Lords Sitting of 31 March 1980

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford

ETHIOPIA: HUMANITARIAN FOOD SUPPLIES
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 what steps they are taking to check alleged diversions of humanitarian food supplies made available by Britain or the EEC for the people of Ethiopia.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, our information is that the food aid supplied by the United Kingdom for humanitarian purposes has benefited the intended recipients in Ethiopia. I understand that the European Commission take a similar view on Community aid.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I hold in my hand a photograph showing a sack labelled, "Wheat: Gift of the European Economic Communities for free distribution", and another one showing a sack labelled, "Given by the Italian People", which was captured on the battlefield of Nacfa by the Eritrean People's Liberation Forces from the Ethiopian Armed Forces? Did not the noble Lord the Minister say to me that it would be naive to assume that no diversion of humanitarian assistance occurred in Ethiopia, and that he did not know how much had taken place? In view of these facts, should not the EEC and the British donors, in particular, carry out a thorough investigation to discover the extent of illegal diversion of humanitarian supplies, and decide whether or not they should continue?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes indeed, my Lords, but we have to make our judgment on the basis of the evidence available to us.
1184
The present evidence available to us is that no substantial diversion of this aid occurs. If the noble Lord had evidence to the contrary, I would gladly look at it.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, did not the noble Lord say that this evidence had come from higher up the chain? Is it not intrinsically unlikely that such evidence, which would have to emanate from within the rehabilitation agency of the Ethiopian Government, would become known to us or to anybody in the outside world? Therefore, is it not possible for the noble Lord to suggest to the EEC that a representative be sent to check thoroughly on the spot all allegations of illegal diversion and, in particular, to look at what has happened on the battlefields of Eritrea?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we have our own representative in Ethiopia in the form of our ambassador, who has made a special point of looking into this matter, and, as I said earlier, we have no evidence of substantial diversion.

DISTRICT HEATING
2.40 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: 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 will state what progress is being made in regard to district heating for factories, houses and flats.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the Government's policy on combined district heating and power generation is under consideration in the light of the Marshall Report (Energy Paper No. 35). We shall be making an announcement very shortly on this important issue.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that fascinating reply, but will he tell me whether this report includes the action being taken by the power stations?
The Earl of GOWRIE: Yes, my Lords, my understanding is that it would.

LICENSING COMPENSATION FUND: DISPOSAL OF MONIES
2.42 p.m.
Lord JANNER: 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 what progress has been made with the funds from the Licensing Compensation for charitable purposes.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister of State has had discussions with the trade and other interests and good progress is being made in reaching decisions on how the funds might be wound up and the proceeds disposed of.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is the kind of answer that has been given for the last 20 to 30 years, and that charities are being deprived of the benefit of these funds? What on earth is causing the delay? Is it not really time that the funds were used for charitable purposes, instead of lying idle for all that period?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, there is nothing between the noble Lord and the Government in the desire to see that these funds are used instead of lying idle as they are at the moment. We have made an advance, in that the brewers have put forward a scheme which is being studied jointly by the Brewers' Society and the Government in consultation with other representatives of the trade and other Government departments. The scheme has to be studied and in addition to that it has also to be decided how a trust should be administered.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister this—I do not want to ask an embarrassing question and I shall understand if the noble Lord feels that he cannot answer it: Is the delay in any way due to difficulties existing because of differences between the viewpoints of the various bodies concerned?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am sure I can answer that question, and the answer is, no.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me when the brewers first put forward the proposal which the Government are now considering—not only this Government but the previous Government, too?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I reported to your Lordships' House last July that the brewers had just put forward their proposals.

CRIMINAL APPEAL (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1968 and related enactments. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the House of Lords Offices Committee Report be agreed to. I think that I should draw your Lordships' attention to two items in the report. The first is Item 2 dealing with the Refreshment Department, and the second is Item 3 dealing with Facilities for Members of the European Parliament.
So far as the Refreshment Department is concerned, the transfer of staff to the House of Lords Vote became essential once a similar decision had been taken in another place. I think that your Lordships will be pleased to hear that the result of this transfer will be wholly to the advantage of the staff of the Refreshment Department who are very loyal and hard working. I think it is a very good

1187
thing that they should now be properly remunerated and their pensions considerably improved.
So far as Facilities for Members of the European Parliament are concerned, as your Lordships know we have debated this matter before and the general decision taken has been to keep in step with another place. Now the position is that the Services Committee in another place has taken a decision and recommended limited access for Members of the European Parliament to areas of the House of Commons. Therefore, the Offices Committee in your Lordships' House thought it appropriate to make a recommendation to this House for limited facilities here. The recommended access that is in the report has been suggested as that which is most likely to facilitate working between the Members of the European Parliament and our own European Communities Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Fifth Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
The Report 'my as follows:
1. LIBRARY
The report from the Library Sub-Committee for the year 1979 was laid before the Committee and approved.
2. REREESHMENT DEPARTMENT
The Committee were informed that the Treasury had agreed, in principle, to the transfer of the Refreshment Department's employees to the Parliament Office with effect front 1st April, 1980, and to the staff costs, including provision for superannuation, being borne on the House of Lords Vote from that date.
The Committee agreed, subject to a review of the arrangements at the end of 1980, that the extra staff costs falling on the Vote should be met from the receipts of the Rreshment Department that will be surrendered as Appropriations-in-Aid.
The Committee agreed rates of pay for the staff and authorised provision for their payment from 1st April, 1980.
3. FACILITIES FOR MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
The Committee recommend that, on a trial basis, United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament be granted access to the Peers' Lobby, the Galleries of the House, the Committee Corridor and to the offices of the European Communities Committee.
4. INSURANCE FOR LORDS
The Committee recommend, in principle, that provision for accident insurance cover should be made for Lords whilst engaged on Parliamentary duty in the United Kingdom.
5. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Committee were informed of the secondment of Mr. M. G. Pownall as Secretary to the Leader of the House and Government Chief Whip, in the place of Mr. C. H. Cumming-Bruce who is resigning.
6. HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Committee were informed of the arrangements made for the temporary secondment of reporting staff from the Northern Ireland Assembly and authorised provision for the payment to them of travelling expenses and subsistence, etc.
7. HOUSE. OF LORDS FEES
The Committee approved proposals for charging for the cost of supplying certain information or records.
8. PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS TO INTERNATIONAL ASSEMBLIES
The Committee authorised provision for the payment of travelling expenses and subsistence to staff who provide secretarial services to Parliamentary Delegates when abroad.
9. NEWS SERVICE
The Committee approved payment of a share of an increased subscription for the Teleprinter News Service.
10. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee were notified of the following awards:—

(a) Revised pension and lump sum to Mr. F. J. Dine. Attendant, who finally retired on 6th March, 1980.

(b) Short Service payment to Lt. Commander D. E. Brock, Staff Superintendent, who resigned on 12th March, 1980.

Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, what is the nature of the facilities that are being granted in this House and in the environs of the House to these distinguished visitors?
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord had actually read the report which we are now discussing he would have seen that it is to grant them access to the Peers' Lobby, the Galleries of the House, the Committee Corridor and to the offices of the European Communities Committee.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what will happen if these gentlemen find themselves thirsty and want to buy a bottle of lemonade?
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am glad to say that the Services Committee in another place has recommended that they should have access to the Strangers' Cafeteria.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HERITAGE BILL
2.48 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ONE OF TILE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (159) as first printed for the Lords. Commons Amendments are printed in italics.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Page 2, line 2, leave out from "appointed" to end of line 4 and insert"by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister."
The Commons agreed to this Amendment hut make the following Amendment thereto:
2 Line 2, leave out "the Crown on the advice of".
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to the Lords Amendment No. 1. When we debated this matter on Report and in Committee, the view was put very forcefully by a number of speakers here that the prestige and independence of the trustees and the integrity of the resources of the fund should be safeguarded by the appointment of the trustees lying not with the Ministers, within whose policy area the fund will actually operate, but with the Crown or the Prime Minister. Although there are precedents for appointment of a whole body by the Crown, they relate to bodies set up in the form of Royal Commissions and to bodies of considerable constitutional importance—such as the Bank of England. It is, however, the case that the Prime Minister appoints the trustees of a number of national museums and galleries. That, in fact, dates back to the time when the Treasury had departmental responsibility for the arts and it was in the capacity of First Lord of the Treasury that the Prime Minister originally made these appointments.
None the less, in view of the strong feeling expressed on the need to assure the independence and standing of the trustees, the Government suggest that it would be appropriate to follow this precedent, and propose instead that appointments should
1190
be made by the Prime Minister. Amendments to that effect were passed in another place and they deal with the question of appointment in Clause 1 and with the termination of appointment in Schedule 1.
I have, however, to add that one result of the amendments to Clause 2 agreed here and in another place is that it has not yet been possible to proceed with the appointment of the chairman and trustees of the fund, now the responsibility of the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, until these appointments have been made it will not be possible to open any account to receive the capital sums from the National Land Fund, and therefore my comments to your Lordships on Report about interest payable on the capital are invalidated, as we then expected that the chairman and trustees would be appointed by 1st April. However, I can give noble Lords the assurance that the Government will now proceed as quickly as is practicable with the necessary appointments, which we expect to be made very shortly. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to the Lords Amendment No.1.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
2.50 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, although we are pleased that the amendments passed by this House have been accepted by another place, a point has been raised which gives rise to some concern. Just now the noble Lord said that the monies cannot he paid into the fund until the chairman and the trustees have been appointed, and that that matter has been delayed.
I would refer the noble Lord to column 825 of the Official Report of 11th March when we took the Committee stage of the Bill. I specifically put to him:
"If by any unhappy. unlikely and unfortunate chance … there is any delay, do I assume that the interest on the capital will be paid? This amounts to about £100,000 a month, and it would be disastrous if the fund did not get this right from the beginning".
There were a number of other interventions and then the noble Lord said:
"A little angel has just wafted me information. I can tell the House that interest will be paid on the capital. I take that to mean that it Will be paid as front 1st April, whether it is paid in or not."

1191
I quite appreciate that the amendment may have caused some days' delay in the appointments, but I am concerned that the fund should not lose this interest which, according to what the noble Lord has just said, appears will be the case. Surely as it accumulates the interest can be retained for the fund and paid in directly the chairman and the quorum of trustees have been appointed so that they can sign for it? It would seem to me to be not only entirely unfair, but quite contrary to what the noble Lord said on 11th March if, in fact, this money is lost. As I think we are all agreed—both in this House and in another place—that due to the economic circumstances the fund will not be over-endowed when it starts, these thousands of pounds—and it could be a minimum of £25,000—are quite substantial.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, your Lordships may recall that on the Report stage I tabled two amendments. One concerned whether the appointment of the trustees should be in the hands of the Crown, as advised by the Prime Minister; or, alternatively, made by the Prime Minister. When faced with the generous capitulation of my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton, I had to choose between one of those two, and I apparently chose the wrong one; namely, the first one. However, I must say at once that I am perfectly happy to agree with what the Commons have chosen to do, and I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation of the reasons for so doing—reasons which, having studied Hansard of another place, I could not find mentioned by anybody,
On the matter of finance, which has been sprung on us at the last minute, I am very surprised. The original Clause 18 was removed from the Bill at Report stage at the request of the Government, and I cannot but feel that they should have made it clear to the House at that stage what the result would be. The amount involved is fairly considerable in the terms of the trust, but presumably the interest is now accruing to the National Land Fund, is it not? Can we have an answer to that and know why the interest cannot be transferred with the other funds to the Heritage Fund in due course? Apart from that, I hope that we shall agree with the Commons in what they have done.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, if I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, we on this side are content with the appointment arrangements, but we are thoroughly upset by the assurance which was given to a most specific question by my noble friend Lady Birk, who said:
"If by any unhappy, unlikely and unfortunate chance-not to do with your Lordships' House-there is any delay …".
We were given a positive assurance that this would be dealt with.
I can quite see that if there is no chairman and, therefore, there is no existing body by which the interest accruing on the large number of millions, which we are looking for to be transferred from the National Land Fund, can be received, there may have to be a delay in paying it; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, suggests, this money will accumulate where it normally would if there had been no change, and can then be transferred. Anything less than an assurance on those lines seems to me to be a breach of the Government's promise to the House, given by their Minister in this House, in answer to an absolutely specific question. I do not think that the House should accept it. However, I feel sure that the noble Lord will be able to say something reassuring before we finish.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I can only come to the Box and say that I apologise; there was a misunderstanding. The legal position is that the fund can be administered only by the trustees, and only they can put it in an interest-bearing deposit. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, had we kept Clause 18, I am advised that it would not have helped. It is only a matter of a few days. I do not anticipate that it will be long before the trustees are appointed.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would, perhaps, add to what he said? He said that the money cannot be received until there is someone who can legally receive it. I accept that. But I am concerned about the situation as it accumulates, which it would, and this has been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, and by my noble friend Lord Donaldson. Can we be assured

1193
that eventually, after the appointment of the chairman and trustees, that money will be paid into the fund? That is what we want to know. I am very concerned that it should not be lost or retained by the Treasury, or that it will I not reach the fund at some point.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my understanding is that as soon as the trustees and chairman have been appointed the money can and will be paid.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, surely that is not the question which has been put. In the meantime interest is accumulating on this sum. Can the Government undertake that when ultimately it is paid over, that interest which has accumulated will be transferred to the Heritage Fund?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am not in a position to give a guarantee of that sort at this moment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
2.58 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 7:
COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL
AMENDMENTS TO LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Page 12, line 23, leave out "either of the Ministers" and insert "the Prime Minister"
4 line 25, leave out "Ministers" and insert "Prime Minister"
5 line 26, leave out "they are" and insert he is"
6 line 37, leave out "Ministers" and insert "Prime Minister's"
7 Page 13, line 5, leave out "either of the Ministers" and insert "the Prime Minister"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move these Amendments en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 inclusive.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
2.59 p.m.
Bill read 3a (with the amendments).
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young)The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young) moved Amendments Nos. 1 and 2:
Clause 8, page 8, leave out lines 20 to 22.
Page 9, line 12, at end insert—
("(5A) The local education authority by whom an aided or special agreement school is maintained may, with the agreement of the governors of the school, publish on their behalf the particulars or information relating to the school referred to in subsection (2) or (5) above.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move these two amendments. They are technical, consequential amendments upon the agreement by the House on Report to Amendment No. 22. At present Clause 8(2) provides for the publication by a local education authority of information relating to admissions and appeals arrangements for an aided school where this is done with the agreement of and on behalf of the governors of that school. Before we passed Amendment No. 22, on Report, Clause 8(5) referred back to Clause 8(2) and so extended this provision to the publication of information required by regulations made under Clause 8(5). However, Amendment No. 22, which we proposed at Report stage in the course of fulfilling our undertaking about the publication of information relating to special education, did not repeat the link with Clause 8(2). These amendments merely restore the position concerning publication to what it had been hitherto. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
3.1 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Young.)
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I wish to make just a few comments about this Bill, which I think has been a rushed Bill. It has been rushed in two ways: It has been hurried through to get it on the statute book by the beginning of April and, as a result, a number of important matters which need to be legislated for have been left out of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned Warnock last week when we were at Report stage. The anxiety that many noble Lords on all sides of the House

1195
felt about provisions for the handicapped was obvious from the amendments put down.
The education of the 16 to 19 year-olds is another area where we are awaiting a report from the Macfarlane Committee, and where legislation and action is urgently needed. There is nothing for that age group in this Bill. A large number of regulations are still to be drafted—regulations of great importance in clarifying the intentions of the Government. We have seen none of these. I also consider that the Bill has been rushed through your Lordships' House. We have been pressed for time both at Committee and Report stages and this is most certainly not because we on these Benches, or indeed others on other Benches, have made long speeches and held up business. I have myself asked my noble friends on these Benches to exercise restraint, and either not to speak or to speak briefly to enable us to get on. I hope that those who organise the timetable for future Bills will take note of this.
However, the 1980 Education (No. 2) Bill will probably be remembered for that remarkable debate and vote on the transport clauses in which one of the authors of the 1944 Education Act, the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, made such a skilful and influential speech. That debate may well go down in history as the time when the House of Lords really made itself felt. There was no doubt that on that occasion at least this House had very full coverage in the Press. We can claim to have made some improvement to the Bill.
As for the Bill, it makes a number of promises which I, for one, shall he surprised to see fulfilled. Parental choice is supposed to be on offer. How real that will be remains to be seen. I suspect that it is a "con". The LEAs too are supposed to be given greater freedom. Here and there maybe, but in other places burdens are put on them and they have no choice in the matter. They may well have difficulty, as a result of certain clauses in the Bill, in keeping up the standards of their comprehensive schools. The Bill is hard on those who are just above the supplementary benefit and family income supplement level, and I
1196
think that those who drafted the Bill have not shown a great deal of imagination about how these people are going to suffer.
Then there is the introduction of the assisted places scheme. That is a slap in the face for those who run, and teach in, the maintained sector. I was reading early in the New Year some paper where a journalist was giving prizes for boobs of the previous year. He gave first prize to Mr. Mark Carlisle for giving a subsidy to the private education industry while pleading poverty to the service which, as Secretary of State. he is charged to uphold. I think that that will be my final comment on this miserable Bill.
3.5 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, at the Second Reading of this Bill, I ventured to describe it from the point of view of my noble friends on these Benches as a deplorable Bill. Now we come to say farewell to it it is less deplorable, thanks to the decision of the Committee to throw out the transport charges, to which the noble Baroness, Lady David, has already referred. The noble Baroness in charge of the Bill was rather insistent after that had happened in warning us of the dire consequences that this might have on other parts of the education budget. In fact, I thought she was rather unduly pessimistic in some of her comments, and I hope and believe that it will not be so bad as she painted.
On the third day of the Committee stage, on 13th March, at column 1300, she actually said—and I may say that I was a little surprised—
"as a result of the activities of this House today there is likely to be less nursery provision than there was".
I recognise that the noble Baroness was upset by the decision of the Committee and perhaps rather shocked at the size of the majority, but I wonder whether I can ask her whether there is any evidence that there is likely to be less nursery provision than there was. It seemed to me to be a slight overstatement of the risk.
Then I looked at the Statement made by the Secretary of State, which the noble Baroness repeated in this House, some days later. It seemed to me, reading that Statement, and reading the discussion that took place upon it in another place, that there was some doubt whether in

1197
fact the recoupment—I am sorry, I must not use that word because it has a technical meaning—or rather the recovery of the amount of the savings lost by the deletion of transport really has to come out of the education budget at all. The Secretary of State began by making out on 18th March that the rate support grant had already been settled, and at column 209 went on to say:
"But this is no way removes the obligation on local authorities to achieve the needed reductions in expenditure in some other way".
He referred these to the local authorities. Having spoken of the rate support grant, it seemed to me that he was referring to the local authority budgets as a whole and not merely to the budget of the education authorities. I agree that it is a little confusing because the word "authority" is used several times, and of course the authority may be the local authority or the local education authority.
I suggest to the noble Baroness—and perhaps she could clear up this point when she replies—that it is quite open to local authorities to find the comparatively small savings required in some other field altogether than education. I say "the comparatively small amount" since it is known that a large number of local education authorities were not proposing to charge for transport anyway, and I feel that the total amount is probably less than the figures being talked about when were discussing the Bill.
As the noble Baroness, Lady David, has said, even with the transport charges removed, we have disagreement on a number of important issues, but I do not think I would wish to say anything more about them today except this: when we discussed the nursery schools my noble friend Lady Seear made the point strongly that it would be so much better if the obligation to provide nursery education was left on the statute book and could then be suspended. I made the suggestion that by using what is Clause 37(1) of the Bill, the Secretary of State could bring different parts of the Bill into operation on different dates. The aim is agreed on both sides of the House. The noble Baroness is quite clear that the aim is to restore, and indeed to improve, the position regarding nursery education as soon as financial circumstances permit. So would it riot be much better to have the
1198
provision on the statute book, and then the Secretary of State could bring it into operation by bringing an order before Parliament when circumstances allowed?
When that was suggested, the noble Baroness made great play of the fact that it would lead to pressure in that and other instances where the same procedure was suggested. But surely a Secretary of State could always resist pressure if there was good reason for resisting it? I ask your Lordships to consider what happens under the arrangements we have now. The obligation to provide nursery education has been removed. When the financial situation is better—as we all hope it will be before long—and we are able to return to the position in which we want to make this a duty instead of a power, what will happen? The Secretary of State will be asked, and he will reply, "I quite agree, but the legislative programme is so great that I cannot bring a Bill in". That is the great trap we will fall into unless we are careful.
It would have been so much easier if the Government had thought fit to accept the idea that it should be legislated for at this stage and then the operation of the clause postponed for as long as necessary. I make this point rather strongly now, because I am sure these things will arise with other Bills which the Government will bring forward during this period of financial stringency. If there is some issue in those Bills on which we are all agreed but we cannot deal with them only because we do not have the money, would it not be a good idea to put them into the relevant Bills with a suspending clause, such as we have in this one?
3.12 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, this seems a suitable opportunity to make a few comments about the Bill from, as it were, an unofficial source. We have heard from the Front Bench spokesmen of the Labour and Liberal Parties. What are their complaints about? My noble friend Lady David described it as a "rushed" Bill. If by "rushed", she meant sitting up all night listening to noble Lords in Committee moving innumerable amendments and then withdrawing them, then "rushed" would be appropriate. Indeed, I would go so far as to comment that more amendments were moved and

1199
withdrawn than were voted upon. What does that indicate? It indicates that the procedural basis of the Bill both in Committee and on Report was, to put it bluntly, absurd, ridiculous, ludicrous and completely unnecessary!
During the procedure to which I refer, I could not understand why we had to stay up all night. What did we accomplish during that period? No doubt it presented a favourable opportunity, intermittantly and perfunctorily and very often deliberately, for Members of your Lordships' House to disappear for the purpose of having a few winks in the Library or perhaps a visit to the Guest Room or Bishops' Bar. Indeed, visits to the Guest Room and Bishops' Bar in certain aspects provided compensation for what we suffered. In my view, the whole procedure was wrong. Before the amendments were tabled they should have been thought out very carefully, which obviously they could not have been because within my hearing, and that of many noble Lords here today, amendments were proposed and after a short, often very short, statement from the Minister, they were withdrawn.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on her conduct throughout the debates on the Bill. It was far from superficial and she used understanding. Of course, she never gave anything away. The noble Baroness is one of the best goalkeepers I have ever met in Parliament. The ball could never pass her and every amendment was turned down. Indeed, we knew before we began that we were defeated. If one wanted to be on the winning side for a change, one had to go into the Conservative Lobby, which I did on one occasion, and I am still awaiting the repercussions.
Should we not adopt a new procedure when debating a Bill of this character, a momentous measure? Perhaps I should qualify the use of the word "momentous", because although I intervened a few times expectantly hoping we would discuss education, the curricula, that did not happen. I thought we should be discussing what education was all about; what was happening to our teachers, whether those teachers would be unemployed, why village schools were to be closed down and so on all—important and pertinent questions—but they were never discussed
1200
at all. Hardly was a word said about the basis of education. It was all about managers and governors, the mechanics of the thing, and about education proper hardly a word was uttered. What we were debating seemed to be not an Education Bill but a technological attempt at predicting the kind of machinery that was envisaged by the Government a long time ahead, a time we may never reach for all we know, or some of us may never reach, and therefore we shall not suffer accordingly.
What the Government and Opposition should consider is a better method of procedure when dealing with matters of this sort, and not to ask Members to sit all night to talk and talk without anything being implemented, knowing the Government were going to turn down every amendment anyway. Indeed, that was the assumption of some of my noble friends who, when moving amendments, practically apologised for doing so. It was an astonishing affair. But it is all finished now, at least for the time being, and perhaps one of these days in your Lordships' House we will discuss the philosophy and basis of education, what it is all about and what its purpose is. I hope that will happen, and then our famous educationists, of whom I understand we have many in this House, will come to the fore. I believe that among us there are 13 associates who can add after their names "FRS", Fellows of the Royal Society, one of the most intellectual chambers in the universe.
I do not suppose that there is any other Chamber anywhere—in the United States, or in any other country—in which there are so many Fellows of the Royal Society. In those circumstances, we can discuss education, and what it is all about; and we need to discuss it. I say this because it seems that sometimes we take the wrong direction when we are discussing education. Sometimes I wonder—based partly on my own experience—whether education is really necessary. Some people get on very well without it. Take my case, my Lords. I do not say that I have been a complete success; you might say a qualified success. But obviously it is possible, with a certain measure of native shrewdness, intelligence, and the kind of experience that you pick up on the way, almost to compete with those people who know all about governors and managers,

1201
and about how to deal with the local authorities and all those other questions that were discussed in the course of our proceedings. It was all wrong.
I have congratulated the noble Baroness, Lady Young—and she deserves it—but at the same time I must congratulate my noble friend Lady David, who showed tremendous courage and sometimes remarkable vigour, which interested me; I am always interested in vigour, particularly on the female side. She did a first-class job, supported by some other members of the party who sit on this side of the House.
I hope that I may be forgiven for these comments, but really, sitting up all night was unnecessary. I do not say that I have suffered from it—not in the least. The only reason I decided to participate in the all-night sitting is that I sleep so badly. Last night I hardly slept at all. This is very often the case, and I will not take narcotics. I am very obstinate and obtuse about matters of that sort. I felt that I should not be interested in the managerial and governing aspects of the Bill, and so I thought that I could slip away. I went into the Library often, only to discover that I could not sleep at all. So I came back again; it was easier to sleep in the Chamber.
I beg to be excused. I am speaking now to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He must be getting a little tired of me by this time; I know that he has been tired of me for years, but I shall not say the same about him. However, I have probably said enough to indicate that I was completely dissatisfied. I do not think that we gained a great deal. It is very interesting, but the procedure was all wrong, and I hope that nothing so improper will occur again.
3.23 p.m.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I shall leave it to your Lordships to judge whether the speech that we have just heard—of course the noble Lord is always amusing—has anything to do with either education or the Bill. Education is, as a matter of fact, a very large subject. This is a miscellaneous provisions Bill, which means that there are a number of very different questions raised by it, and to which considerable study must be applied in order to discuss thoroughly whether the
1202
text is right. In my opinion the conduct of the passage of the Bill has been very good. I do not regret any of the amendments that were put down. It is your Lordships' right to put down amendments, and I consider that the debates on the amendments have not wasted time. If the credit is due to any single one of your Lordships—and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, pointed this out—it is due to my noble friend Lady Young. I have taken one or two Education Bills through another place, and I know that they are very difficult. Never previously have I heard from the Front Bench such consistent mastery of the subject, and the same praise is due, too, to the noble Baroness, Lady David. We have been very fortunate in the way in which the passage of what has been a difficult Bill has been conducted.
I support the Bill, and in particular the assisted places scheme. This scheme gives to a small number of able children the right to an education that at the present time they would not receive in any other way; and that is putting children in front of political theory. Since so many of the sixth forms in our secondary schools are of, well, fairly low standard, while in some schools there are no sixth forms at all, then of course it makes sense to help those children who otherwise would not receive the education they need.
Having said that, I found myself in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady David. I must say I regret that the Government did not have time to deal with other major weaknesses in the 1944 Act. During our debates I gained the impression that in some eminent quarters this famous Act is regarded with a somewhat uncritical reverence. On the other hand, the amendments which were proposed from all sides of the House clearly showed dissatisfaction with the way in which the education service—mainly over the last 10 years—has developed within the framework of that Act. We know, for example, that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, with his eye on the 16-year-olds, would like to have an entirely new Act. So would I, but there is one feature of the 1944 Act which we really should try to keep forever: that is the political consensus without which that Act would never have reached the statute book. From the end of the war to the early 1960s we normally worked together, but after that the

1203
consensus was abandoned, and today it would take a blind canary not to see the damage that has been done to our secondary schools by the infiltration of party politics.
The spirit of the 1944 Act will never be forgotten. The provisions, some of which we are amending today, are a different matter. There is nothing sacred about them. It would be a surprise if many of them are not now more or less out of date. Think, my Lords, of the moral, social and economic upheavals of the last 35 or 40 years. Parents and children, students and teachers are very different from what they were at the end of the war. They think, talk and act differently from their grandmothers and grandfathers. The point is that their claims and society's claims on the system of education have very greatly changed since the Act was passed.
We know why the Government could not in this Bill deal with all those great changes. Finance dictated their timetable. They were looking for savings on school meals, to which the House gave approval, as part of the attack on overspending. It beats me how intelligent men such as Mr. Denis Healey and Mr. Len Murray can tell the public that we can spend our way out of inflation. Anyone who believes that ought, I think, to go and see a doctor. However, whatever may he the financial situation, it is time to give more thought to the central problem in British education. It is this: the present allocation of resources—that is teachers, administrators, buildings and money—no longer reflects the relative importance of the various branches of the service. Some sections are getting too much: others too little.
The public wants a better balanced system of education, extended over the whole span of life. There are practical reasons why we should think about this now. The number of children of school age is falling and therefore the restructuring of primary and secondary schools offers us a chance to change direction. The Government have set severe limits on expenditure that we must accept, but it follows that the priorities which now require such urgent attention can only be satisfied by readjustment within the system itself. Even if extra money were available, the choices would be very difficult;
1204
now money is tight and, as usual, Government and local authorities are looking for economies at the growth points in the social services. There are signs of that in the Bill. What it means is that a larger proportion of smaller resources is likely to be concentrated on the compulsory period between the ages of 5 and 16 years.
Not so long ago we might have thought that no bad thing. There were many eminent educationists who believed that almost every child in the maintained system could learn all that he or she ever needed to know while in full-time schooling. That doctrine is no longer tenable. Since my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, George Tomlinson, Florence Horshrugh and myself were at the Ministry, the claims of education before and after the compulsory period have increased enormously. Today we know much more about how important it is to start learning before the age of five. We know much more about the education of handicapped children, for whom the two noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Darcy de Knayth are such formidable and popular champions. We see all too clearly—as I think the noble Baroness said from the Benches opposite—that we are not doing nearly enough for the young people between the ages of 16 and 19. Also, more leisure and a longer expectation of life call for more help with hobbies and with cultural interests of all kinds. Television was unknown in 1944. Now it both stimulates the demands for adult education and can satisfy some of them, as we see from the Open University.
All these multiplying factors compel us to rethink the whole range of educational priorities. We are bound now to regard education as a process continuing from birth to death. That is why we need a new Education Act; it is not that the 1944 Act said nothing, about education before and after the compulsory period, but what it said is now either out of date or has been disregarded and requires substantial revision.
Let us suppose we could start afresh, with a clean slate. How should we replan education over the whole span of life? In Cmnd. No. 7841, the Government propose to curtail expenditure on this service by some 6 per cent. That, of course, is less than the fall in the school rolls, but it is a sombre outlook for the sections of the

1205
service before and after the compulsory period. Therefore, there is all the more reason to think carefully how every available pound should be allocated, right from the under five-year-olds to the old age pensioners.
This is a great and urgent question. I leave it with your Lordships, and simply say that, whatever resources are available, the time has come to devote a larger proportion to education before and after the compulsory period. The major changes which are now of great urgency in the national interest could not be carried through without broad agreement between the political parties and with goodwill from the local authorities and the teachers. That, of course, is what the noble Lord, Lord Butler, had and what we have not got today.
In conclusion, may I say that until inflation is defeated the pace of reform will be in the hands of those employed in the education service. They can choose: by showing restraint in their demands they would help to defeat inflation so that rapid progress could be made in many directions. If they prefer not to exercise restraint, then progress will cease. Nursery schools and adult education, for example, would have to mark time, or even be curtailed. This is the problem raised by the Bill, by our financial situation and the new demands for different kinds of education.
I end, therefore, by asking whether it is possible for this House, in which so many noble Lords and right reverend Prelates are very interested in education, to give a lead in trying to remake the political consensus that we have lost. If we could do that, we would render great service to the British people.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, the noble Viscount said that we could not do anything but simply fight our way in dealing with inflation. Before he sits down, may I ask him whether he can tell me how we can cut our way in order to improve and expand the quality of our education at this particular time, when we have only to improve and expand it?
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if I may answer the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, in some other debate in the course of the passage of this Bill I suggested a large saving
1206
should be made by reducing the total number of teachers and then spending a good deal of that money on doing the one thing that is wanted; that is to say, to recruit and train a number of teachers of higher quality.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will forgive me, and before he sits down would he mind answering one question that I think is important? Is there really any answer to the problem of the 16 to 20-year-old other than some form of compulsory national service? I do not see it. Does he?
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, I think that there is. There is a possibility that some special arrangement should be made for those of 16 to 19 years of age. They are very much in the mind of Lord Alexander of Potterhill and, if he means to speak, he will no doubt tell us about it.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, that is an invitation that I could not possibly refuse. As I indicated on the Second Reading of this Bill, I found myself almost totally opposed to almost all of its provisions, and I still find myself greatly regretting that the Bill is to find its way on to the statute book. Having said that, however, may I join the the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on her wonderful performance in negotiating a Bill with so much opposition and so much criticism, so successfully?
As to the future, I so much share the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. The last time I spoke before this Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House was on this subject. When we had political consensus for a substantial period of from 1945 until, certainly, something like the middle 1960s, we made more progress in education than at any time in the history of this country. But then we ran into this problem of party political differences—due essentially, in my judgment, to a mistake made by local authorities in expanding the provision of grammar school places until it could no longer be defended, either educationally or on any other ground. When it was a limited percentage admission it could reasonably

1207
be defended: when it went to 20, 25 or 30 per cent. it could not possibly be defended on any grounds. Therefore, the emergence of the pressure for comprehensive schools was in my judgment inevitable; and I think it still is inevitable, in the long run. It is now 11 years since I wrote a little booklet, Toward the new New Education Act, in the faith which Lord Eccles expressed.
The 1944 Act has lasted longer than any Education Act in the history of this country, and I think it is time to look at the position again rather carefully, and very much along the lines which Lord Eccles indicated. In the 1944 Act our whole concern was secondary education for all, and we really did not worry unduly about the after-provision. It is true that certain sections provided for it, but it was not a major concern. Now the whole pattern has altered. I do not believe that the unemployment of 16 year-olds leaving school is transient or temporary. I think it is permanent, as it is all over Europe and in America. I believe we must face the fact that full-time education and training—and I emphasise "and training"; I am not talking about raising the school-leaving age to 18—up to 18 will become essential.
For myself, because of the need for schools of limited size and because also of the fact that sixth forms in comprehensive schools will be neither educationally nor economically viable, I think the removal of sixth forms from the schools is inevitable. Therefore, recognising the importance of combining academic education, technical education and commercial education, I would be concerned to see an Act which provided for tertiary colleges and provided a new stage in the educational process from 16 to 19. That is perhaps the answer to the problems posed by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. If you would like to call it national service, fair enough; but it would be national service undertaking training and education, so that these young people of 18 could enter the world, which demands higher standards of education and training, in a technological society which is very different from the society of which we were thinking in 1944.
My Lords, if this House could give a lead, which I very much hope it will,
1208
it would be a very wonderful thing. It would be a wonderful thing if this House could find political consensus on what the future required of the education service, from the age of two or three to very much later in life—65 or beyond—recognising the relative importance of its different stages. Let us make no mistake about it, adult education has been grossly neglected in this country, and we cannot afford to continue to neglect it. I do not know enough about the procedures, but perhaps this House could set up a committee, or do something to bring the political parties together, calmly and sensibly, to sit down and examine the problems, recognising the contribution which education could make to the settlement, the resolution, of these problems, and perhaps produce some document which would be a lead to the other place in the promotion of an Education Act which would provide for the next 40 years as effectively as the 1944 Act has provided for the last.
3.45 p.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: My Lords, it had occurred to me that we had already spoken so much on this Bill that possibly this stage might be comparatively brief; but, as one who has always had an interest in education, it is gratifying to find how much new thought has been injected into the debate. I am tempted, first, to make a brief comment on what was said by my noble friend Lord Shinwell. It is not for me to say what the procedures of this House ought to be—I have not been here long enough to know that—but I think it is true of procedure generally in any legislature that an Opposition is entitled, if it is deeply suspicious of a Bill and dislikes its whole nature, to press and harass the Bill at almost every point, and to move a great many amendments in the hope that some, at least, will be successful; and we have had some little success.
It is true, as my noble friend Lord Shinwell pointed out, that, sometimes, amendments we had planned to move were withdrawn; but perhaps I may draw his attention to the fact that we knew that only a certain amount of time in all could be devoted to the Bill, and that when, as sometimes happens, noble Lords come in and make long speeches that no one expected them to make, not always germane to the subject under discussion, you have to decide that so

1209
much time has been used up in that way that you will have to sacrifice certain other amendments. I am very ready to believe that my noble friend's contributions during the debates were a good deal more interesting than what we might have said on the amendments, but it does explain why we had to withdraw some of the amendments. He, if I may say so, had eaten up the time that might have gone to them.
I noticed also his criticism that we were engaged in the mechanics of education. But may I with respect remind him of the time when he and I had to answer for the War Office in another place? Very few of our speeches dealt with discussion of the actual nature of warfare, or the glories of war, or even the horrors of war: we were of necessity concerned with the mechanics of it—with recruitment, with weapons and with all the nuts and bolts. That, after all, is the essence of a legislature, as distinct from a philosophic assembly. Of course, this House can sometimes put on the philosopher's gown rather than the legislator's, and I would certainly welcome a debate on the general philosophy of education and what the contents of education ought to be. But we cannot wear the philosopher's gown all the time. We are a legislature also, and we were engaged in these debates, inescapably, on the mechanics of education; and I do not think we can be criticised for that.
My noble friend Lord Shinwell took up the phrase which my noble friend Lady David used, that this was a rushed Bill. So it is, but I do not think that my noble friend Lord Shinwell had quite paid attention to what my noble friend Lady David had said about its being a rushed Bill. It was rushed in its preparation. The Government could have stopped and thought. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, who began by telling the Government to go away and think again, and then amended that to say that they should go away and think. I quite accept that. If they had thought a bit more, they might have delayed any Bill of this kind until they were prepared to act on the Warnock Report. I wonder, for example, what my noble friend Lord Shinwell feels about that—a discussion on how to adapt the process of education to children with the terrible misfortune of being handicapped. Is that a discussion on the philosophy of education, or on the
1210
mechanics? Whatever it is, it is a discussion which ought to be undertaken, and we were not able to undertake it because this Bill had been bustled on in order to save a certain amount of money on milk, meals, buses and the rest.
The other deficiency in the Bill that my noble friend Lady David mentioned is that it does not really approach the problem of the 16 to 19-year age group. She herself moved an amendment to that effect, which, as always, the Government would not accept. May I turn in that connection to what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles? He argued, if it understood him aright, that we ought to be considering now how to allocate the total resources that we devote to education among the various stages of the educational process. He was broadly arguing that, at present, less is needed on the staturory period and more on the period before and after. As things now stand, I think I would agree with him. This allocation of priorities is something which must be continuously done all the time in education and, for that matter, when dealing with any spending department. It so happens at the present time that probably the right emphasis is that we should be spending a larger proportion of the total on the period before and after the statutory school age.
It is particularly depressing to find that this Bill is going to cut down on the nursery stage before the statutory age and is offering no encouragement for the 16 to 19-year-olds. The very points to which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, wanted greater attention to be paid are the points which are either injured or cold-shouldered by this Bill. That is why I could not fully understand his support of the Bill as a whole.
On the subject of nursery education, I welcome what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon: that if we cannot afford to do all that we want to do now, the Bill at least ought to be framed to enable expansion to come when we can afford it. That is very true. It applies also to an amendment which we moved over school milk and meals. If it is really true that we can afford free milk and meals for only a limited number of children now, could we not have given at least the Secretary of State a power in the Bill to widen the range of children for whom free

1211
meals and milk would become available as the country's economy improved? But the Government would not even do that. Similarly, with regard to nursery education, the provisions in the Bill which discourage nursery education do not contain any provision that would enable them to be quickly lifted as the economy improved.
On the whole, the Bill does not seem to commend itself with great enthusiasm to anybody. It is true that we have effected one considerable improvement to it in the process of our debates. It reminded me of the phrase used by a famous diarist who said of a lady at the court of King George III that he believed that, after a number of years, the first bloom of her ugliness was wearing off. I wondered whether we could say that of this Bill in view of the disappearance of the transport clauses. I suppose that possibly we could go as far as that; but certainly not any further.
Let us look at one theme which runs all through the Bill. At the begininng, there were the elaborate arrangements for the appointment of governors, for parental preference, for appeals and there was on it that stamp of excessive bureaucracy which, rather surprisingly, seems to be the hallmark of Conservative legislation as witnessed by what they did to the health service and to the reform of local government. The effect of so over-formalising parental preference and the appeals procedure is to make it very much easier for parents to get what they want if they are the kind of parents who are themselves well-educated, articulate and with ready access to legal advice. The general trend of that clause of the Bill, to put it bluntly, is in favour of middle-class parents and weighing against the children of parents with fewer advantages. It is, in that sense a divisive Bill.
That is true also of those parts of the Bill which strike at comprehensive secondary education. But, before developing that, I should like to take up a point raised by both the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, about what is said to have been a period of consensus in educational policy from 1945 to (they say) the 1960s. To be plain about this, you could speak
1212
of a period of consensus from 1945 to 1951 on one of the points which has become a great matter of dispute: how could secondary education best be organised? The Butler Act deliberately left that to the choice of local authorities; and they were beginning to exercise the choice—one, one way; one, another. From 1951 onwards, from the tenure of the office by Florence Horshrugh onwards, the central Government, in Conservative hands, waged war against those local authorities that were trying to develop comprehensive secondary education.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord realises that I, myself, gave authority for 161 comprehensive schools and wished them every success.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: Yes, my Lords, I remember that; but I also remember the noble Viscount speaking to a conference of the National Union of Teachers at which he expounded the view that the basic philosophy of comprehensive secondary education was un-Christian. The fact is that he could not in all cases refuse to let comprehensive secondary education be established, for even Conservative Ministers could not always find a plausible reason if the local authorities wanted it. But, wherever there was a plausible reason, it was used. Conservative Ministers encouraged people to draft and prepare petitions so that they could have the chance of turning down proposals for comprehensive secondary education. Even the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, caused great agony to the people in Leicestershire by telling them that abolishing the 11-plus was illegal—a proposition that I do not think can be properly defended.
This period from 1951 to 1964 could be described as a consensus if you mean by "consensus" what people usually mean by it: a state of affairs in which the Conservative Party has nine-tenths of its own way. That is what "consensus" has usually meant. I say seriously in reply to the appeal of the noble Viscount. Lord Eccles, that if we are seriously to think of consensus, then the party opposite will have to drop its hostility to comprehensive secondary education because,

1213
despite all the discouragement it has received from central Government, despite the hostility of the Press and the media, it has steadily made way. If we are to have consensus this time, it has really got to be consensus and not an acceptance of nine-tenths of the ideas of the Conservative Party. I think it is just possible that one might attain such a consensus; but that cannot be attained on the basis put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.
My Lords, I return now to the contents of the Bill itself. I do not think that what I have been saying has been more irrelevant to what we are discussing than have several of the previous speeches. And I must say that I think they were all the better for that. One need not be too pernickety of what is immediately relevant. The Bill damages the development of comprehensive secondary education, first, by deliberately giving the separatist system of education priority over parental choice. It is laid down quite clearly, and we argued it several times, that, whether the parents like it or not, if you have got a separatist system of education the child will not go to a grammar school unless it satisfies the mumbo-jumbo of the 11-plus examination.
There again, we all know that, in fact, the separatist device at what is called the 11-plus but is really about the age of ten and a half, is inescapably and inevitably tilted in favour of the middle-class parents and their children. That is basically what they intended to do. It hits also at the comprehensive school in the clause dealing with the information that schools have to provide. We were told quite unashamedly,"Yes, they will certainly be told to publish their examination results, but they certainly will not be obliged to tell the public whether they spend more on one kind of school than another ". So the way is made easy for the kind of local authority—and, unfortunately, there are still some—who will practise a deliberately twisted and biased system of separate schools, and favour, in allocations of money, the favoured grammar school to which again it is mainly children of middle-class origins who will attend.
Finally, it injures not only the development of comprehensive secondary education, but the development of the State system of education itself in the
1214
assisted places scheme. The purpose of this is to make sure that no school in the State system will be able to show outstanding academic achievements. If there is a sign of children likely to bring real distinction on a school, they are to be shifted out if it can possibly be done. We say that if we talk in that language we are not talking about consensus. There ought to be a consensus to build up the nation's own schools and to be proud of them. So long as we have this assisted places system, we cannot seriously say that there is consensus of any kind on education policy.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, where is the money?
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: My Lords, that is what we are wondering. We are told that £55 million is to be spent on the assisted places scheme. We can start by using the money there. I am not quite sure that the noble Lord has grasped what is happening. It is his spendthrift Government that are proposing to spend £55 million on educational snobbery. If he is asking, "Where is the money coming from?" let him talk to them.
I do not think that it is necessary to deal further with the other evils of the Bill. I have mentioned the discouragement of nursery education and the meanness of the milk and meals provision. There again, whatever view one may take about how much the country can afford, one of the great evils of these arrangements is that they are going to increase the number of people who are exposed to what is called the poverty trap. The very poorest will be protected because they come within the definition of receiving social security benefit or family income supplement. It will be the people just above that level who will be hardest hit by these provisions. The Conservative Party used to say that a situation has been created in which it pays people to live on benefit rather than to work. That was never true in any but a very few cases. The effect of the milk and meals clause—as the transport clause if it had gone through—will be to increase the number of people of whom that might be said to be true.
Therefore it has been an ugly, nasty, Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, was congratulated by my noble friend,

1215
Lord Shinwell, as being a skilled goalkeeper. She was indeed. My noble friend Lady David was also a skilled goalkeeper—particularly necessary when some noble Lords kick into their own goal. At the end of the day it is a rather squalid story. There is precious little here that will genuinely improve the quality of the educational system as a whole. There is a great deal to make it meaner and more divisive.
4.4 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I was going to say a few brief words and they have already almost all been said. I was going to talk about the handicapped children, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, has said that we are waiting for Warnock. It is a pity that they have been segregated and not integrated in this Bill. I should like to second Lord Stewart's remarks about school meals. It is a pity that our children have no safeguard that they can have a hot meal or a hot drink. The workmen of this country would not work if they could not have their mid-day cup of tea. The children just above social security level will miss out. There will be trade in the free 50p dinner tickets which are going to be given by local authorities. I was at a school on Friday and the headmaster said that he was having problems regarding where the children who were going to eat their sandwiches would sit because there were no chairs.
We in Britain have a reputation for looking after our animals better than our children and this Bill illustrates this point in relation to food and milk. I hope that local authorities will take up the point stressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, about Common Market milk. When children have pains in their stomachs because they are hungry it is very useful if teachers can give them a cup of milk. It is a safeguard. Therefore, I should like to end by saying that maybe the Government will be saving on education but certainly they will be increasing the bill on the Health Service.
Viscount INGLEBY: My Lords, I should like to ask two questions in connection with our amendment which, noble Lords may remember, was concerned with the right of parents to know
1216
what kind of sex education was being given, or was being proposed to be given, to their children and, as a last resort, the right to withdraw their children. I should like to say how much I appreciate the concern that the noble Baroness, who is going to reply, has shown in this field and the undertakings that she gave at Report stage.
The two questions that I should like to ask are as follows. Surely it must be wrong for anybody engaged in sex education to profit—even indirectly—from the provision of contraceptives. Surely the objectives of education and commerce are incompatible in this field, and should be kept entirely separate. The second question I should like to ask is this: I know this cannot be answered this afternoon, but I should like to know how far bodies engaged in this field are supported by public funds. This is a very controversial matter, and it is important to know the answers to that question.
The final part of our amendment concerned the right of parents, as a very last resort, to withdraw their child from sex education classes if they felt so strongly that these would be harmful to their child. It may interest the House to know that this question was debated on Granada Television on Thursday last. Living in the North of England, I could not see it, and I do not know whether the noble Baroness or any other Members of the House were able to do so. They take two votes on these occasions: one before the debate, and one afterwards. The vote before the debate was that 48 people—48 per cent.—felt that parents should have the right to withdraw their children; 38 were against and there were 14 abstentions. At the end of the debate, the figures were as follows: 70 per cent.—70 people—were in favour of parents having the right to withdraw and 30 were against, with no abstentions. Two of those who had been speaking against the right to withdraw were teachers engaged in the sex education aspect in schools. It transpired after the debate that they were using the book, Make it Happy and felt there was no harm in it. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to assist me in finding the answer to the questions that I have asked.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we have had a short and useful debate this after-

1217
noon. I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have made kind references to me. Also, my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden has told me that he much regrets he is unable to be in his place this afternoon.
I believe that this is likely to be the last occasion on which your Lordships will discuss this Bill. I will not detain the House for long, but I should like to say a few words about what I consider to be the Bill's positive achievements and also to say a brief word about the transport clauses. As the House will be aware, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that the Government will not seek to reinstate in this Bill the clauses relating to school transport which your Lordships, against the advice of the Government, decided to delete. I should, however, like to take the opportunity to correct what I said at Committee state on what was then Clause 23. I should like to make it clear that the representatives of the Anglican Churches wrote to the Department in July and in November expressing their concern at the transport proposals. I think we can hope that Members of another place will not wish to disagree to the other amendments made by your Lordships, as these are mainly clarifications and improvements, and I hope they are of a non-controversial nature.
Turning now to the Bill itself, first the Bill advances the Government's policy of involving parents more closely in the choice of school their children will attend and in the running of those schools. The clauses on school government (1–5) provide in particular, for the election of parent and teacher governors. This is a major extension of local democracy and parental involvement, made in the belief that decisions should be taken as nearly as possible to the people they most affect, and that the links between home and school should be strengthened. These clauses will also allow the Secretary of State to require the eventual introduction of a single governing body for almost all primary and secondary schools. This was clearly intended by the spirit, if not the letter, of the 1944 Act and is something to which I attach great importance as a means of fostering a community of interest among all those concerned with the life of each school.
1218
The school admissions clauses of the Bill (6–11) give parents important new statutory rights in relation to decisions about the schools their children should attend. The 1944 Act laid down the general principle that children should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents, but it also recognised that the interest of the individual parents had to be set against the interests of parents collectively and those of the taxpayers and ratepayers. What was lacking, because everyone recognised the inherent difficulty of providing it, was an administrative framework which tried to provide how the conflict of interest to which this would give rise should be resolved; and the result has been that in many areas parents have had little or no real say in the education of their children. This was a problem which we felt needed to be tackled and it is something which today's parents expect, and a step which they welcome. I believe that we have gone some way towards meeting those wishes.
During our discussions of these clauses of the Bill, much regret has been expressed that they do not extend to children in need of special educational treatment. I have explained to your Lordships the very real difficulties about this and given firm assurances, which I repeat today, about the Government's intention to introduce its promised legislation to create a new statutory framework for the education of the handicapped following their consideration of the Warnock Report. In the meantime, however, the Bill has been amended in your Lordships' House to extend its information provisions to special schools and children in need of special educational treatment, so that authorities can be required by regulations made under Clause 8 to publish information about their policy and arrangements in respect of such matters. This I regard as a significant improvement to the Bill in a sensitive area, and I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Renton and to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham and Lady Darcy de Knayth, and their noble friends for what I may perhaps call their understanding persistence.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, may I just for one moment, on behalf of my two colleagues, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for what she has said: I forgot to so do earlier.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for those words. The clauses in the Bill relating to the establishment, closure and alteration of schools (12–16) will, I think, both clarify the procedures which schools and authorities have to go through in these matters, while reducing the degree of detailed control exercised by the Secretary of State. Clause 15 establishes a new procedure designed to provide for public consultation where authorities wish to reduce admissions to schools as part of their planning for the fall in the school population. These clauses have, I think, been usefully clarified and amended by your Lordships and I hope that the amendment first proposed by my noble friend Lord Ridley taking very smal schools out of Clause 15, will have the effect of further reducing the administrative burden on authorities.
Regarding the clauses relating to the assisted places scheme (17 and 18), all I shall say at this stage is that we on this side of the House continue to believe that it is right to try to restore in a modified form the extra dimension of opportunity that was available to parents and children through the direct grant scheme. We very much hope that, as the scheme gets under way, even those who now criticise it will realise that it is capable of making a positive contribution to the education of our children. I was very pleased to hear what my noble friend Lord Eccles said on this matter and perhaps I might say to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that the Secretary of State is charged with promoting the education of the people of England and Wales, and not just the maintained sector. The 1944 Act extends his duties beyond the maintained sector.
Turning now to Clauses 22 and 23 relating to school milk and meals, the more I reflect on our debates of last week the more I am convinced that the time is long overdue for us to get away from the attitudes developed during the war (and rightly so at that time) which led to the development of such a heavily subsidised school meal service. It seems to me inconceivable that, if we were starting from scratch today, we should not accept that democratically accountable local authorities ought to be able to take responsible decisions about the kind of school meals service needed in their area,
1220
and indeed to provide one that caters for the tastes of a far more sophisticated school population of today. There has been some discussion on the economic background surrounding our proposals for the savings to be made on school meals and on milk. I think it is important to reiterate once again that the Government hope that major savings will come from these non-educational areas within the education budget, allowing what money there is to be spent on the fabric of the education service itself.
I should also like to reiterate that the clauses in the Bill relating to nursery education (24 and 25) are not expected or intended to bring about any diminution in such provision, but merely to bring the law into line with what has in fact been the policy of successive Ministers since 1944.
At the same time I should like to draw attention to the fact that, as well as the provisions of Clauses 24 and 25, Clause 12 makes the closure of nursery schools subject for the first time to the approval of the Secretary of State. I should also like to draw attention to the fact that the Government's expenditure plans for the next three years include provisions for a small nursery building programme. I must also make it clear that as regards the closure of nursery schools in Scotland, it would be inappropriate to apply Clause 12 to Scotland since Scottish legislation already requires authorities to seek the consent of the Secretary of State for Scotland to any such closures.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, asked two questions on nursery education. The first was whether I thought there would be a diminution of nursery education because of the decisions on transport clauses within the Bill. The result of that decision is that the £20 million saving that we expected local authorities to be able to make in the current financial year (1980–81) will not be able to be made in that particular area. Savings inevitably will have to be made somewhere else. We know now that 20 authorities were proposing to make some charge for school transport, and inevitably they will have to find those savings elsewhere. I would ask your Lordships to remember that it is not just £20 million for one year: it goes on year after year. What I said—and I

1221
stand by my remarks—is that £20 million would buy quite a lot in the education service; not only would it represent the salaries of 4,000 to 5,000 teachers but it is part of the nursery programme and part also of all the other programmes that schools have to consider. One reason why I regret the decision is that I fear savings may come in other areas which we may all dislike very much indeed.
The second question put forward by the noble Viscount was: why not keep it as a duty? Why not leave it as it is so that when the economy picks up there can be an expansion in the programme'? When, as we confidently hope, the economy does pick up, there is nothing to prevent there being an expansion of the nursery school building programme when it is within the power of local authorities. I would remind the House that even though it has always been a duty to provide nursery education ever since 1944, and we have lived through much more prosperous economic times than we have today, local authorities did not provide the schools—not, I think, because they were unwilling but because even then there were not the resources to do so. I believe that once the resources increase and the economy improves, so there will be more nursery schools in the country
I believe that the Government have had the courage to tackle many important reforms at the same time—to bring to a conclusion, for example, the long debate on school government, in which we have been greatly helped by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and his committee; to provide the means of resolving locally, where it should be resolved, the conflict between parental preference and the availability of schools; to end the longstanding confusion over nursery provision while offering protection to what we have; to recognise that, while our first commitment must be to the public sector of education, effective choice of school in the private sector ought not to depend on the size of one's purse; and to give local authorities increased discretion in a number of areas, but principally over the provision of school meals.
To my noble friend Lord Ingleby, who asked me a question at the end on the amendment that he moved, may I say that I will write to him on the two points
1222
that he raised about the profits from certain organisations being spent on contraceptives; and I will, of course, take note of his point about the Granada Television programme, which I regret to say I did not myself see.
At the conclusion of this stage of the Bill, I should like to thank particularly my noble friends Lord Belstead, Lord Mansfield and Lord Bellwin, who have helped me. I should also like to thank particularly my noble friend Lord Eccles and the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme. Despite what may have been said in the course of our debates, and indeed again this afternoon, I should like as well to thank those Members of the Opposition who have worked so hard on this Bill, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady David, the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. We may not always have agreed—indeed, on most occasions we have not agreed—but I welcome very much the spirit in which the whole debate has been conducted. I should also like to pay my tribute to the very many Cross-Benchers, not least the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, who have played such a major part in this debate, particularly during the very tiring and lengthy Committee stage and the all-night Sitting.
This is the longest amending Bill that there has been since the 1944 Education Act. That does not mean—nor have we ever claimed—that it is in any sense an attempt to rewrite the settlement of 1944, or to revise in any substantial way the main framework of our public education system as it was then established. But I believe that in the years to come the Bill will be recognised as having made a substantial and positive contribution to the continued process of organic change that must be part of any living system, particularly the education system.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to acquaint the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
National Heritage Act,
Betting, Gaming, and Lotteries (Amendment) Act,
Cane Hill Cemetery Act.

IMPORT OF LIVE FISH (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL
4.24 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Title of this small Bill may have a certain familiar ring to the House, as in 1977 and 1978 an almost identical Bill was twice piloted through the House with typical zeal, skill and tenacity by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I know that he is sorry not to be present today. The Bill reached the statute book on its second attempt, but it covered only Scotland. This Bill, if accepted by the House, would bring England and Wales into line with that legislation, and would thus fill a gap in the present powers of protection of our native fish stock and their ecology against the possible harmful competition of imported species.
The Bill is basically a conservation measure. It was sponsored in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Woking, who sailed it through with the support of the honourable Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and an encouraging smile from the Ministry of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. It went through on that attractive nodding procedure, which indicated its total uncontentiousness. However, it both denied my honourable friend the chance of displaying his considerable knowledge of fish ecology and aqua-culture, and myself a helpful glance at his Second Reading speech. I should add at this stage that this small measure is supported by the fishing associations, notably the Salmon and Trout Association, which has been a prime mover in seeking this legislation.
The Bill has one main objective. It is to give the Minister a reserve power
1224
to prohibit or control the import or release of foreign fish or their eggs into our waters. It is perhaps a surprising gap in our protective legislation, when one considers the examples of damage caused by the zander in East Anglia, the mink and the coypu. But at present the Minister can ban or restrict the import of foreign species only on the relatively narrow grounds of disease under the 1937 Act. He has no mandate to consider the wider grounds of protection of our native fish, of their ecology, their habitat, competition for food and even protection against predators.
The Scottish Bill was introduced principally because a particular issue blew up which caused considerable anxiety about the need for protection of our native fish. It was, of course, the import of an experimental batch of Pacific salmon known as the coho salmon. The House will recall the strong feelings aroused over the coho salmon and the possible damage it might cause to our native North Atlantic salmon if it was released or, indeed, escaped into our rivers. The Secretary of State for Scotland now has powers to control of this species, if necessary, which his opposite number in Whitehall does not at present have.
Turning briefly to the Bill, Clause I would allow the Minister, after due and proper consultation, to lay an order either forbidding entirely or controlling by licence the import of foreign fish or their eggs. The test applied for that order is that a foreign fish might compete with, displace, prey on or damage the habitat of a native freshwater fish, shellfish or salmon. Every order would have to be ratified by each House of Parliament and could be annulled by resolution. It is, therefore, hardly a draconian power, but a permissive reserve power exercised only after proper consultation and the approval of Parliament.
Representations have been made as to which bodies should be consulted and who should be named in this Bill. I hope that my noble friend will have something to say on this. The Bill particularly mentions the Nature Conservancy, as indeed did the Scottish Act. The water authorities of England and Wales have, of course, a statutory duty for inland fisheries as laid down in the 1973 Act and the 1975 Salmon and Freshwater

1225
Fisheries Act. If not mandatory, it is, I feel, inconceivable, that the Minister would not consult them or the fish farmers and angling associations. I hope that my noble friend can allay any fears on this point, but clearly the Bill cannot name specifically every body who should be consulted.
Clause 2 authorises certain named persons to inspect property when an order is in force, and when it is believed that live fish or their eggs specified in that order are being kept. The clause specifically excludes a dwelling-house. Clause 3 deals with the penalties imposed for the contravening of an order. There is a maximum penalty of up to £500, with the stock being destroyed. It specifically excludes, the House will note, scientific or research programmes which have received consent from the Minister.
I should add that representations have been made by the National Farmers' Union on behalf of commercial fish farmers. Such queries were raised as to when a fish becomes native. Is the rainbow trout in danger? Are the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man covered by the Bill? On the latter point, I understand that they are not. As to any harmful effect that this small Bill would have on commercial fish farmers or, indeed on tropical fish imports, it is not designed to do so. It is of course designed to meet new dangers to our native stocks and to give the power of protection, if need be, but not to harm traditional safe trades. I commend this small measure to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
4.31 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, it is my pleasure to support my noble friend in his moving the Second Reading of this small Bill, which he has done so persuasively and lucidly. When describing the powers of the Minister, my noble friend mentioned that the Minister has an obligation to consult the Nature Conservancy. That, I am sure, is a very wise and proper provision, but I do not doubt that I was not the only noble Lord to be surprised that the 10 regional water authorities and the National Water Council were not also mentioned.
1226
The regional water authorities are the bodies with statutory responsibility for the maintenance, improvement and development of salmon fisheries, trout fisheries, freshwater fisheries and eel fisheries in our rivers. I quote from the 1973 Water Act. So the strange position could arise that a Minister might authorise the import of exotic fish and a regional water authority would prohibit if from going into the river, and it would have every statutory right to do so. So my noble friend will not be surprised if at the Committee stage I move a small amendment to include in Clause 1(2) a requirement that the Minister shall consult the National Water Council and the 10 regional water authorities at the same time as he consults the Nature Conservancy.
I am entirely in favour of the measure. Like my noble friend, I shared the anxieties of many when the Coho salmon were first imported experimentally into Scotland. There is always the danger with exotic fish that they may drive out indigenous fish. Therefore, they should be very carefully controlled.
May I say one word about what the regional water authorities have done, because they seem to have passed out of the mind of the Ministry of Agriculture. In the last six years, since they came into existence, the regional water authorities have done a good deal in developing the fisheries of this country. They are very conscious that there are some 3 million anglers and hundreds of thousands of game fishermen, salmon and trout fishermen, and that it is their duty to see that the fisheries of our rivers are in good shape—and, indeed, developing and improving—in order to meet this very popular sport which gives such immense pleasure to so many people.
In 1979–80, over half a million pounds-worth of fish was produced by the regional water authorities; and more than half of this quantity was grown from stock in their own hatcheries. The fact is that most of the regional water authorities now have their own fish hatcheries where they breed trout principally, of course. They stock, in a very large measure, the reservoirs which are under their control and which are so tremendously popular with trout fishermen. They also use them for stocking rivers, where necessary. Coarse fish are much more difficult to breed in

1227
captivity, but two or three of the hatcheries are developing techniques to breed coarse fish. Something is being achieved there in order to build up the coarse fisheries in our rivers.
Salmon and sea trout have been restocked only to a limited extent. Last year there were about £100,000 worth of them from the regional water authorities. We in this country are lucky that there is still a number of excellent, naturally stocked salmon rivers around our coast. Two of the most spectacular salmon runs in the future will be, first, the River Thames, about which we all hear a great deal. The Thames estuary is now clean enough for salmon to swim up it. Now it only remains for the parr to be started in the freshwater river; then they will migrate into the ocean. After a year or two, they will come back and the salmon run will then start. How exciting that will be because, apart from anything else, nobody knows to whom the fish belongs. Other preparations are being made for the fish. Fish passes are being built on the first locks so that the salmon can get up the big weirs to their spawning grounds higher up the river.
The second one is the River Tyne. As many noble Lords will know, at the present time the River Tyne is really an open sewer; it is a terribly dirty river. But it is about to be cleaned. The large, splendid, new modern treatment works at the end of the estuary are to be commissioned shortly, I think in the next 12 months. All the intercepters are connected up; then the whole of the sewage from that vast industrial complex on the North and South of the river will be treated, and the beautiful River Tyne will become clean. Salmon will undoubtedly run up again. In the building of the great Kielder Reservoir they have made sure that when the fish are going up to spawn they will be able to get to the tributaries which best suit them for the purpose.
I mention these points because, although I am sure that noble Lords are well aware of what the regional water authorities have done and are doing, I feel that perhaps it needs to be put on the record that they exist and that they are doing a very good job not only to maintain our fisheries but to improve them. Thus it is, I feel, that when I come to move my little amendment
1228
my noble friend will be only too ready to accept it.
With those few words, may I say that I very much welcome a measure which will help the regional water authorities in England and Wales to continue the very good work that they are carrying on at the present time in maintaining and developing our fisheries.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend's Motion that this Bill should receive a Second Reading. I believe it is only proper that somebody from Scotland should support the point he has made that, without this Bill, in a measure Scotland is out on a limb. For that reason, it is only right that I should urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
4.38 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am so pleased that the Minister of State for Agriculture is to speak, in view of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who was a distinguished Minister in the Ministry and who has played a major part in regional activities. I remember that he took me on the Thames to look at that part of the river which is covered by the Thames Conservancy. I was so glad to hear the good news about my native North-East. The Tyne Valley is wonderful, but, because of industrial pollution, inevitably the river needs to be cleaned up if it is to support fish. Linked with the Kielder, which I know very well, it will be a great achievement and will be very good for all sportsmen. We have been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, of the great number of people who are anglers and who wish to fish in water which is not poisoned. So that is a great step forward.
I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in presenting the Bill, pointed out that different authorities were consulted and mentioned the question of fines. I think that the figure of £500 is right. No doubt this will be looked at. We are putting our system on a par with what the Scots have already done in their Bill and that is right, so I very much welcome the Bill. Indeed, only the other day I obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture their announcement identifying research priorities in freshwater fisheries.

1229
This is the first report of the Joint Freshwater Fisheries Research Advisory Committee. I will not repeat it, but I hope that noble Lords who have taken an interest in this today will read it carefully, because, linked with this Bill, which I hope we are now approving unanimously, there is good advice and a better understanding of the freshwater flow requirements of migratory salmon and sea trout, especially in estuaries, which will enable them to find their home rivers on return from the sea and ascend to spawn. This has been examined very carefully by the body that I have mentioned and I hope all noble Lords will read that report. In brief, perhaps I may say to the Minister that I hope he will have an easy passage for this Bill.
4.41 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, your Lordships have been commendably brief on this Bill and I will endeavour to do the same, because fish and the hazards to which fish are subjected and fishing and the hazards—and indeed the pleasure—to which fishermen are subjected are always a matter of keen interest. In seeking to demonstrate the value of the principle on which this Bill is based, I need not detain your Lordships too long because, as my noble friend said, it is only two years since your Lordships approved a similar Bill which was enacted for Scotland. With the benefit of hindsight, I suppose one might regret that that Bill had not been drafted so as to cover the whole of Great Britain, because fish, like other animals, are no respecters of boundaries. But the present Bill is closely modelled on the Scottish Act and, in effect, as my noble friend has said, it does no more than extend its provisions to England and Wales.
The Bill provides separate powers for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England and the Secretary of State for Wales in Wales and this accords with the modern trend towards decentralisation. But, of course, I can assure the noble Lord that, given the untidy habits of fish to which I have already referred, it is not surprising that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will to in close contact over all these
1230
matters, as indeed they will be with the Secretary of State for Scotland.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull and my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford expressed some concern about the provisions on consultation before an order was made. I think it right to point out that the Minister must consult the Nature Conservancy Council, and any other person with whom he considers that consultation is appropriate. That phrase is broad even if it is not specific, and I can assure your Lordships that the Government would seek advice from the widest possible range of interests, including fishing and fish farming interests. It almost goes without saying—but because it does I shall nevertheless say it—that the National Water Council, to which my noble friend Lord Nugent referred, and the appropriate water authorities, would of course be consulted in view of the statutory responsibilities in relation to fisheries and their substantial fund of scientific knowledge and experience in this field. I can assure my noble friend that they will be consulted and he has said that he will move just a tiny amendment at Committee stage. My noble friend is an old parliamentary hand and he will know better than I do the hazards to which Private Members' Bills are subjected when they get into another place littered with amendments, even if they are only small ones; and I have no doubt that my noble friend will weigh up that possibility and the difficulty that it might involve, with the assurance which I have given him about consultation.
I hope that the Bill will not be seen in any way as a possible brake on the development of fish farming. It need not be and it would certainly not he the Government's intention that it should be used in that way. There may well be species which would be usefully introduced for the cultivation of food but which we would not necessarily wish to have in our rivers and lakes. The licensing system envisaged in the Bill could easily deal with that situation. Like other noble Lords, I commend this Bill and I hope that it will have a happy passage through this House and through Parliament.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to say how grateful I am to all the noble Lords who have supported

1231
this Bill, and particularly my noble friend Lord Ferrier. It is rather a pleasant thing to find two past Ministers of Agriculture and the present Minister of Agriculture taking part on this small fish Bill. My noble friend Lord Nugent has indicated his intention of tabling an amendment at the Committee stage, but I hope he will take account of what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has said and the assurance that he has given—and indeed the hazards of a Private Member's Bill in another place. Without wishing to anticipate any further arguments, I will conclude my remarks there.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THE HARRIER PROGRAMME
4.46 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the Harrier programme. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I feel I must almost apologise to the House for coming on again so soon, but I am glad that the time is very early, and I should like to say to my noble friend the Minister that I do not intend to make a long speech in opening this short debate on the Harrier. Besides the very valuable contribution that other noble Lords will be making—and I should like to thank them in advance as I shall not have an opportunity to do so later—it is of course the information that my noble friend can give us which will be of most value. I am glad to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, should have been on the list of speakers and that he will indeed be taking part. I well recall his remarks which added colour and punch to the short debate that we had some months ago on the Tornado, even if he did suggest, after briefing himself with an article from the Financial Times, that we were wasting our time as everything in the programme was splendid. I hope the noble Lord will have an equally cheerful message this evening.
I suspect that I shall not be alone tonight in believing that the Harrier has proved itself over the last two decades as the most remarkable of all British military aircraft designs, and that it now
1232
stands on the threshold of an enormous potential export market. It has taken a long time since the first conception of the Harrier was led by the late Sidney Camm from Hawker Siddeley, indicating his unique versatility, and indeed it has taken a long time for the Harrier to be recognised in a strategic role. Experience has been gained from the service with the Royal Air Force over the last 10 years, and indeed inter-service with the United States Marine Corps over the past 5 years. Experience has been gained in the licence agreement with McDonnell Douglas in 1973 to develop the advanced Harrier. But perhaps the most encouraging factor has been the recognition today of its qualities and of defining its role for strategic purposes.
This has perhaps been made easier by the military strategists who now favour the rapid deployment concept, the mobile strike force, the modern through deck cruiser, such as the Invincible class and so on. All these are designed to deal with the all too frequent flash points around the world; and on top of that, of course, one has to think of the experience of Afghanistan. I believe all these points concentrate the mind wonderfully on the value of the Harrier.
That brings me to the first point which I wish to put to my noble friend, concerning the progress of the Sea Harrier. The Sea Harrier is being delivered at the present time to the Navy and indeed to the Spanish Navy. One sees almost continuous articles about the United States Navy's great interest in it as well. Perhaps my noble friend can deal with the potential of the Sea Harrier, how it is performing and whether NATO countries are likely to find a need for it as well.
While I am on the subject of potential orders for the Harrier, perhaps my noble friend could confirm the state of play over the Chinese Harrier order. What has my right honourable friend returned with from his visit to Peking and Shanghai; and what is the next stage of these somewhat protracted negotiations?
My Lords, perhaps the most controversial decision in the development life of the Harrier, and yet the most far-reaching, was the agreement with McDonnell Douglas to develop under licence the advanced type of Harrier. No one

1233
quite knew then whether this unique British concept was being simply handed over on a plate to that company or whether its further development was being secured, with not unlucrative future for the home industry, notably, of course, Rolls-Royce. Today that licence agreement looks to be growing more and more healthy, with a potential order from the US Marines, I understand, of 350 aircraft, and l am told funding approved by Congress and the House Armed Services Committee for the long lead materials.
If my information is correct on this and Her Majesty's Government are as optimistic of success as McDonnell Douglas appear to be, I hope they will examine a new framework for a long-term future partnership with McDonnell Douglas, which will give fair terms, which will give fair small print to the contract, and see that the British industry really share the view that they have a fair deal. It is in the interests of all parties to build on this partnership, to build on the orders, to develop together the future of the Harrier, improved Harrier, supersonic Harrier, and so forge for the first time a successful commercial link with a US military aerospace company. There are, I believe, reservations in our industry about this, which I believe are misplaced. I hope that tonight my noble friend can dispel some of those misgivings, so long as the framework is fair, as I say.
Turning briefly to the engine of the Harrier, the Pegasus, it would be helpful if my noble friend could say something about present development updating of the Pegasus, its increased thrust and whether it has now met the requirements of the improved version of the Harrier; that is, the British Harrier and the advanced American-type Harrier.
My final question to my noble friend concerns the Royal Air Force order now being evaluated between the British version and the American version. I hope that the RAF will be left to decide on its own without pressure for either version. If an order of, I understand, some 60 aircraft should go to the British version, may I ask whether a further order for the AVA8 will be out of the question? In conclusion, I hope my noble friend will take this opportunity to reiterate the Government's faith in the Harrier for the RAF and confirm their determination to
1234
see that future sales abroad are grasped and strengthened and leave us in no doubt of the importance of supporting our industry and staying with the development of this fine aircraft.
4.54 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, your Lordships' House, as usual, should be very grateful indeed to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who has put his finger on a very important topic tonight—perhaps I should say on two, because he seems to be an equal expert on live fish and mechanical birds. There is one point which he raised about which I would like to ask my noble friend straight away: it is whether he could give us some information as to when the licensing deal with McDonnell Douglas ceases.
It was quite interesting that in The Times this morning the defence correspondent, Henry Stanhope, said practically what I am going to say to your Lordships this evening. I can only conclude that lie or I must have ESP, because I must have composed my speech at the same time as he was writing his article.
If the RAF is to maintain its effectiveness with the Harrier into the 'nineties, I believe it needs Air Staff Requirement 409, known as ASR. But it also, due to collaboration with other countries, supposedly needs the air staff target, AST 403, which is a so-called Harrier-Jaguar replacement. However, unfortunately, the V-stol capability of AST 403 has been shelved, and I believe this has been because of the possible benefit of collaboration between us and France and Germany. So, my Lords, we have the problem; the RAF has two requirements. It wants the ASR 409 and the AST 403. But it only has, I understand, limited cash and at present it looks as if the bulk of this money will go to the AST 403, the Jaguar replacement.
If we are going to maintain the RAF's V-stol force, there are two types for consideration, the British Harrier, the ground attack reconnaisance, GR 5, and the American AV8B. I understand that 60 of these aircraft are required initially by the RAF, with a possible further 40 to follow on. However, one of the main considerations of the RAF is that the aircraft must have self-defence with V-Stol capability—that is, better aerodynamic

1235
air combat performance, heat seeking air-to-air missiles, and electronic counter-measures. Should there by chance be an improved payload or range performance, that would be a bonus.
So, my Lords, we have some pros and some cons. The AV8B is further along the production line, although it will not be in service until 1985 or 1986. It is cheaper, as research and development and production are spaced over 400 aircraft, as my noble friend said—340 to the American Marine Corps and 60 to the Royal Air Force. British Aerospace will get about 30 per cent. of the work; Rolls-Royce would build the engine; and other British component manufacturers would bring the work total up to nearly 50 per cent. Furthermore, the aircraft contains large sections of carbon fibre, and British Aerospace would, I believe, dearly like to be associated with this.
Turning to the British area of the GR5, ground attack and reconnaisance, this will provide much needed design work by British Aerospace. The aircraft would probably be better suited to RAF requirements, with particular emphasis on their requirement for air combat performance. However, it may well prove more expensive. Of course, it is slightly heavier because of its metal wing, but it does appear to be more suitable to look after itself. The RAF are evaluating the AV8B prototype at this moment, but that may take some time as there is only one aircraft; the other one crashed. Pressure is also being put on the RAF over the AV8B, because its production would then be much more assured. As my noble friend said, the US Marine Corps seem to have a perennial problem with their Department of Defence as to whether the US Navy can afford the AV8B. At the same time Congress is convinced that it is the right aircraft for the Marines and keeps restoring the money which is deleted by the Department of Defence. So although it has been left out of the American defence budget of 1980–81, they are confident that it will be replaced. Paradoxically, the US Nay has just completed a sea-based feasibility air study and its conclusions are that smaller V-Stol carriers with AV8B's are the right answer, so that it will be prepared for going all V-Stol in the 21st century.
1236
I should like to digress here for a moment. In spite of our three Invincible type through-deck cruisers, perhaps their Lordships in the Admiralty should rethink their policy on Vosper's mini-Harrier carrier, small and cheap and with a great export potential.
Going back to the United States Navy feasibility study, it will, paradoxically, take some pressure off the RAF over the AV8B, which, although a superb aircraft in its own right, is not necessarily the right one for the RAF. So there are two questions. One is how much cash the RAF can spend on the ASR9, and the other is whether it can afford to develop the GR5 or will be compelled to buy the AV8B through lack of funds. We must also remember that the GR5 and the AV8B are both competitors in the V-Stol market for sales to other countries.
At the same time, the right aeroplane for the RAF may not appeal to a world market. However, we do have the multi-role Sea Harrier available now. I think that we really must give it our maximum sales effort in the same way as the French would do if it were their aircraft. They would send President Giscard D'Estaing in one if they wanted to sell it. We have deals with Australia, probably Brazil, Spain and Italy. I have not mentioned China—my noble friend did so—because I do not know the outcome of the Secretary of State's visit there. However, perhaps my noble friend will be able to give us some information when he answers.
So what of the future? British Aerospace would like to build a supersonic V-stol aircraft using plenum chamber burning, which is known as PCB and which, explained simply, means re-heat in the front nozzles. There are theoretical problems with this, but the only way to see that it will work—and British Aerospace say that it will—is to build and fly a full-scale prototype. It should be not just a test bed, but a representative fighter design.
The United States will certainly build and fly one or more V-Stol aircraft as they realise that V-Stol is the future key to survival. However, we, as has been so usual in the past, have the lead in vectored thrust, which is the only method of going

1237
vertical successfully. Some 30 or 40 other configurations have been tried throughout the world, but they have all had problems or failed. I agree that it will obviously need finance and time to design, develop and fly such an aircraft, so we should start now so that the technology is "mature" as the Americans say, by the 1990s when it will be needed.
I believe that British Aerospace at Warton is considering an aircraft, but of of a different type from the one at Kingston. Therefore, my last two questions to my noble friend are as follows. Do Her Majesty's Government intend to fund a supersonic V-Stol demonstrator programme either alone or in conjunction with the United States? Secondly, what are the RAF's plans for the year 2000 when anti-runway missiles will make present runways untenable and V-Stol imperative for our survival?
5.3 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is not here at present, I hope that it will be agreeable if I carry on in the hope that he may arrive before the wind-up. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for introducing another Unstarred Question debate. I think that he does a great service to the House because the complexity of defence is now so varied and so great that, in many ways, it is better to have a series of smaller debates concentrating on different aspects of defence. Indeed, if we were not discussing the Harrier today I suspect that we would have all been discussing it in the forthcoming defence debate after the Defence White Paper is published later this week. Therefore, I think that my noble friend has done the House a service in raising this matter on this occasion.
I have just returned from my annual visit to the United States to study the problems and to further various industrial interests that I have over there. I always try to return via Washington because this is the time of year then one wants to update one's knowledge of the defence picture and what we are selling to them and what they are selling to us. First and foremost, it is a sad fact that, in spite of the memorandum of understanding, we are buying four times as much from
1238
the United States as they are buying from us. Therefore, if they decide to go ahead with the Harrier, which will not now have a Pratt & Whitney engine as was thought a year ago but an improved Pegasus Rolls-Royce engine—that will be for the AV8B—it will do something to set the imbalance rather better than it is at present.
I believe that the Harrier has come at a very appropriate time, as my noble friend Lord Kimberley has said. The fixed runway is becoming operationally impractical. Bombs are becoming smarter and missiles cleverer and it is not too difficult to find a strip of concrete three miles long. In fact, so often they form sore thumb targets which one could hardly miss, and with clever delayed action bombs and multi-heads which are now used, I think that the fixed runways will become untenable.
A year ago I was told that Dr. Perry, who was in charge of research and development in the Pentagon, had set up a committee to examine the vulnerability in the longer term of fixed runways. I know nothing of whether he has yet reported, and perhaps my noble friend, when he winds up, will be able to tell me or let me know later by letter what has happened to that report on vulnerability. But, whatever comes out—if it does come out—I think that we can be certain that there will be an increasing demand for the V-Stol type of aircraft.
Unfortunately, as both my noble friends have said, there is a divergence between what is ideally suited to the Royal Air Force for the Western European and British scene and weather and what the US Marines may want for deployment in an amphibious operation, or in support of an amphibious operation, and perhaps for the SWAT team which they are now thinking about, so that they can carry out an Entebbe-type of operation, quickly and effectively.
During my visit to Washington last week I heard a nice story which I believe to be absolutely true. A United State's pilot recently tested the latest version of the Harrier. When he landed he spoke to other test pilots and was prepared to bet them 100 dollars that if they were to get into their F.14s, 15s, or even 18s and have a dogfight with him below 15,000

1239
feet, on every single occasion he would win with the Harrier. That means that, of course, we want an air superiority fighter of some sort for the very high levels, but perhaps below that height the Harrier is very effective in the battlefield in support of our troops and in carrying out reconnaissance and other roles.
As I have said, the difficulty is that there is a slightly different operational requirement. We in Europe—the RAF—want a particular type, and at present we are working towards the improved wing with a slightly lower payload because of the greater weight of the wing and the fact that it is metal rather than carbon fibre. But the Americans are going ahead with the AV8B. The US Marine Corps has always wanted this and has been loyal to it throughout. As my noble friend has pointed out, it is said now that it is contemplating 110 straight away, with a follow-on of another 250 later. The US Navy are also looking at the possibility because, like us, they are now discovering that aircraft carriers of the size of the Forestal class are becoming so expensive, not only as regards building but as regards manning, that they are now coming up against the limitations which we met some 15 years ago when we abandoned the CB01.
I wonder whether we cannot find a compromise. It seems to me that we both want something of the Harrier type. It seems ridiculous that we should be thinking of building 60 and spreading our R and D and continuing our R and D over such a small number, whereas they are thinking in terms of a further 350 and spreading their R and D much thinner over that number. Also, my noble friend has said that it appears that for this reason theirs is marginally cheaper.
So I would ask my noble friend to look at the matter and see whether he cannot pressure the Royal Air Force to narrow the gap between their operational requirement and the operational requirement of the US Marine Corps. I would ask my noble friend not to be discouraged if he reads, as I read, that the AV8B is not included in next year's defence budget. That happened last year and the year before. In both instances it was written back into the budget and I am sure that it
1240
will be written back again. I was told last week that they are contemplating now writing back this operational requirement for V-Stol and setting aside 243 million dollars of funds for continuing research and development in engineering, and a further 90 million dollars for long lead items. If that is undertaken, as everyone forecasts it will be, it will be a useful and helpful sign for the future.
Finally—and my noble friend Lord Kimberley has made this point—when my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal replies, can he tell us whether we are going ahead with the research, development and studies into a supersonic V-Stol aircraft? I always felt that it was deeply unfortunate when the Labour Government cancelled the 1154, which was a supersonic version of the Harrier. It is tempting to cancel aircraft; they cancelled the TSR-2, the 1154 and the HS 681 and bought American aircraft as a stopgap: the Hercules, the F1-11 and a helicopter. Then we were prepared to spend £1,000 million on those alternatives.
In the light of the experience and the success of the Harrier, I very much hope that we shall now look ahead and see whether we cannot set some money aside—and in the initial years it is not a great amount of money—to have a supersonic version of that. If that is undertaken, I feel sure that we should be wise to co-operate with the United States in this project. Between us I believe that we would sell very large numbers of this aircraft to all free countries in the world.
5.12 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, for his contribution. He and I do not always agree on defence but basically we agree with defence in a strong way. However, in debates that we have had on previous occasions we have been slightly at logger-heads. He made a very valid point, that it is good to have these short debates. I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. He and I have just been debating fish, quite a different subject. He has quite rightly raised this matter. Indeed, he mentioned the future of the Harrier in a debate that we had some time ago, on 29th November. We then had quite a

1241
long debate on the Tornado, and naturally and quite rightly he spoke about the Harrier as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, posed some important questions, as indeed did the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, who with his committee, does so much for defence. I hope that the Government will take careful note. I was intrigued by the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that we were buying four times as much from the United States. Does the noble Lord mean defence equipment, or equipment on aerodromes, et cetera?
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I should have made it clear that the memorandum of understanding covers defence only; it is sometimes called the "two-way street"; that was defence equipment only.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful for that information. I would not want to distort or decry what the noble Lord said. He made a very valid point. I am glad that our friends in the United States look to our aircraft and our technology in many respects—sometimes far ahead—in this area. I noted very carefully his remarks about the supersonic aircraft and the failure of a Labour Government to develop it. I was a member of that Government, so I suppose that I must take part of the blame. Probably there would be a different story today if that aircraft had been allowed. But who knows? Inevitably, all Governments have to consider costs.
Other points were made about the Harrier. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who opened this little discussion, asked about export markets. I hope that any information can be given to the House, but if it is not possible to do so for other reasons, I shall understand. There has been much controversy about whether or not we shall have a Chinese Harrier. The Chinese have been extremely interested in our Harrier development. Again, its potential from the point of view of NATO is obvious. Again, the question is cost; if only we had, and had had, the money.
I believe that this is probably one of the most important developments in the field of aircraft. I am an ex-gunner. When the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, spoke
1242
about the bet which an American airman had with a colleague that he would win a combat at 15,000 feet, I immediately started to think what I would have done as a 3·7 gunner. I think that we might have reached that height, but planes travel too fast these days. Technology has moved so fast that many of our reasons for adopting a certain stance are completely out of date.
However, I believe that this is a good aircraft. It is accepted as such. We must capitalise on it, and I hope that the Minister of Defence will be able to give us good information which shows that, from the point of view of research in particular, we lead the world in this particular department.
5.15 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, I agree with other noble Lords that we must be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for initiating this small debate. It is very much easier to handle these matters in a more or less single-issue debate, because defence debates tend to be very rambling. I can assure the noble Earl that, as one who has to try to wind them up, it is very welcome if we can slough off a few specific points earlier on.
One must always remember that debates of this kind are almost embarrassingly well-informed in this House. Anyone answering has to make sure that he is properly briefed. I shall do my best to answer some of the questions which the noble Earl has posed. Of course, the unique capabilities of the Harrier arose out of the original P-1127 Kestrel series of aircraft in the 1960s. Currently the Harrier forms a very important part of the RAF's front line. As a number of noble Lords have said, its ability to operate from small, natural clearings near the battle area makes it capable of a more rapid, close-support response than is possible from any other aircraft type. In addition, it has the unique capacity not to need an aerodrome at all.
Increasingly, aerodrome denial weapons are considered a serious threat by a number of nations in NATO, and, for all I know, in the Warsaw Pact as well. Of

1243
course, in passing it is worth saying that the Warsaw Pact short take-off aeroplane is not so comparable with the Harrier as it looks from the outside, for the specific reason that it does not have vectored-thrust engines; it has two separate lift engines and a propulsion engine. For that reason, it is not a very comparable aeroplane.
The Harrier entered RAF service in April 1969, and we have three squadrons of them at present. A number of improvements have been made to the aeroplane since it was introduced, as might have been expected. The engine performance has been improved—and I shall return to that point again in a moment—and it now has a radar warning receiver, a laser ranger and a marked target seeker. The current version of the Harrier in service with the RAF is known as the GR-3 and is the single-seat version. Then there is the two-seater, the T4 trainer, in which—and I tell this to the Leader of the Opposition—I was taken up and given a ride when I was in Opposition; so I offer the noble Lord that as a possible hint. But one has to be feeling pretty strong.
The role of the aeroplane in RAF service is to render close support to the Army, and that is a point that has already been made. But, of course, the fact that the aeroplane can be dispersed and deployed from so many unbuilt take-off areas makes it very much more difficult for the enemy to seek out and destroy the opposing, aeroplanes. The operational flexibility and the effectiveness of the Harrier is constantly proving itself in exercises. The very high sortie rates which follow from the close deployment of the aeroplane are a feature which is frequently remarked upon. Here I must say to my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that I shall have to write to him about Dr. Perry's vulnerability report. I am not sure what the status of that is at the present time.
This has proved a flexible design. A number of noble Lords have referred to the Sea Harrier, the variant which the Navy is going to use for its anti-submarine carriers such as HMS "Invincible", which has just been accepted into service by the Navy. That aeroplane is effective in a number of roles, including air defence,
1244
attack, and reconnaissance. Noble Lords may remember that the first Sea Harrier was handed over to the Navy in August last year. The introduction of these aircraft into the Navy is progressing well. The current plan is to have two front-line squadrons fully operational by mid-1981, with a third shore-based training squadron capable of embarkation when required.
Noble Lords asked about interest being expressed in this area by others. They may have noticed that the French Minister of Defence went to look at HMS "Invincible". It was slightly embarrassing to discover that she got her name from a ship captured many years ago from the French. We hope that that is not going to put them off. I think that they are interested not only in the concept of these relatively small aircraft carriers but also in the concept of vectored thrust and short take-off and landing.
Of course the Harrier has also proved attractive to a number of other countries, and, as noble Lords have said, it is in service with the United States Marines. I was told some years ago by an American that there came an occasion when they wanted to fly some American aeroplanes over Kenya in order to demonstrate their support for the Kenyans. The only aeroplanes they could produce were the British designed Harriers being flown by the United States Marine Corps, so that was the American presence that appeared over Kenya.
The Marines have demonstrated—which I do not think was ever envisaged—the ability to do this alarming act when they stick the nose up and vector the thrust and the thing stops dead, and attacking aircraft and missiles go sailing by. As the noble Lord said, it is a remarkably effective vehicle for dogfighting. The Spaniards of course also have this aeroplane. I do not think I should pursue too far the various inquiries that have been made by a number of nations, but there is a good deal of interest now being expressed in the Harrier by a number of countries. In particular, there is this aspect of course, that it enables you to have a relatively small ship to carry and operate the aircraft.
So far the RAF has ordered 133 Harriers, of which 20 are trainers, and the Navy has ordered 34 and 3 trainers. The RAF is about to start taking delivery of

1245
24 Harriers to maintain front-line strength. It is also worth pointing out that the versatility of the Harrier has been demonstrated by the Harriers we maintain in Belize. There they give a small British presence which is capable of operating in those fairly demanding conditions to put off any possibility of aggressive intentions on the part of Guatemala towards Belize.
This has been a successful aeroplane so far. Noble Lords have referred to the debate we had on 29th November. I pointed out then that the RAF was very conscious of the potential importance of the Harriers in the future, particularly in the light of this question of airfield denial weapons. The question now is how to extend the value of the aeroplane to the end of this century, because we are quite confident that we need such an aeroplane to continue to play its part in the front line.
Perhaps I can pursue AST 403, to which my noble friend referred, for a moment or two. This provisionally started by being a design to replace both the Harrier and the Jaguar, but quite early on it became clear that the two aircraft could not be replaced in a single aircraft. Therefore, part of the decision now is to pursue an improvement of the Harrier to deal with the Harrier replacement, and deal with the Jaguar replacement as a separate issue. As noble Lords have said, we are currently pursuing two possible ways of meeting the requirement for an improved Harrier. There is the MKS, which is the British so-called "tin-wing" version of the Harrier. As my noble friend Lord Kimberley pointed out, this aeroplane has been particularly optimised for the RAF requirement of improved range and payload but, above all, improved manoeuvrability and agility. This aims at overcoming some of the relative shortcomings of the existing V-Stol design owing to its small wing and lack of defensive capability.
The alternative, as again noble Lords have said, is the McDonnell Douglas development of the Harrier known as the AV8B. This aeroplane uses the advanced construction technology of carbon composites which, I may say, is a technology with which British Aerospace, for example, is perfectly familiar already. But this aeroplane is being built to a slightly
1246
different specification and for a slightly different requirement on the part of the United States Marine Corps, who are principally interested in having increased range and payload and not so concerned with this question of agility to give survivability in the battlefield environment when in the close support role.
These technical and operational issues will have to be examined. Of course there will also be the industrial factors, to which a number of noble Lords have referred. It has also been said, quite correctly, that whichever way the decision goes there will be a substantial amount of work for British industry, because even the AV8B would have a very large part of its components made in this country; in particular, obviously British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce, but there are in fact 16 other United Kingdom companies associated with the AV8B project.
It has been said, quite rightly, that the whole issue turns on whether the United States Marine Corps are allowed to have this Harrier variant. From time to time we are told that it would encourage them if we were to order it. There is no doubt at all that we would wish to have a collaborative venture with the United States if we could find the right terms on which to have it, but there are difficulties about entering into collaboration with the United States on projects of this kind. One of the great dangers that we have to guard against is the possibility of committing ourselves to a collaborative venture of that kind only to find that the Americans, for whatever reason, have had to withdraw, leaving us without any project at all. That kind of experience we have had before.
It is difficult to say when we shall be in a positon to reach a final decision on this matter. Unfortuntely, the prototype which represented the nearest to what the AV8B will look like crashed in the United States last year and that has put back the possibility of evaluation by the British of this aeroplane. However, a second aircraft is currently being modified for flight tests and a team of British pilots is to fly it towards the end of April to assess its characteristics. I should perhaps stress that it was not a British pilot who was trying out the last one when it crashed in the United States, I am happy

1247
to say. We would hope that before too many months have gone by we shall be able to decide whether or not we will join a collaborative programme with McDonnell Douglas. It was my noble friend Lord Kimberley who asked me what the status of the licensing agreement was with McDonnell Douglas. That was a private licensing agreement as between British Aerospace and McDonnell Douglas; it was not a government-to-government arrangement.
We intend to buy 60 improved Harriers as against, as has been said, the United States Marine Corps need for 350, but we must not overlook the existing fleet of GR3s and T4s. They have quite a lot of service life in them yet and we intend to keep on improving and uprating them to ensure they maintain their capability in the face of the increasing threat from the Warsaw Pact. We have in mind the fitting of self-protection missiles, active electronic counter-measures and improved navigation systems, for example. However, I think we cannot incorporate the larger wing into the existing aircraft on acceptable terms, so the larger wing would be unlikely to be any part of an improvements programme of the GR3. We intend, however, to keep ourselves in the forefront of this important air power capability and we are in the longer-term studying the possible development of a supersonic variant of the Harrier which would replace both the RAF's Harriers and the RN's Harriers, and in all probability, as the noble Lord said, that would need to incorporate plenum chamber burning, which is a fairly difficult, although there is no reason to believe impossible, technology.
A number of noble Lords asked about sales. As we emphasise its importance for ourselves, so we are very conscious of its sales potential. Among other countries, interest has been expressed in China. Negotiations are continuing between British Aerospace and the Chinese, and noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State returned last week after visiting China in connection with the Society of British Aerospace Companies Equipment Exhibition. Besides reaffirming the importance which we attach to our relations with China, defence sales in general were one of
1248
the issues he discussed. I do not think this is any longer a contentious issue, so far as the politics of it are concerned, and there is no doubt that the Chinese are looking to the United Kingdom as a major equipment supplier in future. But it will be some time before they can determine their priorities in considering their needs and there is no doubt they are very careful about where they put their money.
I hope I have said enough to make it clear that the Government continue to believe in this aeroplane and in the unique operational benefits it confers. We see a need for the aircraft for many years to come and I know that noble Lords will share my support for this vital machine, which is a great symbol of British inventive success.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question before he sits down? Does he have any news about their Lordships at the Admiralty considering the building of mini-Harrier carriers, a subject which has been discussed in this House on numerous occasions?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I do not think I have any news for my noble friend, my Lords, and if I do have any news, I am certainly not in a position to give him any.