryedale)
    Bowden, AndrewGriffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
    Bowis, JohnGrylls, Sir Michael
    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir RhodesGummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
    Brandreth, GylesHague, William
    Brazier, JulianHamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom,)
    Bright, GrahamHamilton, Neil (Tatton)
    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)Hampson, Dr Keith
    Browning, Mrs. AngelaHannam, Sir John
    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)Hargreaves, Andrew
    Burns, SimonHarris, David
    Burt, AlistairHaselhurst, Alan
    Butcher, JohnHawkins, Nick
    Butler, PeterHawksley, Warren
    Butterfill, JohnHayes, Jerry
    Carlisle, John (Luton North)Heald, Oliver
    Carrington, MatthewHeathcoat-Amory, David
    Carttiss, MichaelHendry, Charles
    Cash, WilliamHeseltine, Rt Hon Michael
    Channon, Rt Hon PaulHiggins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
    Chapman, SydneyHill, James (Southampton Test)
    Clappison, JamesHogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)Horam, John
    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
    Clifton-Brown, GeoffreyHoward, Rt Hon Michael
    Coe, SebastianHowarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
    Congdon, DavidHunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
    Conway, DerekHunter, Andrew
    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)Jack, Michael
    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)Jenkin, Bernard
    Cope, Rt Hon Sir JohnJessel, Toby
    Cormack, PatrickJohnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
    Couchman, JamesJones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
    Cran, JamesJones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)Key, Robert
    Davis, David (Boothferry)Kilfedder, Sir James
    Day, StephenKirkhope, Timothy
    Deva, Nirj JosephKnapman, Roger
    Devlin, TimKnight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
    Dickens, GeoffreyKnight, Greg (Derby N)
    Dorrell, StephenKnight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord JamesKnox, David
    Dover, DenKynoch, George (Kincardine)
    Duncan, AlanLait, Mrs Jacqui
    Duncan-Smith, IainLang, Rt Hon Ian
    Dunn, BobLeigh, Edward
    Durant, Sir AnthonyLennox-Boyd, Mark
    Dykes, HughLidington, David
    Eggar, TimLightbown, David
    Elletson, HaroldLilley, Rt Hon Peter
    Emery, Rt Hon Sir PeterLloyd, Peter (Fareham)
    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfleld)Lord, Michael
    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)Luff, Peter
    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)MacKay, Andrew
    Evennett, DavidMaclean, David
    Faber, DavidMcLoughlin, Patrick
    Fabricant, MichaelMcNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
    Fairbairn, Sir NicholasMadel, David
    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)Maitland, Lady Olga
    Fishburn, DudleyMalone, Gerald
    Forman, NigelMans, Keith
    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)Marlow, Tony
    Forth, EricMarshall, John (Hendon S)
    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir NormanMartin, David (Portsmouth S)
    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)Mawhinney, Dr Brian
    Fox. Sir Marcus (Shipley)Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
    Freeman, RogerMellor, Rt Hon David
    French, DouglasMerchant, Piers
    Fry, PeterMilligan, Stephen
    Gale, RogerMills, Iain
    Gallie, PhilMitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
    Gardiner, Sir GeorgeMitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Monro, Sir HectorSpink, Dr Robert
    Montgomery, Sir FergusSpring, Richard
    Moss, MalcolmSproat, Iain
    Needham, RichardSquire, Robin (Hornchurch)
    Neubert, Sir MichaelSteen, Anthony
    Newton, Rt Hon TonyStephen, Michael
    Nicholls, PatrickStern, Michael
    Nicholson, David (Taunton)Stewart, Allan
    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)Streeter, Gary
    Norris, SteveSumberg, David
    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir CranleySweeney, Walter
    Ottaway, RichardSykes, John
    Page, RichardTapsell, Sir Peter
    Paice, JamesTaylor, Ian (Esher)
    Patnick, IrvineTaylor, John M. (Solihull)
    Patten, Rt Hon JohnThomason, Roy
    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir GeoffreyThompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
    Pawsey, JamesThompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
    Peacock, Mrs ElizabethThurnham, Peter
    Pickles, EricTownend, John (Bridlington)
    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
    Porter, David (Waveney)Tracey, Richard
    Portillo, Rt Hon MichaelTredinnick, David
    Rathbone, TimTrend, Michael
    Redwood, JohnTwinn, Dr Ian
    Renton, Rt Hon TimViggers, Peter
    Richards, RodWaldegrave, Rt Hon William
    Riddick, GrahamWalden, George
    Rifkind, Rt Hon. MalcolmWalker, Bill (N Tayside)
    Robathan, AndrewWaller, Gary
    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir WynWard, John
    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)Waterson, Nigel
    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)Wells, Bowen
    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame AngelaWhitney, Ray
    Sackville, TomWhittingdale, John
    Sainsbury, Rt Hon TimWiddecombe, Ann
    Scott, Rt Hon NicholasWilkinson, John
    Shaw, David (Dover)Willetts, David
    Shephard, Rt Hon GillianWilshire, David
    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'Id)
    Shersby, MichaelWolfson, Mark
    Sims, RogerWood, Timothy
    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)Yeo, Tim
    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)Young, Sir George (Acton)
    Soames, Nicholas
    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Mr. James Arbuthnot and

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

    Question accordingly negatived.

    Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government to the end of schedule 12 on the motion relating to clause 214.

    Question agreed to.

    Clause 202

    Supervision Of Education Associations By The Secretary Of State

    Amendment made: No. 199, in page 121, line 16, at end insert—

    `( ) Before giving a direction under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the education association or (as the case may be) each education association to which the direction applies unless, for reasons of urgency, it is not in his opinion reasonably practicable for him to do so.'—[Mr. Boswell.]

    Clause 212

    Proposals For Establishment, Etc Of Schools By Local Education Authority

    Amendments made: No. 161, in page 126, line 2, leave out `(1)' and insert `(1A)'.

    No. 162, in page 126, line 11, leave out 'in' and insert 'to'.— [ Mr. Boswell.]

    Clause 213

    Proposals For Establishment, Etc Of Voluntary Schools By Promoters, Etc

    Amendment made: No. 163, in page 126, line 39, leave out 'in' and insert `to'.— [Mr. Boswell.]

    Clause 214

    Directions To Bring Forward Proposals

    Ordered,

    That Clause No. 214 be divided into three Clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (4), the second of subsections (5) to (8) and (11) [Directions to bring forward proposals for additional provision in Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision, in maintained schools] and the third of the remaining subsections [supplementary provisions] and the third Clause be transferred to the end of line 38 on page 131.

    Amendments made: No. 164, in page 127, line 16, leave out 'in' and insert 'to'.

    No. 165, in page 128, line 9, leave out 'this section' and insert

    `section No. or No. of this Act'.

    No. 166, in page 128, line 12, leave out 'this section' and insert

    `section [in Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision] or [Directions to bring forward proposals for additional provision in maintained schools] of this Act'.

    No. 167, in page 128, line 20, at end insert—

    `( ) Proposals made in pursuance of an order under section [Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision] of this Act may not be withdrawn without the consent of the Secretary of State and such consent may be given on such conditions (if any) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
    ( ) Notwithstanding anything in section 17 of this Act, a county or voluntary school is not eligible for grant-maintained status—
  • (a) if the local education authority have made any proposals in pursuance of an order under section [Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision] of this Act to cease to maintain the school which have not been withdrawn and no determination whether or not to approve or implement the proposals has been made under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 or section 217 of this Act, or
  • (b) if the Secretary of State has made any proposals under section 215 of this Act for the local education authority to cease to maintain the school which have not been withdrawn and no determination whether or not to adopt the proposals has been made under section 217 of this Act.
  • ( ) Section 242(4) and (5) of this Act does not apply in relation to any proposals under section 12(1)(d) or 13(1)(b) of the Education Act 1980 made in pursuance of an order under section [Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision] of this Act'.

    No. 168, in page 128, line 23, leave out

    `or section 169 of this Act'.

    No. 169, in page 128, line 25 leave out

    `this section and sections 215'

    and insert

    'sections [Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision ]'.

    No. 170, in page 128, line 29 leave out 'this section and sections 215'

    and insert

    'sections [Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision]'.—[Mr. Boswell]

    Clause 215

    Publication Of Proposals By The Secretary Of State

    Amendment made: No. 171, in page 129, line 45 leave out 'in' and insert `to'.— [Mr. Boswell.]

    Clause 216

    Public Inquiry Into Proposals

    Amendments made: No. 172, in page 130, line 11 at end insert

    'which he has not withdrawn'.

    No. 173, in page 130, line 12 leave out

    'subsection (5) of that section'

    and insert

    'section 215(5) of this Act'.

    No. 174, in page 130, line 23 after 'authority', insert '(and not withdrawn)'.

    No. 175, in page 130, line 28 after 'school', insert '(and not withdrawn)'.

    No. 176, in page 130, line 29 after 'area', insert `(and not withdrawn)'.— [Mr. Boswell.]

    Clause 217

    Adoption Of Proposals And Approval Of Related Proposals

    Amendments made: No. 177, in page 131, line (9 after 'adopt', insert

    'with or without modifications, or determine not to adopt'.

    No. 178, in page 131, line 23 leave out second 'the' and insert 'their'. — [Mr. Boswell.]

    Clause 220

    National Curriculum

    I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 133, line 2, after 'Curriculum)', insert—

  • (a) in subsection (1)(b) (basic curriculum), after "which" there is added—
  • "—(i)",
  • (b) at the end of that subsection there is inserted—
  • "and
  • (ii) where the school provides secondary education, includes such arrangements for vocational education or training as may be prescribed for registered pupils of prescribed ages.",
  • (c) in subsection (2) for "subsection (1)(b)" there is substituted "subsection (1)(b)(i)", and
  • (d)'.
  • The amendment looks complicated on paper, but it is simple in practice. It seeks to insert vocational education or training into the basic curriculum for secondary schools. It aims to reform the national curriculum so that it comes closer to fulfilling the description of a national curriculum that is balanced and broadly based.

    During the debate in Standing Committee, hon. Members agreed with the need to give equality of esteem and parity to both academic and vocational provision, which the amendment would allow. In skeleton form, it says:
    "such arrangements …as may be prescribed for registered pupils of prescribed ages."
    In the form presented, it would give the Secretary of State the power to prescribe the arrangements. In a fully developed form, I hope that it would seek to extend the role of the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority to advise on such arrangements for vocational educational and qualifications. Our debate in Committee covered some aspects of how the role of the SCAA could be extended to do that. The amendment is intended to address the principle of a balanced curriculum for secondary schools.

    5.15 pm

    In Committee, the Minister said:
    "We want it"—
    the national curriculum—
    "in place to ensure that pupils no longer lose out on the fundamental skills, knowledge and understanding needed for all aspects of their adult life. It looks forward to what they will be doing in a few years' time and provides them with the necessary equipment for that task."
    I am sure that the Minister had in mind not only academic work, but the world of work for pupils in secondary schools.

    The Minister was particularly encouraging when he continued:
    "We do not have closed minds and are prepared to keep the national curriculum under review."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 2 February 1993; c. 1314.]
    The amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to demonstrate that he does not have a closed mind and is willing to continue the review of the national curriculum. I hope that in doing so he will give thought to the way in which he and his Conservative 'colleagues have sometimes talked about the importance of vocational education, but have rarely provided an opportunity for it fully to flower in our schools, not least because of their continued insistence on what they tend to call the gold standard of A-levels in our sixth forms. Only by breaking down the belief in the gold standard of A-levels will we be likely to move towards the parity of esteem that is frequently proposed and espoused by Conservative Members.

    Amendment No. 104 will change parts of clause 2 of the Education Reform Act 1988. It will establish the context in which we should remember that clause 1 of that Act requires there to be a
    "balanced and broadly based curriculum which—
  • (a) promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society; and"—
  • significantly—
    "prepares such pupils for the opportunities, reponsibilities and experiences of adult life."
    Clause 2 of the 1988 Act describes the national curriculum, but it is an incomplete description as it fails to lake account of the parts in clause 1 referring to the preparation of pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.

    I accept that amendment No. 104 would radically change the nature of the national curriculum for secondary schools. It would comprise two parts: the existing structure of subjects covered by statutory requirements relating to programmes of study, attainment targets and assessment arrangements; and, separately, vocational education or training. Although the amendment is silent on the point, both parts of the restructured national curriculum should be governed by advice from one organisation—the new SCAA.

    I think that the desirability of vocational education is accepted by all hon. Members. We must acknowledge that the vast majority of our secondary schools—90 per cent.

    —and more than half our primary schools have some sort of link with local industry. That has been partly promoted by actions taken by the present Government, through the introduction of the technical and vocational education initiative, and their support for compacts. We must accept that in 1983 the Government set up the Business and Technician Education Council to promote vocational education and, more recently, with cross-support from all parties, they set up the National Council for Vocational Qualifications.

    Such support from the Government and other parties has led to a major development of vocational education in many schools. That has also been supported by bodies outside the House. In 1989 the CBI report "Towards a Skills Revolution" recommended that national targets should be set for the overall achievement of qualifications in vocational education and training. The Government's White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st century" warmly welcomed that CBI initiative. Even the headmasters' conference got in on the act, saying that it would welcome opportunities to be involved in the planning of vocational courses which could be appropriately taught in our schools.

    In the most recent general election, the Conservative party manifesto said:
    "We will also continue to develop new high-quality national vocational qualifications, and introduce a new post-16 diploma which recognises achievements in both vocational and academic courses."
    Therefore, it is beyond doubt that there is support on both sides of the House and outside the House for vocational education to become an important element in what goes on in our secondary schools. As I have already suggested, there is growing evidence that vocational education is taking place within our secondary schools.

    The question, therefore, is: why am I so anxious to ensure that we have a major change in the national curriculum? It is simply that, without ensuring that vocational education is contained within the statutory framework of the national curriculum, there is no guarantee that the work will continue or develop and there is certainly no guarantee that it will have the parity of esteem that all of us have so often said that we seek.

    In introducing such a requirement, I am aware that it will mean a major cut in what is contained within the national curriculum. Many hon. Members in previous debates have talked about the overloaded national curriculum and many others, teachers, parents and governors, have echoed that concern. I for one and my party are keen to see a major slimming down of the national curriculum so that we have a minimum curriculum entitlement and much greater opportunity for individuals to develop areas of expertise that are appropriate for the children in their schools.

    A major revision of the national curriculum is necessary and I hope that it will take place with detailed consultation with all involved in the partnership that makes up our education service so that in due course we shall see a revised, slimmer national curriculum which includes within the statutory structure reference to vocational education.

    The issue is one of principle about parity between academic and vocational qualifications. The thrust of the amendment is that all schools should fulfil the aims set out in section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988. The amendment introduces an entitlement to vocational education and training for pupils in secondary education as an element of a balanced curriculum aimed at preparing such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. Therefore, I hope that it will gain the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

    I listened with considerable interest to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). He advanced a powerful case for vocational education. But the problem is that the national curriculum has proved so successful that everyone now seems to want to get in on the act. The idea being advanced by the hon. Gentleman clearly has some virtues and sounds good, but I suspect that every hon. Member has his own idea of what subjects should be in the national curriculum and how much time should be allocated to them.

    I noted with interest what the hon. Gentleman said about the need for schools to liaise with local industry. He was right to draw attention to the importance of the links that exist with local industry. I am well aware that secondary schools in my constituency are in close touch with local industries, to the benefit of school and industry alike.

    There might, however, be a case for fewer subjects within the national curriculum. I see that I have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), whose knowledge in this area is considerable. There is an argument that we should concentrate on a core curriculum of, say, English, maths, the sciences, history and geography, with those subjects taking up about 60 per cent. of the school timetable and with schools then deciding what time should be allocated to other subjects.

    I appreciate that the principal reason given for the national curriculum during the passage of the 1988 Act was that some schools did not concentrate on the essential subjects and that much school time was being wasted on subjects which could only be described as peripheral. I am happy to say that that point had support from both sides of the House.

    In the current educational climate, there does not seem to be an overwhelming requirement for such a prescriptive national curriculum as currently exists or as the hon. Gentleman would have. For example, much more information about schools and what is taking place within them is available today compared with 1987–88. For example, schools now issue reports and prospectuses. We read examination results and truancy tables. Inspections now take place every four years and we have more parent governors. There are even annual general meetings. I am therefore beginning to wonder whether the national curriculum is as necessary as it once was.

    I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman said, although I do not go along with his comments about A-levels and the gold standard. I believe passionately that A-level is the gold standard. The three-year British degree hinges on the quality of A-levels. If that is diminished, I am apprehensive about what will take place in our universities. The British degree remains the envy of the world and I do not wish to see it diminished or diluted in any way. Therefore, I hold firmly to the view that the A-level is the gold standard.

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some form of baccalaureate, which some British children already take, is far preferable to the narrow rigidities of the A-level?

    I have heard that argument advanced before, but I am not fully persuaded. Above all, I am concerned about tinkering with our examination structure; not all the new examinations which have been introduced have proved as successful as their authors would have wished. The A-level remains the touchstone of quality and I do not wish to see it diminished in any way.

    5.30 pm

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on his amendment. Nothing better exemplifies the two-tier nature of our education system than the gap between vocational and so-called academic education. The remarks of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) reveal the gulf between those who pride themselves on their traditional view and those who consider that view to be increasingly outmoded and unhelpful to almost all, if not all, young people.

    It is nonsense to suggest that there should be a split between vocational and traditional academic education in a modern society. It should not be necessary—this is not meant as a criticism—for such an amendment to have any relevance in our education system or to have to mention the need to increase and to enhance the role of vocational training.

    The hon. Gentleman's speech reminds me of a point that I meant to make, and I will do so in this brief intervention. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that city technology colleges represent a way forward and provide an opportunity to bring vocational education on the scene. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that grant-maintained schools can specialise, to use the S-word? If they choose to specialise in technology, does that not represent a major step down the route that the hon. Gentleman favours?

    I am afraid not. Schools are ghettoised, and then the claim is made that CTCs provide a different, better type of education. Certainly it is more expensive, but CTCs have not worked out too well. Their results show that they are not able consistently to claim that they are a means of enhancing technological education.

    It is ridiculous to suggest also that many young people should be denied access to a vocational or technological strand in their education. Some years ago, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) taught at Manchester grammar school, where it was the practice to subdivide boys at an early age into potential classicists, scientists and linguists. It is absurd to believe that young people can be segmented in that way, and destructive of their educational potential.

    I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party did much to deny opportunities to our nation's children. As he knows, there used to be a tripartite system, comprising technical, grammar and secondary modern schools.

    Yes, Shirley Williams—and the hon. Lady whose constituency I temporarily forget.

    No, not Finchley. The hon. Gentleman thinks quickly, but not quickly enough.

    Shirley Williams and the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) were the twin architects of the present comprehensive system. I do not believe that it has assisted education in the long term. The old tripartite system, which we successfully exported to Germany and which worked so well there, was the best in the United Kingdom.

    I can only agree, Mr. Morris. It is fair to place on record the fact that Lady Thatcher closed more grammar schools than anyone else. Legislation is on the statute book to be used not so much as a mandate as at the discretion of the Secretary of State. It was Lady Thatcher who destroyed the system that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth holds dear.

    The hon. Gentleman referred to the tremendously good school at which I had the privilege to teach between 1960 and 1965. He was critical of Manchester grammar school because at that time it operated rigorous entry selection and streaming procedures, and a division was made between those who were to specialise in the classics, mathematics, or languages.

    The hon. Gentleman rather overstated the downside. The school is now independent because the Opposition, when in government, destroyed the old grant system—more's the pity. However, in those past days the school produced some superbly and broadly educated people—some of whom, I believe, entered the ranks of the civil service: for all I know, they may be sitting nearby and listening to this debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will concede that his criticism was a little ill judged and that Manchester grammar school produced well educated and rounded people. Nevertheless, I understand his basic point.

    There may not be such a huge difference between the hon. Member and myself. I was making the point that it would be unacceptable at Manchester grammar school and most private schools to go down the road that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth favours, and adopt the tripartite system—under which those whom the hon. Gentleman thinks are worthy would receive a grammar school education, those who are considered less worthy would recieve a technical education and those dismissed as educationally irrelevant would be given a secondary modern education.

    Representing as I do a constituency that will operate the selective system, and remembering as I do the old tripartite system and all the problems of ghettoisation under it, I know that there can be no returning. We must find means of producing the rounded education for all young people that the hon. Member for Norwich, North urges upon me. I hope that he will urge it upon the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, who is chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench education committee.

    I am a little puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's views of the extraordinary word "ghettoisation". I do not know whether he takes credit for it or whether it is imported from the United States—in either case, I do not like it, and it is inaccurate. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to three strands, but each strand provided the right type of education for the particular child entering it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am the product of an elementary school and a technical school. I may not have enjoyed the privileged education experienced by the hon. Gentleman, but the tripartite system worked. I regret that it does not still operate in the United Kingdom. It was abolished and sacrificed on the altar of comprehensive education.

    That is where the hon. Gentleman and I disagree, and he disagrees with a number of his colleagues. The tripartite system did not work. It failed far too many of our young people, and continues to do so in some parts of the country. In the spirit of the amendment, we are seeking to abolish the silly and arbitrary divisions that were built over the years between academic education and so-called non-academic education in vital areas of vocational education.

    If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have hardly progressed further than my opening remarks because of interventions.

    Vocational education is important not only to individual learning but to the nation's future. If we fail our young people by neglecting to provide them with an adequate vocational education, we shall have begun to fail the nation.

    Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the concept of the A-level as the "gold standard" of our system. Like other gold standards, it has become devalued in itself, and in itself it devalues other qualifications. As long as we have a Secretary of State who is committed to that gold standard, while paying lip service to the idea of equivalence between A-levels and other qualifications—national vocational qualifications in particular—and as long as the A-level examination continues to be paraded as the primary aim of our academic system, NVQs will be devalued. That is not acceptable in a modern society which is trying to promote the values of vocational education.

    The NVQ system is important. It is no longer merely an experiment; it should be applauded in its own right, as a valuable stepping stone. Of course, if we are to transcend both the present NVQ system and the present A-level system, we must provide a qualifications base that is excellent in itself, allowing young people to aspire to the highest standards. We must maintain what Conservative Members believe exists in the A-level system—although I doubt that it does. We must also ensure that all young people can aspire to the same high level of attainment. If we do not do that, we shall fail the majority through our pursuit of the vacuous view that the minority—the academic elite—are more important than all the rest.

    Surely A-levels and NVQs are not incompatible. We have encouraged students to take a couple of A-levels and some AS-levels to broaden the base of their education. There is no reason why the same should not apply to NVQs. Heads and class teachers in a number of schools are now encouraging pupils not to go for the traditional three A-levels—or even for four or five, in the case of high fliers—but to spread their education in a way that I think we would all favour. We need first to give such an educational spread the blessing and imprimatur of Government and Parliament, and then to educate employers and higher education establishments so that they accept such qualifications.