My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make a short personal statement in connection with the demonstration which occurred after the vote on Clause 28 last Tuesday. On that day, four young ladies were admitted to the visitors' gallery in my name. Until today I was under the impression that they were not involved in the demonstration. However, I have been advised that those young ladies were involved. On the basis of that advice, I tender my apologies to Black Rod and his staff for any difficulties that they had to contend with as a result of my actions. While neither condemning nor condoning the demonstration, I believe that it was understandable, given the results of the vote on Clause 28.

Oh!

I conclude by repeating the words spoken by a 12 year-old girl yesterday as regards Clause 28:

"It is just what the Germans did to the Jews".

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, a new directive on motorcycle noise has been agreed by the European Community. It will introduce more stringent requirements for new motorcycles from 1990. The Motor Cycle Noise Act 1987 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations controlling the quality of replacement exhausts and silencers for motorcycles when they are offered for sale. We are preparing regulations to introduce both those new controls and I expect that we shall consult on them very shortly.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which seems to refer in the main to new motorcycles. I am not sure that new motorcycles make most of the noise. I have never seen a motorcyclist stopped for making too much noise. Can the Minister tell the House whether it will be possible to institute periodic checks such as those which are made for speeding?

My Lords, we all appreciate that noisy motorcycles are a great problem. Concerning the use of noise meters at roadsides, the police have found that procedure difficult to operate because of the problems of finding suitable test sites and of excluding noise from other sources. I can assure the House that there are prosecutions for motorcycle noise offences and that the police prosecute when they can.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not only motorcycle noise in urban areas which causes grave concern? Trail riding in upland areas and particularly in the national parks is also a problem.

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. It is possible that the noise problem is even worse in rural areas than in urban areas where there are other background noises. However, we believe that the various measures concerning the sale of replacement silencers and making sure that they are up to scratch, together with the regulations for new motorcycles, will go some way towards alleviating the problem.

My Lords, taking into account the Answer which the Minister has just given, we have legislation to deal with exhaust systems and silencers on new machines and also replacement equipment. Therefore the whole problem is now one of enforcement. Does he agree that it is difficult to see how a Community directive can assist with enforcement? Do the Government have any ideas on solutions to the problem? Enforcement could tie up police to a considerable extent. However, the nuisance must be dealt with. Responsible motorcycle organisations agree with that assessment of the situation.

My Lords, that is quite correct. The police do not have the resources to do absolutely everything that they might like to do. However, I can assure the House that exhausts are checked in MOT tests and a motorcycle can fail the test if one is leaking or insecurely mounted. Motorcycles will also have to have silencers which conform with the regulations.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many young motorcyclists actually tamper with their exhausts in order to remove the silencing material? Therefore it is necessary for the police to institute roadside checks in order to see whether the silencing material is still present.

My Lords, it is an offence to tamper with an exhaust pipe so that it makes more noise than it should. I understand that there have been prosecutions involving such actions. The new British standard replacement silencers should be made tamper-proof if possible.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the level of noise from motorcycles is still unsatisfactory? In June 1934 my father moved an amendment into the Road Traffic Act of that year which made it illegal to supply a vehicle which was not silenced. In 1974 I moved an amendment to the Road Traffic Bill which made it illegal to drive such a vehicle and which was later struck out in another place. Can the Minister give an undertaking that in the year 2014 my son will be able to assure me of a happy issue to my family's involvement in the matter?

My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that it will be sooner than that.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the most troublesome matters, apart from the total volume of noise that a motorcycle can make in the daytime in traffic, is the early bird who gets up to go to work on a motorbike and wishing to say hello to a boyfriend or girlfriend left behind in the house revs up his bike as a symbol that he is off? Those are the people who wake everyone up and disturb them.

My Lords, it is an offence to ride a motorcycle which causes excessive noise or to ride in such a way as to cause excessive noise which could have been avoided with reasonable care on the part of the driver. That covers the point which my noble friend makes. On the other hand, I should think that it would be quite difficult for the police to bring prosecutions in such circumstances.

My Lords, as the Member of your Lordships' House who sponsored the last Bill dealing with that subject during the last Parliament, I ask whether it is not regrettable that no progress has been made as a result of the passing of the Act.

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for piloting the Bill through the last Parliament in its closing stages. As I said in my original Answer, we have now prepared regulations to introduce the new controls. We shall be consulting on them shortly. I hope that they can be introduced quite shortly.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, we shall be pressing in the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations for reductions in levels of tariffs, including the Japanese duty on sugar confectionery. Meanwhile, we are taking appropriate opportunities to remind the Japanese Government that we regard the level of the duty as excessive.

My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what sort of level the Government will propose for the tax?

My Lords, we regard an acceptable level to be one which compares favourably with the EC tariff on such products. Of course ultimately we should like to see no tariffs whatsoever.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that this question goes very far beyond the matter of confectionery? It concerns the appalling arrogance of the Japanese Government, who will in no way listen to the appeals of the United States of America, our allies, or the British Government. Is it not about time that a British Government and a United States Government made joint representations to the Japanese and asked them whether they will make every endeavour to be honest and truthful?

My Lords, there are areas where barriers to UK exports still exist, and we tackle them. However, UK exports were well up last year; an increase of 25 per cent. over the previous year. I think that all Members of your Lordships' House would wish to welcome that achievement by British exporters.

My Lords, it is very hard to get that tiny concession from the Japanese. It is about time that the Americans and the British asserted themselves and the dignity of both nations.

Order!

My Lords, will the Government also bear in mind another kind of confection which is in liquid form, which comes from Scotland and which at the present time is discriminated against by Japanese taxation?

My Lords, yes. My noble friend answered a Question on this point last Monday.

My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to say that the Government make representations directly to the Japanese Government on this and other trade matters. Does he agree that representations have been made by successive British Governments and successive trade Ministers to the Japanese and that the result is not exactly what we might have hoped for? Can he point to any particular successes that these direct approaches have achieved?

My Lords, I think that it is very important that all possible avenues are explored in order to reduce tariffs against British exporters. However, we feel that Japan is very unlikely to make any concessions outside the GATT. But my noble friend the Secretary of State will have a further opportunity to raise the issue during his visit later this year. I welcome that initiative and hope that he has every success.

My Lords, it seems that it was only the other day when we were fighting that lot. Will the Minister be good enough to explain why we do not impose tariffs on their exports when they come to us?

My Lords, we fought for a free world and we still fight for free trade.

My Lords, can my noble friend perhaps enlarge a little on that response? Is he aware that I managed to persuade the Japanese to reduce their tariffs on chocolates and biscuits in 1982 but they would not do so on sugar confectionery? Is he also aware that I sought to persuade them at that time that the right level of tax should be the one that we put on Japanese motor cars and other such goods, namely around 5 per cent.? Can he say whether the Government have in mind that kind of figure?

My Lords, yes, I am aware of my noble friend's efforts in this regard. I said a little earlier that we should certainly not wish to see any higher tariff than that imposed by the EC on Japanese goods of that nature.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the Government look to the schools themselves and their local authorities to observe the requirements which the 1944 Act lays on them. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has power to intervene under Sections 68 and 99 of the Act where complaints are made that particular schools are not providing collective worship in accordance with the 1944 provisions. All such complaints are fully and carefully investigated. Very few such complaints are made each year.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. However, I do not think that she has dealt with the question of whether any official judicial action has been taken. Is it not a sad reflection on the present state of affairs that the 1944 Act now appears to be totally disregarded by over 90 per cent. of schools? As the new Education Bill will soon be coming to this House, will HMG consult with the leaders of the Christian Churches to see whether the schools' obligation to organise Christian worship and teaching could not be included in the new Act? If that were agreed, I should also like to suggest that in the Act there might be a written obligation to allow parents who do not wish their children to attend such worship to opt out of it and to make arrangements for their own, different religion to be taught instead. Will my noble friend look seriously at that suggestion before we get down to the nitty-gritty of this important new Act?

My Lords, my noble friend refers to a figure of some 90 per cent. in relation to non-observance of this requirement. The Government are not aware of such evidence and indeed I should be surprised if that figure were correct. If the noble Lord has such evidence, I should be grateful if he could supply it to me.

So far as concerns the place of the Christian tradition in collective worship, the law does not explicitly require the act of worship to be Christian although the authors of the 1944 Act clearly envisaged that it would be. The law requires of county schools that worship should be nondenominational. Over the years, as the ethnic and religious backgrounds of pupils have become much more varied, there has been a growing move to multi-faith collective worship, particularly in schools with a high proportion of pupils from non-Christian backgrounds. The Government recognise the reasons for that trend, as I believe do the Churches. At the same time, in many areas and in many schools where Christianity remains the dominant religion, it is right that worship should continue to be mainly Christian in flavour. It is also important that schools should be sensitive to the balance of religions among their pupils and that they should devise forms of collective worship in which as many pupils as possible can participate. The Churches have an important role to play in that whole area.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that at a time of declining Church attendance, it is all the more important for children to experience a public act of worship corporately together? Does she further agree that trying to teach RE and leaving out the act of worship is like trying to teach astronomy and leaving out the stars? What action is her ministry taking to ensure that these acts of worship are indeed acts of worship and not seminars on current affairs?

My Lords, the Government are fully committed to maintaining the requirement for a daily act of worship to take place in all maintained schools for all pupils, and the proposals for change contained in the Education Reform Bill do not affect that general requirement in any way. The whole area of the teaching of religious education is of course separate.

My Lords, will the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, also accept that part of the difficulty of organising an act of corporate worship, where the whole school wishes it, lies in the fact that some schools are now so large that it is impossible to gather the whole community together in a single act of worship? Furthermore, is she aware that there has been very real concern among people in schools that the act of worship had failed and had become merely an assembly at which some prayers were read?

My Lords, yes. The existing law on collective worship was first criticised officially in 1986 by the Education, Science and Arts Committee report on primary education. Subsequently a consultation exercise was carried out by the Department of Education and Science in 1987 which revealed overwhelming support from educational and Church bodies for greater flexibility in the timing and organisation of daily collective worship. Certainly the design and size of secondary school premises make it more difficult than the authors of the 1944 Act envisaged.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that that part of the 1944 Act was never capable of being carried out? From 1954, off and on for eight years, I had to try to apply it but it proved quite impossible. A teacher who is not a practising Christian can teach religion, but it is not reasonable to ask someone who is not a practising Christian to hold an act of Christian worship.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the benefit of his considerable experience in this matter.

My Lords, I welcome the reply that the noble Baroness gave—I think it was two questions back—in which she outlined the Government's general view of the position and the circumstances that are now emerging in our society. Will she confirm that the religious provisions in the new Education Bill will allow for much greater flexibility under the heading of corporate worship with regard to the timing of the act of corporate worship? Will she also confirm that this greater flexibility has been broadly welcomed by all the relevant Churches?

My Lords, yes, indeed. The response to the consultation process from the Churches and educational establishments is what has led to the provision in the Bill. Clause 79 of that Bill provides that such arrangements may in respect of each school day provide for a single act of worship for pupils or for separate acts of worship for pupils in different age groups or in different school groups.

My Lords, notwithstanding the Answer that my noble friend gave to the substantive Question, and the contribution of my noble friend Lord Eccles, is the Minister aware that there is some concern in this country about the way in which the place of religion, and in particular the Christian religion, seems to be slipping in the educational arrangements? Will she ask her right honourable friend to bear this in mind when he is looking at the curriculum as well as at morning worship?

My Lords, yes. I shall happily draw this point to the attention of my right honourable friend. However, I should like to repeat that the Government are fully committed to maintaining the requirement for a daily act of worship to take place in schools because they feel that this is an important part of the school programme.

My Lords, would not some of the problems that have been mentioned be solved without difficulty by calling upon the clergy and the religious leaders of non-Christian bodies to help the headmasters of schools by inviting these religious leaders to conduct the acts of worship instead of the headmaster?

My Lords, the provisions for greater flexibility by allowing acts of collective worship under the proposals in the Bill to take place at different times and in different groups will enable representatives of outside interests to participate in these acts of worship. It is something that we would welcome.

My Lords, with reference to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, about opting out, can the Minister confirm that parents already have the right to remove their children from any act of worship in which they do not wish them to take part? I cannot say whether this provision is in the 1944 or the 1968 Act, but perhaps she can confirm that this is so.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me that I omitted to add this point in answering the original supplementary question of my noble friend. The 1944 Act provides that a pupil may be excused from attending collective worship at the request of his or her parents.

My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the voluntary schools have never deviated from this? They have always provided the act of worship throughout the whole period, whichever government were in office.

My Lords, I am not sure that I can confirm it, but we certainly hope and expect that that is the case.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the act of worship would include hymns? Hymns are a very important part of our British heritage and give great comfort and encouragement to many people at all times in their lives. An example is:

"All people that on earth do dwell,

Sing to the Lord with cheerful voice,

Him serve with mirth, his praise forthtell,

Come ye before Him and rejoice".

My Lords, I am inclined to agree with my noble friend that the singing of hymns can uplift the spirit, and the memorising of the words of hymns even more so. The arrangements that are proposed will be met by the individual schools, and it is proposed that head teachers, in consultation with the governors, will make the necessary arrangements.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, following the announcement made by my noble friend in his former capacity on 24th July 1986, consultants have been appointed to carry forward the initial design of the scheme. The results of the work undertaken to date will be presented at a series of public exhibitions to be held in the vicinity of the crossing this month. The Government remain confident that the crossing can be provided by the mid-1990s and will meet the expected traffic demand for the foreseeable future since there will then be a total of four lanes each way across the estuary.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he recall that there was an interval of some 15 months between my original announcement and the appointment of consultants? Does he recognise that the timetable for these large and complicated projects is extremely tight and that there will be the greatest difficulty in meeting it unless a firm timetable is laid out and is met at every stage? Will he take it from me, and from those who have been involved in this matter for a long time, that there can be no doubt that there is an imperative need for this crossing to be built by the mid-1990s to meet likely traffic demands?

My Lords, I recognise my noble friend's deep interest in this matter and his enormous efforts in getting it under way in the first place. I hope that no time has been wasted. It is a complex project. The terms of the appointment and the brief for the consultants needed special care. However, I reaffirm the Government's commitment to the provision of the second crossing by the middle of the next decade.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that if the traffic flow over the existing bridge continues to grow at the record rate for 1986–87, the designed maximum carrying capacity of the bridge will be reached in the early 1990s and not in the middle of the 1990s? In that event, the existing bridge would become overloaded, with all that that implies.

My Lords, we are progressing as fast as we can to achieve this objective by the mid 1990s. We shall monitor the situation on the existing crossing in the meantime and institute further traffic management measures if necessary.

My Lords, will the Minister inform the House whether the brief to the consultants includes consideration of the Severn barrage scheme?

My Lords, I understand not. That is a separate project.

My Lords, in view of the enormous capital cost and the time that will be taken to write off that capital cost, will the Government take the opportunity to review their attitude to tolls on estuarial crossings?

My Lords, we have made no decision yet on whether this second crossing should be tolled or not. However, on tolled crossings, we believe that there are more pressing demands on resources than abolishing tolls and that the estuarial crossings have been promoted by legislation unique to each on the basis that costs would be recovered from tolls.

My Lords, with reference to the supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, is the Minister aware that following the date referred to in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I have five other dates—I have the documents with me—when Ministers said that they hoped to provide this second crossing by the mid-1990s? But in each case—perhaps I may have the leave of the House to quote—it was stated:

"if the build-up of traffic needs it by then and Parliament so decides".

What does that mean? Does it mean that the decision to establish the second crossing is not as firm as we believed? What will be the criteria for determining the build-up of traffic? Is there much point in going ahead with consultants and discussing tenders if the Government have not yet made up their minds that there will be a need for the second crossing by the 1990s?

My Lords, we have always affirmed our commitment to the provision of a second crossing by the middle of the next decade, depending on traffic growth. Obviously if traffic does not grow then there could be some slippage in the project; but there is a firm commitment to build the bridge.

My Lords, will the noble Lord then convey to his right honourable friend the real urgency expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in asking this Question, and convey to him the fact that all sectors of the economy in Wales see the rapid beginning of this project as essential to that economy? Will he please see that there is no slippage?

My Lords, I have said that I shall convey to my right honourable friend the remarks that have been made in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I have said also that I hope that there will be no slippage.

My Lords, perhaps this is an appropriate time for me to seek your Lordships' indulgence to ask the Leader of the House whether he has it in mind to seek the guidance of the Procedure Committee on any necessary clarification of our normal procedures with regard to personal statements and whether he is of the view that such clarification might be necessary?

My Lords, the guidance in the Companion to Standing Orders on personal statements in your Lordships' House to any Lord wanting to make such a statement is perfectly clear. However, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, it occurs to me that possibly the informal body which consists of the Leaders and Whips of the parties in your Lordships' House, together with the noble Baroness the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, might get together to decide whether they feel that there is any point in the guidance which should be brought to the attention of the Procedure Committee.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I fully agree with his suggestion that this should be referred to the informal committee of Leaders and Whips and not to the Procedure Committee? It is of course impossible to control a noble Lord or to anticipate personal statements when they exceed the bounds of propriety.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lady Hooper will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on education in inner London.

It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Legal Aid Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during the adjournment the Motions for approval on the Employment Protection (Variations of Limits) Order 1987 and the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1987 will be taken.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 146.

Your Lordships will be aware that the Income and Corporation Taxes Bill is a very large consolidating statute. It has been produced against a fairly tight timetable in order that the printed Act should be available to those with an interest in these matters—and that encompasses rather a lot of people—before the date of the next Budget. The result of this is that the checking process has had to be continued throughout the stages of the progress of the Bill through this House and through the other place. The Joint Committee of both Houses considering the matter had a number of amendments before it which it accepted and agreed to. The checking process has gone on since then and the result is these Amendments Nos. 1 to 146.

The amendments are technical, mainly drafting and correcting amendments, some to take account of legislation which was in course when the Bill was being considered. My noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, the chairman of the Joint Committee on consolidation has seen these amendments, and I understand that he is satisfied that they may properly be made. I am very happy to seek to explain to your Lordships any individual amendment if any noble Lord should desire that. However, it may be felt that the amendments are of a character so technical that you would not wish me to explain each individually. It is in that expectation that I have asked leave of your Lordships to move them en bloc.

My Lords, we on this side are obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of the Commons Amendments. As he said, they are quite numerous and so far as one can gather, they are technical where they are not drafting. We are very much obliged for the efforts that have been made to bring the Bill into its final form and in advance of the Chancellor's Budget Statement. That will facilitate matters in the Budget Statement which fall to be considered by the legal and accountancy professions, and we are accordingly grateful.

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for his helpful intervention. The Government—especially those who were involved in this very large exercise—will be grateful for his kind remarks.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 7, at beginning insert—

("( ) It is the purpose of this Act to promote and secure the provision of a legal aid scheme, whether by means-testing or otherwise, designed to assist those who are financially disadvantaged in procuring access to legal advice, assistance or representation.").

My Lords, I am grateful for the introduction of this matter by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. It has proved to be a fairly difficult task but, as I stated in the letter read to your Lordships, I am hopeful that at Third Reading we shall be able to bring forward a satisfactory statement of purpose clause.

I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for promoting this amendment. I am glad to say that I have also been in receipt of help from other quarters. We shall endeavour to make the best possible use of all that help. I fear that I cannot accept the present proposal with complete certainty that it is 100 per cent. in accordance with what is desired by those assisting me in the drafting of the Bill. However, I assure your Lordships that it will be taken into account.

My Lords, in those leave to withdraw the circumstances, I beg amendment.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 20, leave out from ("Representation") to ("and") in line 22 and insert ("means representation for the purposes of proceedings").

My Lords, we on these Benches are happy to accept the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 30, leave out subsection (10).

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the great care with which he has considered a matter of considerable importance to the House. Where we are dealing with matters of significance affecting the subject, it is essential that Parliament should make proper scrutiny of them. Indeed, where the subject's rights are affected, frankly it would be preferable if it could all be set out in primary legislation.

However, I appreciate the point which he has made that that would inevitably tend to lengthen proceedings and time of course is one of the most precious of parliamentary commodities. Therefore the most important part of the submissions we made on this point has to a substantial degree at any rate been met by the noble and learned Lord, although I did not expect to have to deal with all the amendments at the same time and it may therefore be that on one or two we shall still seek to raise some questions and keep them in reserve.

The significant proposals—if I may put it in that way perhaps against my own interests— and the measures of importance calling for careful parliamentary scrutiny are now to be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Short of primary legislation, that is the best way to proceed. I quite see, for example, when we come to look, as we shall shortly, at Amendment No. 6 dealing with board members, subsection (8) refers to the powers exercisable by statutory instrument, which are significant powers, whereas subsection (8A) refers merely, if I have it right, to a power to alter the number of board members. On the latter, one would not want the whole panoply of affirmative resolution and I see the sense of proceeding in the way proposed.

I reserve the possibility at any rate, putting it no higher than that, that when we come to the individual orders or regulations we may find it necessary to raise some questions. However, subject to that, I welcome the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, which goes some of the way to meet the wishes both of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who spoke on this matter, and of my noble friend and I.

My Lords, I think that the Lord Chancellor has made a very important statement this afternoon in support of these amendments. It is always a matter of concern as to where the distinction should be drawn between those matters which should properly be the subject of affirmative resolution and those which as a matter of common sense and convenience should be the subject of negative resolution. It seems to me that the line must be drawn somewhere. Where the provision for subsidiary legislation concerns principles which affect the particular rights of the individual in the country, I think the resolution should be an affirmative one. Where it is obviously a matter of mere detail—and much legal aid legislation, like other modern legislation, is—it is right and proper that it should be dealt with by the negative resolution procedure.

Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, I cannot give a blanket welcome to everything the Lord Chancellor said, but as far as I have been able to follow the details—and I do not pretend to have mastered the details of this Bill—where he has indicated that he is changing the provisions to allow for affirmative resolution, it seems to me that he is following a principle to be derived from the powers that have been reserved in the Bill.

Where the line is to be drawn is a matter which concerns not only this Bill but legislation generally. Although in theory we are all in favour of affirmative resolutions, in practice it would be impossible, particulary with our present procedures, to have affirmative resolutions on all these subjects. However, from these Benches I warmly welcome the statement of the noble and learned Lord.

My Lords, knowing how reluctant the managers of government business are in both Houses to agree to there being affirmative procedure rather than negative, I am sure that my noble friends on these Benches agree with me when I say that we should not only be grateful to my noble and learned friend but we should congratulate him on the persuasion that he must have used. If I may say so, I think his choice of the various items for affirmative resolution is significant and important. The scope of legal aid and advice, for example, will be subject to affirmative resolution, as will the extent of representation under Clause 13(2) which is going to be a vital part of the scheme. I join in the welcome that has been given to this series of amendments.

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to noble Lords who have welcomed these amendments. Of course I entirely accept that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, may want to reserve their position with regard to individual amendments. I have sought to explain mmy amendments together for the reason that the principal amendment comes very late. It is a new clause to provide, in effect, for the affirmative resolution procedure since there was no such clause in the original Bill. Therefore I am grateful for what has been said and I will be happy to try to deal with any matters of detail that may still arise when amendments proposed by noble and noble and learned Lords are reached. In the meantime I am grateful for the present welcome.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 3, line 25, at end insert—

("( ) The Lord Chancellor shall consult the General Council of the Bar with a view to the inclusion on the Board of at least two barristers.

( ) In appointing persons to be members of the Board the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the desirability of securing that the Board includes persons having expertise in or knowledge of—

(a) the provision of legal services;

(b) the work of the courts and social conditions; and

(c) management.").

My Lords, again I am most grateful, speaking for this side of the House and certainly for the members of the Bar, among whom by some curious chance I still find myself.

The noble and learned Lord has most graciously acceded to the representations that have been made. I quite see that if there was a risk and no two members of the Bar would be available, or perhaps not even one, to perform the duties, not even the noble and learned Lord could command the impossible. However, the information I have received is that there will be a ready willingness to comply with what he hopes for; namely, the willingness of two members of the Bar at least to serve on the Bar Council. I am sure that that can be achieved. In the meantime I again express our gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for the manner in which this issue has been dealt with.

My Lords, in the temporary absence of my noble friend Lord Meston who dealt with this matter during the Committee stage, may I from these Benches welcome this amendment, couched as it is in the most felicitous and diplomatic terms. The noble and learned Lord is to be congratulated on the way that he has solved this problem and met the various representations made to him.

My Lords, may I very respectfully make a point to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack which I trust he will not find to be pedantic? I have nothing at all against this amendment in principle but I question the use of the word "expertise", which by my book is not respectable English. It does not occur in the Oxford English Dictionary. It does occur in the supplement and in Collins but with totally different and inconsistent meanings.

I suggest to my noble and learned friend that if he means "specialist knowledge, experience or skill" he should say so and that the word "expertise" should be expurgated. The trouble with these novel Gallic imports into our language is that they seldom mean the same thing to everybody and, what is more, they constantly change their meaning from one moment to the next. It is important that the courts, if they are to interpret the Bill, should be sure of what the word means.

My Lords, with deep humility—

My Lords, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack in moving this amendment indicated that what he wants after consultation is two barristers on the board. My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones took that as meaning two members of the Bar Council which would, I should have thought, be much more difficult to secure. Perhaps that point could be cleared up.

My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will allow me, I did not suggest that. I certainly did not have it in mind.

My Lords, I leave aside the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. On the question of the availability of counsel of experience, knowledge and good standing to attend meetings of the Legal Aid Board, that will depend mainly upon the times at which they are held.

It may be of some comfort to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to be reminded that meetings of the Senate of the Bar Council and meetings of the Benches of the Inns of Court have always taken place after court hours. I have never known them start before five o'clock in the evening. I cannot speak with the same knowledge of meetings of the Law Society but I imagine that they also tend to be in the later part of the day's work. If the board arranges its meetings fairly late in the day, I do not think that it will be difficult to get the most respected members of the Bar to serve.

My Lords, I raise a slightly mundane matter which only a lay person could intrude into this rarified atmosphere. My understanding is that barristers and solicitors receive rather different fees. Why is it necessary to have two more on this board? Will their advice and information be different? Why is it necessary to have two more, shall we say, highly qualified people? Solicitors will hate me for this! There is no doubt that the make-up of a board such as this has a germane function in relation to people at the grass roots and it would be unfortunate if it is made more costly to operate.

My Lords, perhaps I may take first the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. The Legal Aid Board will have responsibilities which are central to the work of solicitors and of the Bar. Hitherto solicitors and barristers have played a very significant and important role in the discharge of the responsibilities for the administration of legal aid; for example, the granting of legal aid applications, refusing them and so on.

My noble and learned friends Lord Hailsham and Lord Havers and myself all agree that it is right that members of the solicitors' branch of the legal profession and barristers should be an important part, but not by any means the whole, of the Legal Aid Board. It was only because of practical difficulties in being certain of securing the services of at least two barristers that there was not a provision in the original Bill on the same lines as for solicitors.

As regards remuneration for members of the board, that will I hope be determined by reference to board membership. I do not anticipate at the present moment that it will be necessary to distinguish between the individual members in respect of their skill, experience or knowledge. I shall try to avoid for the moment the word used in the clause. The particular difference to which the noble Baroness referred may not be of vital importance in this connection. I believe that it would be very much in the interests of the success of the board that it should have available to it people who are experienced both as solicitors and barristers.

However that is by no means the whole of the story. I specifically did not draw attention to the second part of the amendment when I moved it because I was acceding to an amendment proposed at Committee stage by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in relation to that part of the amendment. It was also supported by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Meston. It was that in appointing persons to the board the Lord Chancellor should have regard to a much wider field than the legal profession. It is in this connection that the clause had used the word "expertise" to which my attention was drawn by my noble and learned friend. I shall certainly take account of what he said and I shall seek advice in making an important improvement. As regards the substance of the amendment I am glad to think that your Lordships feel that it is an improvement on what was previously in the Bill.

My Lords, I wonder whether in his consideration of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said the Lord Chancellor might consider that the absence of the word "expertise" from a dictionary may be a sign of some fallibility in the dictionary and not of the draftsman.

My Lords, while the noble and learned Lord is considering the word "expertise", he might care to bear in mind that it does not present any difficulty whatsoever to ordinary people. I doubt very much whether lawyers or judges would find difficulty in understanding what it means.

My Lords, "expertise" is a highly bogus word, with a very large number of different shades of meaning. It is most unsuitable.

My Lords, with the leave of the House I propose to invite my advisers to consider the matter. I hope that I shall be able to bring forward something which will be acceptable to all of your Lordships. As the House is aware, that is not always the easiest thing to achieve.

moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 3, line 26, leave out subsection (8).

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:

Page 3, line 26, leave out subsection (8) and insert—

("(8) The powers conferred by subsection (4) above are exercisable by statutory instrument which shall not come into force unless or until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(8A) The powers conferred by subsection (6) above are exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 4, line 22, at end insert ("and such directions shall include conditions as to the availability to the public, and quality of, advice, assistance or representation, and as to the means for monitoring such availability and quality.").

My Lords, when I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the spirit of his amendment was one that I shared, I had in mind that we all wanted the advice and other work done under contracting out to reach an appropriate standard. What this amendment does is create a statutory obligation on the Lord Chancellor in every exercise of the power to which it is affixed to include,

"conditions as to the availability to the public, and quality of, advice, assistance or representation, and as to the means for monitoring such availability and quality".

This applies generally to every action of the board under this power. What I said in my letter and what I say again is that the board will have the first responsibility for doing that. I expect the board to be concerned about the quality of the advice and anything else in respect of which it is handing out money. For example, if it is making a grant to a law centre, which it would be entitled to do under this power, I would expect the board to satisfy itself before it did so that it was an appropriate thing to do. It is quite another matter for me as the Lord Chancellor to have to require it to do something further, over and above what it wants to do. That assumes that the board will not itself have in its mind the concerns which lie behind the noble Lord's amendment. Only if the board does not in its arrangements take proper account of those would any necessity for directions arise.

While I entirely sympathise and agree with what the noble Lord has in mind, this amendment is an unnecessarily rigid and bureaucratic way of achieving it. If we get a good Legal Aid Board, as I sincerely hope we shall, we want to leave it to get on with the job and try to get the operation under way with as little interference from the Lord Chancellor as possible. The less the Lord Chancellor has to do directly with the work of the board and in terms of interfering with it, the better. Therefore, while I entirely share the object of the amendment—perhaps "spirit" is a slightly ambiguous word in this context—the means that have been chosen are inappropriate and I ask the House to reject the amendment.

My Lords, I know that the noble and learned Lord will accept this as a respectful remark, but I am disappointed, as are my noble friends, with his reply. This an important way—indeed, a vital way—of ensuring the standards of those services which are being contracted out. We feel that this ought to be in primary legislation and that it ought to be the responsibility, if I may respectfully say so, of the Lord Chancellor to give these directions to the Legal Aid Board. It might otherwise be hindered, by the amount of the budget it may have been given, as regards the standards that we all want to see when services are contracted out. In these circumstances, I feel it only proper to test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the organisation of education in inner London.

"The Government have consistently maintained that a single education authority for inner London could be justified only if that authority gave the children and students of inner London a good education service at an acceptable cost.

"ILEA has patently not done that. Its spending is profligate; its service is poor. Between 1981 and 1988 its spending increased from about £700 million to over £1 billion—while over the same period its pupil numbers have fallen by 15 per cent. It now spends 52 per cent. per pupil more than the outer London boroughs; 45 per cent. more than Manchester; and 83 per cent. more than Birmingham: cities with problems comparable to those of London. This increase in expenditure has in no way been reflected in improved pupil performance, which remains disappointingly low. There is now an urgent need for change.

"ILEA's failure is partly a failure of political will but, it is also a product of its unmanageable size. Its administration is cumbersome, excessively costly and too distant from its clients. The Government want to improve standards of education in London and to bring costs under control. We decided that the way to do this was to enable each inner London council to become the local education authority for its area.

"Our proposals arc incorporated in Part III of the Education Reform Bill. Three boroughs have already stated their intention to apply for LEA status; other boroughs are known to be considering similar action. But as this positive response to our proposals has emerged there has been a growing view that our objectives would be better achieved by a single, orderly transfer of education functions in inner London.

"The Government have reviewed these developments and have concluded that the time is now right to carry through the logic of their proposals in the interests of better standards and of orderly progress. We therefore propose to table amendments to the Education Reform Bill, while it is before the Standing Committee, to wind up ILEA and to secure the transfer of education responsibilities to local councils from 1st April 1990.

"We propose that the arrangements for transfer-ring functions should follow closely those established at the time of the abolition of the GLC.

"A staff commission will be established to facilitate the process of staff transfer. All LEA teaching and non-teaching staff working at individual schools and colleges will transfer by order to the employment of the council concerned. Where appropriate, detriment or redundancy compensation will be available on the terms applying at the time of the abolition of the GLC.

"The arrangements for property transfer will be broadly those set out in the Education Reform Bill. It is likely that the London Residuary Body will be employed to deal with assets which cannot be allocated between boroughs.

"The Education Reform Bill already contains certain counter-obstruction safeguards to protect the interest of the local councils which will be assuming education functions. We shall strengthen these safeguards, introducing the same sanctions as were included in the legislation abolishing the Greater London Council and metropolitan county councils.

"The Government propose that each local council should be required to publish in 1989 as a basis for local consultation a development plan setting out the way in which it proposes to organise the transfer of responsibilities and the service it would propose to run. The Government will issue statutory guidance on the subjects to be covered by such development plans which will provide the basis for property and staff transfer orders.

"I recognise that some co-operation will be needed between inner London councils for the maintenance of certain aspects of education provision. I hope that in most cases such co-operation will be secured through voluntary arrangements; these might in certain circumstances need to take the form of joint education committees, requiring my approval under existing powers. Were it to become necessary, there are also powers under the Education Act 1944 to enable me to require groups of boroughs to establish joint education committees in respect of particular functions.

"The Government propose to maintain rigorous pressure to control ILEA's expenditure over the next two years. We attach paramount importance to improving the quality of education received by inner London's children. They and their parents have a right to something better. The Government's proposals set out the basis for a more cost effective and responsive education service for inner London."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, convention impels me to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, but I have to say that we are deeply shocked by it; we are shocked by the timing and, indeed, by the leaks that have gone on. Since last Friday there have been unseemly debates in the media leading to a major change of policy. In the week when the Education Reform Bill has been guillotined in another place and a timetable agreed for discussion of the remaining clauses, among which are the clauses on ILEA, surely a separate Bill is called for. The proposal comes at a time of heavy legislation when Parliament is already under pressure from an overloaded programme. This proposal was not in the Conservative Party manifesto, nor in the Queen's Speech. The Government have no mandate for it. Have the parents been consulted about this? Have the Churches been consulted about this? Have the teaching staff been consulted about this? The Government have made much of parental involvement in the Education Reform Bill. What parental involvement has there been in this sudden decision?

I remind noble Lords that there was a very full discussion three years ago when the GLC abolition Bill was going through Parliament. It was decided that ILEA should be a directly elected authority. What has happened since then and indeed in the last eight weeks since the Education Reform Bill was published to trigger off such a fundamental change?

ILEA has been criticised for excessive expenditure. The cost per secondary pupil at ILEA is just over £2,000. The DES is paying for assisted places at Westminster School, costing just over £4,000 a place, and at St. Paul's School, costing just under £4,000 a place. ILEA's size is mentioned in the Statement. This has been accepted by four reviews in the last 10 years, three of them done by this Government. I remind your Lordships of what the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said as the then Secretary of State for Education:

"The nature, scale and importance of the education service in inner London, taken together, justify a directly elected authority in this special case."—[Official Report, Commons, 5/4/84; col. 1124.]

I repeat,

"The nature, scale and importance".

The effect of the Statement is that the education service in inner London will be handed over, not back, to boroughs with no experience of running an education authority and, some would think, not capable of carrying out such a function. For instance, Kensington and Chelsea would have just one county secondary school in its area. At the same time these councils will be coping with the administration of the poll tax, with new housing legislation and with the privatisation of their services. As to the quality of education, a recent poll in Wandsworth, which I remind noble Lords is a Conservative council, showed a high level of satisfaction by parents with ILEA schools in both primary and secondary education. Over 80 per cent. of parents said that they were satisfied with academic standards.

I wish to ask the Minister some questions. What will happen to special education, adult education and further education in which ILEA has such a good record when this legislation has gone through, if it does go through? Inner city problems may well be exacerbated by the abolition of ILEA. The Government are supposed to be taking a special interest in inner city problems. I suspect that children in inner London are likely to be the sufferers from this political act. Perhaps I may mention the Centre for Young Musicians, which is held at Pimlico School. What will happen to such provisions where children from all over London assemble for the most wonderful teaching and performance?

Have the Government thought through these proposals and their implications? The answer must be no.

My Lords, I too wish to thank the Minister in a qualified way for repeating the Statement. I do not think that I have ever been impolite in your Lordships' House hitherto, but I propose to be now, at the expense not of noble Lords but of the Government's proposal.

Let us be frank and say first that the Government have never liked ILEA. It is a large organisation controlled by Opposition parties. That of course does not please them. Now they feel like Macbeth:

"With barefaced power sweep him from my sight".

If small boroughs control education throughout London the Government will more easily be able to control them and will be in a position to divide and rule, which seems to be their growing policy. It will also be convenient for the London Residuary Body to be able to empty County Hall at last, a matter that has been bugging that body for some time past.

As the noble Baroness said, the idea is not a new one. It has been discussed a number of times under this Government in three reviews, to which the Minister referred. On each occasion it was concluded that a unitary education authority was the best for London. The most recent occasion was when the then Secretary of State for Education, now the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, concluded that inner boroughs will not have the right to opt out. He said:

"The Government have decided that there should be a continuing unitary authority for Inner London".

That was only just over three years ago.

In 1985 the Local Government Act established the authority as a directly elected body. It is not two years since the first election. Why the change? We are now told that this will happen within a Bill already before Parliament in which we have been considering very different proposals—to the effect that the boroughs should opt out independently. Now, with the minimum time, we have to consider this much more drastic proposal.

No reference was made in last summer's consultation papers to any detailed study on which the current proposals were based. When I speak of the current proposals, I mean either the proposal for boroughs to opt out individually or for this much more drastic measure. No reference was made in the consultation papers to any research or consultation that has occurred.

I cannot refute offhand the figures quoted in this Statement, but I know that ILEA, for all its faults, has done much excellent work in the time of its existence. I am thinking in particular of the research that it has done: such things as the Fish report into the problems, diagnosis and remediation of children with special education needs. How can this sort of report covering the whole of London be carried out by individual boroughs? Much imaginative and innovative work has been done by the authority. Let us remind noble Lords that it is now doing all it can to restrain the activities of the unions which have caused so much trouble. I am thinking in particular of the Inner London Teaching Association, which the authority is now trying very hard to control.

London has been under a unitary education authority for well over 100 years, since my grandfather introduced the local government Bill in the other place in the 1880s. Throughout the years it was considered that the LCC was a highly efficient organisation, so the reference to the sphere of its control being too great seems to be quite untrue.

What will happen to the poor and deprived boroughs without the cross-subsidy which the Inner London Education Authority was operating? Can one imagine Kensington and Chelsea voluntarily subsidising Hackney? Is the Minister aware that some boroughs are in a state of administrative and financial chaos? Will any research be done to discover whether boroughs are fit to take on full responsibility for education within their bounds? How many councils want to opt out? Has that been discovered? There was a vague pronouncement in the Statement that a number of councils were thinking of it. Of course they are thinking of it, but they may well decide that they do not want to do so. Have the parents been consulted, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, asked?

Finally, I have to ask those two Back-Benchers of the Conservative Party who are apparently advocating this policy how much they know about education in London. Has this matter really been thought through? I cannot give more than the barest formality of thanks to the Minister for reading the Statement to us.

My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments, I must say as a preliminary how surprised I am that they were both shocked and forced to resort almost to rudeness. I find it rather difficult to discern this in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie.

The whole question of the future of ILEA has been debated for some time. There has been strong feeling expressed on many sides and the Government are responding to that strong feeling, not only from people in another place who have tabled Motions but also from many experts. I think we can even quote a Member on the Opposition Benches in this House who has asked for an orderly transfer in a planned and rational fashion.

Name him.

It is a "her", actually—the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. She has been quoted when she spoke at a conference on this matter. She told us that we should have the courage of our convictions and abolish the authority for this very reason—in order to have proper and orderly progress. However, I shall endeavour to respond to the questions raised both by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if perhaps I do not get my responses in quite the right order or put them quite as gracefully as I should wish.

On the question of timing, I should like to point out that the outer London boroughs were set up largely from scratch in 1965, just 20 months after the passage of the London Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1963. The inner London boroughs will have a similar period in which to prepare to assume their new responsibilities, and in doing so they will have the assistance of the staff commission and the residuary body. In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State proposes to set up a special unit in the department to help boroughs to prepare for the transfer of functions and to consult them about the arrangements to be made.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord referred to our manifesto commitments and to consultation with parents, teachers and the Churches. Apart from the fact that our election manifesto brought in the principle of devolution by giving the right to boroughs to take over responsibiliity for this service, the responses that we have received are such that we have decided that this is a better way of achieving our objectives.

Apart from the fact that there was an explicit reference in the election manifesto which was warmly subscribed to by the electorate at large, there was a very recent poll on this matter. The noble Baroness referred to a poll in Wandsworth. I should like to refer to the by-election in Wandsworth which took place on 19th November last year, where this issue was brought very much to the fore by the Opposition parties and where we improved our majority. In addition, we believe that the Churches will also welcome the effort to bring in an orderly and rational scheme rather than subscribe to the accusations which we have had directed at us of allowing ILEA to wither on the bough. So there is nothing new about the proposals in terms of what will happen in ILEA. There is simply a different direction.

Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord referred to special education, further education and, I believe, adult education. As regards specialist provision, of course boroughs must explain in the development plans that they put forward what they wish to do with property that they plan to take over, including plans for continuing specizalist provision. There is something I should like to add to that, because local authorities have and will have a duty to secure adequate provision for children with special education needs. Smaller local education authorities in other parts of the country who do not provide a complete range of schools themselves often co-operate with neighbouring authorities and may use non-maintained special schools and independent schools. We see no reason why boroughs in the inner London area should not co-operate in the same way as boroughs in other parts of the country.

So far as concerns further education and adult education, again, we recognise that these are very important provisions. In terms of cross-boundary movement in this area, there is again perhaps an enhanced problem in the London area. Nevertheless. we believe that this will be met by the possibilities which exist for co-operation between boroughs.

The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, felt that small boroughs were not going to be able to cope. I should point out to him that there is, in addition to the provisions that have been made, the special unit to which I have referred, the staff commission and the London Residuary Body. Those will enable boroughs which have not had recent experience of education provision to cope. The important thrust behind all the Government's proposals in this Bill is to take back provision and responsbility for education to the grass roots.

Therefore we must look at these proposals in the light of the other proposals of the Bill; for example, the provision for the national curriculum, which will better ensure that standards are maintained on a more balanced level throughout the country, as well as the provisions for financial delegation.

There may not have been a detailed study to which we can refer in that instance—again the noble Lord raised this point—but reviews have taken place steadily over past years. There was the Marshall review in 1977 and there was the Young review in 1981. Those reviews admitted that a unitary authority might be the most appropriate way of dealing with inner London provision of education. However, I must emphasise the second paragraph of the Statement where the Government have consistently maintained that a single education authority for inner London could be justified only if that authority gave the children and students of inner London a good education service at acceptable cost.

If one can say that it is acceptable for inner London to provide 4 per cent. of the country's pupils with education costing 8 per cent. of the country's spending, if one thinks it appropriate that ILEA should employ two and a half times more administrators than the average local education authority and if one can agree that ILEA is providing a better service in spending 52 per cent. more per pupil than the outer London boroughs, 45 per cent. more than Manchester and 83 per cent. more than Birmingham, I can only say that it is my turn to be surprised.

In relation to the extravagance and liberal spending, there is little evidence of pay-off in terms of results. Nationally some 53 per cent. of school-leavers have been getting one or more higher grades at O-level; ILEA has just 43 per cent. At A-level the figures is 14 per cent. nationally and 11 per cent. in ILEA. I can even pray in aid the intentions of the present Labour leader of ILEA who has made it clear that it must improve education standards and levels of achievement. Obviously he too thinks that the provision is wanting.

We believe that we are acting in the best interests of all the children in the inner London area in making these arrangements. The arrangements that are made, the plans that are put forward, will be scrutinised very thoroughly, and every possible co-operation will be given by the Department of Education for the smooth and orderly progress of these plans.

My Lords, before we lash ourselves into an emotional pother about all this perhaps I may make a brief intervention. I must confess that I was one of the putative fathers of ILEA, I think the only surviving one, from those ancient days when Mr. Macmillan was Prime Minister. In the election of 1959—which I think shows that the noble Baroness, Lady David, perhaps has too short a memory and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, too long a memory—our manifesto was to hand over to the boroughs the educational responsibility of the local education authorities in London. It was recognised then that a small central body would be necessary, and the intention was to make it very small.

I think I am the surviving member of the committee which was asked to say how large the central body should be. We came to the conclusion that we did not for any educational reason at all but for a perfectly practical one. Since in central London the London County Council had built its schools as a matter of bricks and mortar without reference to the borough boundaries as they then existed, still less to the boundaries as they exist now, it would be necessary to use the old LCC area as the central authority. If the conclusion is reached that the experiment has been a failure, which I think must be the case but for one question which I have to ask my learned friend, there is no reason for the extraordinary outburst of emotion to which we have been subjected.

The question I should like to ask is the bricks and mortar question. The crux of the matter lies in the question of whether by the machinery which the Statement contains, if I understood it correctly, inter-borough education committees can deal with the problem of bricks and mortar and the location at any rate of older educational institutions in central London. If those will work it seems to me this is a long overdue reform. I should like some assurance from my noble friend on the Front Bench that it is thought that this is a viable approach.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his intervention. It is certainly true in terms of size that ILEA is the largest local education authority in England. It has therefore developed commensurately large support services. Clearly from some of the examples I have given size does not guarantee effectiveness. In fact the outer London boroughs have been responsible for education for over 20 years, and three of them, Harrow, Kingston and Barnet, achieved better examination results than anywhere else in the country. That is a very hopeful and happy prospect to which to look forward.

On the question of bricks and mortar, perhaps I can respond to my noble and learned friend by saying that boroughs will be required to explain in their development plans which institutions and which property they need to inherit in order to secure adequate provision. This applies in particular to further education, which has been mentioned, because there is a great deal of trans-boundary provision. Where colleges in particular have sites in more than one borough the Government intend that in general they should not be split up but should be assigned to the borough in which they are primarily located. But again there is scope for voluntary agreements and arrangements to be made between boroughs.

My Lords, I feel that this Statement uses a great many words to tell a very simple story. Since ILEA is to be abolished because it has a Labour majority, just as earlier the Greater London Council and earlier still the London County Council were abolished for the same reason, would it not have been more candid and courageous for the Government to tell us plainly what they are doing and why instead of trying to cover it up with this verbose camouflage?

My Lords, the standard of education available in London is the paramount consideration. We believe that the continued failure of ILEA to put its house in order makes an arrangement such as we are proposing the best way of raising standards for children in inner London. I can only say that there was a lot of fuss and bother about the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan counties, but who is missing them now?

My Lords, as High Steward and a former Member of Parliament for Kingston I should like to thank my noble friend for her graceful and kindly reference to the great education success of the Kingston Borough Council. Arising from that, does that not illustrate the extraordinary situation there has been in recent years in which large and wealthy boroughs such as Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea have not had education authorities, whereas education authorities have existed in much smaller places? I suggest to my noble friend that if education is to be a locally administered service, then it is absurd that such large boroughs should he excluded from the administration of education.

Is my noble friend aware that that logical approach might have been answered if ILEA had been a success? However, as she has made clear, it has been an expensive failure for both children and ratepayers. Therefore, perhaps I may thank her most warmly—and perhaps more sincerely than did the noble Baroness, Lady David—for the Statement and say that my only regret is that such a step was not taken years ago. In particular, I regret that the opportunity which was given by the Local Government Act three years ago when the matter was raised and discussed, was not taken. If it had been, we should now be rid of that monstrous organisation. Perhaps my noble friend can also tell me whether this matter will help to facilitate the eviction of the rump of the ILEA from the buildings across the river.

My Lords, to answer the last point made by my noble friend, there will no doubt be a transitional period with the continued existence of a rump. However, the process will no doubt be speeded up. I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention underlining some of the comments which have been made and indicating how important and urgent it is to get on with the job now.

My Lords, does the Minister recall that in the ILEA election the Labour Party won less than half the votes but more than three-quarters of the seats? Perhaps some of the problems of ILEA—like some of the problems of local Labour authorities—are created by its unrepresentative nature which is due to the addiction of the Conservative Party to a preposterously undemocratic electoral system. Will the Minister assure us that her party will learn from experience and that the idea of representative democracy will carry some weight in the future?

My Lords, we are learning in relation to ILEA and I can assure the noble Lord that he will have no further problems because there will be no further elections in ILEA.

My Lords, no one could be discourteous to the Minister for the very painstaking way in which she answers our questions. However, I do not think that her amiability can disguise the fact that many of us feel that this is a most discourteous manner of proceeding. If the issue is so important—and it is; it involves the abolition of the largest and most important education authority—why is it stuffed in at the Committee stage of a Bill? Why did the Government not bring it forward in the initial stages of the Bill? Is my noble friend Baroness David not right in saying that the matter should be withdrawn and made the subject of a separate Bill when some of the proposals which are being put forward can be properly worked out?

The Minister referred to the possibility of forming joint education committees. Does she have a clear idea as to whether the poorest inner London boroughs will form local education committees? Has not the matter been discussed with them? Have the Government no clear idea of what the government and administration of the schools is to be?

I am sure that the noble Baroness shares with all of us the desire that every one of those children who are in the poorest and most deprived parts of London—that is the reason for the emotion which has been generated on this occasion—should have the best possible education. Does she realise that if we consider any of our large provincial cities, we shall find that the worst examination results are produced in the poorest areas of the city and the best examination results are produced in the Kingstons of the city? If noble Lords do not appreciate that, then they do not understand the fundamental problem.

I ask the Minister to take the matter back to the Government and say that the proposal needs much more careful working out and thought. If we are not careful, we shall leave the poorest authorities with the most inadequate resources and withdraw the strongest elements, without any clear ideas from the Government as to what is to replace them. I do not wish to be offensive when I say that if there is powerful pressure from some Back Benchers in another place and the Government do not know what to do, they say, "Stuff it in the Bill".

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his courteous introduction to his comments. However, I must disagree with him. The subject is not a new one which has been brought up overnight. The whole question of ILEA and its future has been under discussion for a considerable length of time. It was a manifesto commitment that action would be taken, and the subject has been well discussed both in the media and in education circles. I do not think that it can be regarded as a sudden move requiring a separate Bill. Furthermore, the new clauses will be introduced at Committee stage in another place. There will be ample time under the guillotine Motion for a discussion. There will be further time for discussion at Report stage. The emphasis must now be on action rather than further discussion.

I share the view of the noble Lord that the interests of the children and students of ILEA are paramount. I have emphasised the fact that the reason for the changes to be introduced is to make sure that educational standards are improved as well as being made more cost-effective.

As regards the comments made by the noble Lord concerning other provincial cities with poor inner city areas and their examination results, I can only say that ILEA's results come below those of other large cities with similar socio-economic problems and large inner city areas. As regards the smaller boroughs who have perhaps not been considering the possibility of operating their own education systems as education authorities in the manner of the boroughs which have given us notice of their intention to opt out I say this. We must take all the reforms together and look at the fact that the Government are providing a national basis with a national curriculum for improving and maintaining standards. They are also providing other ways for schools to take more responsibility. Schools, teachers and parents will have more opportunities to be responsible for education in their immediate areas.

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister one question concerning standards. In the Sheffield University league table, which took into account socio-economic conditions, out of 96 local education authorities ILEA came 56th, Oxfordshire was 54th, Waltham Forest was 71st, Essex was 92nd and Bromley was 96th. If other matters are taken into account, ILEA has done pretty well.

My Lords, I speak as someone who has looked at the problems of ILEA. I welcome what my noble friend has said in her Statement. The fact that the Government have taken a decision removes an uncertainty about the future of a number of London boroughs. We all share the view of the importance of the education of children, not only in inner London but throughout the country as a whole.

Parents are obliged by law to send their children for at least 11 years of compulsory education. One of the most disturbing features of educational life is uncertainty. Now we know that 1st April 1990 is the date from which individual boroughs will be responsible for education in their areas. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend that I think that that is much clearer than the original provisions in the Education Reform Bill as it stands at the present time.

I think that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, about standards is very important. It is true that the standards ILEA fall well below those which we should like to see. It is true that they have to educate some of the poorest and most disadvantaged children. However, inspectors' reports show that children still underachieve and we should see a better result. I believe that devolving downwards (as the Education Reform Bill and this measure propose) will make it more likely that there will he greater parental and other involvement which will help the children in the end. Much will be said; but I should like to welcome this Statement and say that I for one look forward to hearing the details of how it will be worked out. That is something we must look at very carefully.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her comments and for underlining the fact that the present proposals remove the uncertainty which existed and which indeed was growing. The Government are carrying on a continuing consultation process on education reform. They are responding not only in this area but in other areas to comments and consultation. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for not responding immediately to her previous remarks. I do not have the statistics that she mentioned, but I should like to underline the fact that the Labour leader of ILEA himself has said that socio-economic factors are too often used as an excuse for poor achievement.

My Lords, may I first make this point? The noble Baroness referred to my colleague Lady Blackstone and her remarks on ILEA. In case your Lordships have misunderstood her view, my noble friend was, and is, totally against the abolition of ILEA. Her comment, to which the Minister referred, was simply to the effect that if the Government were against ILEA they should show a little courage by removing it rather than killing it off by the death of a thousand cuts. I make that point just in case there was any misunderstanding of my noble friend's position.

I am a little disappointed at another aspect of the noble Baroness's Statement. My colleague Lady David has made the statistical point about 1LEA's undoubted achievements. I never decry statistics. But my view is that one ought to go and visit some ILEA schools. I hope that noble Lords opposite will occasionally do so. My experience from such visits is that the teachers perform miracles every day of the week. I should have liked to hear the noble Baroness proffer at least some words of support for those teachers. I was most disappointed not to hear such words.

Finally, there is the question of whether this is a genuine decision or a political one. I am always willing to be persuaded by the noble Baroness, but I must ask her what evidence has arisen about performance and costs that would cause the Government to change their mind since the Bill was originally published. If the noble Baroness wishes us to believe that there is no political side to this question and that it is a genuine educational decision, she might well offer us some new evidence to justify that change.

My Lords, I am glad that the age of miracles has not passed. I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me to put in a word for the teachers—the very good teachers—who do indeed perform miracles in some of London's schools. I believe that those teachers will welcome these moves because they will be able to continue teaching in the schools and provide education with less interference than was experienced under ILEA.

I shall marry up the noble Lord's first and last points and quote from the statement made by his noble friend, who, I quite accept, might well be against any change at all in ILEA. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is quoted as saying that this slow dismemberment could not be more damaging to the education of young people in London and therefore the Government should have had the courage of their convictions and met it head on. That is precisely what we are now doing and we expect to receive some support from the noble Baroness.

My Lords, I welcome this Statement. I was nominally responsible for ILEA for some three years, and perhaps I am the only Member of this House to have held such a position. I can confirm that when we took over ILEA it was then as now cumbersome and excessively costly. It had an ability to spend at an enormous rate and at the same time operated with an inflated staff level which was totally unreasonable. Like the GLC, ILEA has brought about its own doom by poor financial controls, petty policies and, more importantly, by sending pupils from poor and deprived areas out into the world with a poor education. This situation must be ready for reform, and I hope that the Government will press forward with it.

My Lords, I have very mixed feelings about ILEA. I think that some of the criticisms that have been made of it are quite justified. It has destroyed itself by often taking very partisan views on subjects. My only experience with ILEA concerned its dealings relating to the Polytechnic of North London, which did not reinforce my good opinion of the authority.

Having said that, nobody expects the Government to hold inquiries or carry out research because whenever they do, as in the case of the Peacock report, the research and the report come out in a form which the Government do not like. Even if one does not undertake research, I should have thought that it was politically extraordinarily insensitive to make a Statement which misses the one point which anyone who knows anything about education in London must have in the forefront of his mind; namely, when one removes the rich boroughs how are the poor boroughs to be financed?

The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, was entirely right to say that it was scandalous that this was not in the forefront of the Statement, and it must confirm people in the view that the Government think of the inhabitants of those poor boroughs as sludge and the schools in them as sinks.

My Lords, I find it very difficult to accept the point made by the noble Lord, because, if he is talking about resources for schooling, there has been no indication that those resources will be reduced. In fact, our aim is that the available resources should be used more cost-effectively.

My Lords, I should like to correct the record with regard to something that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I can speak as one who has relatives—my son and daughter-in-law—who are teachers in Catholic schools in London. I can assure the noble Baroness that far from removing uncertainty this will further demoralise staff which is already struggling in appalling conditions. Uncertainty looms up every day. Staff do not know how many teachers will be retained, nor the character of the borough by which they will be taken over. I think that it must be placed on record that whoever else may like this action it is certainly not the teachers of London.

My Lords, before my noble friend replies to the noble Baroness, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that there is important business to which we must return. Perhaps it would be the wish of the House to take the noble Baroness's question and a question which I know was coming from behind me and then call it a day and return to the Legal Aid Bill.

My Lords, perhaps I may—

My Lords, it is precisely because I know that other noble Lords wish to ask questions that I ask what the House would like to do. Let us take the next two questions and we shall know whether your Lordships wish then to return to the Legal Aid Bill.

My Lords, it is difficult to judge competing evidence which is put forward. However, the Government's evidence has been that an orderly and rational progression to the splitting up of ILEA will be the best possible solution that will find acceptance and support among parents and teachers in the boroughs concerned.

My Lords, much has been said about the poorest children in London and about how they may be disadvantaged by the abolition of ILEA. Can the Minister inform us that she is aware—as I believe she is—that these are the people who are being so disadvantaged now? The children in the poorest part of Islington—I speak as someone who has practised in that area over a long period—are almost unemployable. If one asks them to put a dozen forms into alphabetical order, they cannot. These are school-leavers. Eighty-five per cent. cannot put 10 or 20 forms into alphabetical order. This means that ILEA has failed those poor children, and when there is a clear option for boroughs such as Westminster, with which I am closely connected, to opt out, they will certainly do so, and there will remain a hopelessly ill-formed ILEA. It will be only the worst of ILEA. Certainty is absolutely essential in these circumstances. Certainty and rapid change are important.

In the abolition of the GLC, because of the time taken over the preliminary Bill which did not go through, uncertainty existed for the two years during the abolition process. This caused great anxiety to staff. It also caused the problems referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, of people not knowing what was gong to happen. I believe it is right that the Government have made a definite, formative Statement so that everyone will now know the situation. I also believe that in terms of finance no one living in the so-called wealthy borough of Westminster needs to delude himself or herself that it will not continue to cost Westminster a lot of money. Under all the inter-borough arrangements presently existing for social services, Westminster is still contributing on a rateable basis.

I therefore believe that there will still be that same element of the rich boroughs subsidising the poor. I represent an outer London borough and I have seen how much better education was there. We saw last year the Audit Commission report on the ineffectiveness of ILEA. I believe that the abolition of ILEA will enable better education and better value to be provided.