Lords Sitting of 19 July 1979

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

LORD LOWRY
The Right Honourable Sir Robert Lynd Erskine Lowry, Knight, Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, having been created Baron Lowry, of Crossgar in the County of Down, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Diplock and the Lord Scarman.
The Viscount Younger of Leckie—Took the Oath.
The Lord Elphinstone—Took the Oath.

RHODESIA: SANCTIONS AND USSR IMPORTS
3.19 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can confirm the truth or otherwise of the reports that the Soviet Government have been consistently breaking sanctions by the import of chrome from Rhodesia.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (Lord Carrington): My Lords, the Government have seen Press reports about the importation of chrome by the Soviet Union; but they are not in a position to confirm the authenticity of these reports.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. My information is that Russia has been breaking sanctions by importing chrome and other products from Rhodesia. Is my noble friend aware that I have been informed that two
1500
years ago one of the largest consignments of chrome ever reported to have left Rhodesia was, in fact, loaded into Russian ships at Beira, destined for Russia? If that is the case, would not my noble friend agree that it is iniquitous that a country such as Russia—together with her satellites and fellow travellers in the Afro-Asian bloc and elsewhere—which has been foremost in upholding the imposition of sanctions on Rhodesia, should, during this time, be conniving at breaking sanctions for her own commercial gain?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right that there have been Press reports and rumours from time to time about the Soviet Union importing chrome. But the Government have no firm evidence that that is so. However, if it were so, it would be iniquitous.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, do not the Government have firm evidence from their American friends that chrome imported by America from Russia was traced to Rhodesian origins? In any event, is not the Russian importation of Rhodesian chrome quite trivial compared to their importation of Rhodesian tobacco?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am not aware of that evidence.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of Russia trading in chrome without importing it but what is commonly called laundering it?
Lord CARRINGTON: No, my Lords.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary tell us whether the first part of his original Question means that we should never believe everything we read in the papers?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, it was not my Question.

RHODESIA: POLICY ON RECOGNITION
3.23 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, if they recognise Commonwealth countries in Africa and Asia which practise free democratic elections open to all political parties and to all persons of 18 years and over, they will agree to similar recognition of the Government in Rhodesia soon.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, in the case of Rhodesia, the question is not one of recognition but of the granting of legal independence to a country for which Britain has a constitutional responsibility. Our intention is to bring Rhodesia to independence with the widest possible international acceptance.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Now that Rhodesia has joined the small but select band of Commonwealth countries which practise universal franchise, and as we have acknowledged certain régimes in the Commonwealth which, whatever their merits, cannot be called in any sense democratic, would not the Foreign Secretary recommend acknowledging these facts at the coming Commonwealth Conference? Might I further ask him whether he will, as soon as possible after the Conference, advise Her Majesty's Government to lift sanctions to enable this new Government to have a chance of survival?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, my noble friend will remember that we had quite a long debate on the Rhodesia problem last week. Much as I would like to add to what I had to say on that occasion, I really do not think that I can.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether there are any Commonwealth countries in Africa which do practise free democratic elections open to all political parties? If so, which?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, just off the top of my head, so to speak, I would say Kenya.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that he was asked
1502
to agree 13 times? Does he disagree all 13 times?
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, when the noble Lord says Kenya, could he tell us which is the other party in Kenya which is allowed to take part in elections?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, is it not the case that recognition of a Government rests on far broader considerations than those implied in the rather simplistic way in the Question on the Order Paper? In particular, is it not the case in Rhodesia that the present Prime Minister's authority in these matters has recently been eroded by a judicial decision, so that his majority in their Parliament now rests on the 28 white votes of MPs who were not elected according to the principle of one man, one vote?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, as I said in the original Answer, there is a difference between recognising a Government and giving independence. There are certain criteria for recognising Governments which, though they are in some degree applicable to giving independence to a country, are not always wholly the same.

IRAN: POLITICAL TRIALS AND EXECUTIONS
3.26 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have protested to the Government of Iran about the mass of executions carried out in that country, and the absence of fair trial of those condemned to death.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the people of this country were shocked by the political trials and executions in Iran. The Government share their feelings. Her Majesty's Government have registered disapproval of the trials and executions in Iran on several occasions, both privately and in a joint statement with the Nine. We are somewhat encouraged by the

1503
recent announcement of Ayatollah Khomeini granting an amnesty for political prisoners. We hope the Iranian Government will take a moderate path and ensure the application of the due process of law.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, though I welcome the expressions of concern and condemnation which the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary has just given, am I right in thinking that we have not directly protested to the Iranian Government but have contented ourselves with public statements of the kind he described? Can the noble Lord confirm that only this morning it was announced on the Iranian radio that four executions took place, including that of Dr. Sheikh Aleshanzadeh, a distinguished orthopaedic surgeon who was formerly Minister of Health under the Shah? Is it not an indication of dual standards that we were ready to protest twice about the small number of executions in Ghana since the coup there, while in the case of the much larger number of executions in Iran since the overthrow of the Shah we have contented ourselves with mere public statements?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, as a matter of fact we have protested on several occasions to the Iranian Government. I had not heard what the noble Lord has told me, and I will of course consider what else we can do. One does have to remember that sometimes if one goes on protesting it is counter-productive.

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE
3.28 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is intended to increase expenditure to ensure the security of the United Kingdom, and if so, in what form.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, Her
1504
Majesty's Government have already increased the Defence Cash Limit for the current year by more than £400 million. For the future, we have had no hesitation in endorsing the NATO aim of continued annual growth in national defence expenditure in the region of 3 per cent. per annum in real terms until 1986. We shall be taking this commitment fully into consideration when deciding future defence budget levels. Studies are in hand to assess how our forces can be strengthened most effectively.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this: is not the bulk of the £400 million a sum decided by the previous Government? In fact, is not the increase proposed by the present Government just £100 million? Is that in accordance with all the criticisms directed against the previous Government for not having provided sufficient expenditure for defence? In fact, is not the money intended for the purpose of increasing the pay of officers and other ranks in the forces and not for the purpose of equipment? Is the noble Lord aware of the shortage of equipment in the Navy, and the shortage of aircraftmen in the Air Force resulting from the fact that we cannot afford to pay the amounts required? Has the time not arrived when the present Government, having indulged in harsh criticism of the previous Government, should have the decency to apologise?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: The noble Lord asked a fair number of questions in that one supplementary, my Lords, and I shall do my best to reply. Taking the question of Service pay—which I think gives the lie to the general trend of his question—the increase required for the increases in Service pay (which I think he will agree were not part of the last Government's policy) is £269½ million. On top of that there is £100 million extra for equipment. I am only too painfully aware of certain inadequacies of equipment. However, I must point out to the noble Lord that we have a more serious shortfall in manpower today than we have in equipment.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, can the Minister say whether any part of the increase about which he has spoken is likely to be directed towards civil defence,

1505
which the late Government neglected so badly? Will he bear in mind that those who work in the sphere of civil defence are largely volunteers and therefore do not require pay or pay increases, so that any increase in that sphere is likely to go on equipment and, therefore, be very good value for money?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, so far as the Ministry of Defence is concerned, there would be no money for civil defence; if there were, I think it would come under another department.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what he has said today is a wholesale condemnation of the policies of Conservative Governments since 1957, when they abandoned conscription, so that at the end of the day they can neither provide the equipment nor provide sufficient pay to produce balanced forces? The result is that we have spent £91,000 million on defence since the war and, in real terms, we could not knock the skin off a rice pudding.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I have argued before with the noble Lord about the effectiveness of our forces, my Lords, but I am answering questions for this Government, not for three or four Governments ago.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, the Minister is answering questions not only for the present Government but for the nation as a whole. Would he say how much of the money is to be devoted to the purpose of providing increased bounties for additional recruitment for the TVAR, which is of the utmost importance because of the shortage of Regular manpower in the Services?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am hoping there will be an announcement concerning the Territorial Army quite shortly.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that we are way down the list of countries that export defence equipment and that, if we could export more defence equipment, not only should we achieve increased employment but we should have more money to spend on our own security?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I would not disagree with that at all, my Lords.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, simultaneously, Her Majesty's Government are co-operating with the restructured Committee on Disarmament at Geneva set up by the United Nations Special Assembly for multinational disarmament?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am endeavouring to answer a Question about spending more money on defence. I hardly think the noble Lord's question has anything to do with that. In so far as it would apply, it would be directly to the contrary.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to increased pay for the armed forces that, as a contra, local overseas allowances should be cut, so, in practice, nullifying the effect of any increases and therefore exerting a detrimental effect on recruitment to the forces?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: That is a rather complicated question, my Lords. It is true that local overseas allowances have been re-examined and restructured; some have gone up and some have come down.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, would the Minister on second thoughts not agree that the question of my noble friend Lord Brockway relating to the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva has everything to do with defence and security to the extent that, in so far as we can get agreed mutually verifiable reductions in ground forces in central Europe, real security will follow disarmament, and true security is the best form of defence we can get?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I would not disagree with the general sentiment that we have no wish to indulge in an arms race, but I am addressing myself to the question whether this Government are going to spend more money on defence and, if so, how, and I would suggest that the question of the broad spectrum of disarmament is not relevant to that question at all.

THE SUMMER RECESS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.40 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Trenchard will repeat a Statement being made in another place on the National Enterprise Board.
May I also announce that, subject to the progress of business, the House will adjourn for the Summer Recess on Friday, 27th July and return on Tuesday, 23rd October.

ROSS AND CROMARTY (COASTAL WATERS POLLUTION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

CHARGING ORDERS BILL [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Charging Orders]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, leave out (" money ") and insert (" a fund ").
The noble and learned Lord said: Perhaps I may deal with all the Amendments at this time. I can really describe them as technical. The purpose of all of them is to substitute for " money " either the words " a fund or " funds ". Some ingenious person has suggested that a clever and ingenious legal mind might confine money to cash when what is intended is funds which may also include investments. I do not think I need go into greater detail unless I am
1508
asked; there is greater detail available should the Committee wish it. I beg to move.
Lord MISHCON: On Second Reading my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones advocated that the Bill could be readily accepted, and I am quite sure that he would appreciate the delicacy of substituting the word " money " with the word " fund ", and therefore we can find no possible objection to the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 17, leave out (" by which that money is held ") and insert (" in which that fund is lodged ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Property which may be charged.]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 13, leave out (" money ") and insert (" funds ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES AND PENSIONS ORDER 1979
3.42 p.m.
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames)The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th July, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order now before the House is designed to increase the pay of Ministers and office holders this year in line with proposals announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in another place last week. The order provides for the payment of one half of the increases recommended by the Review

1509
Body on Top Salaries in their 12th Report. The salary levels so recommended will, however, count in full for pension purposes. The balance of the increase will be paid in two equal instalments next year and the year after, for which separate orders will be required. These increases are on the same basis as those proposed for the Members of another place. The order is made under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, and the operative date of the increase will be the date on which the order is made, which is expected to be Thursday next, 26th July.
There is one point that I should specifically like to mention on the detail of the order. As your Lordships know, the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor have said that they will not currently be drawing any increase in salary. Consequently, the order does not provide for an increase in their case. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries and Pensions Order 1979, laid before the House on 9th July, be approved.—(Lord Soames.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION BILL
3.44 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Abolition of duty to give effect to comprehensive principle]:
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 2, at beginning insert (" or ").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1 I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 2,
1510
6 and 7, and I understand that the Minister is agreeable to this. The amendment is put forward for clarification. Following a question from me on Second Reading, the Minister replied that the phrase " managers or governors concerned " referred to the managers or governors of voluntary schools, as I thought it did. However, both Houses have been puzzled by and unsure about the meaning of the phrase, even though it appears in subsection (2) of Clause 1. Even the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, misunderstood the phrase and was not clear about it, and I am sure we would all agree that there are no flies on him. If Members of Parliament are confused, what about councils and councillors all over the country? I consider that the words proposed in the various amendments should be added in order to make the situation crystal clear. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for taking the four amendments together because that will be easier for the Committee at this stage. I hope I can show that the amendments are unnecessary and that the point that she and her noble friends are concerned about is in fact met in the Bill. As I indicated on Second Reading, the reference to managers or governors refers to managers or governors of voluntary schools. I recognise that the noble Baroness and her noble friends have put down the amendments because they desire clarification on this point, so perhaps I may explain the position further. Subsections (3) and (4) have to be taken together with subsection (2) which refers to those provisions of Section 13 of the Education Act 1944 dealing with the submission of their respective proposals by local education authorities and voluntary bodies. Subsection (2) makes it clear that " managers or governors " as mentioned in the Bill are managers or governors of voluntary schools who are treated as having made proposals under Section 13(2). The references to " managers or governors concerned " in subsections (3) and (4) are therefore references to managers or governors of voluntary schools. I hope that following that clarification the noble Baroness will recognise that her point has been met and that she will feel that

1511
she can withdraw the amendment because the Bill does in fact say what she would like it to say.
Baroness BACON: I feel that it would be better if the proposed words were included in the Bill so as to make the position crystal clear. The noble Baroness may consider that the phrase " managers or governors concerned " means managers or governors of voluntary schools and we might understand that, but I wonder what the courts might understand it to mean in the future. We all know that in the past year or two various parts of the 1944 Education Act have been brought before the courts and the judges have ruled that certain matters that for many years we had thought to be so were not legal. It would not in any way alter the purpose of the Bill if the words that my noble friend proposes were included.
Baroness YOUNG: When one is not a lawyer it is perhaps not wise to involve oneself in legal points, but my advisers assure me that the Bill intends the meaning that has been described by both noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Bacon. The reference does in fact mean managers or governors of voluntary schools. As the Bill has the effect of putting back the legislation to what it was prior to 1976, and the interpretation would be the same as that used from the 1944 Education Act onwards to that date, we need not feel that the phrase is likely to be open to a new interpretation in the future.
Baroness DAVID: Following what the Minister has said and the assurances that she has given—and, after all, what the phrase means will appear in print—we are prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
3.50 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert (" provided the application is made before the date of implementation ").
The noble Baroness said: Once more, this amendment aims at clarification. Again, I asked at Second Reading about the meaning of this subsection, and the
1512
noble Baroness said that it was the case that application for revocation could not be made after reorganisation plans had been put into operation. If this is the honest intent of the Government, there seems absolutely no reason why they should not accept this amendment. There are four authorities where proposals put forward under Section 2 of the 1976 Act have been implemented, and there are eight authorities where, from the last information I have had from the DES, it is expected that the plans proposed will be implemented in September 1979. As this Bill stands there is no reason why at some future date—no time limit is mentioned—these authorities should not apply to revoke. Think of the chaos and disruption that that would cause to children and to teachers.
Here I should like to refer to Erith comprehensive school, in the London Borough of Bexley. I am quite aware that this school did not go comprehensive under the 1976 Act, but I think that the atmosphere and climate of opinion that this new Bill has created has made the Bexley education committee chairman try to unscramble the Erith comprehensive school and turn it back into a grammar school and a secondary modern. I am told that yesterday the education committee decided that they would unscramble, in spite of a parents' meeting last week, at which 800 were present, deciding, unanimously I think, that they did not want to go ahead with this. Mr. Sams, the chairman of the education committee, was asked—this was reported in the Guardian of 26th June—whether his attempts to restore grammar school education were
" inconsistent with statements by the Education Secretary, Mr. Mark Carlisle, about not going back on comprehensive education ",
and Mr. Sams said:
" That is just the noise a Tory Secretary of State makes. I cannot see that he would oppose it ".
I hope he will oppose it, and I think it will be a test of the sincerity of the Secretary of State's commitment to parental feeling and his statement that his criteria will be educational ones when he receives proposals under Section 13 of the 1944 Act. But I believe it is alarming to think of that, and it is for this reason that I should like this amendment to be accepted. It does not stop people from

1513
revoking if they want to: it merely makes it absolutely clear that they cannot do this after plans have been implemented. I hope the noble Baroness will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: On this amendment I hope I can show the noble Baroness that in fact her point is met implicitly in the Bill. As she has quite rightly described, local authorities, managers and governors are under a duty to implement approved proposals which have been made to maintain, cease to maintain or to make any change in the character of a school unless they apply under this subsection for the approval to be revoked. It follows, therefore, that they must apply to be relieved of the duty before the date of implementation, which I understand is the point which the noble Baroness is making.
The fact is—and I should like to give this assurance to the Committee—once the proposals have been implemented they have fulfilled their duty, and any further change must be subject to fresh proposals under Section 13. This means that, where an authority has implemented its proposals, if it should wish to revoke them it has to start the whole procedure under Section 13 once again. I should like to give an assurance to the Committee that my right honourable and learned friend would in fact look at each case submitted under Section 13, whether under this particular case or, indeed, under any case, on its merits, and would consider most carefully all the evidence put before him.
I would therefore suggest that revocation of approval would not have any significance, and that it would be unnecessary to say expressly that applications cannot be applied for after implementation. In fact, once a scheme has been implemented there must be a new application under Section 13 if the authority wishes to revoke the approval. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Baroness and her noble friends will recognise that the point they are making is in fact met under the Bill, and that I have been able to reassure her on this matter.
Baroness DAVID: With those assurances, though I am left with a few lingering doubts, we will accept what the noble
1514
Baroness has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert:
(" (3A) In making an application under subsection (3) above the local education authority, managers or governors concerned, shall inform the Secretary of State of the consultation they have had locally with parents of children in the schools involved, with parents whose children are now in primary schools in the area, and likely to attend the secondary schools involved, with members of the teaching profession in the schools involved, and in local primary schools, and with local community interest.").
The noble Baroness said: It seems reasonable, where plans are to be revoked by councils, that there should be further discussion with the people most intimately concerned—the parents, the teachers and people in the local community. Even if plans were put forward as a result of the 1976 Act and there might then have been some unwillingness, those plans must have gone through education committees and councils quite a long time ago. Local people may well now want those plans to go forward, and will be worried over the uncertainty and further disruption at a later stage. I think of suddenly involving children in an 11-plus exam at the end of the summer term, or perhaps in the holidays. The term is about over in most areas.
I should like noble Lords to look at the case of Bolton. Bolton is the only authority with plans to be implemented in September 1979 which is going to apply to revoke, so far as my most recent information goes. I now ask noble Lords to look at the general election results there. Labour Members were returned for Bolton East and Bolton West in spite of visits to the constituencies by Mr. Carlisle, no doubt extolling this Bill. I am told that it is likely that Labour will gain control of the council next May. I am pretty sure that if local people were consulted they would opt to go ahead. Are the Government sincere in their promises to consult and involve parents? If so, they will no doubt accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I entirely accept that there should be full consultations

1515
about all proposed changes in the organisation of schools, and this is particularly true of the pattern of secondary education. This consultation should of course include parents, teachers and other local people, and, indeed, in the case of all proposals under Section 13 of the 1944 Education Act it is a practice which is encouraged by the department and is in fact carried out. In this particular clause, which empowers the Secretary of State to revoke approval in respect of proposals made as a result of action under the 1976 Act, we are in a somewhat different situation because the fact is that the proposals were made under the Act: that is to say, the local authority was obliged to make the proposals; they were not proposals that they chose to make. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the proposals necessarily reflected the true wishes of the authority or the governors. It may be that, nevertheless, they had to make them in order to comply with the Act.
It is true that the authorities, governors and managers concerned would have consulted on the basis of different types of reorganisation, and we cannot say for certain that these were the ones that they would have wished for without the compulsion of the 1976 Act. It seems to us that the elected representatives in an authority are well informed of the varying views of their constituents. Whatever may or may not be true about Bolton, we cannot possibly project now what will be the outcome of the elections next year. They are a case in point where the local authority are entitled to consider the views of the elected representatives and what it is that they believe that people wish to have done. They are thus well-equipped to take a decision whether or not to proceed to implement the approved proposals. Several authorities will undoubtedly decide to continue with their reorganisation proposals; and they will do so without further consultation. Others will apply for the approval to be revoked; and they may do this without further consultation. We believe that that should be a matter for their own judgment. In those circumstances, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am not satisfied with what
1516
the noble Baroness has said. The problem that we are up against is that of reintroducing something which, on this side of the Committee, we believe to be, in itself, a very bad thing indeed; and we know that in every community there is a large number of people, not necessarily a majority, who agree with us. We believe that before the action made possible by this Bill takes place, there should be, within the Bill, a definite requirement for the widest possible consultation as stated in this amendment. I do not think that there is anything more to be said about this. One either thinks that before an action of this kind is taken there should be democratic discussion and consultation or one does not. We do and I hope that my noble friend will press this amendment.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I should like to support this amendment. I follow, on the whole, the arguments which have been made by the Opposition Front Bench, but there are two extra points that I should like to make. One is that I do not think that the statement which the noble Baroness has made about the total satisfactoriness of the representation by the local government representatives of the opinion of the people of an area stands up entirely. We all know that people are elected to local government councils for all sorts of reasons. What they are usually elected upon is an across-the-board profile of whether or not they like a particular party at a particular time. There are occasions when particular interests and particular subjects affect elections. In the history of the battle over comprehensive schools, it has more than once happened that a case has been won by the election of people to local councils against the grain of the general feeling in the country about elections according to party allegiances. Nevertheless, on the whole it is not true to say that the election of a Conservative or Labour majority or even of a Liberal majority to some local council will reflect necessarily the people's views on whether there should be a particular kind of educational system in that area. I think, therefore, that there is a very good reason to have a great deal of consultation.
I would pick out as my second point for praise particularly that bit in this amendment which includes consultation with parents whose children are now at primary

1517
schools in the area. A long time ago, I commissioned an opinion poll on comprehensive schools. It was in the middle of a general election, too long ago almost to remember. One of the most interesting things that came out of that was the very much higher percentage of opinion in favour of comprehensives by parents who had children already in primary schools or even younger, over the rest of the population. There is nothing which concentrates a man's or woman's ideas so much as the fact that their child is shortly to be executed. I think that the inclusion of these particular consultations would be worth it in themselves, apart from the fact that the whole principle seems to be a right one.
Viscount SIMON: From these Benches, we support this amendment. It may be true, as the noble Baroness has said, that when these proposals were put forward they were put forward because there was compulsion in the 1947 Act. But once the proposals had been put forward everybody was looking ahead to their being implemented. It seems to me that even if there were people who at that time might have preferred the proposals not to go forward there may be at this time those who are anxious to see them go forward. I feel that it is desirable that there should be consultation before the elected council makes its decision to ensure, and so to inform the Secretary of State, that there has been consultation and what the response to that consultation has been. I hope that the noble Baroness will perhaps be prepared to think again on this very important amendment.
4.6 p.m.
Lord HUNT: I should like to follow closely the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, in his case for supporting this amendment. The noble Baroness, in explaining why she would not be able to accept it, made the point that was made by the noble Lord: that the parents, the teachers and the members of the local community were not consulted about the plans put forward—if you like, under duress—as required by the then-Secretary of State for Education. That may be so; it may not be so. It may be right, or it may be wrong. I am clear however that two wrongs do not make a right and, in this case, it is most important—in fact, quite fundamental—that there
1518
should be fresh consultation to make certain that those closely concerned (the parents, teachers and, I think, the wider community) should be sounded on their views as to whether revocation should take place.
Viscount ECCLES: I have great sympathy with consultation. Of course, there should be consultation; but the problem is this: Do you put it in a Bill? What is consultation with children? You have a legal obligation to consult children in primary schools as to whether they want their school to be one way or the other—
Several noble Lords: No!
Viscount ECCLES: Parents and children! It is in the amendment.
Several noble Lords: No!
Viscount ECCLES: It is " parents of children ". I take that back. I do not read so well. But even if it is parents then these things are done in all good authorities, and I wonder whether we want to have a national obligation to have this consultation. In my village school there was consultation with parents: they were over-ruled and the school was closed. We had wonderful consultations and it is going that way in the country. Do we really want to put it in a statute?
Several noble Lords: Yes!
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: Would my noble friend not agree that all these schools have boards of managers or governors all of whom are bound to be consulted on the future of their schools? All of those bodies include a very substantial number of parents who are chosen because they are highly responsible and well-known local parents with an interest in their children's education. It is not suggested that the comprehensive education be wiped out. It is highly unlikely that any of these areas will lose comprehensive education entirely, even if they decide that they wish to have grammar schools. The choice of parents to send their child to a comprehensive school will still remain.
Lord SIMON: May I be allowed to comment on something that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has said? We all

1519
of us listen to him on this subject with great attention. It does not seem to me that this amendment, in the way that he expressed it, requires the local authority to make these inquiries. It says merely that they must report to the Secretary of State what inquiries they have made. If they report to the Secretary of State that they have made only minimal inquiries, he will take that into account in reaching his decision.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: If I may dot an occasional " i ", the truth is that the party opposite has two minds over this Bill and over the whole question. As we heard in speeches on Second Reading, a number of Tory supporters are almost as keen on comprehensive education as we are, and a certain number are very bitterly against it. We are not satisfied to leave this to the goodwill of a Government which may develop in what we consider the wrong direction; we want it down in black and white and we must insist on it.
Baroness YOUNG: There are two different situations. Under the proposals which are made for reorganisation under Section 13 of the 1944 Act, there must be consultation, because the authority is required to publish notices and the Secretary of State receives objections. Therefore there would clearly be consultation with the teachers and the parents. Under this Bill, if an authority were obliged to go through the consultative process—not under the proposals under Section 13, because of course it was not doing the reorganisation because it wanted to, but because it had been obliged to—the consultations could only be on the basis of saying: " You have various forms of comprehensive reorganisation, you must take it or leave it ". Many people under these circumstances objected very strongly to it. Others did not; but some did. What we are saying under this Bill is that if an authority decides now that it does not wish to go forward with the proposals which it had already indicated it did not want, and it consulted on that
basis and it had objections, there is no need for it to go through the consultative process again.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked: " How can we trust the local authorities? Are they really representative? " It may well be that local authorities are not perfect, but then representative democracy is the best system of government that we have. We have representative democracy in local government and it seems to me that it would be quite right for the local education authorities to decide, if they had been obliged to do something under duress, to revoke under this clause of this Bill. It is for that reason—because we feel that the situation is different from what it had been before the 1976 Act—that I cannot ask the Committee to accept this amendment.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: With respect, I did not say that we could not trust the local government system, nor is there anything in this Amendment which in any way detracts from representative government—I am a total believer in and supporter of representative government. What I tried to say—and what I believe—is that, in dealing with any particular single subject in the case of a body which is elected representatively on issues across a much wider field, it is a very good thing to add to the representative nature of the democracy by special consultations in that particular field to find out what people want and take specific advice in connection with that particular point, as opposed to the whole spectrum of what kind of complexion of government a particular council wants. That seems a thoroughly different matter and in the spirit of this amendment.
4.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 107.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Aylestone, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Aldenham, L.

Bacon, B.

Bowden, L.

Amherst, E.

Balogh, L.

Brockway, L.

Amulree, L.

Banks, L.

Burton o] Coventry, B.

Ardwick, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Byers, L.

Avebury, L.

Blease, L.

Chitnis, L.

Clancarty, E.

Hunt, L.

Rochester, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Segal, L.

Crook, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Shannon, E.

David, B.

Leonard, L.

Shinwell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Listowel, E.

Simon, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Sligo, M.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Snow, L.

Dowding, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stone, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

McCarthy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

McNair, L.

Strauss, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Melchett, L.

Swaythling, L.

Gardiner, L.

Mishcon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Underhill, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Oram, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gregson, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Grey, E.

Parry, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Hale, L.

Peart, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hampton, L.

Plant, L.

Wigg, L.

Hanworth, V.

Porritt, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Henderson, L.

Reilly, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Richardson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Exeter, M.

Milverton, L.

Adeane, L.

Faithfull, B.

Monck, V.

Ailesbury, M.

Fortescue, E.

Morris, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Alport, L.

Gainford, L.

Newall, L.

Amory, V.

Galloway, E.

Northchurch, B.

Ampthill, L.

Glasgow, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Auckland, L.

Gowrie, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Barnby, L.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Reay, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Rochdale, V.

Bessborough, E.

Romney, E.

Bourne, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Saint Albans, Bp.

Carrington, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cathcart, E.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Chelwood, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Salisbury, M.

Clitheroe, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Sandford, L.

Cockfield, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

Inglewood, L.

Selkirk, E.

Croft, L.

Ironside, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cross, V.

James of Rusholme, L.

Sharples, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kemsley, V.

Shuttleworth, L.

de Clifford, L.

Kimberley, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

De Freyne, L.

Long, V.

Soames, L. (Lord President)

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Spens, L.

Derwent, L.

Lovat, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Digby, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathspey, L.

Donegall, M.

Lyell, L.

Swinton, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Trenchard, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vickers, B.

Eccles, V.

Mancroft, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Effingham, E.

Mansfield, E.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Margadale, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Marley, L.

Westbury, L.

Elton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Merrivale, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
House resumed.

NEB: GOVERNMENT POLICY
4.23 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, I am now able to make a Statement about the Govern-

1523
ment's policy towards the National Enterprise Board.
" Over the last few weeks I have carefully reviewed the full range of the NEB's activities. My colleagues and I have had several discussions with the chairman and the NEB board. I have, too, met the board's regional directors when I visited Liverpool and Newcastle. I pay tribute—as I have before—to the sense of public service and the energy of all concerned with the NEB.
" But the House knows that we opposed the Industry Acts of 1975 and 1979, and in our Manifesto we promised to reduce the NEB's powers. We favour the encouragement of private initiative and enterprise, not the promotion of public ownership.
" But it will take time to restore the full vitality of the private sector. In the meantime, the NEB will have a continuing role for those companies which have been in difficulties and for which it now has a responsibility, so long as the business concerned has a prospect of viability and no solution based on the private sector is available. If other cases arise where the private sector is unable to provide a solution to a company's difficulties, receivership will normally be the right course. In a wholly exceptional case, circumstances could arise in which the NEB might—but only on the Government's initiative—provide temporary and tapering support, with the aim of restoring the company to commercial health as quickly as possible.
Given that the NEB has this role, I have looked at whether there is any other activity it could undertake, consistent with our policies. I see no public benefit in enabling the NEB to act as a general merchant bank; and its powers to promote businesses, or buy shares in them, will be restricted within very clearly defined limits. Our policy (as the Manifesto envisaged) is that the greater part of the NEB portfolio should be sold as circumstances permit, having regard to the interests of the taxpayer and the companies. I look to the NEB to make disposals to the value of £100 million in the current
1524
financial year, as foreshadowed in my right honourable friend's Budget statement. However, I do not think it is in the public interest, nor in the interest of the companies concerned, to identify them now or specify the timing of their disposal by the NEB. I shall also be requiring the NEB to make a substantial reduction in its expenditure in the current year and in the following years.
" I exclude, however, the investments which the NEB has made in a dozen or so newly established high technology companies, chiefly concerned with computer software, micro-electronics and their applications and which I believe justify special attention. The market has been discouraged in recent years from supporting such ventures. Time will anyway be needed for these companies to evolve before the NEB can sell them.
" In the light of this, it seems sensible to use the NEB as one means of familiarising the market with new technologies. For my part, I see this role as being necessary only until the market is clearly strengthened and I would not wish to put a term to the role now. The budget for it will he limited—but clearly defined. The objective will be to secure in each case the maximum amount of private investment, with a view to full private ownership in each case as soon as practicable. The NEB will be able to re-invest some of their receipts from disposals of these companies in new high technology ventures, but only in partnership with private capital. A market that has met the huge risks of North Sea exploration should find no insuperable difficulty here.
" The Government are also much concerned with the problems of the areas of high unemployment. An element of that regional policy is that the NEB should continue to exercise an industrial investment role in the North and North-West and with small firms, seeking always to maximise private investment and with the objective of transfer of full ownership to the private sector as soon as possible. The NEB's regional role will be very similar to the industrial investment activities of the

1525
Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Development Agencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.
" We will introduce a Bill as soon as possible to give effect to these policies. We will sharply reduce the financial limits laid down by the 1979 Industry Act and amend the powers of the NEB set out in the 1975 Act, in accordance with the policies I have just announced. New guidelines will follow, which will set clear objectives for the NEB to achieve. Within that framework the NEB will have my full sup-port".
4.30 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement in his capacity as a Minister at the Department of Industry. But I hope he will forgive me for saying that it does not seem to us on this side of the House that the Statement is based on any industrial considerations whatsoever; nor, clearly, is it based on any desire to see both parts of our mixed economy, public and private, successful. Indeed, it seems to be based on the politics of envy. As soon as any part of the public sector appears to be being successful, it will be flogged off to the private sector, to private interests, normally at the maximum dis-benefit to the public. It is clear that that is what the bulk of the Statement is aimed to achieve. The public will take the risk and private interests will get the benefit.
That part of the Statement may not come as any great surprise, but I must confess that the vagueness of the Statement, talking in terms of such things as a substantial reduction in expenditure and with absolutely no indication given of any financial duties which the NEB will have to follow in future, comes as a surprise after the very long and careful consideration which the noble Viscount says has been given to the future role of the NEB. I hope that the noble Viscount might be able to tell the House a little more than the Statement does, about exactly what the NEB's finances and financial duties are to be in the future.
The Statement has some fine-sounding things to say about the NEB's regional role—a role of which I am sure the noble
1526
Viscount, with his own responsibilities, is particularly conscious—which will be all the more important after the Government's catastrophic cuts in regional aid which the noble Viscount announced earlier this week. So could he tell the House how the NEB is expected to fill the regional role which the noble Viscount has said the Government see for it, if its budget is to be cut in the way which the Statement says it will be? Indeed, the Government's regional industrial policy seems to depend entirely on making the maximum number of cuts in the expenditure in the regions which are already suffering from the highest unemployment.
The Statement also touches on the fundamental question of investing in the future. The NEB has a vital role in investing in micro-electronics, where the private sector has conspicuously failed to act, and I am glad to see that the Statement recognises that fact. I am delighted that the NEB will continue its activities in this field, which appears to have the support of noble Lords on all sides of the House. But could the noble Viscount tell us a little more than the Statement does about the future of the micro-electronics application programme—the industry support scheme—and, in particular, about the future of INMOS, which the Statement does not mention at all? Even more important, could the noble Viscount tell us how much money the NEB will have to continue this vital work, which now seems to be accepted as vital on both sides of the House, and which the Government have clearly accepted will not be done by the private sector?
It may seem strange, having done so much to destroy its effectiveness, that the Government should pay tribute to the public service energy of those involved in the NEB, and that the Statement ends by saying that the NEB will have the Government's full support. Of course, we on this side of the House fully support those sentiments and to the extent that the Government actually translate those sentiments into action—and this Statement is doing the reverse—they will have our full support.
4.33 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, I should like from these Benches to join in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for having repeated this State-

1527
ment. As with other aspects of industrial policy, our main desire in considering the future of the National Enterprise Board is that it should be able to continue to do its work so that its operations are maintained on as stable, and as broadly agreed, a basis as possible, irrespective of the political complexion of the Government of the day. Clearly, we shall need to study this detailed Statement with great care, but in fairness to the present Government, I think I should say that my own first reaction to it is that its proposals are a good deal less drastic than the gracious Speech had led me, at least, to suppose they might be, and to that extent I should, on behalf of my noble friends, give it a limited welcome. Indeed, at this stage I think the best thing I can do is to ask only one question of a fairly general kind. Are the Government really satisfied that in redefining the role of the National Enterprise Board in the ways proposed in this Statement, they are leaving room for the board to exercise sufficient initiative to enable it to continue as a viable body?
4.35 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, if I may, I will just reply to some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has raised, as best I can at this stage, which is only to a limited extent, and then deal particularly with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has just raised. I do not think that mentions of the politics of envy really have any place—and I am prepared to say in either direction—in this case. We hold a sincere view, which we published quite clearly in the Manifesto, that industry will be most efficiently run with the least bill on the taxpayer and the maximum creation of wealth for the nation as a whole, by maximising private enterprise. We stick to that and we believe it to be in the interests of the whole nation. On the financial duties the Bill, which my right honourable friend's Statement mentioned, will of course spell those out. The commercial discipline on the board will of course remain. Other than that and the mentions of the short-term financial questions which I have repeated in the Statement, I cannot today add.
So far as the regional role is concerned, this has never been a major user of finance. I cannot give details at this stage, which
1528
will be worked out in the policy of the board within this general Government policy, of how much will be allowed to the regional role. But it is not an expensive part of the board's function. So far as our preoccupation with regional cuts is concerned, we have already discussed that at some length in relation to regional policy and will do so again. I would merely just repeat once more, that we see our national policy, and within it a cost effective regional policy, as being more likely to produce real growth and growth in the regions than the previous policy which has not been successful.
So far as electronics are concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, drew our attention to the fact that on all sides of the House we regard this new technology as being highly important. I repeat the sentiment of my right honourable friend's Statement, which is that a very discouraged market, a very non-profitable market, has found it not possible to develop these new technologies as fast as one would have wished. We believe that this is a temporary situation and that a revitalised market will increasingly do so. There are already many signs of the private sector developing this area, and we believe that as the general climate is improved so the private sector will increase its own developments. The question of INMOS is the subject of a separate study on which I have nothing to say today. The noble Lord questioned, as apparently odd, the sentiment of my right honourable friend about the dedication of the members of the National Enterprise Board and the staff. I do not think that my party, or any of my noble friends or right honourable friends in the other place have said anything which questions the dedication of the people who are working in this role. That is no part of our philosophy.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked me whether I felt that there was room within this policy for a viable National Enterprise Board. All I can say at this stage is that, in addition to a number of other meetings, my right honourable friend has had two major meetings with the board in the last 10 days. I shall not pretend that everybody has agreed about every subject. However, we believe that once the remit is clearly set in relation to the three main roles which I have outlined, it is a viable proposition for the board.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, does not the Minister realise that he is living in a dream world? Instead of looking at our figures, he dreams up confidence which manifests itself in a large fall in investment decisions. The last forecast was worse that the one before—and that was worse that the one before that. Does not the noble Viscount realise that the social and private costs of a depression are enormous and that it is the duty of the public sector to help and sustain the private sector, which it is obviously not going to do? Finally, does the Minister realise that de-industrialisation—the demolition of British productive power—is increasing apace, that our import bill is intolerable and that our export performance is ludicrous? I should like to know why one cannot pursue a unified policy for the good of the country.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, neither I nor anybody else will be surprised that the Government disagree with the noble Lord. Lord Balogh, although we agree with him that industrial decline has been accelerating and that it is still accelerating. That is why we have spelled out in every economic debate since we took office—which was only a short time ago—that real change is necessary, that the policies of the past have failed and that the decline has accelerated. That is also why we have introduced totally new conditions which are not only known and proved to have been conducive to the growth of industry in many other countries but which will again be proved to be conducive to real growth in this country. That is why, furthermore, the policies which we are introducing—which will result in gradual change, not in change " at a stroke " or in an abrupt way—will be more successful than those which have been practised until recently, with such obvious failure.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the Statement which he has made will be very warmly welcomed on this side of the House—first, because it is going exactly in the direction that the people of this country voted that it should go, and, secondly, because it is not, as has always been suggested by the other side, making sudden and savage inroads into the existing situation but is going forward moderately and with determination towards the goal?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, does not the noble Viscount agree that several large and vital firms in the private sector would have gone bankrupt but for the saving grace of the board? Does not the noble Viscount also agree that it appears from the Statement that if the private sector cannot keep these firms in being the Government would prefer them to go bankrupt rather than that the NEB should save them? There is also specific mention in the Statement of £100 million which must be raised. Will the sales bear any relationship to the real value of those firms rather than to the mere raising of £100 million? Finally, would the noble Viscount take it from me that, far from this being welcomed in any industrial part of the country, it sounds far and away more like a piece of vandalism?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I do not wish to repeat what I have already said. Certainly we acknowledge that, outside the House, the current role of the NEB has been described as a hospital role. I should he repeating myself if I went back over the economic conditions which may have produced a rather large number of hospital cases. But we shall continue the hospital role. We shall seek to minimise that role and we hope and believe that the general economic conditions will lead to less patients or, as my right honourable friend has said, to the very occasional patient.
When one turns to a subject which may not be an easy or a popular one to discuss—whether the saving of a company is always the best thing for the employees in that company, for the country and for the regeneration of growth—I should like to say to the noble Lord that the evidence of those who have had most experience in that area is, as my right honourable friend's Statement has said, that the normal and better course is to allow the bankruptcy to take place and to allow regrowth on that basis. There are plenty of examples, known both to the Government and to my department, of successful regeneration having taken place after receivership.
Turning to the question of raising £100 million in this financial year, I do not

1531
believe, bearing in mind the size of the portfolio, that this will require any sales at knock-down prices. I do, however, believe that such is the economic situation of this country and such is the need, as was spelled out in the Budget, to raise the necessary money to change these conditions, that this amount is a fair contribution to the general needs of the economic situation.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if the noble Viscount is unable to say what the substantial reduction in the NEB's expenditure will be—as apparently he is—would he agree with me that it is, to say the least, extremely irresponsible for the Government to come to Parliament and make statements about substantial reductions in expenditure when apparently they have not even begun to work out what kind of reductions, and what scale of reductions, they are speaking of?
If I may ask the noble Viscount one further question, he drew an analogy between the NEB's role in the future and the hospital services. This seemed to me to be a singularly inappropriate analogy. The noble Viscount suggests that the patient, having been taken to hospital and become well enough to leave, is flogged to private interests as soon as he walks out of the hospital door, those private interests having made no contribution to making him well, and that he is flogged off in such a way as to make sure that the hospital and the public generally get the least possible benefit from the sale.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I do not believe it is irresponsible for us to come to Parliament at this stage, and it is certainly not irresponsible not to disclose now the kind of figures that we believe this reduced role of the NEB will require. It is not correct to suggest that the Government have not even begun to work out these reductions. We are going to work closely with the NEB, which the noble Lord is always advocating that we should do, over the details leading up to the preparation of the Bill, and for us to announce figures before that had been done and before matters had been agreed with the board of the NEB would indeed be irresponsible.
With regard to patients being flogged, for one awful moment I was getting the
1532
wrong end of the stick as regards what the noble Lord said. All we are saying is that they should not be kept in hospital but should be allowed the fresh air of the outside world.

FINANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

EDUCATION BILL
House again in Committee.
4.53 p.m.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Derwent): In calling Amendment No. 5 I must point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(" (4) Where any proposals to which this subsection applies have not been so approved but public notice of them has been given under subsection (3) of section 13, the proposals shall continue to be treated as if they had been submitted to the Secretary of State under subsection (1) or (2) of that section unless the local education authority or managers or governors of voluntary schools concerned elect to the contrary; but no such election shall have effect unless it is made in writing to the Secretary of State before 31st December 1979 ".)
The noble Baroness said: The aim of this amendment is to save those authorities which have put in proposals and have had them approved and which still want to proceed, from having to go to all the trouble of going to the secondary or schools sub-committee, to the education committee, to the council just to say: " Yes, we do want to go ahead ", when it can be assumed with certainty that they do. It seems wrong to demand this of them when they have complied with the law. The amendment does not stop those authorities which wish to revoke, from applying to do so. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: The effect of the amendment is of course to reverse what is said in the particular subsection in the

1533
Bill: that under this amendment proposals of which public notice had been given but on which the Secretary of State had not yet made a decision should continue to be treated as though they had been submitted to him voluntarily under the 1944 Act unless the relevant bodies notified him by the 31st December 1979 that they wish them to be withdrawn. This is in fact the opposite course of action from that which is proposed in the Bill as at present drafted, under which the proposals would be considered to have been withdrawn unless the Secretary of State is notified to the contrary by the 31st December 1979.
I should like to assure the noble Baroness, Lady David, that if the local authority wish to go ahead with the proposals as submitted they only need to notify the Secretary of State that they wish to do so and if he approves they will go ahead and implement them. If in fact this amendment was carried it would create more uncertainty because it would have the effect of prolonging the uncertainty for schools and for parents and for pupils—something which I am sure no one in your Lordships' House would wish to see, because of course uncertainty in these circumstances is undesirable. So we have deliberately drafted the Bill in this way for those authorities that wish to go ahead. They can say that they would like to go ahead and there is therefore nothing to prevent them from doing so, which is what I believe the noble Baroness would wish and that is what the Bill says. We believe this is the way which would create the least uncertainty in the educational system, and it is for that reason that I cannot accept this amendment.
Baroness DAVID: I am not altogether satisfied with the Minister's reply, but since the date has been changed in another place from the 1st October to the 31st December I do not feel so strongly as I did about this and I will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.56 p.m.
Baroness DAVID: I do not want to repeat my Second Reading speech, which I am sure everyone here will have read, but I want to stress that on this side of the Committee we are totally opposed to this Bill for the uncertainty that it will cause, for the harm that it will do to the education of many children up and down the country, for the hostility that it will give rise to in the teaching profession and for the divisions in society that it will perpetuate. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke movingly and with authority on this at Second Reading, in regard to the total irrelevance of the Bill to the needs of education and of the country in the 'eighties and 'nineties.
On Tuesday last, four speakers on the Conservative side of the House, including the Minister, spoke in favour of the Bill and yet they all said that they were not against comprehensive education. There was opposition to the Bill from the Labour Benches, the Liberal Benches and the Cross-Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, with all his long experience in education, spoke against it. There is not a mandate in the country for it, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said at Second Reading. If we add up all the Labour and Liberal voters on one side at the general election and the Conservatives on the other side there is certainly no mandate, and I hope that noble Lords opposite have noticed in the Daily Telegraph this morning the latest Gallup poll figures showing a 5 per cent. Labour lead over the Conservatives compared with 1½ per cent. last month. Even more interesting, when people were asked whether they approved or disapproved of the Government's handling of 14 policy areas the result in the case of education was: approved 37, disapproved 46, don't know 17.
We must stop this political ping-pong with secondary education, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said at Second Reading. People are genuinely worried about this Government's reactionary education policies—if they can he called policies. We shall oppose the clause.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am in full agreement with my noble friend. I think we had eight Labour, two Cross-Bench and one Liberal

1535
speech against this Bill, and it would be a waste of everybody's time to go through it again; but I must just repeat the main objection, which is that by reintroducing selection at 11 the Government are making it more—not less—difficult for 80 per cent. of the children in this country to get the best education possible. We simply cannot vote for this in any way.
We exercised the restraint which we have learned to exercise in this House in regard to not opposing a Second Reading. If we oppose a Second Reading from the democratically elected body in the other place we kill the Bill and invoke the Parliament Act. What we are doing today is to attempt to reject a clause in the Bill. I have to admit that the Bill would be very different without this clause because there would be very little left, but the fact remains that the Bill could go back to the other place and the clause could be put in again. So the situation is rather different and I think it is constitutionally acceptable. I and my noble friends are quite determined that we will not go down in history as having accepted this clause.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: Before the noble Lord sits down, both he and the noble Baroness, Lady David, have spoken against this clause. The noble Baroness remarked that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, from the Cross-Benches had been firmly opposed to this Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, also referred to two independent Members. Anyone who heard the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, speak could not have missed how adamant he was that we should provide the proper education to stretch the top 3 per cent. as we are prepared to provide for the handicapped at the bottom 3 per cent., and he made a most effective speech on that point.
5 p.m.
Baroness BACON: Like my noble friend, I do not want to repeat my speech on Second Reading, but I fully agree that we should oppose this clause. When I spoke earlier in the debate I had not heard some speeches from noble Lords opposite. What my noble friend Lord Donaldson said on another amendment is quite true; there are two points of view on the opposite side of the Committee. There is the view of some noble Lords, like the
1536
noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who fully agree with comprehensive education while still agreeing with this Bill. But then we heard the winding-up speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and we heard the speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. The noble Baroness is the present Minister of State in the Department of Education and Science and the noble Viscount is an ex-Secretary of State for Education and Science. It was very clear from their speeches that it was not just a matter of whether or not local authorities should be able to decide for themselves; they really did not believe in the principle of comprehensive education. This is a small Bill which is worded peculiarly—I do not blame the Government for that; we all know the difficulty of producing these Bills—but nevertheless this is the only opportunity we will have to vote on a principle which we hold dear.
Lord HUNT: I am intervening very briefly on a point that some of your Lordships may feel is an irrelevant point. The noble Baroness, Lady David, speaking just now, said hopefully that she was sure that everyone had read the debate that took place last Tuesday, 17th July, on Second Reading of this Bill. I am quite certain that very few, if any, of your Lordships have read that debate. Some of you were here to listen to the debate and may remember much that was said. I listened to it all, because I was speaking. But the non-appearance of Hansard makes it quite impossible, except for those who made a rush to the Library, to have access to the report of that debate. I think it is a most distreesing and serious thing that we are discussing the Committee stage of an extremely important, and, in my view, destructive and retrogressive measure without having had the benefit of looking at the debate that took place on Tuesday and considering this Bill on its merits, rather than simply going into the Lobbies on Party political lines, I am speaking from these Cross-Benches in saying that.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: In order to help the noble Lord, may I say that the Hansard for the debate in this House is available for everybody. The debate in the other place is more difficult.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: May I say this in reply to the noble Baroness opposite who spoke about what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, had said from the Cross-Benches. Lord Alexander made it quite clear that he was against this Bill, and there is no one in this House with more experience than Lord Alexander.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: I am intervening very briefly, if I may. I am in no danger of repeating my Second Reading speech because I did not have the chance to make one. I did not know that the Second Reading was taking place until too late to catch the train; otherwise I would have made a speech. Nor have I had a chance to read it because in fact it is not available.
A noble Lord: It is here.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: I know, but it does not get to Wensleydale. I know pretty well what Lord Alexander said and had I made a Second Reading speech I would have said something similar, something I have said in your Lordships' House ad nauseam; that is, that many of us believe that in certain contexts the comprehensive school is the right one, but we also believe that it is essential to have a system of education that gives an opportunity to the very ablest child that a universal comprehensive does not do. That is because—and I have explained this in words of one syllable—there are not enough teachers of advanced subjects to go round. We are coming up against the problem that some of us forecast 25 years ago; that is, that rare subjects are having to be dropped from the curriculum. We are faced then not with doctrinaire opposition between two things, but with the provision of sufficient variety in our educational system to enable us to do justice to that small percentage that Lord Alexander has championed over the years. That is why I should have said something very similar to Lord Alexander. Let us at all costs keep a certain variety.
What has astonished me throughout these debates over the years is the lack of faith the defenders of the comprehensive school have in comprehensive schools. They dare not let them co-exist with the grammar schools. If they are as good as all that, and if they believe in parental
1538
choice and parental consultation, then let them go side by side until the day of judgment. Anyway, that is the sort of thing I would have said; that is the sort of thing I believe in. If we are counting heads, and as it was implied that practically no one spoke in favour of this Bill from the Cross-Benches, well, here is one more voice from the Cross-Benches.
Lord PEART: Could I just say to the noble Lord that if he reads the examination results and admissions to Oxford only this week he will see there that the comprehensive schools have really done magnificently in scholarships. It is absurd to say that you cannot have in a comprehensive school an education suitable to the needs of the brilliant child—that is an absurd position. I admire the noble Lord very much, but I always used to regard him as " Lord Tripartite "; he has always been a great defender of the three sectors, and so he has made it plain again today. This Bill is a bad Bill.
Baroness GAITSKELL: With regard to what the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches has said, has he seen what the National Association of Head Teachers have said about this Bill? Has he read what the General Secretary, Mr. David Hart, has said and done about the Bill? Not only has he said that the Bill will put education back I do not know how many years, but he has also sent letters to the parents telling them what the expenditure cuts will do.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: With respect, this has nothing to do with the expenditure cuts. As an ex-member of the National Association of Head Teachers my withers are still unwrung as regards anything it might say about this Bill. As regards expenditure cuts, those we are not discussing.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: With regard to entry to universities, I was under the impression that you can get into some universities if, you come from a comprehensive or secondary modern, with one less A-level. I do not think noble Lords are being at all logical in this argument, because if you give special tuition for handicapped children, then surely you should also give special tuition for the most brilliant 3 per

1539
cent., because the wealth of this country depends on the best education that the most gifted children can get.
Viscount SIMON: When the noble Baroness asks us to vote against this clause she asks us to vote against the whole Bill except the Title and the fact that it does not apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland. When she does that, she must blame herself if we seem to be having another Second Reading debate. From these Benches, while we oppose the Bill, as I said at Second Reading, we do not think it is in accordance with general practice in this House to reject a clause which would completely eliminate the Bill which has been passed by the elected House. That was the advice that we were constantly given by the Labour Government when they were in power. They said that we should not reject something which had been passed by the other House. We should amend, but not reject. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said, " I am only amending the Bill ". However, let us see what is left: Clause 2 says:
"(1) This Act may be cited as the Education Act 1979 ".
It goes on to say:

" (3) This Act shall be construed as one with the Education Act 1944.

"(4) This Act does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland ".

We cannot send a Bill back to the House of Commons like that.
Noble Lords: Oh, yes we can.
Viscount SIMON: Noble Lords on my left think we can do so. I think that we cannot and I shall advise my noble friends to abstain. We shall not vote for the Clause as we do not like it.
Lord ARDWICK: I should like to ask the noble Viscount to think again about what he has just said. I had the same qualms. However, I looked into the situation because there are many people in the Labour movement and in the educational world who fail to understand why we, on this side of the House, did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading. As those of your Lordships who heard the speeches made on that occasion will appreciate, we took that course not because we did not feel strongly opposed to the Bill but; as my noble
1540
friend has said this afternoon, we could not register our strong feelings as it is the worthy custom of the parties in this House to abstain from voting on Second Reading in order not to frustrate the will of the elected Members of Parliament. If this House were by a majority to reject the Bill that had passed through the Commons, that Bill would be sunk and the Commons could do nothing more about it for the rest of the Session. So we confine our voting to the Committee stage. We may amend; and the other place may, in time, accept or reject our amendments. However, we are faced with a dilemma when we come to a Bill, as we do today, which consists of one clause which cannot be amended without being wrecked.
What is the difference between the total destruction on Second Reading of a Bill approved by the elected House and its wrecking at the Committee stage? I was anxious about that matter and I took advice. I am assured that there is a vital difference. Although the content of the Bill could be removed by a majority of the House opposing the clause stand part Motion, the Bill would nevertheless remain in being. It would not be sunk: it would simply be on the rocks and the other place could immediately, without any lapse of time, refloat it and redirect it in our direction. So, for that reason, I shall oppose the Motion and I hope that noble Lords on the Liberal Benches will consider the point which I have raised.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: I agree with my noble friend and I should like briefly to point out to the noble Lords who sit on the Liberal Benches the peculiar constitutional doctrine which they have now invented for themselves. If their doctrine were right, and one could not vote in this House against a Second Reading, against the will of the elected other place, and one could not vote against a clause—be it the important clause of a Bill—because that is the will of the elected other place, then it would always be possible for the Government to have their way in this House by bringing forward one clause Bills. That would be a most peculiar state of affairs. My noble friends have said that this is the only way in which properly and constitutionally we can vote and express our revulsion and horror at this attack upon comprehensive education.

1541
When noble Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, talk about the wealth of this nation being contained in its education, they should bear in mind that most of us do not come from a particular part of the educational system. Most of us have had experience of seeing those people by our side, whose names were not read out when the successes in the 11-plus examination were announced, rejected by society. We wish to express—and to let the country know that we express—our horror, revulsion and total opposition to the Bill.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I think that I am right in saying that the noble Lord said that this Bill was an attack upon comprehensive education. It is not, as my noble friend Lady Young has said on many occasions. It is an attack on the continuing forced putting-into-practice of comprehensive education. That is why I am voting for the Bill. I am not voting for it because I believe, as the noble Lord has just said, that it is an attack upon comprehensive education per se. I firmly believe that it is not.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The noble Lord has expressed the difference between us so clearly that I think we should now vote.
Viscount ECCLES: I should like to say something about the constitutional position. I cannot say that I have been here more than 15 years or so, but to move to leave out the first clause of a Bill, which contains the principle of the Bill is what in the other place would be called a wrecking amendment. So far as I know, this House has not for some time moved wrecking Amendments.
Lord PEART: What about shipbuilding?
Viscount ECCLES: I am just asking whether noble Lords opposite can give us examples of amendments leaving out clause 1 which destroy the Bill, as they know it does in this instance. It is equivalent to saying that we entirely disagree with the other House. That may be so, but I think that it is very rare to do it.
Turning to the Bill itself, one would think from listening to the speeches made by noble Lords on the other side, that this
1542
was a Bill against the comprehensive principle. It is not. Any noble Lord who reads the Bill will realise that it is against compulsion of the comprehensive principle and that is something different. I would not vote for the Bill if it were a straight Bill against the comprehensive principle. Noble Lords opposite know very well that I have taken a considerable part in the introduction of comprehensive schools. I am against bad schools. I am not against comprehensive schools. In other words, I am against schools which do not afford the type of education which the children in those schools really ought to receive. If, at some stage, all comprehensive schools provide the best possible education for all children, then I should have thought that there would be no opponents to the comprehensive principle.
However, the question is: where are we now? Now, in 1979, we have a distribution of secondary schools which is not satisfactory. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, has said, we must move towards different methods of trying to give the maximum number of children the best possible teaching. It is no good saying that there are enough teachers to give the best possible teaching to all the children of this country. One only has to look at the Amendments that were moved as regards the 1976 Act when, for instance, it was stated with complete truth that in the primary schools only half the teachers had O-level mathematics.
One of the main reasons why it is so difficult to teach mathematics in a great many of the comprehensive schools is that there are not A-level mathematicians in the comprehensive schools. That is nothing to do with politics: it is a fact. It is a fact about which surely anyone who is interested in the best possible use of our teacher force is concerned. All that one wants is the best possible training of young people in sixth forms to A-level in the subjects in which there is now a shortage of teachers.
While the situation remains like it is, in my view it is totally wrong to say that we must have 100 per cent. comprehensives. We ought to say that where, in the opinion of the local people and in the opinion of parents as well, some variety in education will do better by their children, we should

1543
give them that opportunity. The Bill is not against comprehensive education, it is against compelling local authorities to establish comprehensive schools when they do not want to.
5.20 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I should like to say a few words on the constitutional issue. No one will pretend that it is a particularly earth-shaking case, and I entirely accept the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and other noble Lords, that there is a significant constitutional difference between rejecting the Second Reading of the Bill and a wrecking amendment which completely emasculates the Bill and sends it back to the Commons. Nevertheless, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. Although I have not been as long as he has in this House, I have been here some 11 years. I cannot think of a serious attempt having been made to return a Bill in this particular way. It is probably going outside the bounds of what we accept in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, made some passionate remarks on the constitutional issue. But the point remains that this House is a very imperfect House, as we all know—although that is not entirely through any fault of ours—and as the noble Lord's party and everyone on those Benches knows. Because it is an imperfect House, we deny ourselves a certain number of indulgences, even righteous indulgences. I, for one, believe that if, for instance, a Labour Government had tried to put forward a two-clause Bill such as this one and a Conservative Front Bench had argued against it in this kind of way and had tried to emasculate the Bill, the noise which would have been heard from the ex-Ministers who have spoken in favour of this Bill today would very easily have reached another place.
I ask noble Lords sitting on the Labour Front Bench—and I particularly ask the Opposition Chief Whip, if I might have her attention for a moment—and the Leader of the House, that if the time comes when they again hold power and if a situation such as this occurs, they would accept that a Tory Opposition would be justified in using this kind of emasculating process, with the majority that they have.
1544
Is it not true that the Labour Front Bench, in almost the nicest possible way, is indulging in a fit of self-indulgence because it knows that it does not have the majority to carry it through, and would be appalled if it found it had? I beg noble Lords to think again.
Lord PEART: As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, mentioned me specifically, I would point out that I am not now the Leader of the House. The simple fact is that we would not have introduced a Bill such as this. I see nothing wrong in making a protest. I do not accept that this is a breach of practices and procedures in the strict sense. If we can exercise our right to vote and show our opposition, that is legitimate for an Opposition. I never complained about the other side doing that when my party was in Government, so I think we are doing the right thing. After all, I remember the ship-repair legislation.
Lord ROBBINS: I do not propose to detain your Lordships with a discussion of these constitutional arcana, although my judgment is with the remarks made on these matters by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. But I should like to give a personal explanation as to why, if the Committee is divided, I shall vote with the Government on this matter.
I believe that the comprehensive idea was a good one. I have been on intimate terms of friendship with some of the originators of that idea. I have opened two successful—I believe them to be successful—comprehensive schools and I do not go all the way with noble Lords who have urged that the cultivation of excellence is impossible in schools of mixed ability. I am one of the few Members of this Committee—at any rate to my general way of thinking—who went to a secondary school. When I was a young man I attended a secondary school in the now notorious suburb of Southall. As I cast my memory back, the class with which I went up to the sixth form was one of considerable mixed ability. I do not think that the abler members of the class suffered very much in consequence of that circumstance.
No, the reason why I shall go into the Lobby with the Government is that at this stage of our history I believe in variety

1545
and—if I may express myself as passionately as a colleague of mine on the other side of the Committee expressed himself—because I am revolted by the doctrinaire spirit with which ancient institutions with valuable traditions have been steam-rollered into premature uniformity in this respect. Let the wheat and the tares grow together, and we can have another think about this in 10 years' time. Although my sympathy lies entirely with those who are trying to make the comprehensive schools a success—and I know that some of them are a very considerable success—believe that the Bill is thoroughly justified.
The Earl of SWINTON: As my name was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, I think that I might be allowed to speak. At this stage I was not going to speak, but the noble Baroness made a great point of the fact that I came out as pro-comprehensive, and yet I support the Bill. I support the Bill because, with all respect, when the noble Lord, Lord Peart, rises and says that his side would not produce a Bill such as this, I would point out that he did produce such a Bill. That is why I support this Bill. The previous Government introduced a Bill to compel local authorities to go comprehensive.
Several noble Lords: No.
The Earl of SWINTON: They introduced a Bill to make local authorities go comprehensive. This Bill simply repeals that action. I would get up in front of anyone and say that in an ideal world I should like a comprehensive system of education, but it is not right to say to every local authority that every school must be compelled to go comprehensive. Surely they can judge for themselves what is right for their area. That is why, as an ardent supporter of comprehensive education—and I see the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, nodding—I have no twinge of conscience whatever about supporting the Bill. It is absolutely right, and I am delighted to support the Government.
Much has been made about what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill said. I draw your Lordships' attention to column 1337 of Hansard of 17th July, where the noble Lord said:
1546
" My Lords, I am most grateful to you for bearing with me for so long. I would plead with the Government—not about this Bill; let it go through! It does not matter ".
I hardly think that those are the words of someone who is violently opposed to the Bill.
Baroness FAITHFULL: May I just make a comment on what children have said to me. I believe in the comprehensive principle, but in several areas that I know children have said to me, " We want comprehensive schools. Why couldn't they have been introduced properly but slowly?" Children in certain areas are suffering because comprehensive schools, under the 1976 Act, had to be introduced and they have not been introduced properly. Children, as a result, have suffered, and know that they have suffered.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: May I bring this Second Reading debate to an end. In my opinion it is quite wrong that we should have these very long speeches of a Second Reading kind at this stage. We all expressed ourselves very clearly two days ago. May I say again that what we object to is the danger that this Bill will reintroduce the 11-plus examination—selection by 11-plus—which we think is very bad indeed. That is why we are voting against it. None of us has any more to say.
5.31 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My noble friends Lord Eccles and Lord Swinton have indicated clearly that this Bill is not a Bill against comprehensive schools. We have been over this ground very firmly, and it would be quite wrong to have a further Second Reading debate on that, but I should like to make it clear from the Government Front Bench that we believe the Bill is one to restore freedom of choice to local authorities.
A great deal was made at Second Reading of a point with which I have great sympathy—that it would be better if on major matters of education we could have a consensus on what was the right thing to do. I would suggest that that consensus on education was broken by the 1976 Act, which compelled authorities to go comprehensive at a time when many authorities were going comprehensive

1547
voluntarily—and of course will still go comprehensive once this Bill becomes an Act and is on the statute book, because there is nothing to prevent that happening. We lost that consensus, and I think that this Bill will put it back. It is for that reason, because we are restoring the position to what it was and that had worked successfully for a number of years, that I ask the Committee not to accept that this clause should be taken out.
I should like to say in conclusion how much I agreed with the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I think it is setting a dangerous precedent to vote on this one-clause Bill to take out the major clause, which of course leaves almost nothing left. I cannot accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord
Wedderburn, that if this was wrong everybody would be putting in one-clause Bills. No Government would conduct itself in that particular way. I think that the House of Lords should think carefully on this matter. I hope very much that the noble Baroness, Lady David, will not press this amendment, but if she does I ask my noble friends not to vote with her but to support the Bill as it stands.
Baroness DAVID: It is not actually an amendment. We are talking about clause stand part. We shall oppose that.
5.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 120; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Moyne, L.

Aldenham, L.

Gainford, L.

Newall, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Glasgow, E.

Northampton, M.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Northchurch, B.

Amory, V.

Gowrie, E.

Nugent of Huildford, L.

Ampthill, L.

Greenway, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Auckland, L.

Gridley, L.

Pender, L.

Avon, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Penrhyn, L.

Barnby, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hanworth, V.

Reay, L.

Belstead, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Robbins, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hawke, L.

Roberthall, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Henley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Carrington, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Romney, E.

Cathcart, E.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Chelwood, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Davids, V.

Clitheroe, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Salisbury, M.

Cockfield, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sandford, L.

Colwyn, L.

Killearn, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller,]

Craigavon, V.

Kilmany, L.

Selkirk, E.

Croft, L.

Kimberley, E.

Sharples, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Shuttleworth, L.

Daventry, V.

Long, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

de Clifford, L.

Loudoun, C.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

De Freyne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Somers, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Luke, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Derwent, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Digby, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Donegall, M.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathspey, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swinton, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Eccles, V.

Mansfield, E.

Trenchard, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Margadale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Marley, L.

Vickers, B.

Elphinstone, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Elton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Milverton, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Energlyn, L.

Monck, V.

Westbury, L.

Exeter, M.

Morris, L.

Wolverton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Henderson, L.

Phillips, B.

Aylestone, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Bacon, B.

Janner, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Balogh, L.

Kaldor, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Blease, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brockway, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Leonard, L.

Stone, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Crook, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strauss, L.

David, B.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Underhill, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Melchett, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mishcon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Gardiner, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Whaddon, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hale, L.

Parry, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Peart, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 1 agreed to accordingly.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:—
Resources
. Those local education authorities to whom sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Education Act 1976 applied in whole or part prior to their repeal by this Act shall submit to the Secretary of State by 1st January 1980 proposals to ensure that, in future, allocation of resources to schools in their area does not discriminate against schools of one type, but ensures they can enjoy similar pupil teacher ratios and similar allowances for books, materials and resources.
The noble Baroness said: If this Bill is passed—and we can assume after the last Division that it will be—this will be an important new clause to have inserted. It aims to make sure that where there are grammar and secondary modern schools together, the secondary moderns have just as good resources as the grammar schools. Grammar Schools will inevitably have sixth forms, which means they will have a better pupil-teacher ratio and they will almost certainly have better libraries. I was always shocked by the inadequacy of the libraries in secondary modern schools, which often had to be housed in classrooms, too. We want there to be compensating factors in the secondary modern schools so that the children there are not materially at a disadvantage, and staffing, books and equipment are as good. Also, we want it to be obvious to parents and teachers that that is so.
Baroness YOUNG: If this amendment were accepted it would introduce a completely new element into the relationships between central and local government. Indeed, it would be an unprecedented interference by central government in the way in which local authorities allocate resources in their schools. Of course we all want to see that schools of all types get the best resources they can, but this is always left to the discretion of the local education authorities and I believe there is no reason at this stage for considering that we should in any way alter the balance of relationship between central and local government.
Furthermore, were the amendment to be carried, it would put a tremendous amount of further work and administration both on central and local government at a time when we all recognise that resources are scarce and that what resources there are should go into teaching and the fabric of the educational system. There are 104 local education authorities. They would all be submitting to the Secretary of State their proposals about the details of their allocations of resources and so on of one type or another throughout all their schools. That would involve the LEAs in a great deal of new work and of course it would also involve the Government in a lot of work in assimilating it.
Nor of course, having received the information, does the amendment in any way make clear what should happen to it. So far as I can see, the Secretary of State could read it and put it on one side, if he so chose, and do nothing more about it. But the important objection to it is not

1551
that. It is that it would completely change the important relationship between local and central government, it would be something without precedent, it is quite unnecessary to the principle of the Bill and for those reasons I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has given some reasons for questioning the exact form of the amendment, but surely what it is trying to do is absolutely fundamental in a situation as difficult as the one with which the Bill presents us. We shall have a case where a local authority has had, first of all, the gentlest but admittedly some compulsion to put in a scheme for reorganisation. That will then have been rescinded by this Bill, and one can imagine the kind of passions, irritations and excitements which will go on in an area of that kind between the two sides and which this will accentuate. What we are concerned with is that the one side which is winning the battle at the moment—which is not to go comprehensive but is to go back on the modest compulsion which was being imposed on them—should give unequal and irrational resources to the type of school it prefers against the type of school it does not prefer.
This is an absolutely serious point of a very important kind and I hope Baroness Young will not reject it out of hand because if she does, I should like to feel we shall pursue it. However, I should like to feel she will look at this matter. This is a perfectly serious case. We know perfectly well that today in an established grammar school the number of books available per head is higher in general than it is in an ordinary secondary education school. Are we getting a situation where, when the new grammar is split from the new secondary school, the new grammar school will get financial advantages as well as this enormous advantage of selection, which we have already said we think does so much harm to the other school? This is a very serious point indeed and I hope the noble Baroness will not just brush it aside. It is fundamental that if one is to go what we believe to be backwards one should do so in a most even-handed way.
Viscount SIMON: I sympathise very much with the intention of the new clause
1552
and probably the noble Baroness, Lady Young, sympathises with it also; that is, that where there are schools of different types, there should be an equitable distribution of resources. I understand the difficulty which the noble Baroness explained and I confess that I should prefer to see this result achieved in some other way. I was wondering—I admit that I am speaking without much preparation on this—whether this is a case where, if the Minister accepted the intention of the new clause, it could be dealt with by one of the famous circulars from the department, which could make the point to education authorities that this is an aim they must seek to achieve. I can quite see that the policing—that is perhaps the wrong word—or monitoring of the new clause would cause an immense amount of trouble. I do not know whether the suggestion would satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady David, but this seems the sort of case which might be met by a circular calling attention to the need to preserve a proper balance between the resources attached to the different types of school.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for introducing me to a new phrase. " Modest compulsion " is a phrase I must remember—I think I shall be able to work it in on a number of occasions. Of course, this is a serious matter about the allocation of resources, and I am sure that we can all quote from our own experience the difficulties of identifying exactly how costs fall between schools. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady David, who referred to the greatly increased expenses in a sixth form where there would be small teaching groups with one teacher and the costs would rise proportionately. We might just as well argue that it is much more expensive to teach A-level physics than A-level Greek because it is necessary to have a laboratory in one case but not in the other; or that it is much more expensive to have a well-equipped technical studies room in a secondary modern school than it would be to have merely a classroom for English in a grammar school. So quantifying the resources exactly is a very difficult exercise indeed. When I said that it would mean much more administration, that was in no sense a frivolous remark;

1553
rather, it was a very serious point regarding how to equate all the different matters involved.
Speaking from my own experience—and I would not wish this to be regarded as a generalisation—when I was in local government I was the chairman of the governors of a purpose-built secondary modern school, and that school certainly had a better library than did a comprehensive school that I visited a little while ago. That may have been fortuitous good luck, and certainly such situations do not always apply. All I am saying is that we cannot generalise and I would not generalise from that one case. Of course, there are cases where the library in one type of school is better than that in another. We must leave it to the good sense of the local education authority, because under the 1944 Act it has an obligation to provide for the age, aptitude, and ability of all the children in the school. I believe that the local education authority can be left to achieve the best that it can for the children in its locality.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, suggested that we might be able to achieve this aim not necessarily by accepting the amendment, but by the Department issuing a circular. One of the many self-denying ordinances which we as a Government have imposed upon ourselves is to try to issue far fewer circulars to local government, as I believe that everybody in local government has told us that they have had far too many in the past. To persuade one's colleagues that one should send out a circular, no matter what the subject, might not be as difficult as getting a Bill through Parliament, but it is no easy matter.
As I said originally, I believe the important point is that it has always been an established practice for local authorities to be responsible for the wise allocation of resources within their education budget as they believe it to be in the best interests of their people. The Bill is not concerned with resources in this sense at all. It is concerned simply with abolishing the element of compulsion to go comprehensive. Therefore, I feel that the amendment would be adding a new clause which would be outside the purposes of the Bill and which would fundamentally upset the relationships between central and local government.
Baroness DAVID: If the noble Baroness had said that she would take this matter back, consider doing something, and then let us know at Report stage, I would have withdrawn the amendment, but I am afraid that I cannot accept her response. We are asking for proposals to be made by a certain number of local authorities, not by any means all of them. We are not really asking the Secretary of State to do anything about them. We are asking that proposals should he made by local authorities so that information can be given to parents and people in the area to enable them to know in cases where there are secondary modern schools that they are getting a fair share; and if they are not, the parents, teachers and others can make a fuss. We want to ensure that that information is available, and we would hope that if the information has to be available, the allocation would be fair. If the noble Baroness is not prepared to take back the amendment and come forward with a suggestion at the Report Stage, we shall have to press it.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I should like to emphasise my belief in representative local government by saying that I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is entirely right on the question of what we must leave to local authorities. If the Opposition really are to press the amendment, I think that I will be voting with the Conservatives on an educational matter for the first time in the whole of my life.
Viscount SIMON: I should like to add one point to what I said earlier. I would have been happier if the noble Baroness had been prepared to withdraw the amendment, but I should be inclined to support her for this reason. I was a little concerned about what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said about it being the duty of the education authorities to distribute their resources in order to meet the needs of the aptitude and ability of the pupils. I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, points out, that local education authorities are the authorities involved and that we should not interfere with them too much, but I am a little worried about authorities whose very ethos suggests that those in the secondary modern schools are of lesser aptitude and ability and therefore do not need so much education. This seems to me to be the dangerous aspect.

1555
I do not think that that would happen very often, but I should like to feel that there would be a prod to the effect that it must be remembered that everybody should get their fair share.
.56 p.m.
On Question, Whet her the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 111.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Peart, L.

Ardwick, L.

Henderson, L.

Phillips, B.

Aylestone, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Bacon, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Balogh, L.

Kaldor, L.

Rochester, L.

Banks, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Seear, B.

Blease, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Simon, V.

Brockway, L.

Leonard, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Collison, L.

Stone, L.

Crook, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strabolgi, L.

David, B.

Longford, E.

Underhill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Melchett, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ogmore, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Wigoder, L.

Gardiner, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Pargiter, L.

Hale, L.

Parry, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Northampton, M.

Amory, V.

Gainford, L.

Northchurch, B.

Ampthill, L.

Glasgow, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Auckland, L.

Gowrie, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Avon, E.

Gridley, L.

Pender, L.

Barnby, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Penrhyn, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hanworth, V.

Reay, L.

Belstead, L.

Hawke, L.

Robbins, L.

Bessborough, E.

Henley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Romney, E.

Camoys, L.

Hunt, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Cathcart, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Salisbury, M.

Chelwood, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Sandford, L.

Chitnis, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Clitheroe, L.

Killearn, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cockfield, L.

Kimberley, E.

Sharples, B.

Colwyn, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Shuttleworth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Long, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Loudoun, C.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Croft, L.

Luke, L.

Somers, L.

Daventry, V.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Davidson, V.

Mackay, L.

Strathspey, L.

de Clifford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swinfen, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mancroft, L.

Swinton, E.

Digby L.

Mansfield, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Margadale, L.

Trenchard, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Marley, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Eccles, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vickers, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Elton, L.

Milverton, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Monck, V.

Westbury, L.

Energlyn, L.

Morris, L.

Wolverton, L.

Exeter, M.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.5 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Transfer
Those local authorities to whom sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Education Act 1976 applied in whole or in part prior to their repeal by this Act shall submit to the Secretary of State by 1st January 1980 proposals for the continual review of pupils' standards of educational achievement to ensure that they can transfer easily from secondary modern schools to grammar schools, and that the transfer would not involve the parents in additional expense.
The noble Baroness said: This amendment aims to make it easier to rectify the inevitable mistakes that the 11-plus examnation will make. There should of course be consultation between neighbouring schools on the curriculum and syllabus, and I hope that that will go without saying. But it is vital that the schools should keep records of the children's progress and achievements, and should review their standards of achievement, so that when parents have the intention of asking for a transfer because they believe that their child did not do himself or herself justice in the exam, or because the child has made a sudden spurt forward, there is something to go to in order to check what the staff in charge of the various subjects think of the child's ability and aptitude in all areas, and something to show to the grammar school head so that he can judge whether the child can make the grade in his school.
I am very worried that parents, when transfer is agreed, should not be put to more expense than they would have had should the child have gone into the grammar school the previous year. I am thinking of uniform and travel. Items of uniform should be simplified and reasonable in price; and particularly important is transport. If a child moves from primary school to grammar school as a result of the 11-plus, transport is provided. If, after a year, a child moves to grammar school because the 11-plus predicted wrongly or the child has made excellent progress, it seems totally wrong that the parents should be asked to pay because it is the parents' choice that the move is made. I have just heard of such a case in Cumbria, and I was appalled. The sum involved was about £200. It may well be that counties will make cuts in money for transport as a result of the massive cuts which are demanded, but my case is
1558
different from that; and it seems to me a particularly mean way to discriminate. I think the Committee must be agreed on that, and I trust the amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.
Baroness BACON: Because of the way in which the Marshalled List has been drawn up, with three clauses put together and the names at the top, my name is added as supporting this new clause, but in fact I signed every one of the amendments except this one. I do not blame anybody—these things happen—but I want to explain why I did not sign this particular amendment. It is not because I disagree with my noble friend's intentions to try to make transfers more satisfactory, but because I believe there is no satisfactory method. I have never come across any satisfactory method of transferring children from secondary modern schools to grammar schools. In fact, I do not think there is one.
First, if you have several secondary modern schools there must be some standard as between the heads of those secondary modern schools, because one child might be considered excellent in one secondary modern school whereas a child of equal ability might not be so considered in another. But my experience has been that it has turned mostly on the whims or the choices of the heads of the grammar schools. They do not like children being transferred from secondary modern schools; they do not like it one little bit. They have only to say, " We have not got room for these children ", or, perhaps, that they are backward in French or some other language, and the child is not transferred. It may be that in some cases it is the local education authority which decides this, but I feel that it is the head teachers mainly—and it is not fair.
I can recall a case where several children in a mixed school were put forward to transfer to a separate boys' grammar school and a girls' grammar school. Six boys were selected and three girls. One of the girls was higher in every subject than any of the six boys. The boys' grammar school accepted all six boys; and all three of the girls were rejected. This is a case which I took up on behalf of the girl who was so brilliant and who was always top of the form. It was only after much

1559
pressure that the local authority transferred her. The reason that the headmistress of the girls' grammar school gave for not accepting the girl was that she had not taken French as a subject and would not be able to catch up. It was my great pleasure three years afterwards to go to this girl's grammar school to present prizes and to present this girl with the form prize for French in her year. I give this example only because I do not think that transfer at 13 or at any other age from a secondary modern school to a grammar school is a satisfactory way of dealing with the 11-plus examination. That was the reason why I did not put my name to this amendment; although I agree with my noble friends in trying to get a better situation than has existed.
Lord SOMERS: I would be inclined to support this amendment. Unless I hear something convincing from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, against it, I shall do so. I have always been in favour of the ability to transfer from one type of school to another because it is of the greatest importance that every child in our kingdom should get the eduation suited to him or her. As everybody who has taught (as I have for many years) must know, some children are late developers. If it appears when they have gone to, say, a secondary modern school that they have turned out to be a great deal more talented than was originally thought, it is only right that they should be enabled to transfer. The noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, asked how they are to do it and who is to decide. I should have thought that that was simple. It should be a matter of mutual agreement between the teaching staff of the grammar school and of the secondary modern school and of the parents. Let the parents have a say in this. As to her statement that grammar schools do not like taking pupils from secondary modern schools, I am afraid that I do not know where she got evidence for such a statement. My own experience is to the contrary. I hope there will be no serious objection to this.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sure that we should all have sympathy with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, about the importance of consultation on the curriculum and the syllabus between
1560
different types of schools and the ability to make transfers easier. The point about consultation on the curriculum is important in the context of falling rolls. It is important in the present difficulties we have with so many schools at this time. As to the point that she makes about transfer, the fact is that were we to put into a Bill a requirement like this, we should be disturbing the balance between central and local government. The Secretary of State for Education and Science has never had a responsibility to inquire in detail and to be responsible in detail for transfer arrangements, whatever they may be, between schools. Therefore, it would be a quite new relationship between central and local government to write a provision of this kind into this Bill.
The noble Baroness made two points about any extra expense that would be involved. As she will know, the responsibility over school uniforms and for those who can, in certain circumstances, be assisted with payment for school uniforms is, again, the responsibility of local education authorities. The ways in which authorities use their powers to help those who cannot afford school uniform vary considerably, but the arrangements are at the authorities' discretion. Again, to draw up a national scheme would be something that would be quite new and not something which, at this stage on this particular Bill, we would feel to be the right thing to do.
On the point about school transport, which can be an extra expense, again the Education Act lays down rules about school transport and leaves to the local education authorities the arrangements they make for the provision of transport: except that local education authorities are required to provide or to pay for transport between a child's home and the school, where the school is the nearest suitable and is more distant than the so-called " walking distance " for secondary pupils. This distance is defined as three miles. Beyond this minimum duty, authorities have wide discretionary powers to give assistance to any child not entitled to free transport. Again, to legislate in a general way about transport beyond what is already laid down would, I think, be altering the balance between central and local governments. This amendment,

1561
like the previous one, would go fundamentally against the present relationship; and it is because it would go fundamentally against this important but rather delicate relationship between central and local government in education that I cannot accept this amendment, either.
6.17 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, made a very good speech in favour of this amendment even though she seemed to be disclaiming her signature. Not only did she point out one of the very bad cases which occur of difficulty in transferring, but also, in the reference she made about headmasters and headmistresses of grammar schools who do not want to accept pupils from secondary modern schools—and, although there may not be many, there are undoubtedly some—she pointed out something which needs psychologically to be broken down. One of the worst things that happen in the division of schools under the non-comprehensive system is this feeling of, " We of the grammar schools … " which in fact is not matched by a corresponding pride of, " We of the secondary modern … ". If only we could have found some way of making a parity of esteem, it would have been much better.
When I was in Hong Kong, it was said (with I do not know how much truth) that one of the reasons why very little racial conflict existed there was that the Chinese, the English and the Portuguese each heartily despised the other two. It is undoubtedly true that you can get better results if everyone has a pride in what they are themselves doing. You can break down this division between the two whereby one seems to be an élite and the other seems to be " the rest " by making certain it is a continuum and that there can be movement between the two. It makes for a better relationship between schools.
I have a suggestion to make to the noble Baroness, Lady David, which (I do not know) might be of help. I take the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was making about again disturbing the relationship between the Secretary of State and the local authorities. This business of submitting proposals semes to me to be going over that edge again in a way which
1562
I do not think is very healthy. Would it not be acceptable, or more acceptable, if at a later stage of this Bill—and only this particular clause is involved—a clause was inserted declaring a general duty of local education authorities to behave in this way without setting up any machinery, without, I admit, putting any teeth in it, but just to put that down as a general duty? We know from our experience—and some of us may have forgotten in a period when there have been so many comprehensive schools about—how often it was almost impossible to move from one school to the other. It would be very useful to insert this general duty so people like the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, could put forward the point when they were putting on pressure and could point to the duty without necessarily erecting a central and local set-up like this with forms passing to and fro.
Lord PARRY: This afternoon and this debate has been an immense frustration at a number of levels. I have felt frustrated as a member of this Committee. I have heard Second Reading speeches made not once but three and four times by individual members of the Committee at what is the incorrect constitutional point to make them. It has been a frustration as a Welshman to have heard other people talking and not to have had time to talk myself. It has been a frustration as a teacher with 32 years' of service actually in the classroom at various levels, both teaching children and teaching teachers. It has been a frustration too as one who believes that it is essential to select bright children and to give them particular attention, so there need not have been any contradiction in the debate.
I am not going to fall into the trap of making a Second Reading speech, but the matter of grave urgency at the core of this debate is whether the teachers in the schools, and the parents of the children who are under their tuition, are satisfied that their children are getting the best education available. In this context, and germane to this particular amendment, I want to say that sympathy is not enough. The National Union of Teachers, for instance, cannot feed its membership and the concern of its membership on sympathy, nor can the delicate balance—I do not quote this ironically—between central Government and local government be maintained on sympathy, it can only be

1563
maintained on hard cash. When a Government whatever Government—cut the central allowance to be made for education and simultaneously make cuts all round the board that affect education, then one gets frustrated teachers and, in the end, disillusioned parents.
Report after report has pointed out over the past 40 years that the greatest single element in the education of any child is the attitude of the parents of that child to the school. I have declared my interest; I should be happier about sympathy, I should be happier still about empathy, if I believed the people whose parents had showed their concern by buying for them the best possible education that they could afford were equally with me in saying that this nation should buy—and must buy—the best possible education it can for all its children. That does not involve transferring them around; it involves seeing that the schools in which they are know that they have the confidence of the Government and the people who run this country.
Baroness YOUNG: I must reply to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, because we have not mentioned Wales at all. This Bill applies to Wales, though the particular authorities involved are not, so far as I know, in Wales but are in England. I should like to assure him that we believe that the education system for all our children is very important. We should not as a country be spending currently £8,000 million upon it if we did not believe that to be so.
Baroness DAVID: I have listened to what the noble Baroness has said and to the other speeches, particularly to what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has said about the possibility of introducing at the Report stage a general duty clause. I should like to have time to think about that and so at this moment I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.25 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Proportion allocated to different types of secondary schools
. Those local authorities to whom sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Education Act 1976 applied
1564
in whole or in part, prior to their repeal by this Act, shall submit to the Secretary of State by 1st January 1980 proposals for the proportions in which children shall be allocated to secondary schools of different types over the next ten years.
The noble Baroness said: This amendment attempts to deal with the problem of falling rolls, which I raised at Second Reading. The Minister said that action would be taken in the Bill to be brought in in the autumn. That Bill will not be passed for a very considerable time, I guess; and the problem of falling rolls is immediate: it is with us now. We all realise the difficulty of closing schools; but we want some statement to be made by local authorities about the numbers going to the various schools, grammar and secondary modern, so that the grammar schools cannot poach from the rest to keep up their numbers and fill their schools, regardless of what happens to the wretched schools which are depleted and left with less and less children of even perhaps average ability, and reducing the stimulus that research has proved comes from a good academic mix.
I referred on Tuesday to Professor Rutter's research and also to the danger of reducing morale of the staff in schools which have been depleted. I anticipate comments from the Government that there were objections in the past to a fixed number each year going to direct grant schools, et cetera, as it was not the case that every year the numbers of children of a certain high IQ were the same. Of course, there are objections to fixed numbers. However, this amendment asks for proportions, which is not quite the same. The situation caused by falling rolls over the next decade is so serious that planned admission limits are essential for the better management and fairer management of education. I commend this amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: As the noble Baroness, Lady David, has said quite correctly, when we bring in our second Education Bill we shall be dealing with the very important problem which she has identified, that of falling rolls and the problem of keeping up the numbers of pupils adequately in a given number of the authorities' schools. I cannot say more at this stage of the detail of our proposals, but it will include giving powers to local

1565
authorities on admission limits. Clearly, one must maintain a balance between parental choice and the wise use of resources. It is, as the noble Baroness will appreciate, again another balance in the educational world that we need to maintain.
We are conscious of the point and the very real problems that falling rolls present, and the consequence of having schools that are over-subscribed and schools that are under-subscribed. This is a matter to which we shall be giving attention. I hope therefore that, with my assurance that in our second Education Bill we shall have an opportunity to debate this matter again at considerable length, the noble Baroness will have an opportunity to look at the proposals that we shall bring forward, and that she will recognise that this is not the best place to introduce an element which this new amendment introduces into this Bill because it is not germane to the central issue of this Bill. I hope that, with that assurance, she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness DAVID: Again, I do not feel entirely happy about the situation which is going to occur in these authorities which will be affected by this Bill. However, with the assurances from the noble Baroness, and I hope an assurance that a very close eye will be kept on what is happening, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

SHIPBUILDING (REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS SCHEME) (GREAT BRITAIN) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1979
6.30 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments Scheme) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before the House on 2nd July, be approved. With the permission of the
1566
House I should like to speak simultaneously to the Motion to approve the parallel order relating to Northern Ireland.
Their purpose is the same: namely, to amend the shipbuilding redundancy payments scheme put into operation by orders made in August last year under the Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments) Act 1978. That scheme applies alike to employees of British Shipbuilders and Harland and Wolff Limited. But, as the Act specifies that a scheme shall be either for Great Britain or for Northern Ireland, two separate orders are required. Though differing slightly in wording for technical statutory reasons, the 1978 orders were identical in substance and effect—and this is also the case with the two amending orders before your Lordships now.
The proposed amendments are set out in Article 2 of the draft Great Britain Order and the Schedule to the draft Northern Ireland Order. I think your Lordships will, however, find it clearer if I explain their effect by reference to the Explanatory Note on page 3 of each draft order. This lists seven changes.
By far the most significant change is the first, which will extend the period for which the scheme is to operate. The situation envisaged by the previous Administration in introducing the scheme with support from all sides of Parliament was one in which the severest depression in the shipbuilding industry for 40 years was likely to lead, and was leading, to a substantial reduction in shipbuilding employment in this country. The Government legislated not for indefinite special redundancy payment provision but for such provision during a restricted period. Nobody could know then precisely how long it would take before a stable situation was reached. It was therefore enacted that the scheme should initially last for two years, with provision for another two years should events prove it necessary.
I think it is generally recognised that further contraction is still to come, and the Government think it right in these circumstances that the scheme should continue for the full period allowed by the Act. The effect of the amendment will be that employees made redundant or transferred to less well-paid employment between 1st July this year and 30th June

1567
1981 may become eligible for payments under the scheme on the same terms as those made redundant or transferred between 1st July 1977 and 30th June this year.
The other six amendments set out in the Explanatory Note on page 3 to the draft orders all concern minor technical matters. Some of them are complex, but I shall be as brief as I possibly can. The second amendment is a consequence of the shipbuilding scheme having certain features in common with the general redundancy payments provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. In both cases, the level of weekly earnings prior to redundancy is one of the determinants of the amount of redundancy payment to be made in individual cases, and there is an upper limit to those weekly earnings which are taken into account (any excess over the limit therefore being ignored). The weekly earnings limit for the purposes of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act provisions was increased from £80 per week to £100 per week for those made redundant on or after 1st February 1978 and from £100 per week to £110 per week for those made redundant on or after 1st February 1979. The first of these increases was automatically incorporated in the shipbuilding scheme by the orders establishing it last August, and it is proposed to incorporate the second increase through the present draft orders. The practical effect of doing so will be slight, since few eligible employees have weekly pay approaching £110. I should say here that the calculation is on a 40-hour week, not including overtime and only to a degree including bonus payments. I think your Lordships will agree that it is desirable to keep the shipbuilding scheme in line with the general redundancy payments provisions in this repect.
The third and fourth amendments are closely related. The existing scheme provides that if a qualifying company diversifies and still remains a qualifying company, an employee who has been transferred and then is made redundant would still be eligible under the scheme in spite of the transfer. The intention of this is to safeguard potential eligibility for scheme benefits of employees who are transferred by British Shipbuilders or Harland and Wolff from their existing work
1568
to other work in order to minimise redundancies by diversification. The need to do so was raised by a number of speakers, including my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, during debates on the original orders, and the previous Administration undertook to provide such safeguards.
In the event, however, the provision has been found defective in two ways. First, an employee's service after transfer does not count as part of his qualifying employment for calculating scheme payments. Secondly, a company may change its activities to such an extent that it ceases to be a qualifying company for the purposes of the scheme. The third and fourth amendments will remedy these defects and meet in full the intention of the previous Administration's undertaking to both Houses of Parliament. As there is only a remote possibility of transferred workers subsequently becoming redundant while the scheme is in operation, it is unlikely that these amendments will add anything appreciable to the cost of the scheme.
The fifth amendment proposed is, I think, largely self-explanatory. Under the existing scheme, a period spent in National Service will have broken continuity of employment taken into account in calculating an eligible employee's redundancy payments, and thus qualifying employment before National Service is not added to qualifying employment afterwards. This is, we think, an oversight in the design of the scheme which ought to be put right by following the procedure adopted for the general redundancy payment provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act, which ignores such breaks in continuity. Few scheme beneficiaries will be affected, since call-up for National Service ceased in the late 1950s and only a minority of redundant employees reach the maximum of 25 years of qualifying employment taken into account for the scheme. The point is, therefore, a narrow one and the remedy is inexpensive, but I think noble Lords will agree that equity demands the remedy.
The sixth amendment is to rectify an anomaly arising from the way in which the periodical payments under the scheme are calculated. Redundancy benefit under the scheme is partly a lump sum payment and partly weekly payments made over a

1569
period of up to two years. The amount of the latter depends on whether the individual is unemployed or employed during that period. The anomaly is that a former shipyard worker who wishes to acquire new skills on a course of retraining is, under the existing definitions in the scheme, classified as neither employed nor unemployed. He would, as a result, cease altogether to be entitled to periodical payments while his course lasted. Clearly, such a situation cannot be tolerated, and the purpose of the proposed change is to allow periodical payments to a trainee to continue at the same rate as though he had remained unemployed. The problem came to light as a result of some scheme beneficiaries attending training courses operated by the Manpower Services Commission, but the Government think the principle should apply to all forms of vocational training and the amendment will allow this.
The object of the seventh, and last, amendment is transitional. Noble Lords who followed the earlier debates on the scheme will recall that the orders, establishing it were not made until early August last year, although they applied to redundancies made on or after 1st July, 1977. It then took some time for British Ship-builders and Harland and Wolff to disseminate all the details of the scheme widely to employees and company personnel staff. There was, therefore, an interval for some scheme beneficiaries between their redundancy and the time at which they first knew of all the details of the scheme.
One feature of the scheme not widely known during this interval is that early retirement payments under company pension schemes are deductible from scheme redundancy payments. It has emerged that the company pension schemes concerned permit their members to opt whether or not to receive pension scheme payments commencing on early retirement through redundancy. Redundant employees may, quite properly, arrange their affairs to their own best advantage, and in practice they can avoid deduction from their scheme redundancy benefits by electing not to take early company pension scheme payments.
But some who were made redundant before this detail of the scheme was known to them exercised options under
1570
company pension schemes, in ignorance of the effect on their scheme redundancy benefits. They have therefore suffered a financial penalty which those made redundant at a later date have had the knowledge to avoid. The Government think it right to rectify their position by an amendment to nullify any deductions from redundancy payments of pension scheme payments made as a result of options exercised before 31st October, 1978. The significance of this date is that by then all those concerned would have had sufficient information about the scheme to know where their best interests lay.
Finally, having described all the Amendments, I will say a word or two about their cost. The technical amendments really add a very small amount in relation to the cost of the scheme as a whole. It is clear, however, that the main Amendment—the extension for a further two years—is quite another matter and the cost will be very substantial. As I think noble Lords on both sides of the House know, it is not, in fact, possible to forecast the cost of the provision in total. It depends, of course, to an enormous degree on the numbers who are likely to be made redundant; and it depends to a very great degree on exactly which employees are made redundant. For all these reasons, the previous Administration were also unable to forecast the cost.
It will be recalled that spokesmen for the previous Government were obliged by these circumstances to confine themselves to an illustrative estimate of cost per 1,000 beneficiaries on the assumption that the age, length of qualifying employment and previous pay of redundant employees would correspond to those of British Shipbuilders employees as a whole. On that basis, they arrived at a figure in July, 1977, of £1.725 million per thousand employees. They added a number of qualifications, as rightly they should have, at that stage. With the advantage of some months' experience of actual payments, I can now say that lump sum payments for British Shipbuilders workers are running at an average of £1,375 per head, and that it seems most likely that the overall cost of lump sums and periodical payments together will be not less than £2,500 per head; or, as figures were previously quoted in millions per 1,000, £2.5 million per 1,000. I am

1571
afraid that even now it is not possible to be more precise than that. I am grateful to the House for its forbearance while I have tried to make clear these many important, but technical, amendments. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd July, be approved.—(Viscount Trenchard.)
6.45 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount very much for his clear explanation of the seven changes which this order introduces, and to welcome very much the fact that we have moved on from some rather controversial exchanges across the Floor of the House, on various Statements which the noble Viscount has had to make in recent days, to a scheme on which there is a very large measure of agreement—in fact, total agreement—on both sides. For my part, I welcome the various changes which the Government are making and which the noble Viscount has explained to us, while at the same time regretting the necessity, as I am sure the Government and the noble Viscount do, for a scheme of this kind, and the generally gloomy prospects which continue to face shipbuilding throughout the world.
I do not want to detain the House when there is a large measure of agreement. I should simply like to ask the noble Viscount a couple of questions, of which I have not given him notice, and I shall quite understand if he is not able to deal with them this evening. He very kindly gave us a good deal of information about the costs of the scheme and, in particular, the future costs, and I certainly accept from him—indeed, I think he used almost the same words as I did when I introduced the original orders—the impossibility of predicting future costs. But it might be useful to have on the record some indication of the costs of the scheme in the immediate past; that is, for the period of the last six months or three months or something of that kind. If the noble Viscount could give us that, it might be some indication of the likely costs in the immediate future.
The other question on costs, which I should like to ask the noble Viscount, is about the maximum sum payable to any individual employee. The noble Lord,
1572
Lord Campbell of Croy, very kindly asked me this question when I was moving the order from the noble Viscount's position, because at that time there was considerable speculation in some sectors of the national Press that this was to be an enormous bonanza for individual employees, who were going to walk off with millions of pounds as a result of the introduction of the orders. I imagine that the changes which the noble Viscount has outlined have slightly increased the theoretical maximum which any one individual could receive under the scheme, so it might be useful just to put on the record at some stage what that maximum now stands at.
There is one other matter about which I should like to ask the noble Viscount. When this order was originally introduced, there was a popular version, as it were, produced for employees in the shipbuilding industry in a little more simple language than the order, although the noble Viscount himself made an excellent job of explaining it. I wonder whether there will be a need to reissue that in a new form now that these changes have been made in the scheme, and whether the noble Viscount can tell us if there are any plans to do that. I know that my noble friend Lord Blease would like to refer in a little more detail, when we come to the second order, to some confusion that has arisen in Northern Ireland. This is clearly a difficult scheme and it seems to me, from what the noble Viscount said, that those of us responsible at the time, and subsequently, have not always got the drafting exactly right; but he has, in fact, tidied up some of the mistakes. So I think any effort that anybody can make to get the essential details across to anybody affected, who will have to make some quite complicated and difficult choices, will be very important. I do not want to turn to any of the controversial aspects of the Government's industrial policy, or the future of shipbuilding, in discussing this order. I imagine that in the near future there will be a Statement about the future of British Shipbuilders—possibly early next week. While we are discussing this subject it might be helpful if the noble Viscount could indicate when that Statement will be made.
6.50 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I, too, am relieved

1573
to be on a non-controversial subject for a little while. The first point which he raised related to the immediate past cost. I gave this information on the basis of per 1,000 employees. That information, therefore, will be in Hansard.
Turning to the noble Lord's last point, there will be a Statement before the recess. It will not enable exact calcuations, either past or future, to be made. However, it will help the noble Lord and other noble Lords to understand the significance of the scheme, in view of the likely future of shipbuilding. I agree with him that, regrettably, the outlook is not very good. The noble Lord will be able to put two and two together and make the calculations which he wishes to make.
So far as the maximum is concerned, I do not believe that the theoretical maximum—which I understand to be £8,750—is at all helpful. The noble Lord probably knows, because of his familiarity with the matter in the past, that the figures relating to people with 20 years of service but who are still only, say, 45 seem to get up to the £6,000 level. For those who are near to retirement, the total figures are less, and for those with shorter service the figures are also less.
Turning to the explanatory material, I have a note which tells me that revisions covering the amendments will be made to British Shipbuilders' leaflet for employees. I imagine that Harland and Wolff have that leaflet; I see that I am correct. So I think that I have answered the noble Lord's question. I shall certainly advise those of my colleagues who are concerned with the matter that we should endeavour to make these complicated issues as clear as we possibly can in the kind of leaflets which have been described.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SHIPBUILDING (REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS SCHEME) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
6.53 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Elton)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Elton) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the
1574
House on 2nd July, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order has already been spoken to. The differences between the drafting of this order and that which we have just approved are technical in nature. The effects are the same. Therefore, I shall formally move the order. As I understand that noble Lords may have questions, this will give them an opportunity to raise them now. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd July, be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I join with my noble friend Lord Melchett in welcoming the very lucid and explicit way in which the noble Viscount. Lord Trenchard, dealt with the redundancy payments schemes, as provided for in these amendment orders. I believe that the provisions of this scheme may help to alleviate some of the human problems arising from the long-term aspects of unemployment in Harland and Wolff's shipyard in Belfast. However, as my noble friend Lord Melchett has indicated, there is considerable concern among the staff and manual workers in various sections of Harland and Wolff about the operation of the present scheme.
As the noble Viscount has already indicated, a number of anomalies have emerged in operating the scheme. My attention has been drawn to a grossly unfair situation concerning a group of 45 Harland and Wolff employees, who represent staff and manual workers. They were encouraged to opt for early retirement and they did so before realising that the redundancy payments which they would receive from the scheme would be offset against the payments to which they considered they were entitled from Harland and Wolff's contributory pension scheme. These 45 persons had had long periods of service with Harland and Wolff and had contributed a considerable amount from their salaries and wages to the pension fund scheme.
I am informed by one of the trade unions representing some of these workers that this group of 45 persons lost something like £137,500, or approximately £3,500 per employee, by opting for early retirement under the existing redundancy payments scheme arrangements. I am

1575
also informed that the company have had discussions with the employees concerned but that they are unable to do anything about it because of the terms under which the scheme has been drawn up. I feel, therefore, that the scheme, as at present operated, is unfair. It penalises long service employees. Also, it discourages those who may wish to opt for early retirement. While I do not expect a specific reply from the Minister this evening, I should be glad if he would undertake to review and examine this particular problem.
My noble friend Lord Melchett said that there may be a Statement next week about employment in the shipbuilding industry. That Statement will probably relate to the situation in Great Britain and will not include Northern Ireland. I should like to take this opportunity to ask that there should also be some consideration of the Northern Ireland situation as it pertains to Harland and Wolff. Harland and Wolff is one of the largest and most modern shipyards in the world. It has an excellent engine works, which is conveniently situated for the whole complex.
However necessary the redundancy payments may be, I consider that a more positive means may have to be implemented to tackle the present needs and the future developments for employment in the Belfast shipyard. Therefore I welcome the attention which has already been given by the Secretary of State, Mr. Humphrey Atkins, to the particular problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland. He dealt with the specific problem of Harland and Wolff in a statement on 21st June last, and I quote from that statement which was made at the inauguration of the Lord Mayor of Belfast. Mr. Atkins said:
" I am hopeful that it will be possible soon to confirm that the latest ferry order—the fourth from the British Rail Scalink to Harland and Wolff—has been approved by the EEC. But orders won are only the start of the story. They end with efficient production and prompt delivery to the customer, and I hone that everybody in the two companies "—
he had referred earlier to Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff—
" management and workforce alike, will spare no effort to achieve this. We all know of the severity of the problems facing shipbuilders throughout the world in the current recession but it will be obvious that there are limits to the assistance which governments can afford to give. The shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom
1576
and Europe generally is in for a period of contraction which affects Harland and Wolff as much as anyone. Although I fully recognise the difficulties under which the yard has operated. I must stress that losses of the order incurred in 1978 did reflect a significant decline in productivity and performance from the yard, a problem to which both management and workforce, I am sure, will seriously and urgently address themselves ".
On the following day, 22nd June, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Giles Shaw, met a deputation from the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions to discuss employment problems and the future prospects for Harland and Wolff. A statement issued after that meeting indicates that the Minister said that the future of the shipyard would be considered in the context of the overall review of the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry which is currently under way. However the future level of Government assistance would depend on an improved performance on the part of everyone at Harland and Wolff—management, trade unions and the workforce. In particular, however, the Minister emphasised that there must be a rapid improvement in productivity if the yard is to have a viable future. He also assured the deputation that he and the officials of the Department of Commerce would continue to do everything possible to seek further orders for the shipyard and would also encourage further diversification at the yard.
I certainly do not disagree with those noble sentiments. It is important that management and men should get together to make sure that the yard is viable, but I am concerned that words have been spoken about the necessity for competitiveness when seeking new markets and having the yard become viable. I am concerned that it should not be left simply in a vacuum situation. I feel that things will not just happen. When there is a run-down of employment of this character and a yard which in 1950 employed something like 26,000 persons and is now down to 8,000, the morale of those persons concerned suffers considerably. I think that the Ministers themselves ought to seek ways in which to get management and employees working together to stimulate some new thinking in the yard on the clearly defined objectives which the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State have indicated. Having said that, my Lords, I certainly welcome the measures that are at present before the House.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for the kind way in which he received this order and for the cogent way in which he expressed his reservations. I was in fact aware of the case to which he referred, although I believe there to be 50 rather than 45 individuals concerned who have been affected by the anomaly and who have unwittingly placed themselves in a position where they can receive less than they otherwise would by following a path which they were counselled to take. This is recognised as a deficiency and in fact the seventh amendment in the schedule to the order remedies this deficiency: it will be put right. I hope the noble Lord will be reassured to hear that.
The noble Lord asked for a Statement and I think it is known that a Statement on the United Kingdom situation will be forthcoming before the end of this Session of Parliament. That does not mean that the future will be definitively made known to us because that depends upon the customers as well as everybody else.
The noble Lord then went on to repeat some of the observations of my right honourable friend and my honourable friend in the other place which together had the effect of saying that efficiency and productivity are the life blood of industry and it is to this that we look. I would not reduce by one syllable the importance which they gave to those two qualities and I am sure the noble Lord would not wish me to. However, I take his point that a Government must be concerned and assist when possible, and I can assure him from my personal experience that my honourable friend the Minister is deeply personally interested in this and the noble Lord need not fear that any opportunity of assisting this great company to remain viable at that level will be missed. I think that answers the three points made by the noble Lord and I am obliged to him for giving me notice of the principal one.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
7.4 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 be
1578
approved. Noble Lords may recall that the firearms law operating in Northern Ireland was last amended in 1975. Since then use of the legislation has drawn attention to a number of points where further updating would be desirable. The present draft order has been prepared as a result. It was published on 7th November and copies were sent to interested organisations including the Shooting Federation for Northern Ireland and the Joint Shooting Committee for Northern Ireland. Their comments have been received and have been taken into account in preparing the draft before your Lordships.
There is one further point which makes the present a particularly suitable moment to tidy up Northern Ireland firearms law. It is hoped fairly soon to introduce a Bill consolidating legislation in this field. As noble Lords will know, consolidating legislation follows its own procedure and cannot be amended during passage. If the consolidating Act is to retain its coherence for a reasonable period it is therefore important that any amendments which are needed should be incorporated into the law before the consolidating Bill comes forward.
The provisions of this order are somewhat diverse in character. The most important concerns the importation of firearms into Northern Ireland by short-term visitors from abroad. At present if a sportsman from another country wishes to shoot in Northern Ireland he must, however short his stay, obtain a full three-year certificate at a cost of £14. The Government have long felt this to be an undesirable burden on the potential tourist. We want as many foreign visitors as possible to visit Northern Ireland. The draft order therefore provides that persons resident outside the United Kingdom may if they wish, and if they satisfy certain conditions, obtain a firearm certificate valid for one month only. In response to representations made by interested bodies, arrangements will be made for this certificate to he available free of charge. It will still be open to them to obtain a three-year certificate at the normal cost if this meets their requirements better. This provision is outlined in Article 4.
A second change is incorporated in Article 5. This will allow the chief constable to issue permits to registered firearms dealers permitting them to sell

1579
ammunition at particular places on specific occasions away from their normal places of business. At present, dealers may do business only at the places in respect of which they are registered. This means that they cannot sell ammunition at shoots or similar events where participants may need more ammunition than in fact they are entitled to hold at any one time.
Owners of licensed firearms, other than shotguns, are already required by S.39A of the Firearms Act of 1969, to submit them on request for ballistic testing. Article 6 of the order makes it an offence for them to refuse to do so. Under Article 9, persons resident in Great Britain who possess air weapons without holding firearm certificates (as they are entitled to do) will be permitted to bring those air weapons to Northern Ireland without having to obtain Northern Ireland firearm certificates. The Secretary of State, will however, be empowered to require approval for such importation in a different form. It is his intention to do so, again at no cost to the applicant. In Northern Ireland, air weapons must be authorised by firearm certificates so that at present the owner of an air weapon in Great Britain who wishes to bring the weapon to Northern Ireland must first obtain a Northern Ireland firearm certificate, again at a cost of £14. This was not intended and the order rectifies that position.
The other provisions are of a more or less minor nature. They will have no effect on the actual operation of firearms control. They clarify the right of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland to purchase weapons on behalf of the police, remove our dependence on an Act passed in 1819 for the control of firearms clubs, and make the chief constable clearly responsible for all aspects of firearms control.
The order also supplies a definition of the term " indictable offence ". This was rendered necessary by the reliance of the Act of 1969 upon existing legislation—the Magistrates' Court Act (Northern Ireland) 1964—in which no such definition was incorporated. Although there was no requirement for such a definition in the 1964 Act its absence proved to be a deficiency in the 1969 Act and it is the purpose of this article to remedy that
1580
deficiency. The general aim of all these articles is to remove ambiguity and render terminology precise.
My Lords, the need for firearms control in Northern Ireland goes without saying. Legislation must however be kept clear, concise and in tune with changing circumstances. That is the purpose of this order and of the consolidating Bill to follow. I commend the order for your Lordships' approval, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order, laid before the House on 3rd July, be approved. —(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PNEUMOCONIOSIS, ETC. (WORKERS' COMPENSATION) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
7.10 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 be approved. A draft of it was laid before this House on 9th July. The object of this order is to provide for Northern Ireland what has already been enacted for the rest of the United Kingdom in the Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979, which was passed by your Lordships' House immediately before the Dissolution of Parliament earlier this year. As with the Act, the draft order now before your Lordships provides for lump sum payments to victims of dust diseases in such industries as the textile, pottery, quarrying and foundry industries who have, in the past, been unable to claim compensation because employers in whose employment they contracted the disease have gone out of business. The proposed scheme of lump sum payments also extends to those who have worked with asbestos in a variety of industries and now find themselves in a similar situation.
Your Lordships will already be aware of the extremely distressing symptoms of pneumoconiosis—a term which embraces the conditions also of silicosis, asbestosis and kailinosis. Indeed, it would be wrong of me at this point not to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hale, who I

1581
know has often expressed his anxiety in your Lordships' House in particular for sufferers of byssinosis in the cotton industry.
Lord HALE: And, my Lords, I will do it again in a minute.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the disease develops very gradually as a result of inhaling certain types of dust and continues to do so long after contact with the dust has ceased. The main symptom of the advanced stage of the disease is extreme shortness of breath caused by a lack of oxygen getting to the bloodstream because of damage to the lungs. The slightest exertion, even walking, becomes a painful effort. The worst sufferers become bedridden and are only kept alive by drugs, oxygen and devoted nursing.
Sufferers of byssinosis and diffuse mesothelioma display similar symptoms, and your Lordships will see that the order also makes provision for compensation to be paid to sufferers of these diseases. Byssinosis can affect textile workers, and the provisions of the order are therefore very relevant to Northern Ireland, where there was once a thriving linen industry. There is now a situation there similar to that in certain slate quarrying areas in Wales, where sufferers are unable to obtain compensation by suing the employer concerned because he is no longer in business. Information available to the Government at present indicates that about 30 people in Northern Ireland might benefit from the scheme now proposed.
Noble Lords will see that the drafting of the order is somewhat different from that of the corresponding Great Britain Act, but I can assure your Lordships that its content is the same. Its main provisions are Articles 3, 4, 6 and 8. Article 3 provides that if the conditions contained in that article are met, those disabled by these diseases may submit claims for compensation to the Department of Manpower Services for Northern Ireland. Article 4 provides that where a sufferer has died, but where the conditions laid down in Article 3 would otherwise have been fulfilled, a claim may be made by his dependants. Article 6 provides for the reconsideration of a decision if there
1582
has been a material change of circumstances or the determination of a claim was made in ignorance of, or based on a mistake as to, some material fact. Article 8 provides for an appeal in relation to any question of law arising in connection with the determination of a claim or its reconsideration.
The Great Britain Act came into force earlier this month and claims for compensation may now be made by victims in Great Britain of the dust diseases I have already mentioned. I am confident that your Lordships would wish to ensure that sufferers in Northern Ireland of these diseases, or their surviving dependants, should be equally eligible for compensation. It is intended that the scales of compensation to claimants in Northern Ireland will be identical with those in Great Britain and it is intended they should become payable at the same time. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th July, be approved. —(Lord Elton.)
Lord HALE: My Lords, if I may ask the noble Lord a question, I am not criticising; I am asking for elucidation. I am happy to say that I could hear the noble Lord much more clearly than I can hear on occasion. He made two remarks in the course of his speech which go a little way to satisfy my apprehensions. He said that asbestosis is included. Well, where? This is the problem. I hate to take the time of the House tonight; I should have been on my way home by now if this point had not cropped up and I had not been trying to find a solution. I apologise for not giving notice to the Minister, but until a very recent hour I did not know this matter was going to be discussed. Of course, we have not had a printed Order Paper for a long time.
I have been trying since, with the help of the Officials of the House in the Library, to settle the problem in my mind. The noble Lord said in his concluding remarks that the Act for England is now in force. Indeed, of course, it was passed immediately after the election. This was one of the Bills that were produced and passed through the Commons in the middle of one night, and which arrived here at 3 o'clock in the afternoon with several other Bills which we were told had to be

1583
passed by about 5 o'clock in order to get Her Majesty's Assent either late that night or the following morning.
I did, fortunately—unfortunately for me, perhaps—notice something that gave me cause for concern. It is an oddly named Bill—Pneumoconiosis (I think; I have not even got a copy of it), Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Etc. The word " Etc." I have never before seen in the title of a Bill, and it does seem to me a little vague in its implication when you are dealing with diseases. I know the noble Lord would not say something unless he had been told it and had reason to believe it. Is this Act in force? As I read that Act when it came before the House on 3rd April last—and it was a most welcome Act—it provided an almost new idea of procedure, but it provided also that a scheme should be prepared, laid before both Houses, to make it practicable for the procedure to be put into force. It introduced something quite new—the application of lump sums. I do not remember that it contained any definition of how the lump sums should be calculated. I did not notice whether it referred to Northern Ireland or not.
If the purpose of this order is merely to bring Northern Ireland into conformity with Britain, where is Britain? The difficulty is a little more than a purely academic one. It may be—and if I am wrong I will plead guilty and express my apologies—that asbestosis has been shunted in with the word " pneumoconiosis " in some parliamentary definition, but I have not been able to find it—the point arose only fairly recently; I am not suggesting I have been spending my life looking for it. If not, then I did raise the question during the debate on 3rd April, when we were all inhibited from speaking. I suffer from grave inhibitions in almost every connection. I said that diffuse mesothelioma does not include, in my view, asbestosis. I can only go by definition. It is odd, of course, that asbestosis could conceivably be held to include diffuse mesothelioma.
I am not trying to make trouble or difficulty, but it seemed to me that no court could really say that it had found diffuse mesothelioma, which, of course, is generally caused by infinitely small sharp pieces of asbestos working through the lungs into the mesothelia and establishing what, alas! often proves to be can-
1584
cerous growths on the outer part of the lungs. Asbestosis normally bears a very considerable relationship with other forms of pneumoconiosis, silicosis and so on. But, what is distinguishing is that asbestos is of a poisonous nature ipso facto and therefore it would be unlikely to be included in the long list of diseases of our time originating from vairous industries and so on which we have discussed and in respect of which amendments have been made.
I should like to get it on record and, if possible, on to the noble Lord's notes, that the definition in respect of byssinosis has, over the years, been confined to a limited number of workers who had to establish that they had worked in the mill for 10 years in the first instance. Years later it was reduced to five years; then it was reduced again, and I think that I am right in saying that some time early this year a separate order was made which virtually meant that byssinosis was classified as a disease without any particular limitations of employment at all and it was brought quite comfortably into the scheme. I do not want to use up the time of the House so if the Minister would care to interrupt me, I do hope that he will do so. However, has a scheme for England been arranged and put into force? If so, when was it brought before Parliament? I am not saying that I cannot make mistakes or go through these long lists day after day—
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am seized of the question which the noble Lord is putting and I also have the answer. However, I think that the tradition of the House is that I should answer all the questions at the end of the debate.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I am very grateful and if that is done—
Lord ELTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord addressing the House or sitting in his seat? I am a little confused.
Lord HALE: My Lords, certainly I was in my seat and saying " Very well " However, if I do not clearly understand the Minister's reply, I hope that I shall be able to interrupt him.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I shall not delay the House for more than

1585
two minutes. First, part of what I wanted to ask has already been asked. Secondly, I want to pay a tribute to all those people—on whichever side of the House they may be—who have worked over the years to get some clarity about compensation for those who suffer from pneumoconiosis, particularly, in the mining and pottery industries.
I have known men who could not do up their bootlaces. In my own rugby playing days I have seen fine rugby players finished at the age of 25 and cutting coal in the anthracite mines of Ystradgynlais and West Wales. At last we now have the opportunity of old claims being made regarding old mines and mine owners who have disappeared.
As a Minister at one time, I had the pleasure in another place of moving a little step forward. I want to pay a tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Hale and to an old colleague of mine who has now passed on, the late Dr. Stross, who was the Member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent and the adviser to the North Staffordshire miners on this problem.
We have had a very tough day and I should like to pay a tribute to the noble Lord who is bringing this order forward. I hope that he will clarify the questions that have been asked by my noble friend Lord Hale. Incidentally, my Lords, I have spoken for only one minute.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I certainly welcome the order before the House and the interventions of my noble friends from this side. I noted that in his remarks the Minister mentioned that asbestosis would be included, and I would welcome clarification of that particular matter.
I should like to conclude by saying that I know that the unions in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland have for a long time campaigned for this legislation. I think that these measures will be welcomed far and wide. In the context of Northern Ireland—I know that the Department of Health and Social Security has already issued some explanatory information—may I ask the Minister whether he would inquire if some form of educative or explanatory leaflet could be circulated about this matter. It would be of great
1586
benefit to the unions and those persons concerned. I support the order.
7.25 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am very glad, as I indicated previously, to see the noble Lord, Lord Hale, in the Chamber on this occasion because he brings to this matter experience and expertise which I lack. However, he has raised two points of considerable force. First, he has asked whether the Great Britain Act is in force. Yes, it is in force, but it provides for the making of a scheme, and the scheme, as he rightly says, has not yet been laid, The reason it has not yet been laid is that the construction of an appropriate schedule of payments has proved technically a great deal more difficult than was originally envisaged.
I recognise the urgency of the case and the sufferings of the people entitled to benefit, and so do the Government. I hope that your Lordships will recognise that we have indeed carried straight on from where the last Adminstration left off without delay in the legislation and we shall be laying a scheme as soon as possible in the autumn. Draft regulations will be laid before your Lordships' House immediately after it reassembles in the autumn. In the meantime, it is already possible for claims to be submitted by victims of these diseases in Great Britain and it is the intention that it should be possible for similar claims to be submitted in Northern Ireland as soon as the present order comes into operation. In that connection I take well the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blease. Personally, I am not apprised of the situation regarding explanatory leaflets. But if there is a need for them and it has not yet been met, I am sure that it will be.
The noble Lord, Lord Hale, also raised the point about the inclusion of " asbestosis " in the Bill. Although less expert than him, I also noticed that discrepancy and I made stringent inquiries. I am assured that the term " asbestosis " is embraced by the terms included in the order. If that proved not to be the case it is contrary to the intention of the Administration. However, I do not think that we need provide against that contingency.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek—and how refreshing it is to hear from

1587
Wales again after my brief but enforced absence from that sphere of interest!—quite rightly gave great credit to Dr. Stross and others who have done much to champion this cause. I think it would be fair for me to say that in thanking me for anything I have done—which has been minimal to the point of invisibility—he was, of course, also thanking my predecessors who brought this matter so nearly to fruition. I am glad that this order apparently meets with the approval of your Lordships and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TATTOOING OF MINORS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
7.30 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order will make provision for Northern Ireland similar to that made for Great Britain by the Tattooing of Minors Act 1969. At present in Northern Ireland there is no prohibition on the tattooing of young people. Many are tattooed, while aged under 18, and later come to regret it. Problems may arise in personal relationships, if, for example, a man bears a tattoo of the name of a former girl friend. Also, more seriously, a considerable number of minors bear tattoos in the form of sectarian slogans which may put their safety or even their lives at risk.
The only effective way of removing tattoos is by plastic surgery. The process can be painful and usually involves protracted treatment. Waiting lists are long and treatment in Northern Ireland has had to be restricted to the most serious cases. None the less, 298 such operations were performed under National Health Service facilities in Northern Ireland in the three-year period, ending in 1978. Adults must remain free to make their own decision, but so far as children are concerned, these are all problems to which I believe they ought never to be exposed, and from which we have a duty to protect them.
The order accordingly makes it an offence to tattoo anyone under the age of
1588
18, and there are only two exceptions provided for. First, a minor may be tattooed for medical reasons by or under the direction of a medical practitioner. Second, a person will not be guilty of an offence if he tattoos a minor whom he reasonably believes to be 18 or over.
I commend this very short but useful order to your Lordships as a worthwhile measure which will prohibit the undesirable practice of marking young people for life in a way they may later regret, and which will bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom in this matter. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order, laid before the House on 28th June, be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, this order is to be warmly welcomed. I recall taking part in the debate on the 1969 order which applied to the whole of the United Kingdom. I have not visited Northern Ireland for several years, but having seen the results of, what I might call, some botched-up tattooing jobs on minors in Great Britain, I tell your Lordships that the sights are terrible to behold and, as my noble friend has said, plastic surgery is needed to remove them. It must also be recognised that in Northern Ireland at present doctors have enough to do, apart from having to remove tattoo marks, whether they be from minors or, indeed, adults.
This is a much-needed order. The only slight criticism I would make—not of this Government and possibly not even of the previous Government—is that the order was not brought in much earlier. I should like to ask my noble friend one question, of which I have not given him notice so I do not expect an answer this evening. It is as to what is meant by " medical reasons ". I am a little puzzled as to how the art of tattooing can be carried out for medical reasons. I know that a certain amount of cosmetic surgery is performed for medical reasons, but I am a little mystified at tattooing coming under this. Having made those remarks, I believe that the order will be greatly welcomed, especially by the medical profession in Northern Ireland which is already doing such marvellous work of a much more vital nature than removing tattoo marks.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, when he says that one of his regrets is that the order was not introduced much earlier. Some 12 years ago this matter was debated at some length in this House and, indeed, in another place. Recorded in Hansard were some horrific stories about the implications of tattooing, together with some amusing ones: one noble Lord boasted that he had a hunting scene tattooed across his chest. But, whatever the reasons one embarks on this course of action, I certainly welcome the reasons put forward in the order and support the request for some explanation of " medical reasons " that may be required
I should like to raise one other matter. Tiny as it is, and though it meets a need, the order will deal only with some aspects of the matter. Much of the tattooing is self-inflicted and carried out by groups of minors; by that I mean gang groups. I do not know how we could introduce an educational element here. Sometimes if one begins to talk about aspects of life of this kind, they serve only to stimulate and alert an awareness of them. However, I certainly welcome the measure to control it. Perhaps an examination could be made of how children in school could best have their attention drawn to the implications of tattoing in their later lives.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am obliged to both noble Lords for their observations and to my noble friend for the warm welcome which he gave to this order. I do not think that it will profit us to ask why it has taken so long to introduce the order; it has taken us 11 weeks, which is fairly rapid. As to the medical reasons, they left me somewhat guessing until I went into the matter a little more deeply. I understand that there are one or two applications. A warning about the fact that a person is a diabetic or acutely allergic to particular drugs can literally indelibly be inscribed upon him. More interesting or unexpected is the following: If a noble Lord was in the unhappy position of having something that looked like an appendicectomy scar in the place where such a scar would normally appear, which had been caused by a motorcycle accident or was due to some other reason, it would be quite important to have indelibly inscribed beside it " This is not an appendicectomy
1590
scar ", otherwise the noble Lord might perish untimely due to the wrong diagnosis.
I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, about tattooing inflicted by minors upon minors. I was not aware of this. I shall certainly look into the educational aspect of it. I am very glad that he has shown a grasp of the difficulties of educational matters in realising that sometimes if you tell someone not to do something, that will be the first time that he has thought of doing it and he goes away and does it. I certainly take that on board and will see whether anything can be done.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES) (ECSC DECISION OF 9TH APRIL 1979 on SUPPLEMENTARY REVENUES) ORDER 1979
7.38 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne I beg to move that the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (ECSC Decision of 9th April 1979 on Supplementary Revenues) Order 1979, laid before the House on 5th July 1979, be approved. The order specifies as a Community Treaty the decision taken at the Council of Ministers on 9th April 1979 to allocate supplementary revenues to the 1979 budget of the European Coal and Steel Community.
If the House approves this order, it will formally define the decision of the Council of Ministers as a Community Treaty. I should like briefly to set out the legal basis for the procedure which we are undertaking, although I believe that some noble Lords will be familiar with it. The order will define the decision of the council as a Community Treaty under Section 1 of the European Communities Act 1972. This was the enabling Act passed when this country joined the European Communities. Approval of the draft order will allow the Government to make the necessary payment to the ECSC under the powers conferred by Section 2(3) of the same Act.
The object of the Council decision specified in the order is to provide the European Coal and Steel Community with

1591
the additional revenue needed to make good an anticipated deficiency in its budget for 1979, resulting from the increased expenditure arising out of the steel recession. As the House will know, the steel industry has been hit by a sharp fall in demand, at a time when world steel production capacity had been greatly increased to meet an anticipated level of demand which failed to materialise. The industry has suffered accordingly.
At the Foreign Affairs Council of Ministers in December last year, the Commission therefore requested a supplementary contribution from member States of 60 million EUA (European units of account) to the 1979 budget of the ECSC. Most member States considered this to be an excessive demand but, after a discussion prolonged over several months, it was agreed, subject to the completion of the necessary national Parliamentary procedures, that a supplementary contribution of 28 million EUA should be raised. Member States also agreed that each should pay the same percentage of the sum as for the similar contribution made to the 1978 budget. In the case of the United Kingdom this is 4·87 million EUA. The decision was finally taken without further discussion at the Council of Ministers on 9th April 1979.
The steel recession has of course seriously affected employees of the steel producers, a very large number of whom have been made redundant throughout the Community. The short-fall in the budget for 1979 has arisen to a substantial extent as a result of the Community's intention to supplement national measures designed to alleviate the impact of the recession on these men. As the House may know, those who are made redundant qualify for settlement aid. This takes a number of forms: grants are made towards retraining, additional unemployment benefits are paid and for a period the earnings of people employed in new jobs outside the steel industry are made up to the level they received before they were made redundant. The 1979 budget allocates 67 million EUA under the heading of resettlement aid. The provisional allocation to the United Kingdom out of this total is 14 million EUA or £8·82 million. This is the second highest allocation for any member State and is over £1 million more than the allocation for 1978.
1592
The Community does not of course only provide resettlement aid. As noble Lords know, it also has policies for encouraging the creation of alternative employment outside the coal and steel industries for redundant workers. Loans raised by the Commission by borrowing at the cheapest rate of interest prevailing on the money markets are on-lent with an interest rebate, generally of 3 per cent. over five years, for projects providing employment for redundant coal and steel workers. In 1979, it is expected that a total of 15 million EUA for the ECSC budget will be used throughout the Community for such interest subsidies. It is not possible to say how much of the sum will be used for projects in the United Kingdom but so far this year loans for three projects in this country have been approved. These will provide new employment opportunities. Other applications for loans with interest relief are being considered.
The ECSC budget also provides loans towards new investment in coal and steel projects. Grants are made for research into new production processes as well as into pollution control and the improvement of safety. Of the steel research budget, £1·41 million or 11·5 per cent. of the total of £12·3 million has gone to BSC. As for the coal industry's research programme, allocations of £4·9 million have been made to the NCB and £1·1 million for safety and health, out of total allocations of £10·7 million and £6·3 million respectively.
Noble Lords will be aware that the ECSC's traditional source of income is the levy on coal and steel production, the percentage yield of which remains at 0·29 per cent. This year, it was again judged inexpedient to raise this level, bearing in mind the present financial pressures on producers. Nevertheless, there are great demands on the ECSC budget in the current situation. If the ECSC budget were not to be supplemented, the activities of the Community would have to be curtailed. I believe that noble Lords would agree that this would not be advisable. Accordingly, I seek approval for the draft Order in Council. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order, laid before the House on 5th July, be approved. —(Viscount Long.)
7.46 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful to the noble Viscount for the clarity with which he has moved this important order. On the principle that one good speech is quite enough, even for this House and even on such a fascinating subject as this, I shall confine myself to just one or two points. The opposition of course approves the order and joins with the Government in hoping that the House will pass it. We shall look forward to studying the noble Viscount's speech in Hansard—if we are lucky enough to have one—and particularly to studying the extremely important and useful figures he has given about contributions by member States, including the United Kingdom, the percentage of the whole, and the derivation to us, like other member States, in the benefits that we receive.
I have made one or two calculations of my own, but I shall consult the Official Report tomorrow to see whether I have got it right. At random, the House will have heard with satisfaction that our contribution to the 28 million EUA which is now sought as a supplementary estimate is something over 17 per cent. of the whole, while last year, as the noble Viscount reminded us, our receipts on resettlement grants were rather over 20 million EUA. This is an example. I am not arguing that we must break even between contributions and receipts all the time. But the mood of the country, and I think probably of the whole of Western Europe, is that those two calculations must, over a certain period, reasonably come together as one looks back on contribution and receipt as a matter of progress.
I note with satisfaction too that the Joint Committee of both Houses appointed to scrutinise delegated legislation of this kind sees no reason to draw the special attention of this House, or indeed of the other place, to any feature of this order. We are well served by the Joint Committee. It is useful and reassuring for both Government and Opposition to have before them always the definitive report of the Joint Committee as to the status, as it sees it, constitutionally and otherwise, of any Statutory Instrument that comes before the House. I join with the noble Viscount, therefore, in hoping that the House will approve this order.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. This is a vitally important order for the coal and steel industry and I shall read carefully in the Official Report what he said. The grants and so on are vitally important to the industry and, with that in mind, I am grateful for his remarks.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ZAMBIA: HER MAJESTY'S VISIT
7.50 p.m.
The Marquess of SALISBURY The Marquess of SALISBURY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure the safety of Her Majesty during Her forthcoming visit to Zambia in view of the unsettled condition of that country. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I ask this Question because there is considerable concern in this country as to the safety of Her Majesty during her current tour. I may be a little late in asking it as she has already left, but I ask it in specific terms about Zambia. In the meantime, I wish to offer her Godspeed on her journey.
Questions have already been asked in another place about the propriety of this trip but, as noble Lords will know, they were concerned generally with whether it was desirable for the Queen to go to Lusaka. We now know she is on her way there, but I still think it is desirable to ask Her Majesty's Government about the security arrangements. I accept it is impossible to give details—indeed, they would be counter-productive if given—and therefore all I am seeking at this stage are general assurances.
My reasons for seeking such assurances are that I have doubts because of the limitations of what is available to the Zambian Government in their capacity to afford the protection I suggest is required. I shall give my reasons for raising this issue briefly. First, I do not think it can be said that the Zambian Government are in complete control of the whole country; it is difficult to assess the exact position, but I believe that to be fundamentally correct.
Secondly, President Kaunda is not always able to travel, as the Queen is in this country, without a considerable

1595
escort. I assume, I hope correctly, that Her Majesty will be travelling on occasions through the streets of Lusaka in company with the President and it is surely not impossible that an attempt might be made on his life which would directly involve her. I believe a similar situation arose when she undertook an official visit to Ghana when the Head of State was President Nkruma. It was known that he had not been out of his presidential house for some time and it was known there were dissident elements who wished to take his life. As I understand it, Her Majesty's Government sent the Minister concerned—the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, as he is now—to tell the then President that, unless he was prepared to take the route which the Queen was to follow through the streets under similar conditions to those which would apply during the official visit, that visit would be off. I wonder whether steps of a similar kind might have been appropriate on this occasion.
Thirdly, there is the question of the ability of the limited intelligence service, police and other security forces available to the Zambian Government to provide the necessary cover, and here again there must be a question mark. If there is any doubt, I hope some arrangement has been reached for our security services to give the necessary support. Fourthly, there could be a problem with the Zambian Army. It is not, by European standards, a very competent army and I doubt whether it is fully under the control of its senior staff. This could be a source of trouble in the capital. There have been reports of rioting, troops breaking out of barracks and so on, which does not seem a very happy situation for the main security force in the country.
Fifthly, there are the terrorist forces of the Patriotic Front which are in Zambia in some strength. They are not a particularly efficient force either, but reports indicate they are more efficient than the Zambian Army, and where clashes have taken place these forces have tended to come out on top. Moreover, there are certain areas close to Lusaka where they, rather than the Zambian official forces, appear to be in control. We know they have problems with those forces and that it is difficult to control them. For example, there
1596
have been the occasions when two civilian airliners have been shot down by those forces. I wonder whether the leaders of the organisation were responsible or whether it was just some trigger-happy group taking the opportunity to fire off their exciting weapons.
If that was true then, it is equally possible if might happen again, in particular because I understand that on leaving Lusaka Her Majesty intends to pay a visit to Botswana and will be flying over an area which is infiltrated by some of these groups who are armed, reports say, with very sophisticated SAM weapons which have a homing device on aeroplanes flying overhead. Her Majesty's aeroplanes are Andovers, which are slow and, I would have thought, easy targets should anyone decide to attack them. This point needs clarification. I am not really suggesting that any of the leaders either in Zambia or of any other forces would wish to do the Queen any harm; that is highly unlikely and indeed, from their political point of view, could be counter-productive. I am however suggesting—this is my concern—that they are not always in control of the forces which exist there.
There is perhaps one man who has a bigger say in what is going on there than any of the others, and he is the KGB man who is masquerading as the Ambassador of the USSR in Lusaka. It is reported that he has a considerable say in what is going on and it may be that he, as much as anyone else, should have been consulted and perhaps the Government have already done so. At any rate, such information as I can obtain indicates that the Russians have indicated they would very much deplore any attack being made on Her Majesty, although the same sources indicate they would not necessarily take the same view about Mrs. Thatcher, and it may be that she will be at considerable risk during the course of her visit.
Those are the grounds for my raising this matter tonight. Rumour has it that Her Majesty has expressed a strong wish to attend the conference in her capacity of Head of the Commonwealth, and that is what all your Lordships would have expected of her and it is in line with her known courage and devotion to duty. These are among her very great qualities and ones we greatly admire in her, but she is very deep in the affections of all her

1597
people and we would deplore it if anything were to happen to her during this trip. I believe that the blame if such a misfortune were to occur would fall squarely on Her Majesty's Government, mainly for the reason that I have advanced: that the Zambian authorities are not really in a position to give the required cover. So I ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to provide a safe passage for the Queen.
8 p.m.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, I have very little to add to what the noble Marquess has said. The great problem here is that Her Majesty is going into an area which, with the best will in the world, is not capable of providing for her protection. It has an army which has shown itself not to be in control of its command, and there are the guerrilla forces, which are better armed and possibly on the whole better trained. But, again, who is responsible for them? Then there are the so-called instructors who are responsible to a gentleman such as the Russian Ambassador. I am quite sure that the Russians, and probably the Cubans, who are very sensitive to Russian control, would not wish to harm Her Majesty, but I am not so certain about the Libyans. What Libyan presence is there there, do we know?
The other matter which worries me is that where there are highly sophisticated weapons which are in the charge of very unsophisticated people, the temptation to let them off at any excuse is very acute. I remember in the war when we had much more advanced people who were trained in anti-aircraft work. The difficulty to prevent them shooting down our own planes was very acute, and a great many of our own planes were shot down. In the situation we are now considering there are considerably less trained and less controlled people in charge of more sophisticated and dangerous weapons.
This causes anxiety; and it is not only a question of physical danger. I am sure that we do not want Her Majesty to be embarrassed. What has been going on in Liberia at the OAU meeting shows what a good many of the members of the Commonwealth intend to talk about at Lusaka. How is Her Majesty not to become involved? After all, the Com-
1598
monwealth is a club whose membership does not involve very much discrimination; you have to be there, but it does not matter in the least how you get there. Field Marshal Amin is elsewhere at the moment. But I believe that, without naming names, one can imagine among the numbers one or two potential Amins who will be there. Really Her Majesty should be protected on this occasion from anything in the nature of private interviews, which could be very difficult indeed. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us some assurances.
8.4 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I apologise that I gave notice of my intention to speak too late to the Chief Whip for my name to be recorded on the list of speakers, but I have given notice to the Minister that I wished to speak. We will all feel that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton are deeply concerned about this question and have spoken with great sincerity about their anxieties. I venture to take part in the debate only because I have been in Zambia this year and because I have some knowledge of the attitude of those who may be concerned if there were any dangers to Her Majesty when she goes to Zambia.
The Queen is our Head of State, and I am perfectly sure that the Prime Minister, before reaching a conclusion on this matter, will with very great concern have sought to give the best advice, and I am fairly confident that she would not have advised Her Majesty to go to Zambia had she felt that there was any danger to the Queen or Prince Philip. I was in Zambia at the beginning of the year. Even then there was very considerable State security. That was enforced not only at the State House—with gates locked, armed soldiers protecting it, very thorough interrogation about one's own person and about one's intention to visit—but also at all the other mansions in which Ministers live. My daughter and I stayed in the State Lodge where Her Majesty the Queen will be accommodated. I say only incidentally that Her Majesty cannot possibly have greater comfort and greater care than we experienced there. State Lodge is some distance from Lusaka, but again the gates were locked and soldiers were protecting it. I want to be objective and therefore I

1599
should say that I am perfectly sure that when Her Majesty stays at the State Lodge the security will be increased. The lodge is at the entrance to a drive, but the area surrounding the lodge will need great security as well, as will the road by which the lodge is reached.
I want us to remember tonight that Her Majesty when she goes to Lusaka will be going not only as our Head of State; she is the symbolic link of the Commonwealth. I will not enter into controversy tonight, but I regard the fact that she is that link as one of the few reasons for defending the system of a Monarchy in this country; but I put that aside. The Queen has the responsibility of opening a conference of the very many nations which are in our Commonwealth.
I had the greatest admiration for the statement issued by Buckingham Palace—even before our own Prime Minister had reached a decision—telling of Her Majesty's firm desire to go to Lusaka and to open the Commonwealth Conference. It will be a conference of enormous importance, and the issues that will be raised I will not discuss tonight. But I add my own belief that Her Majesty will be safe in Zambia. I say this not merely because of the extent of security which I found while I was there, but also for additional reasons which I hope may meet some of the points raised by the noble Marquess and by my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton.
First, there was the danger that there might be some action by the guerrillas in Zambia. Joshua Nkomo has considerable forces there, and there was some fear that they might act because of their doubts about British policy towards Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. I believe that that fear has been completely met. It has been met, first, by the assurance which Joshua Nkomo has given that during the period of Her Majesty's visit he will carry out a ceasefire, and will give instructions to his guerrilla forces not to take any action during Her Majesty's visit which might endanger it. In addition to that, his forces have now been moved a considerable distance from Lusaka, so that additional security could be obtained. I put this argument with conviction, because quite clearly it would be contrary to the interests of Joshua Nkomo, in the
1600
present situation of discussions about the possibility of an all-in conference with representatives of the interim Government, with their possibilities, to do anything, or to fail to control his guerrillas. It would be absolutely disastrous to the cause of Joshua Nkomo and the guerrillas themselves if any action were taken which might be regarded as a danger to Her Majesty.
To that argument I add this. It would equally be against the interests of the interim Government in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia if any action were taken during that period. It would absolutely destroy the negotiations that are now taking place; and I think we can be quite certain that, during the visit of Her Majesty to Zambia, there will be no military action on the part of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia against the guerrilla forces that are in Zambia. From that point of view, as well, I think the danger has been removed.
Lastly, I say this. In this situation we are not relying upon the security forces of Zambia. I want to admit at once that I doubt whether the security forces of Zambia alone would be adequate, either to protect Her Majesty or to protect the representatives of the Commonwealth who will be at the Commonwealth Conference. But I know that there have been the closest discussions between our own security representatives and the security representatives of Zambia, and it was only because of the arrangements made after those discussions that the Prime Minister was able to give the advice that she has given. Her Majesty is not going only to Zambia. She is going to Tanzania, Malawi and Botswana. I hope that, in those territories, the arrangements that have been made are as thorough as I know are the arrangements which have been made in Lusaka itself. We all express the hope that one of the results of her visit, not merely to Zambia, to the Commonwealth Conference, but to those other territories in Central and Southern Africa, will add to the hope that the disastrous conflict which is taking place in South Africa will be ended and a solution to its problems assisted.
8.15 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, this is of course not a moment of controversy but of concern, and

1601
affectionate concern, for the safety and wellbeing of our Queen. The concern which the noble Marquess has expressed is of course shared by all her subjects, and, indeed, by millions throughout the world who are not her subjects. Because our Queen is not only a symbol of the unity of the Commonwealth: she is a message, always, to the wider world, wider than the Commonwealth, of those values and standards which she more than anyone today upholds with such grace and dignity.
We are here, of course, to listen to the assurances which we are bound to receive from the Minister who will answer this short debate. We are aware of what the right honourable Lady the Prime Minister said in another place two days ago. She said then that she had given " deep and careful consideration " to this question, as indeed Prime Ministers do whenever the Head of State is contemplating a proposed visit outside the confines of the realm. The Prime Minister went on to inform the other place that she had received from the Government of the Republic of Zambia assurances that all necessary measures were being taken to ensure the safety of the Queen and of those attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, and that in addition there had been, and there continued to be, close consultation between the Zambian and British authorities on these arrangements. The Prime Minister concluded:
" In the light of these assurances, and of the arrangements that are being made, I have concluded that it is not necessary for me to advise the Queen against going to Zambia ".
The noble Lord the Minister will no doubt be able to supplement that very strong assurance which the head of Government in this country has already given us, and meet the proper and loyal concern expressed by the noble Marquess and others in this debate. My Lords, we all wish Her Majesty Godspeed on her tour of Africa and, in particular, on her visit to Lusaka to take her place as the Head of the Commonwealth on the occasion of the meeting of the assembly of the Commonwealth. It is a moving and inspiring occasion, as indeed the Queen, in her own way, reminded us she saw it.
I mentioned the deep feeling of respect, and love, which Her Majesty has earned beyond this country and, indeed, beyond the Commonwealth. I, like other
1602
Ministers, have had the privilege, the great privilege, of being the Minister in attendance to Her Majesty on her visits to various countries—countries greatly differing one from the other—in Asia, in Eastern Europe and in Western Europe. In every country I, and no doubt others here, have seen for myself the extraordinary respect and, I repeat, love which the people of far-away countries, not even members of the Commonwealth, feel for this still young woman who has led this country for some years now with such natural dignity, and who has given to us all, here and abroad, a new confidence in the abiding values. I have absolutely no doubt that the people and the leaders of Africa will welcome her as those of Asia and Europe are accustomed to doing and it may well be that she will need protection, not from the elements that we have heard mentioned this evening but from the overpowering respect and affection of the crowds who will wish to have a glimpse of her.
8.20 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Salisbury for having given the House a valuable opportunity to consider this matter, particularly because it gives me an opportunity to emphasise what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said to the other place earlier this week. The importance of the matter cannot be over-emphasised; because it is clear, if there were any doubt, that all noble Lords will agree that the safety of Her Majesty, whether at home or abroad, is of paramount concern to us all.
I therefore sympathise with the anxiety that lies behind my noble friend's Unstarred Question. I can, however, assure the House that, in deciding what advice to give Her Majesty in connection with her visit to Zambia, my right honourable friend gave the deepest and most careful consideration to the security implications. As my right honourable friend said on 17th July—and the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, referred to this—we have received assurances from the Government of Zambia that all necessary measures are being taken to ensure the safety of the Queen. In addition, there has been, and continues to be, the closest consultation between the British and Zambian authorities on these arrangements.

1603
I am sure the House will understand that I am not able to give details of the precautionary measures being taken; to do so might undermine their efficiency. I can however state that there have been very full discussions between the British and Zambian security authorities. High-ranking British service and police officers have visited Zambia to undertake detailed studies of the arrangements for Her Majesty's visit. These experts received every facility and assistance from the Zambian Government and I would here like to pay tribute to the great personal interest shown by President Kaunda and to the whole-hearted co-operation on the part of his senior officials in all matters affecting the safety of Her Majesty. The reports of these experts, together with the helpful and thorough measures taken by the Zambian authorities, have been of the greatest value to the British Government in deciding what advice to tender to Her Majesty.
The House will also have noted the undertakings given by both Mr. Nkomo and Bishop Muzorewa concerning hostile actions during the period of both Her Majesty's visit and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Several noble Lords have mentioned these undertakings. Perhaps I can read them to your Lordships. Mr. Nkomo said on 6th July:
" We will not engage in any such activities on the Zambia-Rhodesia border as are likely to provide pretext to the Rhodesian régime to undermine the prospects of the Commonwealth Conference in Lusaka ".
Bishop Muzorewa said on 7th July:
" Our own security forces will take no action which could endanger Queen Elizabeth or anyone attending the Commonwealth Conference ".
In this Unstarred Question, my noble friend referred to the " unsettled condition " of Zambia. It is true that Zambia has had more than its fair share of problems. We know only too well how much Zambia has suffered as a result of the Rhodesian situation. The Zambian people have borne hardship and perils, even loss of life. However, it would be quite wrong to gain the impression that Zambia is in a state of turmoil, unrest or armed conflict. This is not the impression given by the many visitors who go to Zambia, or the experience of the overwhelming majority of those who
1604
live in Zambia—and these include many thousands of British engineers, teachers, businessmen, farmers, doctors and nurses. While some have undeniably faced difficulties, the majority have chosen to continue to live and work in a country whose history of racial harmony and intergation is to be admired, and where expatriate skills and expertise are still welcomed.
Thus, we do well to remember that, contrary to what is sometimes suggested, Her Majesty will be visiting a country where day-to-day life continues unaffected, whose traditions and history are linked firmly with our own and where she can be assured of the warmest personal welcome. The Queen will be in Zambia on a State visit at the personal invitation of President Kaunda, who has always laid great emphasis on the importance he and his country attach to the British Monarchy. I believe Her Majesty will find this spirit of affection and warmth the keynote of her stay in Zambia.
During her visit, the Queen will not only sec Lusaka; she will also have an opportunity to visit the Copperbelt area in Northern Zambia where many of Zambia's large British community live and work. She will also see something of Zambia's abundant wild life and natural beauty at Luangwa Game Park. The Queen's visit will underline still further the wealth of common culture and links between our two countries, and I am sure that the Zambian people will do everything to ensure the enjoyment and comfort of a guest who is held in the highest honour and affection.
During her last four days in Zambia, the Queen will be present, in her capacity as Head of the Commonwealth, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. It has become customary for Her Majesty to attend these meetings, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. She does so at the invitiation of the host Commonwealth country, and at the desire of the Commonwealth as a whole. It is well known that Commonwealth Heads of Government greatly value the opportunity these meetings provide for continued contact and discussion with Her Majesty. The Queen has indicated her desire to be present on the occasion of the Conference and we are sure that her presence will contribute to strengthening

1605
links between Commonwealth countries and the friendly spirit which, over the years, has become the tradition of these meetings.
We believe that Her Majesty's visit to Zambia will be of inestimable value, both in the support it will demonstrate for Anglo-Zambian relations and in the support it offers for the ideals of the Commonwealth, which we, and our fellow members, hold dear. But however great the value and however strongly the desire to show support, I must again stress that, to any British Government, the safety of Her Majesty must take precedence over all other considerations. That is why, in deciding what advice to offer to the Queen, the Government have weighed the question deeply and seriously and have considered her safety to be the paramount factor.
In the light of the arrangements that are being made and the assurances given by the Zambian Government, my right honourable friend has concluded that it is not necessary to advise Her Majesty against going to Zambia. I may add that, before reaching her final decision, she was in touch with the Prime Ministers of all the other realms. Noble Lords may like to know that the Prime Minister of New Zealand, who made some comments on the subject during his visit to London in early June, has issued a statement expressing his full support for my right honourable friend's decision. I can assure the House that the situation will continue to be kept closely under review. But I believe that noble Lords will share the Government's—and Her Majesty's—hope and belief that no change in present plans will be necessary.