Lords Sitting of 15 April 1986

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

Indecent Material: Importation Decision
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take in the light of the judgment of the European Court overturning the decision of Customs and Excise to ban the entry of goods imported by Conegate Ltd. from Germany as indecent or obscene under the Customs Consolidation Act 1876.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Government are still considering the implications of this judgment, which was delivered on 11th March.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which does not take us very much further. Is he aware that the Customs and Excise, by means of the 1876 Act, protects us against the flood of pornography which pours around the world in the international trade? Is he also aware that the decision of the European Court, which disregarded the moral aspects of the matter in favour of the technicality, cast doubt on the ethics of that court? Is my noble friend further aware that by amending the Obscene Publications Act 1959 by extending the definition of an article he could close the loophole on which the European Court relied and so restore the effect of the Act? Will he consider that point?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I should like to assure my noble friend that my understanding of the European Court judgment was simply that that which it was permissible to sell in the country of origin could not be made part of a ban on importation. But it is a matter which we are considering. I hope before very much longer we shall have a view.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does the judgment mean that we are now likely to be flooded with inflatable rubber sex dolls and the vacuum flasks that we read about in the report of the court? Will the noble Lord confirm whether it is a fact that under existing law there is nothing to prevent UK manufacturers producing and marketing these products? This is at the heart of the problem. Will he tell us whether it is the Government's intention to introduce new legislation or to amend existing legislation, as was suggested—which is perhaps not 110 years out of date—in order to ensure that we are not flooded in the way that the Customs and Excise found so offensive to public morality? In the circumstances would it help your
536
Lordships to have a better idea of what it is all about if the Minister were prepared to put samples in the Library?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I may, alas, disappoint someone in your Lordships' House by saying that I cannot accede to the last request. At the moment it is permissible to manufacture and sell these objects within the United Kingdom. I do not think that the relaxation of the ban on importation will make any difference to the present position. However, it is a matter which is a cause for concern. We are looking at the situation and I hope before much longer we shall make a decision.
Lord Denning: My Lords, does not Section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876 expressly prohibit the importation of indecent or obscene articles? Were not the courts of this country absolutely justified in holding that these inflatable dolls were indecent and obscene and therefore perfectly justified in holding and finding them to be forfeited as against our statute? This point is important. Was not the European Court of Justice completely wrong in holding that our legislation was invalid? Is it not perfectly legitimate for this Government, by Order in Council or by regulation under Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, to deal with the matter by holding that our statute is perfectly valid and enforceable in our courts and that in this respect our courts need not regard the decision of the European Court?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I was at one time but a humble solicitor and it does not fall to me to disagree with the noble and learned Lord or with the European Court. But I believe that the essence of the decision was simply that there could not be a ban by our courts on importation of that which it was permissible to sell in this country. However, we are considering the matter, and I hope that we shall come back with a decision shortly. It is difficult for me to say any more than this and I hope that all in your Lordships' House will understand.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware with what pleasure I rise to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in his plea that we should deny and denounce courts and laws with which we disagree?
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that hard porn is a threat to family life and, if the obligation of defence of the realm is fundamental to the Government, defence of family life is even more fundamental?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, yes, but goods which are obscene will be covered by the Obscene Publications Act and will continue to be seized at import. We are talking about a different matter entirely; that is, a Customs test of goods called indecent. The decision was merely on the ban on indecent goods which are permitted to be sold within the United Kingdom and which could not be barred by Customs, or so the European Court held.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is this not a case which should notably be left to local option? Is it not true that if Iran was part of the EC it would be scandalised by many matters which we permit, whereas if we became subject to its laws we should also be scandalised? Is this not a matter in which we should each be allowed our own opinions? Cannot the EC be arranged so that matters on which local opinions are extremely strong are left to us and not to others?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hear everything that the noble Viscount says. All I can say is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to sell such objects on a Sunday!
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, will my noble friend be good enough to let me know when he is ready to give us the fruits of his consideration so that I may put down a further Question to hear, I hope, a helpful answer?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, but I would rely on your Lordships to accept that this is a responsibility of Customs and Excise for whom I gladly answer in your Lordships' House. It is not my primary responsibility, but I shall speak to my right honourable friend and I shall notify him.

Cancer Screening: Westminster Palace Staff
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether any cancer screening facilities are provided for women working in the Palace of Westminster.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, there are no cancer screening facilities at the Palace of Westminster because current medical advice is that these matters are best dealt with through the person's own general medical practitioner. For those to whom this presents a difficulty, there are already extensive facilities within this area.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, as chairman of the Women's National Cancer Control Campaign, I am a little dismayed at his Answer, in view of the fact that the WNCCC has for 21 years carried out successful screening programmes throughout the country but was not invited to give its views when the question was decided as to whether or not screening should take place in the Palace of Westminster? Therefore, does the noble Lord agree that not only would a screening programme within the Palace of Westminster be useful to the 1,400 women who work here but it would also be an example and an incentive for other women to present themselves for screening? In the light of that and the fact that still 2,000 women die each year from the only form of cancer that can be cured if detected in time, will the noble Lord's Services Committee reconsider its decision and engage in consultation with the WNCCC on this question?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, the Services Committee in another place considered this matter with great care and took evidence from trade unions, medical advice, and evidence from the Civil Service. It finally came to the conclusion that it was far more important that people who should have these vital screenings should go to their own general practitioner because then the proper follow-up could take place and they could be advised about further treatment. If there are those who are not able to go to their own practitioner, then, as I said in my original Answer, there are plenty of places near here where the screening can be carried out.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most of the women who need this service more than others are those who are most reluctant to go for screening? Is he also aware that very effective mobile clinics visit sites where a large number of women work and that it would be a simple exercise to have such a mobile clinic for a brief time? That would give an opportunity to people here and thus capture, treat or at least screen a number of women who would not go to their general practitioners or take the trouble to go elsewhere for these essential tests.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I appreciate what my noble friend has said. However, when the Services Committee considered the matter in another place it recommended that the importance of screening should be drawn to the attention of all the staff in another place—and I hope that we shall do the same here—and also that there would be no obstacle to their taking time off if necessary in order to attend these clinics. As I have said, the medical advice was very strongly in favour of going either to the general practitioner or to a clinic where the proper follow-up facilities are available.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that the proposals were supported by the trade unions, rather contrary to what was implied by the noble Lord; bearing in mind that, as has been said, cervical cancer is the only form of cancer which can be detected and therefore treated; bearing in mind also, as the noble Baroness has said, that the proposal is basically for there to be a small unit available from time to time, I ask the noble Lord whether it would not be absolutely right that this Palace, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, should give a lead to the nation on one of the most disturbing health issues of today? I should also like to know how many women were on the Select Committee which took the decision.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I must categorically deny that I implied that the trade unions were involved. The trade unions put the case very adequately to the Services Committee of another place. It was very carefully considered, but the overriding consideration was the medical one. The medical advice is that it is much better for women to go to their own practitioner because sometimes a smear shows some signs of not being normal and if the screening is carried out by only a temporary mobile screening unit there is no way of following it up. It is far better that they should go to their own practitioner, if not to a clinic. I am sure that that was in the mind of the Services Committee. I

539
would recommend that the noble Lord read the report of the Select Committee of another place. I cannot speak for that committee. All I can say is that that report will of course be considered by our own administration committee in due course.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I should like to follow up the matter. Will the committee consider the matter again, bearing in mind the great reluctance that has been shown by hardworking people to see their GPs, and that if there was a screening service here, they would then follow that up by seeing their GPs? Is not this really a matter that ought to be reconsidered with additional evidence given? Will the noble Lord answer my question as to how many women were on the Services Committee which produced the report?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I cannot answer that question, I am afraid. I do not know how many people were on the committee of another place; nor can I commit another place to reconsider the matter.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Lord be more specific about what I think he has described as local facilities? Do they exist at the Westminster Hospital round the corner or at St. Thomas's on the other side of the bridge?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, a list of local facilities is available from our admirable nursing sister. They do not, so far as I can see, exist at the hospitals, but there are a number of clinics all within very easy reach of this House, and I shall be pleased to show the noble Earl a list of these rather than read them out now.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the majority of women who die from cancer are in the 40 to 60 age group, and that many of them are hard-working mothers with children and do not have time to go to see their GPs? But if a mobile clinic was to come to their place of work, they would overcome any reluctance to see their GPs because they would go with the gang, they would be given time off to go; it would take only a few minutes and it would encourage a great many women to go who now die unnecessarily.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I appreciate that. It was a point made to the Services Committee, but again it felt that those women who could not find the time to go to see their own general practitioner would be better advised to go to a local clinic near the Palace of Westminster. The committee also emphasised that women should be given time off to do that. That is what I am sure we would wish equally to do in this House.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of the fact that the members of the Medical Advisory Committee of the WNCCC, who are the great experts on the subject, were not consulted by the Select Committee, would the noble Lord perhaps suggest to the Select Committee that it consults with WNCCC? After all, they are the experts on the mobile unit screening programme, which has a good record. They should give their view, and it should be considered again.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am sure that the Services Committee of another place will take note of what the noble Baroness has said. I shall send the committee a copy of what has been said this afternoon, and I can only leave this matter to it.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the noble Lord continues to refer to the Services Committee of the other place. Have we not a Services Committee here and could the matter not be referred to it?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, it will be considered by the Administration Committee here. No doubt it will wish to follow the lines set by the Services Committee by encouraging our staff to have cervical screening and will make it quite clear that if necessary they will be given the time off to do so.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, does the noble Lord Chairman see any argument against offering the further facility, in case it is of use and benefit, of a mobile unit on condition that that unit reports to the GP in question afterwards?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, again that was a point that was considered in the inquiry by the Services Committee and it thought that it would lead to confusion. There was no clear evidence that that sort of reporting to the general practitioner would in fact take place.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord, but is it not the case that 30 years ago tuberculosis was fairly rife in this country, that mobile clinics were used to X-ray people for tuberculosis, and that in some cases the marks which came up on the X-rays were not tuberculosis? Yet at the same time the patient was referred to his GP, and TB is now a very rare illness in this country.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, that may well be so, but what the noble Countess suggests may not necessarily be the case in this particular instance.

Nuclear Tests
2.55 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many nuclear tests have been carried out and by which countries.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, the United Kingdom has carried out 39 nuclear tests. We do not have reliable figures for tests conducted by other countries. As noble Lords will be aware, we do not believe that current verification techniques are adequate reliably to detect and discriminate all nuclear explosions.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the American Government's own

541
figures show that they are well ahead of the Soviet Union in this matter? In these circumstances have not the Americans, by their persistence in nuclear testing in the face of both this situation and the Soviet decision to stop, become a major menace to the peace of the world? Is this not confirmed—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: A major menace to the peace of the world, my Lords—and is this not confirmed by the action of the Americans in Libya, which our own Prime Minister has failed to condemn in contrast to the Prime Ministers of other European countries?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords, I do not accept what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has said. So far as the question of the moratorium proposed by Mr. Gorbachev is concerned, we believe that it was a declaratory gesture which is no substitute for effective and negotiated arms control measures.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that when nuclear weapons were owned by just a few powerful nations there was not perhaps so great a risk, but the really grave risk which now faces mankind is that so many other nations all over the globe are seeking to possess this detestable weapon? Therefore, will the Government give full support to examining any proposal for a test ban treaty?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have made clear the British position on this matter on many occasions in this House.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is it not a fact that so far as we as a nation are concerned we would be the first to agree to no more nuclear tests, no nuclear bombs of any kind, provided other nations would also agree? Is not what is holding it all up the whole question of verification? Is it not about time that some of those who have spent all their time criticising Britain and the United States of America turned their attention to other people who simply mouth slogans and will not agree to verification?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord is quite right when he says that the key to this whole matter is the question of verification.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, have we not got to appreciate that the Soviet Union under Mr. Gorbachev have taken a brand new attitude? He has proposed—and this has received some sympathy from the United States—initiating a form of verification. Would the noble Baroness agree that this is a move in the right direction?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I indicated in reply to an earlier question that the moratorium that the Soviet Union declared is no substitute for effective and negotiated arms control measures.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Baroness explain to those who have not followed these matters that the Americans no longer put forward the
542
excuse of non-verification? That is peculiar to the government of this country. The Americans now admit that verification is possible, and they have found other excuses for going on testing.
Baroness Young: No, my Lords; the position with regard to the United States Government is that we have welcomed President Reagan's statement that if he were able to agree on verification, he would be prepared to move forward on the ratification of both the threshold test ban treaty and the peaceful nuclear explosions treaty.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, supposing that my noble friend's suggestion were adopted everybody agreed to abolish all nuclear weapons, would that provide us with any kind of guarantee that Colonel Gaddafi would not make one?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Baroness from her knowledge confirm or deny whether one of the nuclear tests that have taken place during the proliferation of the past 10 years was carried out by the South African Government in the Indian Ocean in 1979?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I cannot comment on that, and it is in any event wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

Westland plc: Share Ownership
3 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received information concerning the identity of the beneficial owners of the approximately 20 per cent. of the share capital of Westland plc held by nominees on 12th February 1985.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, the company has advised the Department of Trade and Industry of the names of the following beneficial owners of its shares identified as a result of its investigation under Section 212 of the Companies Act 1985: Actraint No. 34 Property Ltd. Australia (a subsidiary of TNT Ltd.) 4.99 per cent.; Marc A. Odermatt, Esq., of Palma de Mallorca, 476 per cent.; Guillermo Schiess, Esq., of Uruguay. 1.53 per cent.; Mauricio de Castro, Esq., of Los Angeles, 4.89 per cent.; Lynx Marketing of Panama, 4.83 per cent.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for having provided this distinguished miscellany of names that are rather strange to the United Kingdom. Will the noble Lord confirm that these beneficial owners are not themselves the nominees for other owners? Has the noble Lord made an investigation into that aspect of the matter?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my advice comes directly from the chairman's office of Westland plc. The company has satisfied itself in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act, after exhaustive inquiries and the use of law firms in California, Uruguay and Australia. The advice of the company to me is that there is no reason to suppose that these nominees have acted in breach of the Companies Act.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Lord not answer the question about whether any of these companies, or all of them, are nominees of other companies, in particular nominees of Sikorsky Fiat?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as I have indicated, the company has made its investigations and has satisfied itself that all these five owners are owners in their own right.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in that case, why did the noble Lord just make what was perhaps a psychological slip and describe them as nominees himself?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, I think it was perhaps a slip of the tongue. They are the beneficial owners.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Libya.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Education Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for a short period and that the Committee stage of the Patents, Designs and Marks Bill will be completed during this adjournment.

Lothian Region (Edinburgh Western Relief Road) Order Confirmation Bill
3.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
It will be recalled by those who were present last week that I explained the position of the Government as far as this legislation is concerned. The Government are required to facilitate discussion on the progress of the Bill while adopting a neutral stance on the content. I outlined in some detail what the position of the Government was when I spoke on Second Reading. That position is unchanged, apart from the fact that your Lordships saw fit to give the Second Reading of the Bill a substantial vote of approval by 96 votes to 27. The position of the Government on the Bill is unchanged.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
On Question, Bill read a third time with the amendment.
Clause 2 [Short Title]:
Lord Galpern Lord Galpern moved the Amendment:
Page 1, line, 14, at end insert ("and shall come into force on 31st May 1986.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is fundamentally different from that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, last Tuesday which sought delay of the debate on Second Reading until after the Lothian region elections. If this amendment is carried this afternoon the region would be given the necessary powers to construct the Western Relief Road, but the date at which the powers could be exercised would be delayed until 31st May 1986. It is difficult to see what harm would accrue to the promoters by a few weeks' delay. On the other hand, the delay would save money for the ratepayers in the event of a change of control after the 8th May elections.
As I understand the position, three contracts have been placed already and, according to a report in yesterday's Scotsman, a fourth contract was scheduled to be approved by the transport committee yesterday and by the full council on 1st May. In the same edition of the Scotsman the regional council's convener, Mr. Brian Meek, is reported as having said:
"as far as I am concerned as long as there is a majority of people on this council who are in favour of the road, then the road will go ahead".
He added that there was a strong possibility that Labour would cancel the project if it gained control, but that would not be his responsibility.
How can he discard the responsibility as a convener of a regional council of 49 members? Surely as a leader it is his responsibility to look after the interests of the ratepayers who elected him. Knowing as he does that the contracts could be cancelled at a tremendous cost to the ratepayers, I would suggest that in these circumstances his duty is clearly to delay signing the contracts until after the elections.
He has been warned by his chief executive, Mr. Graham Bowie, that any contracts that were let would be a liability. Mr. Donald Mackenzie, who is the Scottish organiser of the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, has declared that if a contract were awarded
"a contractor would be well away within one week of approval".
He added significantly that a company's involvement would be quite extensive and it would have a case for a claim. Such claims could be very substantial.
It seems to me that in view of the controversy over the proposed road, the forthcoming regional council elections may attract as many parties as fought in the recent Fulham by-election, but I am particularly interested in the Liberal-SDP Alliance manifesto. I quote from the Glasgow Herald of 9th April which said:
"Alliance sets objectives for local election. A more local open … form of local government was promised yesterday by the Liberal-SDP Alliance in the Lothian region as it opened its campaign for the elections on May 8.
"Speaking at a news conference in Edinburgh, Liberal Councillor Donald Gorrie said it had been an interesting and difficult time for the three Alliance members who have held the balance of power in Lothian for the past four years".

545
The significant part is:
"The Alliance was now aiming to win control over Lothian and if elected would concentrate on giving people a bigger say in the local decisions which affect them.
"The Alliance wanted to create the conditions in which local communities could have more influence over decision-making".
In my opinion the amendment presents a golden opportunity to noble Lords of the Alliance in this House to support the sentiments expressed in their manifesto by voting for the amendment and so giving the electors in the Lothian region the chance to air their views on the road to the fullest extent on 8th May, an opportunity denied them by the unusual procedure adopted by the council in the promotion of the Order Confirmation Bill. Over 300,000 people in 38 organisations have expressed their opposition to this particular Bill and to the form in which it has been conducted. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Lord has called upon me to respond to his quite extraordinary appeal. The Alliance of course are all for open government. The fact is that if we respond to his amendment it means that forever and ever we must await a fresh appeal to the electorate before anything is done. The fact is that the three Alliance members, who are not committed to this to start with, have examined this matter with enormous care. I do not think that on any single measure more parliamentary time in Committee has been spent for many years on examining this. They have gone through it with a fine toothcomb for 17 days in both Houses' committees of examination; and I cannot remember how many days they have spent—perhaps even more than 17—on the initial measure. If we are to await every succeeding election to give the electorate a chance to reverse the decision, it appears to me to be absolutely and completely ludicrous. I have re-examined the position with the said Donald Corrie only yesterday and his fellow Alliance counsellors. They have again produced evidence to me and I am absolutely certain that the decision of this House was correct in the light of the evidence examined and re-examined, and I have no hesitation in saying that the correct democratic course is to reject this amendment which I really cannot understand.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Galpern in his statement. I believe that he put it extremely clearly and we must remember that he was part of the commission that looked at the problem. In the last week I have endeavoured to find out more about one particular part of the decision—and I speak following on the speech of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin. The more I have examined and the more information I have, the more I realise just how important this decision is to the Lothian Region now and in the future for quite a period ahead.
I hope not to speak for more than a few minutes but I should like specifically to discuss a question that was rather brushed over last time and I am afraid that it was my fault and all our faults as much as that of the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin. That was the question of what really was meant by the "covenant scheme" and was what was involved in the covenant scheme for local authority expenditure. I had some
546
difficultly in finding out about it. I do not think that it was a secret; it was just that people did not seem to know a great deal about it; but I was rather surprised at just how complicated it was.
Apparently, it is that a local authority decides on its capital expenditure for a particular job and then, if it has not got an allocation within its capital expenditure, it then contacts and makes a contract with a vehicle company to undertake the works. The payments are structured so that the authority can defer making payments for a period of anything up to 21 years. Once the authority has selected its tenderer, the vehicle company enters into a contract with the district council or the regional council and the vehicle company pays the contractor in the usual way. The vehicle company raises the money to make payments by going to the open market and its security is the covenant that it makes with the local authority to pay in the future. The local authority promises that it will pay back in the future.
3.15 p.m.
I am advised that the Secretary of State has stated that, under a deferred payment contract, payments will count as capital expenditure only in the year in which they were made and not in the year in which the work was done. There are grave implications in this, I believe, for Lothian in the future. The Secretary of State, on the other hand, has added that not only would the actual expenditure on the works count as capital expenditure in the year that the payments were made, but also the costs of deferring that expenditure. These costs include interest costs incurred by the vehicle company when borrowing money on the open market to finance the work.
I also understand that in certain cases this could increase the demand for future capital investment consent to two or three times (because of the interest charges and the time lapse) the initial cost of the building. This could greatly prejudice the capital expenditure possible in future years. So our reason for the amendment is even more obvious, I believe (or should be so) to the House. If at the elections in May, the Lothian region changes its political complexion and a new council takes a choice either of cancelling the contract signed rather hastily, in a matter of days, and incur full penalties, then that is one thing it can do. It can cancel the contracts and incur penalties or it can accept the contracts as they are under this covenant scheme and land itself in very heavy capital commitment which could seriously affect its other programmes (the ones they had promised the electors) when they were coming in after the election.
It is a very important point. It is not simply a road. It is a very important political point which will decide what Lothian region will be able to spend over the next 20 years or, at least, it will take out a large slice because the increase in costs could be anything from two to three times the initial capital cost of the road. Therefore, I believe that for the sake of a few days, we should allow this contract to be thought over again, and allow the council elections to take place. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that this would mean that at every instance you would need to take another referendum. This is very special. The whole of this debate has been very special from

547
the day it started, using the wrong procedures in many ways because Lothian Council thought that they could hustle it through under that procedure.
We are now at a stage that we are asking for less than a six-weeks' delay on something that has been going on for a long time to allow the people of Edinburgh to make a decision until the way is clear for the new local authority of whatever complexion to make a decision and I very much hope that the House will support my noble friend Lord Galpern in his amendment.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I have listened attentively to what both the noble Lords, Lord Galpern, and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove have said. I have the greatest difficulty in appreciating what relevance it has in the context of your Lordships' consideration of this Bill at this particular point in the parliamentary process. The issue of the Edinburgh's Western Relief Road has surely been exhausted so far as the Parliamentary processes are concerned; for everything that could conceivable be inquired into has been inquired into painstakingly and carefully by two parliamentary commissions; and both commissions have reported in favour of the Western Relief Road.
The fundamental question for these parliamentary commissions, albeit they came to their conclusions by a majority—in the one case of 3 to 1 and, in the other, of 4 to 2—was this. Is the preamble to the Bill, which is the Bill which is before your Lordships, proved or not? Both these inquiries heard evidence in support of the proposition that the preamble to the Bill which sets out the necessity for this road was proved, and they heard evidence which contended that it was not proved. Both, after exhaustive inquiries, concluded that it was proved. The Bill now comes before your Lordships for Third Reading.
In the background to all this matter, there was here and there a touch of farce. It derived from a little local party dispute, primarily between the Labour and Conservative parties. I suggest that if your Lordships were to approve this amendment it would serve to bring this farce out of the background and into the foreground in your Lordships' House. I would ask your Lordships to oppose the amendment if, unhappily, the noble Lords, Lord Galpern and Lord Carmichael, do not see the sense of withdrawing it this afternoon. I think it is a pity that we should have to deal with an issue of this kind quite unnecessarily, when your Lordships are waiting, I am sure with some anxiety, to hear a Statement on another matter of less local concern.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Galpern, has endeavoured with care to show that he is raising a new and different matter today in this amendment; that is, different from the amendment which we considered in this House exactly a week ago. I do not myself see much difference between the two amendments. Both of them would delay until next month the start of the execution of the project in question.
The amendment last Tuesday was rejected by an overwhelming majority of this House. However, I appreciate the apprehension which has been expressed in the past few months by various bodies and individ-
548
uals concerning the consideration of the proposal for the Western Relief Road. Those apprehensions were that the historic buildings in the centre of Edinburgh might be damaged by too much traffic arriving at that point.
If I thought that would happen, I should have opposed this Bill. It is a matter of judgment, but if that were to happen it would nullify what I and others have done over the years to try to protect the centre of Edinburgh, and in particular the Georgian new town. But I believe those fears are unfounded. I shall not repeat the arguments, which were made in a fairly lengthy debate a week ago. I shall simply say that I believe it to be quite wrong to allow this amendment to be accepted today.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, unfortunately I could not be present at the Second Reading of this Bill, but of course I read with the greatest care all that went on and I noted, as has been pointed out several times today, that the Bill was given a Second Reading by a large majority. It was a large majority at nine o'clock in the evening; but, never mind, it was a large majority.
What I think is quite clear to all your Lordships is this. This question of the Edinburgh bypasses has gone on for a long time—30 or 40 years. Secondly, it has taken up an inordinate amount of parliamentary time, partly, I think, because the issue got off in the wrong direction. Thirdly, it is now a political football, and that is bad when what we are trying to get right is the wellbeing of the city of Edinburgh, both from a traffic point of view and, even more important, from an amenity point of view.
It is on the amenity point of view that I remain extremely worried. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said about his opinion; but his opinion goes counter to the best judgment of all the bodies concerned with such matters in the city of Edinburgh. I do not have to recall them all—I think there are 38 in total—but there is the Cockburn Trust, the National Trust for Scotland, the Scottish Civic Trust, the Scottish Civic Trust of Edinburgh and all the others. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said that in his opinion they do not count. I wonder whether that is right. I am the more disturbed when I know that in a short time there is going to be opened what is known as the Sighthill bypass, which is going to show whether that bypass will not do a great deal of what is wanted in relieving the traffic congestion for which this particular bypass is proposed.
Therefore, I find myself in a great dilemma. I find myself not wanting, in a sense, to support the amendment, which will delay matters for only a short time; and it may well be that even without it, though it will cost money, after the elections in May we shall see the same results anyhow. But, on balance, I feel that the judgment of the amenity societies is so important, and the fact that we do not know what is going to happen on the new bypass which will open later this year is so important, that, for better or worse, we should support the amendment. That will at least give us a little more breathing time.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I was chairman of the joint committee and sat with the

549
noble Lord, Lord Galpern, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, for 17 days, looking at the very issues which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has just mentioned. Those of your Lordships who attended the very full debate we had last week on the Second Reading may remember that a number of us went into the various areas that were discussed by the committee. We looked very carefully at the objections of the environmental bodies who were against the Bill. Their particular and very special concern is that the road which your Lordships are now discussing would bring more traffic into the centre of Edinburgh.
I am bound to tell your Lordships that we listened to a very full discussion of that and appreciated that the technical experts who were speaking for Edinburgh District Council and the other petitioners, as well as those speaking for Lothian Regional Council, could not agree. They said they could not prove that there would be more cars coming into the centre of Edinburgh. In view of that, we felt that the fears, now that the road has been adjusted in many ways (and there have been many alterations to the roads since the original design was made) are unfounded. As a result, the joint committee agreed the preamble of the Bill and rejected an identical amendment to that which we have today, by a clear majority of four votes to two.
I really think that the time for detailed arguments is past. The road is designed. Most of the tenders have been accepted and everything is ready to go. The noble Lord, Lord Galpern, said it would save money if the road is cancelled. Of course it would: if you do not build a road, it is a lot cheaper than building it. But the point is that vast amounts of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money has already been spent on research, design, consultation and responding to consultation.
Important environmental and traffic improvements in Edinburgh await agreement that the road is to be built, because they could not happen unless there is such a road. Those measures were published last week and are awaiting public consultation once the decision is taken. Large sums have been spent on paying legal counsel on both sides in this protracted argument. The cost of the new financial arrangements, about which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, read his piece, entirely depends on how the region uses this facility. They have got it in order to give them greater flexibility. After all that, it has been suggested that your Lordships should ask the people of Edinburgh to reconsider the whole matter and to do so amid all the other issues that will be raised in an election campaign.
The Bill has been extremely carefully scrutinised, according to a procedure agreed by Parliament. After a full debate, it was passed, unamended, by another place. After a very full debate your Lordships also rejected an amendment similar to this one. I ask you now to reject the amendment and to pass the Bill this afternoon.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, it has been suggested that everything is ready to go. It strikes me that that is rather taking for granted the result of parliamentary discussion. Everything is ready to go and yet just a week ago the people who propose to build the road went to the Scottish Office to ask for another £10 million because they did not have the
550
money required under the guidelines to get started. That was the reason for the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, about the unusual proceedings and the fact that the funding of the road is not being guaranteed by the Government but is being done under a covenant.
Let us get this clear. Why is the Bill here at all? How many cases have there ever been of this procedure being used? As far as I can gather, there has been only one where the planning aspects of a road have been incorporated with the moving of a railway. The only reason for having a Bill such as this is under the Transport Acts when a railway is being moved. I gather that British Rail has no objections to the moving of the railway. It would have been a simple matter. The measure could have gone to a committee or it might even have been dealt with on the nod in the House. The normal procedure in respect of a planning application for a road is for the Secretary of State, if he feels that there are objections, to call it in and ask for a public inquiry. He appoints a reporter who would hear all the evidence on the spot.
The regional council decided not to do things in the usual way. It decided on that road in the procedures committee, sometimes with a majority of one and sometimes that one was the chairman's casting vote. In its wisdom, the regional council decided not to submit the application to the usual scrutiny of a public inquiry, in which the Secretary of State appoints a reporter who hears all the evidence, sights and balances it, gets everyone on both sides to agree to the facts, sets them out and makes a report. Is it not farcical that we have discussed this matter twice and yet not once have we have had a report before us?
I can understand the bewilderment and bemusement felt by my noble friends and noble Lords on the other side of the House because we have not had one report from the commissions. It was the regional council, which so narrowly got itself into this matter, that decided on this procedure. I think that it was a former Minister of this Government who just the other week said that he deplored the procedure; that it was fundamentally wrong and should never be repeated. I agree with that.
The road is a contentious local issue. One Conservative MP who reresents West Edinburgh is for it and another MP who represents Central Edinburgh is against it. The matter has been sent to us and most of us know nothing at all about Edinburgh.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, is right in many ways, but he made one mistake. He talked about an Edinburgh bypass. This road is not an Edinburgh bypass. That is the tragedy. It may help the people of Corstorphine, but not entirely, because the zoo will remain there. Murrayfield will remain in Murrayfield. Tyne Castle, where Hearts play football, will remain where it is, off Gorgie Road. There will always be trouble there. Anything that we do will do limited good.
What will the road cost? It will be £44 million plus interest, which I gather is £56 million over the period. Under the new covenant procedure, it will cost an extra £13 million. Four miles of road will cost over £100 million. It will disturb a cemetery. It will take three holes from a golf course and shift the traffic from

551
one place to another. It has been said time after time by the experts that the road will not produce any more traffic. Does any noble Lord know of a new relief road that did not produce more traffic? Of course the road will produce traffic and that traffic will go into the very centre of Edinburgh, opposite the Usher Hall, with the castle just in front of it. That is what the contention is about.
I suggest that we would be wise to give the time until 31st May. The elections are in a fortnight. Let the people of Edinburgh speak and decide. They are the right people to do that. I suggest that we should accept the amendment that was tabled by my noble friend Lord Galpern.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I do not propose to detain the House because, if I sense the mood correctly, there are other matters to which your Lordships would wish to proceed. Let me briefly say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, inasmuch as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, made a mistake; in fact, he made two. When he was enunciating those who were opposed to this measure, he failed to put the other side of the case and to say that strong representations have been received by the regional council on behalf of the Transport and General Workers' Union which strongly supports it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: A section of the measure, my Lords.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the TGWU strongly supports what the regional council seeks to do. The financial situation is a matter entirely for Lothian Regional Council. It has been discussed with the Government, and the Government are in sympathy with what the council seeks to do.
On Second Reading I outlined the Government's position in detail. I feel that we must now proceed.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I have been told by the noble Lord that I made two mistakes. I accept that I made the first mistake. It is not a bypass; it is a relief road, with all that that means. On the second point I made no mistake. I said that the amenities societies were against it and that is what counts, not the TGWU. That is all I wish to say.
3.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 161.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. [Teller.]

Barnett, L.

Bernstein, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Blyton, L.

David, B.

Bottomley, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Caradon, L.

Denington, B.

552

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mulley, L.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Northfield, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Oram, L.

Fitt, L.

Perth, E.

Gallacher, L.

Plant, L.

Galpern, L. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Glenamara, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gormley, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Scanlon, L.

Heycock, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Serota, B.

Hughes, L.

Soper, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stallard, L.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jeger, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Strabolgi, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kagan, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Leatherland, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Underhill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Mellish, L.

Wheatley, L.

Milford, L.

White, B.

Mishcon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Molloy, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gainford, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Allerton, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gisborough, L.

Atholl, D.

Gladwyn, L.

Attlee, E.

Glanusk, L.

Auckland, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Banks, L.

Grey, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Gridley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Beloff, L.

Belstead, L.

Hampton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hankey, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hayter, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hill-Norton, L.

Caithness, E.

Hives, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hooper, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hunt, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Cayzer, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Chelmer, L.

Ilchester, E.

Chelwood, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Cobbold, L.

Killearn, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kimball, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cox, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Craigavon, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Layton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Lewin, L.

Denham, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Denning, L.

Long, V.

Derwent, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Diamond, L.

McFadzean, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L. [Teller.]

Drumalbyn, L.

Effingham, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mancroft, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mar, C.

Elton, L.

Margadale, L.

Erne, E.

Marley, L.

Ezra, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Faithfull, B.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Fortescue, E.

553

Mayhew, L.

Shannon, E.

Merrivale, L.

Sharples, B.

Mersey, V.

Shaughnessy, L.

Middleton, L.

Simon, V.

Milverton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Smith, L.

Mottistone, L.

Somers, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Stedman, B.

Munster, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strathspey, L.

Onslow, E.

Sudeley, L.

Orkney, E.

Suffield, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Swinton, E.

Pender, L.

Terrington, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Teviot, L.

Porritt, L.

Tordoff, L.

Portland, D.

Trefgarne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Trenchard, V.

Renton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rochdale, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rochester, L.

Vernon, L.

Romney, E.

Vivian, L.

Rugby, L.

Walston, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L. [Teller.]

Whaddon, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Sandford, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Sandys, L.

Winstanley, L.

Seear, B.

Young, B.

Selkirk, E.

Ypres, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I beg to move the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Libya
3.49 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on Libya which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a Statement about Libya. Before I do so, may I first say that my right honourable friend the Leader of the House will shortly be making a Business Statement which will indicate that there will be a full day's debate on this matter tomorrow.
"The House is aware that on the night of 14th–15th April United States Forces made attacks on specific targets in Libya.
"The Government have evidence showing beyond dispute that the Libyan Government has been and is directly involved in promoting terrorist attacks against the United States and other Western countries, and that it has made plans for a wide range of further terrorist attacks.
"The United Kingdom has itself suffered from Libyan terrorism. The House will recall the murder of WPC Fletcher in St. James's Square. There is no doubt, moreover, of the Libyan Government's direct and continuing support for the Provisional IRA, in the form of money and weapons.
554
"Two years ago we took certain measures against Libya, including the closure of the Libyan People's Bureau in London, restrictions on the entry of Libyans into the United Kingdom, and a ban on new contracts for the export to Libya of defence equipment. Yesterday the Foreign Ministers of the EC reaffirmed their grave concern at Libyan-inspired terrorism, and agreed on new restrictions against Libya.
"Since we broke off diplomatic relations with Libya, we have had no choice but consistently to advise British nationals living and working there that they are doing so on their own responsibility. Our interests there have been looked after by the Italian Government. Our representative in the British Interests Section of the Italian Embassy will continue to advise the British community as best he can.
"The United States has tried by peaceful means to deter Colonel Gaddafi and his regime from their promotion of terrorism, but to no effect.
"President Reagan informed me last week that the United States intended to take military action to deter further Libyan terrorism. He sought British support for this action. He also sought agreement, in accordance with our long-standing arrangements, to the use in the operation of some United States aircraft based in this country. This approach led to a series of exchanges including a visit by Ambassador Walters on Saturday, 12th April.
"Article 51 of the UN Charter specifically recognises the right to self-defence. In view of Libya's promotion of terrorism, the failure of peaceful means to deter it, and the evidence that further attacks were threatened, I replied to the President that we would support action directed against specific Libyan targets demonstrably involved in the conduct and support of terrorist activities. Further, that if the President concluded that it was necessary, we would agree to the deployment of United States aircraft from bases in the United Kingdom for that purpose.
"I reserved the position of the United Kingdom on any question of further action which might be more general or less clearly directed against terrorism.
"The President assured me that the operation would be limited to clearly defined targets related to terrorism, and that the risk of collateral damage would be minimised. He made it clear that use of F-111 aircraft from bases in the United Kingdom was essential, because by virtue of their special characteristics they would provide the safest means of achieving particular objectives with the lowest possible risk both of civilian casualties in Libya and of casualties among United States service personnel.
"Mr. Speaker, terrorism is a scourge of the modern age. Libya has been behind much of it and was planning more. The United Kingdom itself has suffered from Libya's actions. So have many of our friends, including several in the Arab world. The United States, after trying other means, has now sought by limited military action to induce the Libyan regime to desist from terrorism. That is in

555
the British interest. It is why the Government support the United States' action."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating that grave Statement. We note that at the start of the Statement there is an agreement to have a debate in another place tomorrow, and we hope that the noble Viscount will understand that this House would wish to debate this grave subject as soon as possible.
Let me say at the outset that we totally condemn the appalling acts of terrorism committed at Libya's behest, and that we believe that the international community should take all reasonable and legal steps to bring them to an end. Notwithstanding what the Prime Minister has said, we are deeply concerned about the way in which the United States has reacted and the implications of the attacks on Libya. These are serious, because it is very doubtful whether the attacks can be justified as self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, as the Statement claims. Furthermore, the attacks have undermined the unity of the Western alliance, for Britain is the only country to support and abet the attacks. Again, the attacks will not end Libyan terrorism, they will affect relations with our Arab friends and, finally, they have put British subjects in Libya at risk.
I have two or three brief questions to put to the noble Viscount. First, why did the Government agree to the use of F-111s, based in this country for NATO purposes, in operations outside the NATO theatre and without the agreement of our NATO partners? Secondly, was the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown sought on the legality of the operation in international law and, if so, what was their conclusion? Further, do the Law Officers agree that Article 51 of the charter was, in fact, breached before the attacks were made? Thirdly, if the evidence of Libyan guilt was irrefutable—that is the word which the Foreign Secretary has used—why was it not taken to the Security Council, so that a resolution condemning Libya could be sought, as happened at the time of the Falklands conflict?
Would the noble Viscount not agree that the US fleet had, in fact, ample fire-power to carry out any attacks decided upon by the United States Government without the F-111s from Britain? I believe that to be an extremely important point. Furthermore, is the noble Viscount aware that the paragraph on page 9 of the Statement that he has just read is very disturbing, where it states:
"Further, that if the President concluded that it was necessary, we would agree to the deployment of United States aircraft from bases in the United Kingdom for that purpose?".
Does that not give considerable power to the United States President over these aircraft based in this country and make a nonsense of the principle of dual control about which the Government have so often spoken to us? I believe that the House is very deeply concerned, as is the country, about this subject and I hope that the noble Viscount can give clear answers to the questions I have put.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Viscount for repeating this very serious Statement. But we must say categorically that we, as a whole alliance, repudiate the action which has been taken by the United States. We do not consider that it has been justified in the circumstances and we deeply deplore the support that has been given to it by Her Majesty's Government.
Of course, we recognise that Libya has been guilty of hideous acts of terrorism and we accept that there may well be other acts planned. The Foreign Secretary has said that he has absolute evidence that this is so. We must ask that we are given this evidence. Noble Lords will recall that, at the time of the Cuba crisis, President Kennedy was able to present photographic evidence which showed beyond peradventure the risks to which we were all exposed. Can we have comparable evidence to justify the claims that are being made of the danger from President Gaddafi?
We also believe that, as has already been said, the action that has been taken is both morally unjustified and politically not sensible. The Government have claimed that it is justified under Article 51 of the treaty. But if that is so, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has also asked, why was not the evidence taken to the United Nations and a decision made there so that we had the moral justification and a United Nations decision behind us? Even if as a result of that the United Nations found it extremely difficult to take effective action, it would nevertheless have strengthened our position.
But even if there is this evidence—and we are prepared to accept that it is there, since we have been told categorically by the Foreign Secretary that it is—we do not accept that bombing is the appropriate reaction. Surely other measures could have been taken. We have not pushed sanctions to the fullest extent. At the present time Libya in particular is sensitive to sanctions in relation to the oil situation as it now is and on which Libya so greatly depends. Then there is the cessation of international air contracts and other quarantine measures that could have been taken. All of these should surely have been tried before a resort to force of this kind.
We are also deeply concerned about the political implications in the Arab world. Can we be told what reaction there has already been from other Arab countries and what we have to expect? Above all, we on these Benches are gravely disturbed about the implications for relations inside the European Community that this action must have created. We have stood here for a common Community foreign policy. The Foreign Secretary was meeting the Foreign Secretaries of the Community countries earlier this week. What was said and what reaction are we getting from those European Foreign Secretaries now that this action has been taken? As we all know, Gorbachev has been trying to drive a wedge between Europe and the United States. I can only say that this action has been more successful than anything Gorbachev is likely to achieve.
4 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and to the noble Baroness,

557
Lady Seear, for their comments because they give me an opportunity to make clear, I hope, some of the factors which come out of the Government's actions and what has happened.
First, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked whether there could be a debate in your Lordships' House. Of course I am prepared to see that that request is discussed through the usual channels. Personally I would greatly welcome such a debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, condemned terrorism—and, it should be said to your Lordships, in this particular case terrorism promoted and encouraged by a sovereign government. I think that that is an extremely important point.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, then asked about the position of self-defence under Article 51. I think it would be appropriate for me to read a short paragraph from the President's statement on this matter. He said:
"The evidence is now conclusive that the terrorist bombing of La Belle discothèque was planned and executed under the direct orders of the Libyan regime. On March 25th, more than a week before the attack, orders were sent from Tripoli to the Libyan People's Bureau in East Berlin to conduct a terrorist attack against Americans to cause maximum and indiscriminate casualties. Libya's agents then planted a bomb. On April 4th the People's Bureau alerted Tripoli that the attack would be carried out the following morning. The next day they reported back to Tripoli on the great success of their mission. Our evidence"—
the President continued—
"is direct, it is precise and it is irrefutable".
That is the basis on which the President justifies American action of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. He has other evidence to back that up, but I should have thought that that was a very important piece of evidence indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, then asked me why we agreed to the use of the F-111s. I do not disguise from your Lordships that that was a most difficult decision for the British Government to take. But it was made clear to us that the Americans believed that if they had not been allowed to use the F-111s based in this country, the action would have been more difficult to carry out, as the original statement made clear, and secondly, there would have been a greater risk of increased casualties among American personnel. I only ask your Lordships to consider the position of those who took that decision. Had they refused to allow the American Government to use their own planes with their own crews, there might not have been as few casualties. I believe that that would have been a risk and a possible consequence of refusal. I ask your Lordships to put yourselves in the position of those who took that decision and consider whether that must not be something that was in their minds. I can certainly say that it was in my mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, then asked me about the Law Officers. Yes, of course, the Law Officers' opinion was certainly sought, and it having been properly sought it was concluded that the action concerned was compatible with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter in the interests of self-defence.
Lord Molloy: Self-defence, my Lords?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, the noble Lord also asked why it was not possible for the United States fleet aircraft to be used alone, apart from the F-111s.
558
I hope I have given the answer that was certainly put to us by the President and which had to be most carefully considered by the British Government.
As for the future, it should be made clear when the noble Lord refers to what was said on page 9 of the Statement that on page 10 my right honourable friend stated:
"I reserved the position of the United Kingdom Government on any question of further action which might be more general or less clearly directed against terrorism".
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised the point from the previous page. Being a most fair person, if I may say so, he would think it proper that I should qualify it by what was said on the next page.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that the Alliance as a whole repudiates the action and deplores support given by this Government to the American Government. Very well; that is their view, but I can only say on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that, over the years, an alliance is a most important matter in international affairs. Allies must stand with each other whenever they possibly can and—I believe rightly—support each other in moments of difficulty.
No one in your Lordships' House can say that there have not been occasions in our history when we should have been deeply appreciative of the actions of the American Government in our support. That can never be forgotten. So those who decide not to support the American Government now must face up to the fact—and apparently this is what the noble Baroness has decided to do—that we would decline our support to the American Government at a moment when they felt that their citizens had been attacked by terrorist activity organised by Colonel Gaddafi in many parts of Europe, at great detriment to their citizens; and at a time when the people of America felt that it was unfair and unreasonable that such action should be taken.
Very well. To withdraw support at that moment from our allies is, of course, always possible. I believe I am entitled to question whether under the circumstances in which we are placed at the present time, that action could be regarded as wise.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, there is to be a debate and so I shall be content to make two reflections on this situation. The first—and I am sure that the noble Baroness will be content with what my noble friend has said on this matter—is that the evidence is conclusive that we are dealing with international terrorism organised by a sovereign state against other members of the United Nations. That is a new and a very serious and very dangerous situation. If such a situation is allowed to continue unchecked, then there will be military responses from one country or another provoked beyond endurance. Then it will be impossible to allocate blame; and I cannot allocate blame to the United States on this occasion. There must be a better way found than military response to terrorist situations.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, Europe and the United States, and others interested in law and order, must meet urgently and give leadership to the world on this matter. I do not believe that that can be done

559
below the level of heads of state. I hope that something of that kind will be organised soon.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Coming from him, those words are extremely important. He will certainly be heeded, and I can most assuredly tell him that I shall see that his words are brought to the attention of anyone in this field who may have missed them, because they are immensely important.
What my noble friend has said about co-operation and finding a way forward enables me to do something that I have failed to do, for which I apologise to the noble Baroness; it was entirely my fault. It was, that I did not mention the question she raised concerning our position with the European Community. I entirely accept that on this occasion it was not in accord—and it is obviously seen not to be so—with our European partners. I believe it was felt that they were not prepared as a whole to go as far as we believe was right in support of the American Government on this occasion.
Following what has been said by my noble friend, I must say to the noble Baroness that that does not mean that the need for co-ordinated action with our European partners is not extremely important. I can assure the noble Baroness that Her Majesty's Government will seek to obtain that so far as it is at all possible.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to place this matter in a slightly broader context. Is the noble Viscount aware that since 1968, when records of terrorist events were begun, there have been between 8,000 and 10,000 separate serious terrorist incidents? During the course of those incidents, rather more than 5,000 people have been killed and rather more than 10,000 people have been seriously injured. Of those incidents, all except a very small percentage—something like 6 per cent. or 7 per cent—have been against people, citizens or property of Western democracies. Ought we not to take that into account when considering this one single example of the use of military force in an attempt to bring the assault upon world structure and Western democracy to an end?
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those figures, which are no doubt accurate. There are many people in this country and many people in other countries in the Western democracies who feel that their leaders have been too slow to react to those particular incidents, which have led to great loss of life and to great suffering for many of their peoples. It is in response to that feeling and after, I suspect, having some instinct that he was not being as fully supported as he felt he ought to be so far as Libya was concerned, that the President of America decided that on this occasion, in view of the provocation to American citizens and the loss of life to American citizens, it was for him to take the particular action that he did.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, does the noble Viscount the Leader of the House not agree that that government action has done more than anything else to consolidate Moslem fundamentalism? It has probably also created in the developing world more anti-American feeling than it ought to do, because the Americans have been their saviours in many cases. Will the noble Viscount do everything that he can to ensure that that kind of attitude does not spread?—because the real enemy in the world today is Moslem fundamentalism.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, says. No doubt those matters were closely taken into account by the President before he decided to take the action that he did. The question that was put to Her Majesty's Government—and I am sure that the noble Lord, who is extremely fair, will appreciate this—was whether, once the President had decided that such action was on the whole vitally important, as he believed it, for the self-defence of America, that was the moment when he asked, not for their participation in that action in the strict military sense but for the support of the United Kingdom Government and the right to use those aircraft and crews of his own who were based in this country. That is the part that we have played. Much of what the noble Lord has said naturally arises for consideration for this Government but also, of course, for our allies in America and throughout Europe.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I ask my noble friend whether it was not inevitable, in the face of the wishy-washy reaction on Monday of European Foreign Secretaries, who refused to do anything by way of economic sanctions to help, that America would have to think in terms of defending its citizens, when Libya had proclaimed that it would murder American citizens in any part of the world in which they were found.
Is my noble friend aware that the people of this country, who recognise that American bases are here to help protect ourselves, would applaud the fact that the Government allowed those bases to be used on this occasion, initially in order to help the Americans protect their citizens?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his last remark. As to his first remark concerning the meeting of the European countries, having given the answer to the noble Baroness and others that I should like to see the closest co-operation with Europe, as Her Majesty's Government do, I believe that it would be wrong for me to indulge in any recriminations at this stage as to what may or may not have been done by the European governments yesterday.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that many of us who are firm supporters of the North Atlantic Alliance find this a deeply depressing day, in that we are put in the position of criticising the United States, which is something that we have no desire whatsoever to do, aware as we are of the crucial importance of a close relationship between the people of Western Europe and the United States? Is he aware also that there is the most overwhelming

561
scepticism (to put it as politely as possible) and opposition by many others to what has been done in the past 24 hours?
Is the noble Viscount aware that many of us simply do not believe that what has been done will prevent Colonel Gaddafi launching further terrorist action? What will be done then? Will there be further air strikes against Libya? Will there be air strikes against Syria, which is also a base for terrorism in the Middle East? Those are the questions which must be answered by the Government.
May I further ask whether the noble Viscount will ensure that the debate, which he has guaranteed will take place, will be on a Motion that will enable the House to take a decision on this matter? Many of us will wish to register our views.
Before sitting down may I, in conclusion, ask this question? The noble Viscount referred to irrefutable evidence. As my noble friend Baroness Seear asked, if there is such irrefutable evidence—as, indeed, there may be—why was it not placed before the Security Council of the United Nations? That is what we should like to know.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, raises many questions about the action which no doubt must have exercised us all. They certainly exercised me during this time. The noble Lord has decided to come down on another side of the fence. I believe that in the circumstances it was right for the United Kingdom Government to support the American Government. The noble Lord deeply regrets that he cannot agree. We have to consider both positions. The noble Lord has decided on a different decision to me. That is his affair and I cannot answer for his decision.
I should add to the noble Lord that no one can be sure about these matters in the future. It would be a very unwise person who said that he was certain he was right. I have often been accused in my political career of not being sufficiently certain that I was right. I am not sure whether that is necessarily a deficiency. I think that it is important to face up to the fact that one has to make a decision. The noble Lord's decision is different to mine. I respect his position but I still believe that the Government's decision was right.
As regards a debate, I have learned, I hope quickly enough, as Leader of your Lordships' House, that for me to give off-the-cuff decisions when standing here without proper discussion through the usual channels would be extremely unwise. I have no intention of getting myself into that difficulty. There will be discussions through the usual channels as to how best any debate we might have should be mounted.
There was one other question concerning the Security Council. The answer to that is that I do not think it can deal with the matter in the end. I have given some of the evidence available to the American Government. They believe that on the basis of that evidence they were right to take action. Clearly that was their decision and it would not be for me to comment on it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are a number of people, at any rate in this country, who profoundly feel that the fact that we
562
have shown to the United States that in a dangerous situation we are a courageous and reliable ally may be a major contribution to the future peace of the world?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I can only say that that was certainly a consideration in the mind of Her Majesty's Government when they came to their decision.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, may I ask a single question? As we are to have a future debate, I ask this question. It is important that we should have the information as soon as possible. In the course of his discussions with his European colleagues, did the Foreign Secretary know that it was the intention of this Government to act as an accomplice in this matter and to permit flights from bases in this country? If so, was he not in the position of deceiving his Foreign Minister colleagues in Europe by concealing the fact that we intended to act as an accomplice and by pretending to go along with the various movements made? Has he not been placed in that position? Is that the case?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I cannot accept the word "accomplice". I do not accept what the noble Lord says and, therefore, I do not think I have anything further to say.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not true that the American President is elected by total universal suffrage and elected on a democratic system? Is it not also true that Colonel Gaddafi came to power on the guns of some obscure squadron of tanks around Siwa oasis? Is it not equally true that our American friends are within the law in doing what they did? Were we not right to support them?
However, I then ask myself this. Were the Americans actually wise to do it? I ask that of Her Majesty's Government because, I suggest, the root cause of Middle East terrorism is the displacement of the Palestinians. Until the Palestinian problem has been solved there will be no settlement of Middle East terrorism.
Furthermore, is it not true that more terrorism is hatched in Damascus, in Teheran and the stews of Lebanon than was ever dreamt up in the wildest dreams of Colonel Gaddafi? Surely it should be essential to go to the root cause of the Middle East problem, which is the Palestinian Diaspora.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He has raised many considerations, all of which have to be taken into account when reaching a decision on this very difficult matter. All of them, of course, were naturally in the mind of Her Majesty's Government during their deliberations.
Lord Kennet: My Lords—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have been up and down—
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it not the case that this is the first time since the Second World War that American bombers have taken off from British airfields in hot blood on an operational sortie, and that this therefore constitutes the beginning of a new age for European/Atlantic relations?
On the question of information: if the United States—and, indeed, we ourselves—had all that incontrovertible information for a week before the terrorist outrage took place in the Berlin discotheque, why did we not use it to prevent the outrage? Was this information passed by the United States, or by this country, to West Germany? Was it passed to East Germany, from where the outrage is alleged to have been organised? Was it passed to the Soviet Union in the hope that they would dissuade Libya from committing the outrage? Indeed, was it passed to Libya to let them know that we knew? I heard the noble Viscount's statement about the Security Council. Was the information, simply as information, passed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations?
One final question: the Statement spoke of the conditions under which the Prime Minister would review the permission she had given for the use of British airfields for these attacks on Libya. If another attack were to be requested in the same form as the last, would permission be granted, given that the last attack killed innocent civilians and damaged the French and, I understand, the Swiss embassies?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, the noble Lord first asked about the agreement on British bases. He will recall that this is based on the Churchill-Truman communiqué of 1952 which provides for joint decision by the two governments on the use, in an emergency, of the United States' bases in the United Kingdom. That agreement remains in force and has been continued by successive governments since that date. I think that is the answer. There have been no qualifications of the communiqué.
As regards the various other questions the noble Lord asked about the intelligence matters surrounding the bombing of the discotheque in Berlin, the evidence which I have given I should have thought was very convincing and, as the President said, irrefutable. To go into all the details of it would be something which I do not think anyone concerned with these matters could possibly be expected to do. I certainly do not know the answers to many of those questions, but if I did I do not think your Lordships would imagine that I could conceivably communicate them to you. As for the noble Lord's final question, that must remain hypothetical. The reservations of my right honourable friend were set out in her Statement and I do not think that the noble Lord would really expect me to go further.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the House is grateful for the assurance he has given that we shall debate this matter, and for the manner in which it was given; that is, immediately, without hesitation, and conceding that the House must discuss this vitally important issue. We have to examine the situation in terms of the frightful
564
peradventure that what the United States have done may well amount to a psychological victory for Colonel Gaddafi and all the hateful people who surround him. Does the noble Viscount agree that, as has already been stated, perhaps we shall now arrive at the frontiers of understanding and realise what the Palestinian people have been suffering for years when some idiotic Palestinian has threatened to slay one Israeli? They have been shelled, bombed, lacerated and slain by the thousand.
Does the noble Viscount further agree that though there would seem to have been a strong case for the Americans to have taken to the United Nations—as was pointed out on television by Sir Anthony Parsons, who was the Foreign Affairs adviser to the Prime Minister, and by Professor Wilkinson—law and order have now been temporarily abandoned and the United States are perpetrating another form of violence on what may well be a number of innocent people? My last point is this: is there not a possibility that this action may cause a very serious split between our allies and that our own nation appears to be nothing but a sycophantic lackey for the United States of America?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord's last point. He has read me a considerable lecture and perhaps he has anticipated the speech he may seek to make when a full debate is held. I do not think that at this moment I have anything to say in reply to those various points, except to state that I cannot say when the debate will take place because that must be a matter for the usual channels and I do not wish to pre-empt them.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, after many attempts may I put a point to the noble Viscount, who is a most reasonable and wise man? Colonel Gaddafi heads a small, insignificant state and his whole power to cause trouble arises because he is enormously rich with surplus money obtained through his oil wealth. This country and the countries of Europe are much to blame for this action because we refused the President's call for economic sanctions. In fact, the ability of Colonel Gaddafi to cause trouble springs from his surplus wealth which he uses in this way. Therefore, should not this country and the European nations reconsider their rather greedy response and agree to all-out economic sanctions in order to dry up the source of the trouble?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, let me return the compliment and say that the noble Lord is a wise and responsible person. As such he must remember that while economic sanctions sometimes seem attractive and may be used in certain circumstances, their record of solving disputes in the world is indeed a very poor one.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, if the Government believe that the American Government are justified in regarding a whole series of terrorist attacks against their nationals—not all of them inspired by the Libyan Government—as "an armed attack" coming within the scope of Article 51 of the charter, would it not equally be possible for us to argue that 10 years of terrorist outrages against us by the IRA are the equivalent of an "armed attack" on us and that we

565
should therefore take the opportunity of bombing Dublin in order to exterminate this centre of their activities?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I do not think I should go down that particular road, even when it is suggested by someone as distinguished in diplomacy as the noble Lord.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, there is one question which the noble Viscount has not answered. International civilised opinion throughout the world condemns terrorism, whether it be in Asia, Europe, Southern Africa or Latin America. But today international civilised opinion, apart from that of the governments of one or two countries including our own, has condemned as aggression the action last night of the American administration, and it fears that it is undermining international law and negotiation. Surely the collusion of the British Government in that act endangers the lives and health of their own citizens. The noble Viscount has not answered the question as to how last night's action is fulfilling the duty of this Government to protect British citizens.
I should like to ask the noble Viscount a second question. The evidence he has given has been doubted by Herr Genscher, the West German Foreign Minister, who surely is in a better position to know the facts than is the noble Viscount or the Prime Minister. Why is it that the British Government listen to what the President of the United States says about an outrage in Germany but apparently do not listen to Herr Genscher? The central question which the noble Viscount has not yet answered at all is whether either the American administration or the British administration made any efforts to refer to the Security Council the evidence which they claim to possess, at a time when a Security Council debate could have taken place on this issue? Will the noble Viscount answer that question directly?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I thought I had answered that question directly in saying that in view of their role in the action that was a matter for the American Government to answer and not for the British Government to answer. Whether anyone should go to the Security Council must be a matter for the American administration.
On the question of protecting British citizens, of course there may be arguments both ways. It can be said that by supporting the American Government in this action we may cause difficulties, and one concern which I think we all share is for British citizens in Libya. At the same time if, by supporting that action, we succeed in dealing with a fount of terrorism (which no one denies Colonel Gaddafi has been) we shall indeed do a great deal to protect British citizens as well as American citizens all over the world. I think that must be a judgment which one has to make in this matter and that is a judgment which I believe we have rightly sought to make.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the latest development in this crisis, as reported by the BBC, is that the Libyan Air Force has attacked an American military facility on a
566
Mediterranean island? Is this the first indication of the counter-productive and futile nature of the action of the United States and British Governments in this affair? Is this the beginning of the counter-productivity which all the opposition parties have been stressing this afternoon? Moreover, while it is clear to everyone that security can sometimes be a valid reason for not revealing the source of intelligence, surely security need not rule out the noble Viscount giving an assurance to the House, as I am sure he will, that the sources of this intelligence were Western and not Israeli sources?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised two points with me. First of all he has given some information to the House, and certainly to me, of which I was not aware. Nothing is more unwise than for someone answering for the Government to comment on some information which he has never heard before. I do not think your Lordships would expect me to fall into that particular trap.
As regards security and intelligence, I do not think I can answer that question, for reasons which the noble Lord will perfectly understand. However, I think it gives me an opportunity to answer the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. I know that he was smarting because I had not answered one of his questions. I can only say that the reason for that was not discourtesy but that I had forgotten to do so—one of the best possible reasons.
The answer is that this was the intelligence available to the President of America, who showed that intelligence, in requesting our support, to the British Government. That intelligence was therefore available to those governments. Because that intelligence is available to the American President and he provides it. I do not think that that necessarily means that Herr Genscher (because it is in Germany or in Berlin) must know more than the intelligence sources available to the American President at that time. I do not think that that is necessarily a solid point that the noble Lord makes.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, how does it come about that the Government are unaware that there has already been a Security Council debate on this matter and that it was introduced, not, as one would expect, by the United States, not by Libya, but by a third country, Malta?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the Government are unaware of this. I was indeed aware of that matter, but I do not quite see where it gets me.

Education Bill [H.L.]
4.42 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AYLESTONE in the Chair.]
Clause 16 [Duty of local education authority to state policy]:
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 19, line 25, after ("review") insert (", in accordance with the priorities that the Secretary of State may from time to time set out,").
The noble Lord said: From Scotland and the wider world we come back to the children of England and Wales. The amendment which I am moving this afternoon is a very modest amendment to what is a very modest little Bill.
As I pointed out in the Second Reading debate, I should have preferred a more robust acceptance of responsibility by Her Majesty's Government for the content and conduct of education in our schools. In putting that point in the Second Reading debate, I was persuaded that all interests involved in education other than the interests of the nation as a whole were fully ventilated: the interests of local authorities, parents, teachers, dinner ladies and the children themselves. However, I submitted, and submit again, that there is another overriding interest. That is the contribution that education can and should make not merely to the economic progress and development of this country—about which we hear a great deal—but also to its social and cultural stability. I think that this is a responsibility which rests upon central government.
I was also struck in our debate on Second Reading by the fact that some people are so devoted to the record of local responsibility in these matters that they are prepared to use arguments which do not relate to the circumstances that we immediately face. I have learnt with much regret that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, who speaks with considerable experience of the education system, cannot be here this week to take part in the Committee stage. I told the noble Lord that I would refer to his speech in which he called into play a letter he had received from a German headmaster in 1935 about being obliged to teach Nazi doctrines to the children of his school, and his belief that these doctrines would lead inevitably—as of course they did—to war.
I submit that that is an illegitimate argument. It has no relationship to the distribution of responsibilities between central and local government in the matter of education in Germany at that time. There is no evidence that in matters which concerned local government—and Germany had a great history of local and municipal self-government—any serious opposition was put up locally to the ravages of the Nazi doctrines. On the contrary, in some cases local power was seized before power at the centre. I therefore hope that in discussing this modest amendment people will not wave the threat of totalitarianism.
I am moving an amendment which concerns only one of the many aspects of this Bill; namely, where responsibility for the curriculum lies. In the Bill as we have it now, this is apparently shared between the local education authority, the governors of a particular school, and the headmaster or headmistress of that school. It is very difficult, on the text of a Bill, to decide where the major responsibility lies, and I believe that there are to be amendments, moved by others, which suggest where this might lie. I am moving that at the
568
first level—which in the Bill is the level of local authorities—there should be some attention to the views expressed by the Government.
I should say that, owing to an office error, the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, which should have been alongside mine as a co-sponsor of the amendment we are discussing, has been omitted; and it has been agreed that people may also speak to the amendment of the noble Lord which comes two places down on the Marshalled List.
As we are starting this matter so late, it is perhaps unnecessary to say a great deal more about why I believe this amendment to be necessary. However, I would add one argument related to a number of amendments that we shall discuss later this afternoon, in the names of my noble friends Lord Renton and Lady Cox. They relate to proposals about how one might exclude certain aspects of teaching which are widely held to be unsuitable because they border on or incorporate indoctrination.
My feeling is that although I sympathise with efforts to do this by negatives—by ruling certain items out—it seems to me a great deal more important to see that what we think ought to be in the curriculum is there. If everything that I would consider a modern child needs to know is provided in the curriculum there would be very little time left for the kind of activities which worry the noble Baroness and her supporters. For example, rather than condemn what is known as peace studies, or world studies, the provision of the systematic study of the history and institutions of this island in which these children will grow up—whatever their origin may be—ought to be a part of a curriculum for our schools at every level. Therefore, there is something to be said for someone with responsibility at the centre—and at present the Secretary of State has such responsibility—to give some indication of the preferences that he has between possible components of a curriculum.
It is sometimes quite fairly argued against my occasional contributions to our debates on education that my own experience of the state system is limited and that I am speaking from a theoretical point of view. I should therefore like to pray in aid a letter which many noble Lords may have read. It appeared in The Times newspaper of 12th April—not very long ago. As it is a long letter, I shall read only one paragraph. It says:
"the Government, representing the widest interests of society, should accept a more open and direct responsibility for what is taught in schools and for its cost, and unite the service behind a national curriculum in tune with the needs of the community as a whole".
That letter did not come from a theoretician. It was signed by Donald Naismith the Director of Education for the London Borough of Croydon. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has stated, it is purely a clerical accident that my name does not appear under the noble Lord's name on the Marshalled List as regards this amendment. Therefore, I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and to say that I think that he has done the Committee a service by tabling the amendment so that we can discuss this limited proposal and perhaps reach a conclusion on it. The

569
noble Lord called it a modest proposal, and it is indeed a modest proposal. It provides for the Secretary of State to be able to set out priorities from time to time in accordance with which local education authorities are to determine and review their policy in relation to the secular curriculum.
I have put my name to the present amendment and I have coupled it with Amendment No. 44A which is a safeguard; namely, that the Secretary of State's statements of priority shall be subject to affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. That safeguard is necessary because the positive assent of Parliament would give a greater degree of authority to and command wider assent for the Secretary of State's priorities directed to the local education authorities.
I am convinced that, wherever we may sit in this Committee, we are all concerned with the raising of standards in our schools. To my mind the question is whether this vital matter should be left exclusively to the local education authorities, the governors and the head teachers, or whether there should be some input from central government and, as I would have it, approved by Parliament.
I accept the argument advanced by a number of noble Lords, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, on Second Reading, about the creative part played by local government in the development of education in this country. I do not want a completely centralised system of education as has been established in other countries, notably in France. However, I want central government, with the approval of Parliament, to have some power and not to be powerless in the usually long intervals between primary legislation. I think we all agree that primary legislation for education should not be brought before Parliament too often. However, do we really have to leave central government powerless in the intervals? I think not. To my mind the noble Lord's modest amendment gives sufficient power, but limited power, to the Secretary of State during the intervals between the promotion of major Bills on education.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said on Second Reading that there had not been enough input by central government in England and Wales as contrasted with Scotland where she implied that there had been and there is now sufficient central control. I agree with the noble Baroness. Sir Keith Joseph and Mr. Chris Patten have both said much the same thing in recent days, but with different emphasis.
Leaving aside all the recent arguments for greater participation by pupils, teachers, parents, and so on—all of which have something to be said for them—I find it astonishing that a major new Bill on education, the simple title of which is
"to amend the law relating to education",
contains no provision at all on the role of central government in regard to the curriculum. There is provision for everyone else the Committee can think of to have a finger in the pie—the local education authority, the governors, the head teachers, parents and perhaps other teachers who may be governors, and so on—but there is to be no governmental or parliamentary involvement in the curriculum. To my mind that must be wrong, and the amendment seeks to put it right.
570
The question is: who is to be the judge as to what is in the national interest? I believe that the answer to that question must be the Secretary of State, preferably with the approval of Parliament. In my view it is simply an abdication of responsibility which is pinned on central government anyway if they are not endowed by Act of Parliament with that responsibility. I should like to see this Committee voting that government responsibility into the Bill even though the Government have not sought it themselves.
The power to set priorities will not be undertaken lightly. I am convinced that it would only be exercised after extensive consultation by the Secretary of State with HMIs and with the department as a whole; and of course it would be subject to Cabinet agreement. If my proposal were accepted, it would also have the agreement of both Houses. It seems to me to be an essential ingredient in the policy formation of the curriculum which will ensure—and only by this means can it be ensured—that the public national interest is consulted.
We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, refer to the dictatorship argument—the Lord Alexander of Potterhill argument. That should be discounted altogther. Only those who profoundly distrust our public institutions and our way of government will be disturbed in the very least by this modest proposal to ensure that the national interest is served by means of these amendments. If improved standards can be obtained by a clearer direction from central government, then I believe that increased funding and other good things will follow; otherwise I fear that remedial action will continue to be necessary by reluctant and perhaps despairing industry coupled by after-school programmes promoted by the MSC, and for that matter by the Army. I have nothing to say against those after school programmes. They are absolutely necessary now, but they should not be as necessary as they are. This modest proposal has my strong support, and I hope that the Committee will consider it seriously.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: I am in broad agreement with my noble friend Lord Beloff and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, when they suggest to the Committee that there is a part for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to play in making the arrangements for what is to be taught in schools in future, at any rate in broad principles. I rise really in order to issue, with deep respect to my noble friend Lord Beloff, a caution about one thing that he said. If I noted it correctly he said that if everything were put into the curriculum, or curricula, which ought to be there, there would be little time left for indoctrination. I am surprised that my noble friend should be so optimistic. What he has suggested would be the triumph of hope over Left-wing ingenuity.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I rise to support the amendment and the speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Henderson. I saw this letter in The Times on Saturday. It was the paragraph that the noble Lord read which prompted me to feel that I must say something on Clause 16. This is the

571
first clause in the Bill which deals with the curriculum. We spent a lot of time on school government, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred to that.
I am surprised that this question of the control or influence of the curriculum is not exciting more interest than apparently it is at this time. Some noble Lords seem to be more concerned with what should not be taught than with what should be taught. I think also from what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said a moment ago that there may be some noble Lords who do not believe that indoctrination is already there.
Indeed, this is one of the problems which has occupied the attention of your Lordships quite a lot since the debate inspired by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. But it seems to me that when we talk about state education in this country we are really talking about local authority education. I doubt whether that can be regarded as entirely satisfactory in the modern age. It is historical, but I doubt whether it is wholly relevant to the problem of our education today.
Some influence, some degree of control, should be put in the hands of government and Parliament over the essentials of the curricula in our schools. We have to deal with the natural reluctance to give the Secretary of State, or for that matter the Government, too much power over the curricula because we are on guard against undue influence in particular directions which may not meet with the whole approval of parents and the people. But our educational system must be geared to the requirements of today and of tomorrow, and we shall lose the race in the world's affairs if we do not look to our education system as the foundation of our future prosperity and power.
The question is: shall we get it the way we are going at the present time? Why have we got all this discontent with the education system? Why did my right honourable friend Mr. Callaghan raise the issue of the great debate, which was not as great as it ought to have been, and the debate not as long as it should have been? But we have not concluded that debate. I thought that this Bill was going to revive it, but it does not do that.
I would make a further observation. I was so preoccupied on Second Reading with the position of the teachers that I had not the time to say that I believe that there is a great deal to be said for considering a national education service so far as recruitment, pay and conditions of teachers are concerned. There is a great deal to be regretted about our present system of training, recruitment and conditions of teachers. Nobody who dealt with teachers' pay and was on the Royal Commission on the standards of conduct in public life could be entirely free of worries about our present system of local authority control of education, and indeed other aspects of our national affairs.
Democracy is not enough unless it is true democracy. We have to bear in mind—and I regret to refer to this—that our electoral system does not always ensure the true reflection of democratic opinion in the locality concerned. That of course applies, in my judgment, to the country as a whole. But before we rely too much on democracy let us consider whether it is truly representative.
572
The proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is, in principle, right. The points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, are important, too. If power is to be vested in the hands of the Secretary of State then we must surround him with the means of representative and talented advice about the essentials of the curricula, so that when he sets out his priorities he is doing so as reflecting a wide consensus of opinion which could be regarded as free from indoctrination, free from political considerations, and devoted entirely to the merits of the matter. That would be an important safeguard to introduce into this arrangement.
With that, serious consideration should be given to the change suggested in the two amendments before the Committee at the present time. It is far more serious than lots of the stuff in this Bill. I am sorry that the Bill does not tackle this side of the matter much more boldly than it does. In that respect I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. However, this is what we have.
I do not think that it is the end of our education problems. It is not the end of our education reforms. More changes will be needed, and probably experiment will be desirable; but certainly we are on the threshold of big changes which are imperative in our education system. This may be only the earlier stage of it. It is not bold enough, but it may put us on the way to later achievement in this direction.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: I find myself in agreement with these two amendments, and particularly with the second one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. If this decision on priorities is to be made by the Secretary of State, it ought most certainly to be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. That would mean that it would be preceded, if the Secretary of State hoped to get the agreement of Parliament, by thorough discussion, as has been suggested, with HMIs, with the teaching profession, with industry, and with people qualified to give him good advice on this matter of priorities. I hope therefore that if any change is made it will include both of these amendments, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, realises what an extraordinarily revolutionary proposal he is making. If any member of the Labour Party had proposed that priorities in education should be determined by the Secretary of State, there would have been cries of horror in all directions and we should have been accused of introducing some kind of Gestapo or Nazi system of education. But we are supposed to be engaged in a serious discussion of education, and I shall not pursue the kind of thing to which we would have been subjected if this proposal had come from the Labour Party.
However, the noble Lord is proposing something which for years has been regarded as a most grave heresy. The idea that the Secretary of State for Education could stick his nose into what is actually taught in the schools was regarded as very odd indeed. I found it very odd myself when I went to the office of Secretary of State for Education, but as I was there for only three months I had no time to do anything about it.

573
It seemed to me then, and it seems to me now, unreasonable that the Secretary of State should not have anything to do with what is actually taught in schools. It must be as I have suggested. This is why the intervention of Parliament is so important. The Secretary of State's judgment must be a careful, well-informed judgment, and it must be concerned with the long-term interests of the community and not with comparatively short-term interests, such as the latest idea of what ought to be taught in the schools. Every now and again something happens which causes people to say, "The schools ought to do something about this. They ought to devote more attention to teaching the children how to cross the road, when to brush their teeth, or whatever". One wants to get away from that and have a judgment on priorities in the curriculum based on the long term interests of the nation. In this we are, as my noble friend Lord Houghton suggested, seriously out of date. We do not do that. We do not pay attention to the long-term interests of the nation. We made the desperate experiment of introducing this idea into a Conservative Bill on education, and we should have a chance of doing something about it. I hope we may take it.
Lord Butterworth: I should like to support this amendment and speak briefly to two points. Following what the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, has said, I think we are on the edge of something which is potentially important and, using his word, "revolutionary". I prefer to think of this side of the Chamber as being the truly radical side and that in the Bill we should have this important role for the Secretary of State for Education, which I am sure is very important. Indeed, in my view, with the ability to have guidelines from the Secretary of State—not merely in schools but for the benefit of universities, polytechnics, and colleges of higher and further education—we could be on the edge of a development which is potentially very important.
My second point is that while I have great sympathy with many of the amendments which we shall shortly be considering, mostly being put forward by my noble friend Lady Cox, I am at the moment not convinced that those subjects are best dealt with by statute. There are other ways of dealing with them which are far more successful, and at this moment I am not convinced that embedding them in a statute is the correct way of dealing with those problems. If that is so, guidance from the Secretary of State may well become more important.
If we are to have this amendment—I hope we can support it today—when the Bill ultimately emerges it is so important that, in my view, this amendment ought to be in some different form. The duty of the Secretary of State ought not to be embedded in a clause which is entitled, "Duty of local education authority to state policy". Surely the Secretary of State deserves a clause on his own.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy: The noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, has given signal service in the field of education, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, proved he was a good friend to teachers when the salary award was made many years ago. I have
574
enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and those who have spoken, but though I am one out of tune with all the rest I utter a word of warning about this. Because one or two local authorities have behaved badly is not sufficient reason for a major change in the structure of our education service in this country.
I know that the world of education is now in a state of turmoil. I was a teacher; I was called to be a teacher; and I have enormous respect for the profession. My heart aches as I view the present scene, but this talk as though the present education service does not take the national interest into view is quite unfair. It is unfair to a noble profession. It is unfair to former Secretaries of State for Education. Of course a Secretary of State has power in helping to decide what is in the curriculum. What do your Lordships believe Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools are doing when they go around to the schools? They are the servants of the Secretary of State, discussing the curriculum and discussing how it is fulfilled and how it is carried out.
Every Secretary of State is a highly party political figure. He is not put there because he is impartial in politics. It is full of danger. I think this proposal is full of danger. There could come a day when your Lordships will deeply regret having given too much power to government. I am highly nervous of this proposal.
I remember years ago my dear friend Ronald Gould (whose death we unfortunately heard of this week, and who gave signal service to the world of education) telling a conference of the National Union of Teachers that at any given moment the Secretary for Education in France could say, "All the children in France at this moment are to study English, or French, or mathematics"—all decided from the top.
We have developed a dual system in this country that has served our land well. I believe we might make a major blunder if we slip in, almost in a mild discussion, a transfer of real power. That I gather is what is intended: a transfer from the partnership that has existed among the teaching profession, the education authorities, the parents and the Secretary of State for Education. Alarm bells ring in my mind at this proposal. I shall not be found going into the Lobby in support of it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There can be no doubt about the importance of this amendment. In moving it, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said that it was an opportunity to turn what he described as a minor Bill into a major Bill. He gave good notice of that intention at Second Reading, and indeed has faithfully followed it out. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred to it as a modest proposal. I suspect that it is a modest proposal more in the sense that Jonathan Swift meant a modest proposal than in the sense which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, originally intended.
A number of noble Lords have referred to this proposal as being a revolutionary change, or a radical change, whether they see themselves as radicals of the Right or of the Left. There is no doubt that it is correct for this Committee to be considering radical change as well as the relatively minor changes with which the Bill is concerned. On the issues themselves, I find myself in some sympathy with what a number of noble Lords

575
have said, including my noble friends Lord Houghton and Lord Stewart. The view has been expressed to me on a number of occasions by educationists whose views I respect, including devoted socialists, that there is a strong case at least for a core curriculum up to the age of 14 or 15; and many research studies, including most recently a research study carried out by the Inner London Education Authority in its primary schools over a period of years, have indicated that there may well be gains from a return, not to a more regimented and a more universal curriculum but a curriculum which accepts certain basic propositions which are sometimes neglected by schools and by education authorities in this country.
This is not a matter in which I find myself even as concerned as the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. I feel that there is a case for many of the points which have been put forward and I am conscious, as I have always been conscious, that at the top end of our school system there is indeed central control of our curriculum but it is control exercised by the university examinations boards and soon to be exercised by the examination boards for the GCSE. So there is no difficulty at all about the raising of this issue.
However, I wonder whether it might not be thought to be a switched sell if the Government were to accept the amendment in the form that it has been put forward, or indeed in any form. After all, the debate which preceded this Bill started with consideration of the report of my noble friend Lord Taylor. It was continued with the debate leading up to and succeeding the Government's White Paper, Better Schools, and at no stage in that debate was this question of the central control of the curriculum raised or discussed or put to the various partners in our education system.
I can see that if I were responsible for expressing the views of the teachers in this country, or of the education authorities or, indeed, of the parents, I would want a great deal more public consideration and debate before I would agree to such a radical change as this being added to what is, after all, only a minor Bill. I believe that the noble Lord has done us a service in raising the matter. I believe that the echoes of what he has said will not die down and will deserve discussion in the education world over the years to come. I suspect that the Government would wish him to withdraw the amendment, and I think that the Government would have our support in that wish.
The Earl of Swinton: When my noble friend Lord Beloff introduced this amendment he said that it was (I think I have got the words right) a modest little amendment. That was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I think that the debate has shown that it is nothing of the sort. I am very much going to echo what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has said, because I really should like to point out to the Committee that it is neither necessary nor wise in this present Bill to move along these lines.
My noble friend Lord Beloff suggested in the debate on Second Reading that there seemed to be no reason why the local authority should be an intermediary between the nation and its needs, and the school and its head, in determining the school curriculum. It is
576
because local authorities are so firmly estabished as intermediaries in our education service, and have been given a range of important statutory roles to be carried out in accordance with local needs and wishes, that they need to be free to assess their own curricular policies and priorities.
The Government, like their predecessors, have no intention of introducing central control and imposing a rigid framework in place of the healthy local diversity we now enjoy. We have certainly worked towards establishing a national curriculum policy, which informs the Secretary of State in carrying out his responsibilities under the Education Act and to which LEAs have regard. But it is central to our policy that local authorities will have their own curricular policies in order to plan and manage the service at a local level in response to local needs and circumstances and the preferences of parents; and that schools will have their individual curricular aims. We have deliberately not made this system into a hierarchy of control, with each level constrained by the one above. Our statements of curricular aims and objectives rest on wide debate with, and general agreement among, the education partners, and at all levels curricular policies must continue to influence and be influenced by those adopted by others. Such a fluid system is likely to be much more responsive and flexible than one which looks to the centre to define and impose priorities.
I had thought that my noble friend's purpose in putting forward this amendment was to ensure that authorities and schools do not pursue policies violently at odds with the national interest, but I was glad to hear him use, I think, at one time the expression that this was necessary in order to take the views of government; and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, I think, said that it was very important to have an input from central government. This happens, and the Government have an important role to play in the development of national agreement on broad curriculum policies; and the process of debate and consultation which preceded the White Paper Better Schools continues and is a process with which the Government are closely involved.
It has proved quite possible for this role to develop without the need for any central control. We continue to believe that such central control would not be a helpful addition to the current arrangements for the development of curriculum policies to meet both national and local needs. The curriculum objectives set out in Better Schools, the more detailed statement in that document of our policy on curriculum content from the ages of 5 to 16 and the first of our series of curriculum policy statements, that on "Science from 5 to 16", have commanded wide agreement and support throughout the education service. But to make central priorities prescriptive would be to trespass on the ability of locally elected authorities and the schools themselves to respond to local priorities in setting their own curriculum policies, within these broad areas of agreement.
I must agree very largely with what the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said. These things go on; they are being listened to and they are working. The Government believe therefore that the changes proposed by my noble friend are neither necessary nor appropriate. They are not necessary because our

577
present approach already secures wide agreement to national curricula policies; partnership works a great deal better when it is entered into willingly rather than under duress.
I really must echo what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said. It is not appropriate because it would represent a fundamental change in the role of local education authorities and a change which, as the noble Lord said, would be introduced without any prior consultation. I think that this would be a tremendous mistake. As the noble Lord said, much of the groundwork for this Bill was done upon consultation and upon agreement. To introduce a fundamental change like this without in any way consulting our main partners would be a great mistake.
Also, the Government believe that action can be taken to raise standards in school education within the existing legal framework. Moreover, if we were to travel the road that my noble friend proposes we would need to do more than require LEAs to act in accordance with the Secretary of State's priorities. Such a change, to be fully effective, would need to be accompanied by the additional requirement that the Government's contribution to LEAs' education expenditure should be in respect of the execution of particular policies.
Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, about his proposed amendment if this amendment, in fact, were to be carried. The effect of Clause 16 would be that every LEA would have to determine its policy and to keep it under review in accordance with the priorities which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State might set out from time to time; and that the Secretary of State should be required to lay the draft statement of his priorities before both Houses and they would then be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses.
The Government regard the original amendment as unacceptable because it would represent a major change in the balance of powers between local and central government—a change explicitly rejected in last year's White Paper as neither healthy nor necessary. While the change proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, would offset that to some extent, the original amendment is certainly not made acceptable thereby.
If it were agreed to, the amendment proposed by my noble friend would cause a substantial reduction in the responsibilities of LEAs in regard to the curriculum. The Government cannot accept this amendment. I thank my noble friend for having introduced it. We have had a long and very interesting debate on it but having heard the arguments, in particular those about introducing such a very major measure without any form of consultation, I think it would be a great mistake. I urge my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Beloff: I have, of course, listened to this debate with the greatest of care. I am fortified in my original convictions by the unusual circumstance in this Chamber of feeling that I am in agreement with the
578
noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, and (as has happened before, though not very frequently) with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I am, I must admit, deaf to the alarm bells that ring in the mind of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, because it does not seem to me that the amendment, even if accepted in terms of the present wording, amounts to a degree of central control. It amounts to giving a voice to central government which those other authorities concerned in education should accept as having to be taken into account.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way. I am puzzled by his last remark. Surely the Secretary of State has the opportunity to give voice to his views about the curriculum now and under the proposed legislation. What is proposed in the amendment (is it not?) is that the curriculum policy of local education authorities shall be in accordance with priorities laid down by the Secretary of State. That is a very different thing.
Lord Beloff: The difference seems to me to be a verbal one, since had an amendment been put forward that the local authorities, in reviewing their curriculum, should pay no attention to the views of the Secretary of State, would the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, have been supportive of that? Does he suggest that it is, or would be, proper for local authorities not to pay attention to what are, or what would have been stated as, national priorities?
I should like, if I may, to go on to clear up some other points. First of all, if, as I hope, the Committee accepts this amendment, I shall myself support the amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, because I agree that the matter is so important that Parliament should have an opportunity of having a voice. I certainly did not have in mind that any Secretary of State would simply get up one morning and say, "Let's have Sanskrit in everyone's curriculum". I assumed that there would be—as I think there is, inadequately at present, though I admit that a good deal of consultation goes on—appropriate channels of advice and consultation with persons in the education world before any such priorities are voiced.
It is difficult, in moving an amendment to a Bill and trying to be brief, to envisage the entire set of administrative and other consequences that would arise. I must say, however, that I am deeply disappointed with the reply from Her Majesty's Government. If in reply they had gone even no further than the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and said that this is a very serious and important change—because it ought to be something for which the initiative should come from the Government, and I think my noble friend Lord Butterworth suggested that a proposed change in the authority of the Secretary of State ought naturally to come from Government—and if they had asked me, in the light of their willingness to reconsider a more positive role for expressing the national interest, to withdraw this amendment, I would have accepted what they said.
But what the noble Earl's reply seems to me to amount to is, first, that he had not read the speeches of his honourable and right honourable friends in Her

579
Majesty's Government such as the Minister of State for Education and Science who, only a few days ago, said that a certain advance in the amount of input of the national interest into the education system was desirable. I think even that notable defender of the delegation or the diffusion of power, the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, has—and this has been indicated during the course of this debate—from time to time made positive suggestions about the curriculum.
It seems to me that the reply of Her Majesty's Government to this amendment, which was intended simply to give them an opportunity to tell the Committee that they realise that the state of the education system is something for which no government can escape responsibility, has been a wholly negative reply, seconding, as it were, the spokesman for the Opposition on this matter. In view of that I am afraid that even at this hour I must ask the opinion of the Committee.
5.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 43) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 178.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Banks, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Beloff, L. [Teller.]

Kagan, L.

Blyton, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Butterworth, L.

Longford, E.

Chalfont, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Cox, B.

Milverton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Faithfull, B.

Rugby, L.

Gridley, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller.]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Warnock, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Colwyn, L.

Allerton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Amherst, E.

Crathorne, L.

Arran, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Atholl, D.

David, B.

Attlee, E.

Davidson, V.

Aylestone, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Belstead, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Bernstein, L.

Derwent, L.

Boardman, L.

Digby, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Elton, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Caithness, E.

Ely, Bp.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ezra, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Foot, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Fortescue, E.

Cathcart, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Chelmer, L.

Gainford, L.

Chelwood, L.

Gainsborough, E.

580

Gallacher, L.

Parry, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pender, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gisborough, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Glenamara, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Portland, D.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Radnor, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Greenway, L.

Rea, L.

Grey, E.

Reay, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Reigate, L.

Renton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochdale, V.

Henley, L.

Rochester, L.

Heycock, L.

Rodney, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Romney, E.

Hooper, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hooson, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Sandford, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Scanlon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Seear, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Selkirk, E.

Kimball, L.

Serota, B.

Kimberley, E.

Shannon, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sharples, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Simon, V.

Layton, L.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Leatherland, L.

Somers, L.

Listowel, E.

Stallard, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stedman, B.

Lockwood, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Long, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathspey, L.

Lyell, L.

Sudeley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Suffield, L.

McFadzean, L.

Swansea, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Swinton, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Margadale, L.

Tordoff, L.

Marley, L.

Tryon, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Underhill, L.

Vernon, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vickers, B.

Middleton, L.

Vivian, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Mottistone, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wheatley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

White, B.

Mulley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Munster, E.

Willis, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Windlesham, L.

Nicol, B.

Winstanley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wolfson, L.

Onslow, E.

Young, B.

Orkney, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.48 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 44 and 44A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 45 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 45A:
Page 19, line 30, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
("(2) The governing body for each county, voluntary and maintained special school in an authority shall, in consultation

581
with the head teacher, consider and agree the curriculumn policy to be adopted in the school within the lines of any general policy for the secular curriculum determined by the local education authority, leaving the final detailed arrangements and organisation to be the responsibility of the head teacher and his staff.")
The noble Lord said: We have had a very interesting debate, and it has certain repercussions on the discussion that we must now have about the Government's intentions with regard to the curriculum. The Government's proposals are contained in Clause 17. Having given notice of my intention to oppose the Question, That Clause 17 stand shall part of the Bill, it is appropriate that the speech I now make should refer to that also.
Clause 17 is intended to set out the Government's proposals for the consideration and determination of the curriculum policy for schools. In the Notes on Clauses, the proposals are described as being a system of checks and balances. There are certain checks and balances. The difficulty is to determine at what stage the checks and balances finish and some final decision is reached because it seems to us that Clause 17 and the Government's proposals are a straightforward recipe for conflict and confusion in our schools. It is the intention of this amendment in as simple a way as is open to us, in the absence of the advice of parliamentary draftsmen, to try to replace the complexities of Clause 17 with what we consider to be and what I believe has always been accepted to be the proper division of responsibility for the curriculum in our schools.
If we look at Clauses 16 and 17, which must be taken together, in detail, the education authority is to determine and keep under review its policy. That provision has been confirmed by an overwhelming vote in your Lordships' Committee. It is then the responsibility of the governing body to consider the policy of the education authority on the secular curriculum for the authority's schools, and to consider how, if at all, that policy should be modified and what should be the aim of the secular curriculum of the school.
There are various items of consultation which the governing body is required to enter into when making that consideration, and there is a series of proposals about the responsibility of the head teacher, and the head teacher's duty to secure that the curriculum is followed within the school. Subsection (4) of Clause 17 then goes on to say that the head teacher has to consider the policies of the governing body and of the education authority. In Clause 17(4)(b)(i) he has to ensure that—and I quote directly now because this is absolutely fundamental—the curriculum,
"is compatible with the policy of the authority or, where it is incompatible with that policy, with the policy of the governing body;".
Can one imagine a worse set of prescriptions for the clear, concise, effective and permanent or at least long-lasting determination of responsibilities of the curriculum? Are we seriously to imagine that, after all this to-ing and fro-ing in policy statements between the education authority and the governing body, the head teacher has to follow the policy of the governing body and deny that of the education authority? Are we to imagine that there is no provision even for such a decision to be within the lines of a general policy for
582
the secular curriculum determined by the local education authority? It seems to me inconceivable that the Government can seriously have intended this extraordinarily abstruse process, and inconceivable that it can have intended that it should lead to the sort of result which is set out in Clause 17(4)(b)(i).
In the absence of centralised control over our curriculum—and the Committee have expressed their views on that—it is constantly the responsibility of local education authorities to stand up and be counted before their electorates about the way in which the schools in their authority are run. One of the major things for which they have to be responsible is the curriculum. There have been, for example, in the recent Fulham by-election severe criticisms mounted by the Conservative Party and the Social Democratic Party of the education policies, and notably the curriculum policies of the Inner London Education Authority. Fortunately, the electorate was so sensible as to reject those, among other arguments: but nevertheless it is a proper subject for debate in the political arena. It is a proper subject whereby local education authorities can and should be called to account by their electors. If they are not doing what the electors want in their curriculum policy, then the electors have a right to say so and the electors have a right for their decisions and views to be taken into account in the way that they cast their vote.
However, the way in which Clause 17 is drafted means that the education authority simply shrugs its shoulders and says, "Well, there was a dispute between the governing body and the education authority: and the head teacher, as required by Clause 17(4)(b)(i), exercised his duty to follow the curriculum policy of the governing body rather than the curriculum policy of the education authority". There is nothing that we, as an education authority, can do about it. There is nothing an education authority can do to see to it that there is consistency between the different schools within the authority. That is an equally serious point.
More and more in education authorities, particularly with changing school rolls, it is necessary for schools to co-operate in the use of scarce resources. It is necessary for them to collaborate, for example, at sixth form level, even if there is not a sixth form college, and to share out the teaching of the scarcer or secondary subjects. That requires a degree of collaboration in the curriculum which would simply be destroyed if the head teacher had the duty to follow a governing body which dissented from the curriculum or from the general lines of the curriculum desired by the local education authority.
What happens where there are sixth form colleges is that the situation is even worse. We could imagine a sixth form college which has to take pupils from a number of different secondary schools within an authority, each of which has a different curriculum policy authorised by the governing body and implemented, perforce, by the head teacher. The sixth form college has to try and reconcile those in designing a curriculum for those pupils aged 16 to 18. It does not make sense, either in terms of practical education, in terms of the political responsibility or the public responsibility which I believe the Committee would wish to be applied to curriculum policy.
It may well be that Ministers will say to me that the wording of the amendment is defective. I do not know at the moment in which way, but we have tried to restrict it at the present time to the county voluntary and maintained special schools. We have maintained the duty of consultation with the head teacher, we have restricted the determination by the local education authority to the lines of general policy for the secular curriculum, leaving the final details and the detailed arrangements and organisation as the responsibility of the head teacher and his staff, as indeed the Government propose.
I believe that this is a necessary simplification and a simplification which is in line with the wishes the Committee expressed in the most recent debate. I hope that the amendment I am now moving will gain general acceptance. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: I should certainly like to support this amendment. This is one of the few occasions on which the head teacher has received any notice at all, and it must be remembered that two schools in the same education area may draw on a totally different type of pupil and a curriculum which is suitable for them should be chosen. Who should know better about that than the head teacher? It seems to me that the local education authority should have a general control, naturally, over what goes on in its schools in its area; but regarding the curriculum, surely the head teacher is the one who knows. Each school should so far as possible be considered as an individual case.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: The noble Lord who spoke to this amendment referred, in presenting it, to Clauses 16 and 17. I hope that on the other hand, there might be a mention by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, of considering how far the proposed amendment would affect the matter of aided and special agreement schools in Clause 18 which sets out the ordering of curricula in those schools in terms which are significantly different, it seems to me, from what is proposed in the amendment.
6 P.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should like to say a few words in strong support of the amendment, particularly with reference to the confusion which seems to me to exist between Clauses 16 and 17, as referred to already by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. First, on Clause 16 subsections (2) and (3) seem to me to be entirely unnecessary. According to subsection (1), the local education authority is to determine curriculum policy. Surely in doing this it will fulfil the provisions of subsection (2)—that is, it will consider the range of the curriculum and the balance among the components—and this does not have to be specifically stated. Further, in subsection (3), how and why should it be imagined that the local education authority will forget its curriculum policy when carrying out its functions? That, too, seems to me to be an unnecessary provision, and it must be the aim of any good Act to be clear and as brief as possible.
I may be repeating something already said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but if I am perhaps it will not do any harm. Taking Clauses 16 and 17 together,
584
how can it make sense for the governing body to consider the aims of the curriculum, as stated in Clause 17(1)(c), which have already been determined under Clause 16(1)(a) by the local education authority? You cannot make a curriculum and then think about its aims afterwards. You think first about its aims and you then devise your curriculum.
Secondly, how can the head teacher be responsible for the determination of the curriculum, as stated in Clause 17(3), if the local education authority has determined it under Clause 16(1)(a)? They cannot both determine the curriculum. To determine is to settle finally. The head teacher and the local education authority cannot both settle finally the same thing.
On the proposed amendment, it seems to me that there may be omissions, but it is expressed with admirable lucidity and conciseness. There is the chain of responsibility. The governing body is to consult with the head teacher—consultation is all-important—subject to the policy of the local education authority, and the head teacher is to arrange the detailed organisation. That seems to me to sum it up admirably. I did not do the drafting, so I can praise the amendment without undue presumption.
Lord Mottistone: I hope that when my noble friend replies from the Front Bench, he or she will give great consideration to this amendment, including the abolition of Clause 17. There have been one or two points made, and I would not dream of adding to them, because I have great sympathy with what has been said, except for the total ridiculousness and the shame in a Bill before us of subsection (4)(b)(i) of Clause 17. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made this point very well, but I cannot leave it without saying that whatever else happens the Government must get rid of that subsection. It is an encouragement of nothing but anarchy. Who is in charge? It is quite ridiculous.
If you look back through the rest of Clause 17, it is so woolly that, first, you can make it mean what you want it to mean, and, secondly, you can ignore it because it is so complicated that it is not understandable, and the great merit of the amendment is that it is short and concise.
I am quite sure, whatever the Government and my noble friend the Minister may feel, that the parliamentary draftsmen will put up a rearguard action to retain all this mumbo-jumbo which they have used to construct Clause 17. But I think they must be severely and sharply disciplined on this matter in order to make quite certain that we do not end up with a clause like Clause 17, which has that appalling invitation to chaos in subsection (4)(b)(i).
I hope my noble friend will go as far as he or she can to accept what I have said. Possibly the amendment will have to come back on Report from one side or another—that is another matter altogether—but I do not think that we should necessarily go to a Division on it. However, I am sure that the principle is absolutely right.
Baroness Young: I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said in moving his amendment, as I did to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. I recognise that the point which the noble

585
Lord, Lord McIntosh, made is one which he made on Second Reading when he complained of the complexity of these clauses in the Bill and of the arrangements for the curriculum. I should like to take the Committee back to the reasons why these clauses are drafted as they are, because they go back to the Government's paper Better Schools, which was published some time ago and which has been the subject of considerable discussion.
Paragraphs 232 and 233 of Better Schools set out the reasons why the clauses are designed as they are. They also set out the allocation of the functions for the secular curriculum in respect of county, controlled and maintained special schools. They are, first, that the local education authority will be responsible for formulating and implementing the curricular policy for its area; secondly, that the governing body will have a duty to determine the statement of the schools' curricular aims and objectives and to review it from time to time, and in so doing it will be required to seek the advice of the head teacher and to consult the LEA; thirdly, that the head teacher will be responsible for the organisation and delivery of the curriculum, including detailed syllabuses and teaching approaches and materials employed within the available resources, having regard to the statement of the aims and objectives determined by the governing body; and, fourthly, that the curricular arrangements for pupils who are the subject of statements under the Education Act 1981 will be determined by the terms of the statement. The provisions—and here I think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is quite right—of Clauses 16 and 17 are quite complex, but again there is a reason for this.
What his amendment does—and I think this is a point that my noble friend Lord Mottistone made—is to make a very good summary of how those curriculum responsibilities of local authorities, governing bodies and head teachers in respect of county and controlled schools can and should be exercised following the Bill's enactment. We all look forward to local authorities, after wide consultation, making a general statement of curriculum policy which commands widespread support. We look forward to a body of governors, fully in touch with parents' views, considering in more detail what this policy should mean in the school for which they are responsible, and to head teachers exercising their proper responsibility to turn the governors' policy into classroom practice. But legislation is meant to deal not only with what should and can happen, but also with offering safeguards against what might happen if this model, based on agreement at all levels—which is the subject of this amendment—is upset by major differences of view among the education partners.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is right in saying that as the Bill is drafted it is a system of checks and balances. This is, I accept, complex, but I hope that my noble friends who have down a series of amendments at which we shall be looking shortly will see that the way in which the Bill is drafted does, in many respects, go a very long way to meet their very real concerns.
If two of the partners agree in this way, topics such as peace studies which are the subject of a good many amendments could not be forced into the curriculum
586
simply because a local authority took a political decision to do so. If the governors and the head teachers were in agreement, such a policy could be ignored. Under the proposed amendment, if an authority chose to include in its general policy the teaching of peace studies as a subject, governors would be bound to keep within the lines of this policy and head teachers to arrange and organise its delivery. So the very system of checks and balances which is designed to make it much more difficult for such contentious subjects to get into the curriculum would in fact not apply under the amendment.
Of course, there might be legal arguments about how far such a policy was reasonable and whether it could be deemed general if it resorted to details. But the clauses as drafted are intended to avoid the need to refer such issues to the courts. They set out to achieve this by giving a means of resolving what we hope will be few disputes and of doing so in a way which will allow the voices of parents through the governing body and of head teachers to be heard above those of political interest groups.
What I have said so far relates to county and controlled schools which are the subject of the existing Clauses 16 and 17. The amendment's effect on aided and special agreement schools—this is particularly relevant to what the right reverend Prelate said—dealt with under Clause 18 of the Bill is much more significant. Under the 1944 Act the governors of aided secondary schools already have power to control the secular curriculum in these schools. The Bill provides for that power to be extended to the governors of aided primary schools and all special agreement schools. The proposed amendment would remove this power from the governors of aided schools and put them on all fours with the governors of county and controlled schools. To make such a change would be to disturb the division of powers on which the dual system of education has been based since 1944, a division which reflects the role of governors in aided and special agreement schools as representatives of the voluntary body which is responsible for a school's particular character. Thus in respect of aided schools this amendment presents not only the difficulties I have outlined earlier but would also involve a major, and in the Government's view inappropriate reduction in the independence of aided school governors.
In answering what I think are the important points that have been raised in this amendment I have set out the reasons why the Bill is drafted as it is. It is very important to recognise that the duties of head teachers, governing bodies and the local authority as set out in Clauses 16 and 17 need to be seen as a whole. These clauses require that at least two of the partners must be in agreement for any policy to be imposed. The ability of head teachers to choose on the basis of their professional judgment between conflicting policies on the part of the LEA and the governors is to prevent either of these bodies (which might, for example, be subject to extreme political control) from imposing its views on the school.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, in a sense it is a complex arrangement. It is a system of checks and balances. It is designed to meet the very real concerns which have been expressed in the Committee. Now that the issue has been aired, I hope

587
very much that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will feel able to withdraw his amendment. If it is pressed to a Division, I hope that all my noble friends will support the Government in their arrangements. They are important. They are central to this Bill and they are very important in ensuring that the very anxieties which many of the amendments before the Committee express can be met and dealt with.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: I am sure that we have all listened with interest and gratitude to my noble friend and we are grateful for the explanation which she has given of the rather complicated machinery in Clause 17. I think, however, that we come to a point when we have to find out if we can who is going to have the last word after all these consultations have taken place. I come therefore to the point made earlier by my noble friend Lord Mottistone who referred to Clause 17(4)(b)(i). There it seems we have the crunch. Subsection (5)—and I shall leave out the irrelevant words in order to bring out the words material to the point as to who has the last word—says:
"The articles of government … shall provide for it to be the duty of the head teacher, in determining the secular curriculum,"
to consider the policy of the education authority—that is all right—and to ensure (and that is a stronger word) that the curriculum,
"is compatible with the policy of the authority or, where it is incompatible with that policy, with the policy of the governing body".
I should hope—I am not sure that all Members of the Committee would hope—that in a conflicting situation to which that formula gives rise the head teacher will have the last word. Some might hope that the governors would have the last word. I hope that none of us would hope or expect the local education authority to have the last word. But we must not raise our hopes too high because the articles of government are to ensure that the curriculum is compatible with the policy of the authority, or, where it is incompatible with that policy, with the policy of the governing body concerned. In this area of potential conflict between the views of the three bodies concerned, the three persons concerned, who really will have the last word?
Baroness Young: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, as a lawyer has picked on a point and has asked the question; who is going to have the last word? We are now talking about the reality of what might well be a specific situation in a school, a situation covered exactly by one of the amendments which follows and to which he has put his name. If I have understood correctly the noble Lord and his noble friends who have put these amendments down, they seek to meet their objectives by writing into the face of the Bill what shall or shall not happen, something which could always be amended at a later stage by somebody else writing in something else. It brings in the central government further and further into the curriculum with all the complications of definition that follow from all of that.
What we have designed is a way of meeting these kinds of problems by saying that in any given situation if there is a conflict—and that is what we are talking
588
about—two out of the three partners in determining the curriculum must be in agreement. This therefore makes it less likely that highly contentious issues would be allowed to go through because of the professional qualifications of the head teachers, because of the governing body which would include both teachers and parents—parents playing a larger part than ever before and parents trained in a way that they have never been before so that they can be more effective governors—and with the local education authority also making its contribution.
Out of that, the answer to the noble Lord is that two out of three must agree. What we hope will happen is that which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is designed to achieve, which is to show it working as it would work in an ideal world. What my noble friend Lord Renton is asking is what happens when it is not an ideal world. The answer is that two out of three must agree. It is therefore necessary to write into the bill what might happen when the provision is not working effectively.
Lord Mottistone: My noble friend the Minister said that this was a lawyer's point, because my noble friend Lord Renton kindly came to my assistance. It is not a lawyer's point but a management point; it is a very important management point. To say that two out of three may decide without declaring which are the most important of the three could cause managerial chaos.
I may say to my noble friend the Minister that she was quoting an administrator's answer. The administrator does not deal with the real world. He deals with a much more theoretical world, and many of the troubles in our troubled world are caused that way. I dearly hope that my noble friend will say that she will consider that managerial point, take it away and think about it before we reach the next stage, because it is a very important point.
In the National Health Service, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister created the Griffiths Report. That report was called upon to investigate how we could better the consensus management that had operated in the National Health Service until recently. As a result of the Griffiths Report, we are now seeking in the health authority areas to introduce management in a proper structure in which people will know where they stand and who is whose boss and where one person will take a decision instead of a group of people.
Saying that two out of three will take a decision is like having a group of people. I hope therefore that my noble friend will not think of this as being just a lawyer's point but as a very serious matter. That subsection reflects the whole of the clause which has been written by an administrator. It needs to be looked at from a managerial point of view. Possibly we should have Mr. Griffiths—or I believe he is now Sir Roy—to help, because he will help much more than the department can on its own. Will my noble friend make some concession? Otherwise I fear that I shall have to go into what she would call the wrong Lobby.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness made a brave and loyal attempt to defend the parliamentary draftsman but it will not wash for a number of reasons. I have looked back as well at Better Schools, and at the basis on which the Government

589
entered into consultation. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness when she read out the allocation of functions as stated in paragraph 232 of Better Schools. As she said, the LEA is responsible for formulating and implementing the curriculum policy and the governing body makes a statement, reviews it from time to time and seeks the advice of the head teacher, who consults the LEA. It is correct also that the head teacher has various responsiblities, and there are special arrangements for those who are the subjects of statements under the 1981 Act.
However, if one goes on to study paragraph 233 of Better Schools, the conclusion is that:
"The Government believes however that the distrubution of functions in paragraph 232 will help to resolve any conflict on the basis that the views of all concerned find expression and that there is no imposition of the views of one party".
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has made it clear, as have all noble Lords who have spoken, that that is not an effective conclusion for the Government to reach. Indeed, the Government have not reached that conclusion, because in Clause 17(4) (b) (i), they have, when it comes to the crunch, come down in favour, in the case of conflict, of the governing body having the last say for the local education authority.
The Committee may have its own views about that situation, but it is not good enough for the Government to say that the issue is resolved by two of the three—that is, presumably, by the governing body and the head teacher being in a majority over the local education authority. Surely it would be much better to do that which our amendment proposes and try to define more closely the relevant roles of the different participants in the management process, and to say, as we have said, that the ultimate sanction of the local education authority is the lines of the general policy for the secular curriculum. That is constrained, as the noble Baroness said in her speech, by local government legislation. It has to be reasonable and it has to be proved that particular directions fall within the meaning of the word "general". However, we are proposing a genuine constraint on the powers of the local authority, and we are leaving the rest to the governing body and to the head teacher, and the relationship between the two of them is set out.
We have to reach some conclusion. If Better Schools is not good enough, there must be from a management point of view, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has rightly said on more than one occasion, some clear resolution. I suggest to the Committee that it is far better for that resolution to be in terms of a definition of the relevant powers and responsibilities of the participants in the process than on a majority basis.
We all hope that there will be few examples of the kind of conflict with which this amendment and Clause 17 are meant to deal. However, we must legislate on the basis that there may be conflict. I am encouraged in thinking that our amendment has survived virtually unscathed the views of the Secretary of State himself in a speech he made to the National Association of Schoolmasters just before Easter.
In parenthesis, since I used the words "virtually unscathed" I recognise that there is an error in the use of the word "voluntary" rather than the word "controlled". I am happy to give the assurance to the right reverend Prelate that in drafting the amendment
590
I did not mean voluntary; I did not mean to intrude upon the dual system. I meant it to be controlled. It would be strictly within the rules of order for me to move a manuscript amendment now to correct that point, but I believe that such would be undesirable. I give an undertaking to the right reverend Prelate that if the amendment is carried, I shall move a further amendment on Report to delete the word "voluntary" and insert the word "controlled", and thus ensure that the amendment refers only to maintained schools and not to aided chools.
Having said that, the Secretary of State gave in his speech three broad principles for the distribution of curriculum functions. The second was:
"Subject to the LEA's overall responsibility, the governing body shall be able to determine, in consultation with the head teacher, the main policies and lines of development of the school".
The important words there are:
"Subject to the LEA's overall responsibility".
That is what this amendment is not only intended to achieve but will achieve. It gives a great deal more simplicity and clarity to the Bill. It deals with the points that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, raised concerning managerial responsibility. It attempts to divide managerial responsibility in a rational way while reaching a conclusion in the end as to where managerial responsibility must lie. On those grounds, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may make a helpful suggestion to my noble friend. This is a difficult matter and it is not just a lawyer's point or a question of drafting. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, does not claim perfection even for his amendment. I should have thought that after the valuable discussion we have had, in which there has been a degree of agreement across the Floor of the Committee, as well as some points about which we all disagree, it would be much better, instead of trying to reach a decision tonight on this complex matter, for my noble friend the Minister to say that she will take this point away, think about it carefully and consult the Secretary of State in the light of our debate. I am sure that in the long run that would be of much greater benefit to all concerned.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Young: I appreciate what my noble friend Lord Renton said about this, and perhaps I may add a few further words of clarification about Clause 17(4)(b)(i). As the clause explains, the head teacher has the duty of determining the curriculum for the school; that is under Clause 17(3). In doing so, he must ensure that the policy is consistent either with the policy of the LEA or with that of the governing body. Clause 17(4)(b) makes that clear. That is what it is designed to do.
May I say to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that I think he has his argument the wrong way round. What he is advancing is the administrator's answer—something which, as he says, is clear cut for everybody. The argument used by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is the argument that I think local authorities themselves have advanced. What the Government are putting forward is a way of trying to reconcile a number of complicated, conflicting views

591
in an area in which, as we have already seen in the Committee, it is very difficult to arrive at what is precisely the right answer.
However, I hope that in considering this matter my noble friend, Lord Renton and, if I may say so, my noble friend Lord Mottistone will also consider very carefully what they are advancing. It is not consistent with the other objectives which, so far as I can see, they wish to achieve on subsequent amendments. But that is for them to consider, because what they are trying to do is quite different.
I think that in view of what has been said I must make clear that the Government cannot accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. However, I shall take it away and reflect upon it. I shall certainly discuss it with my colleagues at the Department of Education and Science. In doing so, however, I should like to make quite clear to the Committee that the objective of the Government is not something that has been newly thought out. It has been well trailed in Better Schools. It has been discussed with our partners in the education service. It is designed to meet this very complex relationship between the local education authority, the governing body and the head teacher for his or her professional advice. It is designed to meet some of the problems which we know have been identified by Members of the Committee; and if, as I accept, it is complex then it is so because the situation itself is complex.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Those are about the minimum concessions that the Government could have offered (dare I say?) to the universal concerns that have been expressed from all sides of the Committee about the drafting of Clause 17. The noble Baroness says that she cannot accept my amendment and that she will take it away to consider it with colleagues in the Department of Education and Science. However, she then went on to say, almost without drawing breath, that she does not think that any amendment can reduce the amount of complexity.
May I therefore ask her one further question before I make my own judgment about what to do with the amendment? Does the noble Baroness recognise the force of the argument, even if she does not necessarily agree with it, that there has to be some residual power for the local education authority to maintain some degree of not necessarily uniformity but consistency in the curriculum policies of the schools in the authority, and that somehow the Bill has to be amended to give effect to that?
Baroness Young: I think that is the point of departure between what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is saying and what is in the Bill. Although there will be a degree of consistency, I believe, between schools—this is borne out by all these long discussions on what might broadly be called a core curriculum and it will be accepted that certain things will inevitably be taught in all schools—what we are actually talking about is what might be described as fringe subjects where there is likely to be conflict.
If I have understood the noble Lord correctly—I do not want to put into his mouth words which are not
592
true—he is saying that ultimately the LEA must be responsible. We are saying that if that is the case one gets oneself into the situation which many of the amendments before the Committee are designed to avoid. The object of this checks and balances system is to give the governing body a much greater say—I think that will come in areas where there is conflict—and to ensure that two out of three parties to the education system will be in agreement. Whether it is possible to make that simpler to get the same effect, I cannot say. It may not be possible at all because it is a complex situation. However, the objective is one that surely my noble friend Lord Renton must wish to see, and it is different from what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is advancing.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am bound to say that I am deeply disappointed by that answer. I think it is highly unlikely that we will come back on Report with an agreed solution to this complex problem. Although I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I have to say that I do so on the firm basis that unless the Government go a great deal further than the noble Baroness has done today in rationalising the situation and adequately defining the roles of the various participants in the decision-making process, we shall be forced to come back with an amendment very similar to the one moved today. I say that now in order not to be accused of abusing the procedures of the Chamber at a later stage.
In the faint hope that there may be some serious further consideration by the Government, and with an offer to take part myself in such consideration as the Government may wish; and in the hope that local authority associations will also be involved, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 19, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) It shall be the duty of every local education authority to exclude from the secular curriculum of their primary schools the teaching or discussion of politics.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 46 I shall be speaking also to Amendment No. 47. I wish to begin by making a general point, which will apply also to subsequent amendments, on the issue of politicisation. I shall not repeat this point ad nauseam but I wish to put it on record now.
It used to be a cherished principle that we in this country kept partisan politics out of our classrooms, but it is generally admitted that recent years have seen a sea change. Many schools and, indeed, many local education authorities are now promoting the discussion and teaching of controversial issues. In the debate on this subject in the House on 5th February, many noble Lords described some of these developments and expressed great concern over them. Also, many people outside this Chamber believe that the time has now come for effective measures to put an end to the increasing use of our schools for partisan political purposes.
In the course of that debate, some noble Lords opposite accused us of wanting to keep all politics out of schools. That is not the case. Obviously it is desirable for young adults who will soon be independent

593
voting members of a democracy to become familiar with contemporary political issues and with the workings of a democratic society; for example, by studying the subject of politics or by taking part in mock elections. But that does not mean that children of any age should be encouraged to spend valuable school time in discussing political issues. As these amendments indicate, many people believe that our children in primary schools should be protected from involvement in political discussions and activities so far as that is possible.
The Committeee will be aware that children in primary schools are young—the age range is from four or five to 11—and it is not reasonable to expect them to have the intellectual maturity to understand the complexity of political issues. Indeed, research in child development shows that young children are not mentally equipped to cope with abstract concepts. Therefore, any attempt to teach or discuss political issues or to organise political activites, which must inevitably be controversial and complex, must mean that those issues will be taught and/or understood in a simplistic and an inadequate way.
Surely it is much better for our primary schools to concentrate on those subjects that are essential to the curriculum at primary school level, without which children are not equipped for the development of their studies at secondary school level. It is enough for our young children to attain numeracy, literacy and the beginnings of an appreciation of the natural world and our cultural heritage; they should not be distracted into concerns relating to political issues.
It may be helpful to the Committee if I give some indication of the kinds of politics which these amendments are designed to prevent, and I shall do so by offering four very brief examples. First of all, parents from a school in East London telephoned one of my colleagues with these worries:
"I am an ordinary mum. I live in Bethnal Green and I do not like what is happening in our local primary school. We have two children there … The teachers wear CND badges. Our children, aged seven and eight, came home with CND badges and stickers. The teachers are a strong influence with their Left-wing views there. We don't like the atmosphere … our children used to be enthusiastic about learning … now it is different. I am frightened of the school. I do not go in to see the teachers now."
Another example is a letter which expresses this worry:
"At the school which my greatniece attends in Lincoln, there is a drawing of Mrs. Thatcher on the wall with the words, 'She should have a bullet through her head'. It has been there for quite a while, yet no teacher has made a move to have it washed off".
A third example is one that was published in The Times Educational Supplement. It describes how at the William Patten Infants School in North London—note that it is an infants school—Miss Smidt, who is the head teacher there, during the miners' strike led the school in a half-day strike in support of the miners; the staff in that school also led a demonstration against an open day being held at the police station, and protested at invitations by the police for children to come and see how the police service works.
My final example refers to the Inner London Education Authority's Peace Education Resources List, part of which deals with material for primary schools. The list admits in its introduction that it is
594
indeed biased, with more items giving an anti-nuclear view, and that position is justified by claims that this bias balances an alleged bias in our media.
I have chosen those examples because each one illustrates a more general point. The first one illustrates a deep concern felt by parents over the politicisation of a primary school coupled with fear of intimidation which inhibits parents from making formal complaints. The second example shows that the general atmosphere in some of our schools, which goes beyond formal lessons, may pervade general activities and the whole school environment with political messages. Thirdly, there is the more contentious nature of some political activities which are manifestly politically partial and indoctrinatory. Finally, there is the explicit intention of some local education authorities to use their own teaching and resource materials for political purposes.
I know that it may be argued that it is impossible to keep politics out of primary schools. For example, it is said that history or geography cannot be taught without bringing in political isues. It is also argued that children themselves often introduce political topics. Having consulted head teachers of schools for children in this age range, I say in answer to these points that it is perfectly possible to teach subjects such as history and geography at the primary school level in a way that does not require complex political interpretation and analysis. Indeed, I have already argued that attempts to politicise such subjects are inappropriate for children of primary school age and lead to inevitable over-simplification and distortion. Also, if children themselves bring up political issues—for example, if children from a mining community bring up issues to do with a miners' strike—a teacher can quite appropriately provide a short, succinct, balanced and fair comment giving both sides of the question and then return as quickly as possible to the discussion on the main curriculum. There is no need whatever for teachers to introduce or encourage such discussions. Indeed, it would be preferable for all children of this age group if school could be a haven from the tensions and conflicts of the wider society.
In conclusion, I ask: how on earth can children of primary school age, from four to 11, really understand the complexity of political issues? Any attempt to encourage them to engage in such discussions and activities is bound to inculcate emotional, simplistic and prejudiced views, which is the very antithesis of the purpose of education as traditionally understood in this country. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Somers: I should like to give this amendment my very strongest support. Having been a schoolmaster myself, I can speak with some authority when I say that politics have no place whatsoever in schools. Of course, young people will learn something about politics, not very accurately perhaps from their parents, but politics certainly have no place in schools. For one thing, one must remember that politics, when taught, will always be party politics; and, speaking for myself, I always think that party politics do more harm than good wherever they appear, though I do not suppose that many Members of the Committee will agree.

595
The point is that politics, when introduced into a school, can introduce dissensions between children and break up friendships which might have been formed. Worse still, of course, is the great likelihood—and it is happening on a very large scale today—of politics of the extreme Left being introduced surreptitiously and taught, I regret to say, by those members of staff who adhere to such views, with very great damage indeed to the outlook and balanced opinions of those who hear them. It is much better to ban politics from schools altogether.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: I have no doubt that the public concern over the indoctrination of partisan political views in our schools is very soundly based. Indeed, it has been recognised by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and I have a nasty feeling that it is on the increase. At the moment the indoctrination which is causing concern is the promotion of Left-wing revolutionary views. It would be just as objectionable if the views promoted were extreme Right-wing views. It is against both Right and Left-wing indoctrination that amendments Nos. 46 and 47, and amendments yet to come, are designed to protect us.
The two amendments which we are now discussing deal with primary schools; that is, with small children, who are enormously susceptible to what their teachers tell them. I think it is a responsibility of Parliament to give them more protection than they have at the moment. I do not believe that there is any serious opposition to the view that such indoctrination ought not to take place and ought to be stopped in a positive way, but of course the question is how best to do it. We are told that the Secretary of State already has adequate powers to stop this kind of thing. But it is not being stopped; on the contrary, it appears to be getting worse. It is obvious, therefore, that something more needs to be done. However difficult it may be to legislate in this kind of matter, I am convinced that legislation is necessary.
It is said, quite rightly, that if one wishes legislation to be effective, there must be evidence. In respect of Amendment No. 47—which is concerned specifically with partisan political activities in primary schools—I can see no difficulty in producing evidence if such activities are taking place. There should be little difficulty in getting evidence of political activities carried out by primary school children in or out of the classroom. If they come home in the evening plastered with CND badges, that surely is evidence. If they are taken out by their teachers to attend rallies, that is evidence.
I conclude that it may not be so easy to provide evidence of indoctrination in classrooms of secondary schools, but I should like to say something about that when we come to later amendments. However, I see no difficulty in regard to primary schools and I therefore give my wholehearted support to Amendments Nos. 46 and 47.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to remind your Lordships' Committee of one dictum on this that the Jesuits always used to say: "Give me a child until he is six and he will never leave the fold".
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Seven.
The Earl of Onslow: My mathematics have always been bad. What is one year between friends? At that age children are very susceptible.
I have looked at some of these amendments and I think that the wording is horrendously difficult to get right, as was mentioned by the last noble Lord who spoke. But I think that we must be extremely careful somehow to go back to a sense of public service as opposed to party political indoctrination of all children in our schools. I think that we ought to remember the reference to the age of six—or is it seven?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I should like to take up the point that has been made by the noble Earl. Yes, take a child until the age of seven and you can have him for the rest of his life. But should we not ourselves think back to what we were taught between the ages of five and 11? Was that not partisan?
I take up the words of the noble Baroness who moved this amendment. She was talking about partisan teaching.
Baroness Cox: I was talking about partisan political teaching.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I do not see a great deal of difference. I would suggest that the noble Baroness is talking about controversy.
Baroness Cox: No.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Let us agree that the indoctrination of any political, religious, or philosophical view is not education. I am speaking, as did the noble Lord who spoke previously, as somebody who has taken part in every stage of the education process. When the noble Baroness suggests that it is the task of teachers to prepare children for participation in life then, as the noble Earl has just said, it is no good introducing this after the age of 11. One has to start at the beginning, in the preparatory stage of a child's life. That does not mean political indoctrination. It does not mean teaching party politics. But it means activating a child's mind to the choices which will lie before that child when he becomes an adult. If one misses out that section of education, one is not preparing a child to live a full adult life in the adult world.
I said a few minutes ago, let each one of us think back to what we were taught between the ages of five and 11. Were we not taught about the glories of the British Empire? Were we not taught about the victories of British Armies in India? Were we not taught about the kind missionary work that came from British and other European sources to the benighted Africans of the African continent? We would not teach that today—at least I hope that we would not. There has been a change not only in teaching but also in understanding. I have witnessed the teaching of history and geography today and compared it with the kind of teaching that I experienced from the age of five to 11. I would now reject a great deal of that teaching, and so would the majority of teachers, historians or geographers, in this country.

597
The cultural understanding has changed. But we were not taught to question the validity and the glory of the British Empire. We were not taught about the acts that were committed by our own people, by other Europeans, or by peoples of other continents during the days of slavery or the conquest of India. We were not taught of the effect on the people of India of the destruction of the Indian textile trade, for instance. These values have changed. In those days had I been speaking in this way, I should have been called partisan. Today surely we accept that there are many different facets of the subjects of which I am talking that children must know about. They must see that there are choices, differences, options and opinions. They must consider those before they pass the age of seven, which the noble Earl has mentioned, and certainly by the age of 11.
The noble Baroness spoke of the teaching of our cultural heritage; yes, our cultural heritage—but in its place is the global heritage. That is not something which children of nine, 10 and 11 are too young to understand. They have more opportunity of understanding this today than had my generation and the generation of the vast majority of Members of this House because they are able to come into daily contact with people from other cultures. They travel a great deal more than we were able to do. It is surely a primary task of our education system to equip those children to be citizens of the world in which they have to live; that is a global world.
I have one final point to make. Most of the arguments which have been raised at both Second Reading and Committee stage on this issue of politics appear to assume that the danger in our education system is a danger from the Left. I do not believe in teaching Left-wing history or Right-wing history. I do not believe in teaching any kind of party political doctrine in the schools. However, I would suggest that the noble Baroness has been somewhat simplistic when giving instances—as have other noble Lords and Baronesses when they have given instances—always from what is termed "the Left wing".
7 p.m.
However, the dangers do not just come from the Left wing; nor are they simply in the teaching in schools. The dangers also come from ideological consideration of the educational system, and I shall give the Committee one concrete and topical example because it comes from an area which tonight will decide the future of its schools. I speak of East Lindsey in the County of Lincolnshire.
For two or three years there have been arguments throughout the East Lindsey area about what kind of schools are most suitable for the children of that area. On one particular occasion when a decision was to be made, no agreement could be reached and the matter was postponed. I understand that a decision is to be made tonight. However, in the process of making that important decision for the new generation of children, scores and scores of meetings have been held, particularly meetings of parents, to decide the future of their children. In October 1984 the local Conservative Member of Parliament, Sir Peter Tapsell, lately of Mrs. Thatcher's Front Bench, said:
598
"Whatever the majority opinion which may have been expressed at the meeting of parents … I cannot believe that it is worth the while of educational administrators wasting their time by putting up schemes for the closure of the Alford Grammar School"
—a selective school.
"As a statement of fact I can tell you that no councillor who supported such a proposal would be adopted to stand for the County Council Elections as a Conservative candidate in any part of the County embraced by the East Lindsey Conservative Association".
So much for the Left-wing danger.
The Earl of Onslow: I am sure that what Sir Peter Tapsell said was very important, but it has nothing to do with the teaching by school teachers of party politics to five year-olds. The noble Lord may be totally right about what Sir Peter Tapsell said, but he is surely straying, by a very circuitous route, away from the subject.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I am simply pointing out that the danger to education in this country does not come solely from the Left wing and that the example of the local Member of Parliament speaking publicly and sending a letter to the Conservative association is the type of example which some members of the Conservative Party are setting before children at School. The danger does not come simply from the Left wing. As I pointed out earlier, first of all assumptions are made that it is not partisan to talk about the glories of the British Empire without at the same time pointing out the consequences of the British Empire.
Lord Somers: The noble Lord has already said everything at least three times. We are either convinced by what he says or we are not convinced.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: The danger does not come simply from the Left wing. Assumptions are made that what is conventional is non-partisan, and I have given the British Empire as one, but only one, example. The danger does not come simply from Left-wing activists who are influencing children in schools. I have given the further example of the Conservative Member of Parliament for that part of the country. I simply suggest that the noble Baroness is being both simplistic and partisan in the speech which she has made and in the amendment which she is moving.
Viscount Tonypandy: I have listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, who apparently had a different kind of teacher when he was young from the kind that I had. It was my privilege to be nurtured in the schools of the Rhondda Valley. My credentials on this side should be very good indeed. I did not see a Conservative until I was 21! I have said this before to the noble Lord who sits here with me and who is a friend of mine. I found that the only difference was that the Conservatives had better suits than we did.
However, the question as regards teaching is this. Is there a problem of party politics being brought into our schools and, under this amendment, to our very young? Whether or not there is a problem, I believe that there is widespread feeling throughout the country that there is. That is one fact. People believe that there are teachers who are using their privileged office to give their party views to the children.

599
I can think of no greater privilege than for total strangers to entrust their children to you for you to influence their minds and their thinking. The teacher is a greatly privileged person. He is a trusted person and no one with a sense of responsibility would want to bring in party politics for the very young.
British Empire indeed! I used to enjoy the holiday on Empire Day. We do not get a holiday on Commonwealth Day. I honestly believe that this Committee and this House should declare that we feel instinctively that it is wrong and dishonourable for a man in a privileged position, in a class with an audience who cannot escape him, to push his views or peddle his political beliefs.
I believe that this amendment will carry the feeling of the country and I hope that it carries the feeling of that side of the Committee as much as the other side. In a world of change—and my word! things are changing rapidly—there are some permanents, and one is that our young have a right to go to school and their parents should feel that their children are safe there. They get party politics at home. I had mine at home and the honourable gentleman, or rather the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, (my yesterdays came back!) had his at home.
I have followed in the debate in this Committee the Lord Provost of Eton. It is a saying of mine when I am in the Rhondda, "If you cannot get in at Tonypandy Grammar, then try Eton". This is a democratic Chamber. Our people are democratic by instinct. If our teachers are to be trusted, they must not resent the fact that we say keep party politics away from our little ones in school.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: When on 5th February my noble friend Lady Cox moved her Motion on political indoctrination in the schools I think the House concluded, on the whole, that she had made her case. There are certain education authorities which deliberately plan to undermine the basic values on which our democracy is built, and there are certain teachers who distort the facts and teach history according to their personal bias. When my noble friend Lord Tonypandy asks whether there is a problem, the answer must be, yes, there is a problem of indoctrination in the schools.
In that debate I proposed an inquiry, and I had two reasons in mind. The first was to establish the facts as valid in the public mind. That is always necessary. Secondly, I hoped that an inquiry would be able to advise a way in which we might proceed without involving the necessity to define what should and should not be taught under the broad heading of politics in our schools in statutory form. That is extremely difficult to do, as the wording of the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lady Cox and other noble Lords proves.
My anxiety is broadly about the wording of these amendments. I do not like words which, for example, forbid discussion of this or that in statutory form. That is a bit too near what we rightly criticise other political systems for doing. We should get into considerable difficulty if we embarked on that.
600
I would rather therefore that we should be able to deal with this matter administratively, through guidance from the Minister for Education to the education authorities, and the school inspectors reinforcing his advice. But I am bound to say that I am not at all sure whether the situation has not gone beyond this. My noble friends may have a point when they say so.
I intervene now only because I hope that my noble friend Lady Cox will not press us to a decision on any of these amendments today. I should like to see an attempt to get the wording better than the wording in any of these amendments. I do not believe that the wording is right at present. I hope that at the Report stage we may be able to have words which are more acceptable, because we are in danger when we try to define what should be taught under the heading of politics. You cannot avoid teaching political subjects in our schools today, and we need to be more careful how we define the words that we use in a statute.
Lord Parry: I too should like to support the contention put forward by the noble Lord the former Prime Minister. I support what he has said and the great wisdom of his caution. All our yesterdays came back when my dear and noble friend spoke in the accents of the Rhondda—not only his yesterdays, but ours; the schools that we were taught in and the teachers by whom we were taught, and for me too the years that I taught in schools when I was committed deeply to my own politics but despised anyone who would attempt to teach his, or mine, in the classrooms in which I taught.
There is no division in this Committee, no matter what impression we might sometimes give, because I would hope that here we are all deeply committed to the democracy that gives us the opportunity to speak. It would be tragic if the view went out from here that somehow the Opposition in this House and the Government were divided as to whether the children of this country should be taught specious party politics in the schools.
It is therefore a great relief to me to follow the wisdom of the former Prime Minister and to accept that we should now get different wording which would express the view of the whole House about its contempt for teaching children party political doctrines.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: The noble Lord has done us a great service by adding his words. During the debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, at the beginning of February, in which my noble friend played such a distinguished part, there was a feeling of slight disappointment that we had not built some bridges of understanding when there was a great deal of understanding across the Floor of this House and between the political parties. I feel sure that we are talking for a lot of parents, grandparents and others who are deeply disturbed at the way political control and ultra-political indoctrination are going on in our schools. That is not just thought up. What is sad is that Ministers still do not seem to have got this message.
I should like to take two brief examples. First, there was, as reported in the Daily Mail only last Thursday,

601
the case in a nursery school. If we are going to look at the wording of an amendment for the Report stage, and probably have to vote on it, perhaps the provision ought to be broadened away from primary schools to include even nursery schools. Here was a much loved matron being driven out after 20 years' service in a nursery school because she objected to children from six months to five years being taken out to demonstrate in front of Islington Town Hall against rate capping. She took the posters down from the nursery. As a result of that she has been hounded out and her case is now being considered by a tribunal. It is symptomatic that this is happening even at the nursery stage, and we ought to do something about it.
The second case came from Parliament Hill Fields school, and I have mentioned it as concerns children aged 11 plus onwards. Here again there is indoctrination. This is in line with the GLC's new curriculum as outlined in a booklet called Imposed Secondary Education. It goes back to the younger age groups.
It says to the five year-olds:
"You must go to school or other full-time education. You can drink alcohol legally in private. You can see a U or a PG category film, but the cinema manager has discretion over admitting you".
Then it goes on for the seven year-olds:
"You can now draw money from your Post Office, or the Trustee Savings Bank. You can be convicted of a criminal offence. You can buy a pet without your parent being present".
It is never duties or responsibilities but always your rights. As I mentioned previously, at later ages the 15 and 16 year-olds are told, and encouraged, that they can now go into a brothel without their parents' consent if they wish to, and drink and smoke and do everything else.
There is indoctrination, and I hope that my noble friend will take this message. I understand that this particular brochure coming from Parliament Hill Fields school is at the moment subject to investigation by the Secretary of State. But the message does not seem to be coming up to the private offices of the Under-Secretaries and the Secretary of State himself. He says "I haven't got evidence"; we pour evidence on him. All the parents, all sorts of people, can give him evidence.
Surely after some years of this, and after what is going on in ILEA and other Left-wing controlled organisations, we could come together with a feeling of unity. This is the moment, and this is the sort of amendment which would stop what we all abhor in our educational system.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I cannot refrain from doing a bit of teaching this evening to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. He was talking of the glories of the British Empire. Might I ask him whether he was ever in any of our colonies before we gave them away? If he was, and if he saw them now as republics, he would be shocked by the great deterioration in the people. I shall not go on to that, but I would just say that the great majority of the people in our former empire would be very pleased to come back under the administration of Britain.
I thoroughly support the amendment. I shall speak for a short time on it. I always understood that the object of education was to educate. Before one can
602
choose a political party one has to be educated. Perhaps I am biased, but I think Latin is a good way of being educated though I was rather poor at it. It is essential that history, arithmetic, mathematics and a great number of other subjects are learnt first. If one is to be taught partisan politics when one is very young (as we have already heard, a child does not have the knowledge to be able to choose) that would be wasting time which could be spent on being properly educated.
We cannot have partisan politicisation of young people. I reckon that by the time someone is 16, when, apart from the independent schools, the average person leaves school, if his education has been properly managed he ought to be able to choose for himself about political parties. We have one great drawback in this country. We are an urban country and it is more difficult to understand the scheme of things if one has not been brought up in the country. Therefore it is far more important for us—more than for other countries—to have a good education.
I fully support the amendment. I agree that perhaps tonight is not the time to move it, but I hope that at Report something akin to these two amendments will be accepted.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I speak briefly as one of the signatories to one of the amendments before the Committee. I agreed very much with the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in moving the amendment, and also with the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. The noble Viscount's speech carried with it the overwhelming majority of support in this Committee. There is, as he said, a real problem. I hope that when the Government come to respond to this amendment they will speak in the context of that situation. Nothing is more pointless than to have this constant request for more and more examples. Examples are given and then one is asked for more and more examples. It is a rather circular situation.
I also agreed very much with the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, when he said that what we were talking about was not simply Left-wing extremism, though that is certainly a problem. One is talking about any group of political ideologues who attempt to influence children at this age. The noble Lord made that clear, and I agree with him. Then I come to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Home. I agree with him that the language of these amendments could be more happily expressed. I suspect that the noble Baroness is not inviting the Committee to decide on this matter tonight, in any event. But if we are to achieve better language I hope that the Government will make some contribution as to how this matter could most satisfactorily be dealt with. I hope we shall hear that from the Minister when he comes to respond.
We have to recognise that there is a great deal of public concern that this attempt to influence children is proceeding, admittedly in a limited number of areas; but it is a problem which is getting significantly worse. On an occasion such as this, when we are talking about the structure of future education in this country, it is essential that we now get this matter right. I hope, therefore, that the Government will respond positively to this debate.
Viscount Trenchard: I am known to support this amendment, those later on secondary schools, and Amendment No. 54 on the right of parents to know what the curriculum involves. The only word I want to add, because I should simply be echoing rather inadequately the fine words that much more important people than I have already spoken, is to go over the case for amendments along these lines. I want to suggest that we must be careful about saying, "Take the words away, look at them and produce new words". I expect that noble Lords have taken their pens out already on the words that are before us and tried to scribble better ones. In any particular form of words, we have a real problem to produce them in a form in which they cannot be misread if someone wants to misread them. That is an easy situation for those who do not want to do anything about this growing and serious situation to resist any amendment.
If one considers it the other way and if we choose in combination words which are reasonable, I believe that the sentiments of professional educationists up and down this country and of people of good will of all ilks, who are in the majority, will make sure that any reasonable words are used for what they are intended—merely as a peg on which men of good will can hang their efforts to prevent the abuse of the education system.
The Earl of Swinton: I am afraid that I have to start with a rather negative attitude to Amendment No. 46 because it has been moved with Amendment No. 47. Amendment No. 46 is the one which would exclude the teaching or discussion of politics from the secular curriculum of any maintained primary school.
Topics which may be a matter of political disagreement inevitably arise even in the primary classroom. They will very often be raised by the children themselves as a result of the things they have heard their parents say, of what they have seen on television, or of what is happening locally. My noble friend referred to what might happen at a village school in a pit village during the miners' strike. She explained exactly how that sort of thing could happen. Doubtless also, children who saw Bob Geldof's Live Aid concert last year will have asked questions about the needs of the third world and the extent to which they are being assisted by the wealthier nations.
Nor is it just a matter of responding to questions. The White Paper Better Schools states the Government's view that within the primary curriculum there should be opportunities to learn about the nature of the values of British society, and that pupils should be given insight into the adult world. It is hard to see how any of those things can be dealt with in the primary classroom without getting into political issues at least some of the time. The point, though, is first that those issues need to be dealt with impartially and objectively; and, secondly, that they should be tackled at a level and in a way suited to the maturity and understanding of the children. I do not think noble Lords should underestimate the capacity of primary-aged pupils to reach their own balanced understanding of political issues. As with other aspects of the curriculum, we do them a great disservice if we have too low an expectation of what they can achieve.
604
Amendment No. 47, like Amendments Nos. 48 and 49, to which we shall turn after a slight break, is an amendment with whose aims the Government entirely agree, but, for reasons which my noble friend Lord Home expressed as well as anyone, the Government cannot support it. Indeed, the amendment concerns partisan political activities in primary schools. The Government do not accept that secondary schools should support such activities either.
Here I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, on one point he made, whether this came from the Right or from the Left. However, we should allow for activities such as mock elections. While each of these amendments, Nos. 47, 48 and 49, makes different proposals for the elimination of indoctrination in schools, the reasons the Government cannot accept them are very similar. My remarks now are therefore relevant to a great extent to all three amendments.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: I wonder whether my noble friend would allow me to say this. I am sure that he is trying to help the Committee, but this is creating some confusion. At the moment only Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 have been discussed, and there are quite separate issues to be raised on Amendments Nos. 48 and 49. I hope that he will not feel that by trying to deal with all four of them now he is closing the Government's mind.
The Earl of Swinton: No, he is not! What he is trying to do, to save all your Lordships' time in what looks as though it will be a session going on probably until the early hours of tomorrow morning, is to explain why we feel that the legislation elements which are common to all of them are not the appropriate way to proceed. Of course, I shall be replying to all of them and listening very carefully to what is said.
I am sure that we are all concerned to ensure that our children are protected in the schools from any attempt to indoctrinate them and from the biased or distorted teaching of politically controversial issues. While very few teachers would have any such intent, there is growing concern that a minority of politically active members of the teaching force do so. The Government are very conscious of the growing concern about these matters which was given recent expression in your Lordships' House (to which many of the speakers tonight referred) both in the debate on 5th February and at the Second Reading of this Bill.
In recognition of this concern, they have issued a draft circular and a statement of principles to be used in dealing with politically controversial issues in schools and colleges. People, both during the debate and informally, have said to me that they do not think that that statement will be much of an influence. But I think that it will be a great influence if an agreed set of principles can be endorsed by the education partners. Neither should we underestimate the contribution which Clauses 16 to 18 of this Bill will make, if they become law, towards the avoidance of bias and distortion in the teaching of politically controversial issues.
As my noble friend Lady Young has said in the debate on the last amendment, these clauses provide a system of checks and balances in which the agreement

605
of at least two of the partners is required. For example, a local authority could not require the teaching of peace studies in a school if the governors and the head did not agree that it should be included in the curriculum. The Government have promised to consider seriously the suggestion made by many Members of your Lordships' House in the debate on 5th February that an inquiry should be held. I was very grateful to my noble friend Lord Home in his usual wise and statesmanlike way for referring to that and for the remarks that he made.
There are considerable legal objections to using legislation as a means of preventing the sort of biased and politically partisan teaching which we deplore. Some stem from the considerable difficulties in drafting legislation which, on the one hand would be easily enforceable, and, on the other, would not stifle or inhibit responsible discussion and the teaching of politically controversial issues which is part of the educational process in a free and open society such as ours. One of my noble friends mentioned that it should be possible to produce something for men of good will. I would make the point to your Lordships that if we had men of good will teaching and men of good will not producing this problem we would not need this legislation, anyway. We have to try to prevent something which will stand up to men of ill will and stop them doing their ill deeds. That is what it is all about.
Lord Parry: Will the noble Earl not reconsider what he has just said, and would he add weight to the fact that we know that there are very many men of good will and women of good will who are teaching and that there are very few but very active people who teach party politics in schools?
The Earl of Swinton: I entirely agree. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, reinforces my point. It is for that small minority that we have to try to get something that will work in law. It is not for the great majority who are the sort of teachers which the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and the noble Lord, Lord Parry, remember having been taught by and probably teaching us themselves. It is not those sort of people that we are after. It is the people who will try to find a way through the legislation.
Viscount Trenchard: Since my noble friend referred to my remarks, I would remind him that I suggested that the men of good will who are in a majority be given a peg which will help them to control the activities of the minority, which are spreading.
The Earl of Swinton: I am very greatful to my noble friend Lord Trenchard. This is just the sort of peg that we are trying to get through in this statement. It is just the sort of thing that we are trying to encourage so that there will, it is hoped, be an agreed statement in which everyone will know where they stand. This will help those people who are worried to come forward.
The noble Lords and the noble Baroness who proposed these amendments have made a valiant attempt to overcome these problems. However, I must point out that if the amendment were passed, the courts would have to deal with all the subtleties and
606
interrelated aspects of individual cases which came to judicial review for decision by the Secretary of State that an LEA was, or, for that matter, was not, in default. I have to say that I wonder what in these circumstances the courts would make of a phrase such as "partisan political activities". Moreover, however legislation is formulated, the courts inevitably will be required to determine whether or not a school had in practice pursued partisan political activities.
I fear that such decisions could be seen by those who disagreed with them as themselves constituting the taking of a political stance by the courts although the Government have considered very seriously the possibility of legislating in this area. My right honourable friend has concluded for all these reasons that neither of the amendments proposed by my noble friend nor any others that we have so far considered avoid the range of risks that I have described.
I must therefore urge the noble Baroness, my noble friend and other noble Lords to withdraw their amendments. However, legislation is not the only means of tackling indoctrination. If my right honourable friend is supplied with specific documented evidence that deliberate political indoctrination or subversion is taking place in identified schools and classrooms—
Lord Renton: Could my noble friend be so kind as to help us by reading what he has to say at about half the speed at which he is going?
The Earl of Swinton: I shall do my best. I apologise. I must take issue, I think, with some of my noble friends, with my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing and also with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, about the fact that my colleagues are asking for evidence and when we produce it, we do not act on it but ask for more. Perhaps I could just mention the examples that have been produced tonight. I think of the William Patten school to which my noble friend referred, where the head teacher Miss Smidt was reported to have led pupils on demonstrations and to have advocated Left-wing bias in the teaching.
The Government deplore any attempt by teachers to involve pupils of any age in political action. I understand that when the activities reported in the press last year at William Patten Infant School came to the attention of ILEA, they took prompt and appropriate action. In addition, the head teacher was reminded that controversial issues should be dealt with in a balanced way when they came up in the course of teaching.
My noble friend also raised the question of CND stickers at Bethnal Green School. My right honourable friend will certainly look into this allegation if she sends him specific detailed evidence. My right honourable friend is currently investigating allegations relating to the City School at Lincoln, and finally the example that my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing mentioned. I think that he, himself, said that my noble friend is looking into this and, of course, as soon as we have anything, we will tell the noble Lord about it.
We are not complacent. I shall try not to get that impression across—
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of Swinton: We are not complacent. I thoroughly take all that my noble friend Lord Home has said. We shall try working at it. But I do not honestly think that the particular legislation as suggested tonight is the right way. I am grateful to hear all round that my noble friend is not going to press this and perhaps we would not win it if she did. But that is not the real reason. I think we are trying as hard as we can. We realise that it exists and that it is an extremely worrying subject.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: Can my noble friend help us before we leave this matter? I do not know what my noble friend Lady Cox will decide; but what I am trying to get is sympathy for, and understanding of, the fact that politics, when taught in schools, must be taught with objectivity and without political bias. I think on both sides of the Committee we are looking for words to express that which can be put into the Bill. If my noble friend can give some indication that he will look at that conception sympathetically, I think we shall go away happier than we are at present.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I hope the noble Earl will take seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Home, has just said. There is strong support for doing something in this area. I think most of us recognise that drafting this is difficult and extremely complex, but I hope he will accept the general sense of the Committee over this question and give an undertaking to look at this matter and try to come forward with something incorporating the language just used by the noble Lord, Lord Home.
Lord Renton: Will my noble friend also bear in mind that the debate to which he has replied has dealt with primary schools and there has been a feeling expressed in all quarters of the Committee that primary schools are a somewhat different issue from other schools—from secondary schools? Although we bear in mind the constructive views put forward, for example, just now by my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, we feel that these are separate issues. The primary school is the one to consider first, then perhaps after Dinner we can consider the others.
The Earl of Onslow: Will my noble friend allow me to put a hypothetical question to him? I do not know whether he saw the article by Bernard Levin the other day which was showing how entryism by the Militant Tendency in the North-West of England was to control the governors and the headmaster. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that they acquire that control and then appoint somebody like the school teacher who said at the Conference of the National Union of Teachers that the Secretary of State was to education what AIDS was to Rock Hudson. That cannot be other than deeply offensive. If somebody like that is the sort of person those entryists want to appoint as headmaster, how under the present legislation are we to stop that man running a curriculum which introduces hard, nasty politics, whether of the Right or the Left—I do not know which—into the curriculum? How are we to stop that without legislation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hate to delay the Committee at this hour, but silence from this Dispatch
608
Box could well be misinterpreted. I want to make it absolutely clear, as I have on each occasion I have had the opportunity when the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has raised this matter, that we on this side are totally opposed to political indoctrination and to partisan political indoctrination in any of our schools at all ages. I said so when the noble Baroness raised the matter in December; I said so when she raised it during the debate in February. I would have said so, had I not spoken before her, when she raised it on the Second Reading of this Bill. There is no equivocation whatsoever in our attitude; but I am bound to say it does not follow from that that we believe the amendments which are being put forward, or indeed which could be put forward, and which are intended to inhibit the discussion of political matters represent the right approach.
I believe the Government took a useful step forward in February when they announced their prospective guidelines for consultation on political education. We believe that political education is necessary in the school system. Let me make it clear that it ought not be excluded from our schools. That has been said not only by the noble Baroness but by every authority on the issue from Her Majesty's Inspectorate to the Crowther Report and the Swann Report. On every occasion when those concerned with education have debated these matters they have said that political education is an important part of our schools.
The only issue between us is whether it can be achieved by means of prohibition in legislation or is better achieved through the work of the inspectorate, by advisory teachers helping the inspectorate, by the additional authority which is being given to governing bodies in this Bill, which ought to be valuable for this purpose, and by a commitment to investigate special complaints. We shall come back to the subject of a young persons' ombudsman at the Report stage.
All these are more effective ways of achieving the objectives that are widely sought in this Chamber than the prohibitive legislation that is sought in these amendments. The danger of wording of this kind is that it goes from the curriculum to reading lists, for example. I remember, on first going to secondary school, seeing books set in the curriculum that included The Case for Conservatism by Quintin Hogg and Labour Marches On by John Parker. I forget the Liberal version, but I believe there was one. They were partisan political documents and they were set as part of the curriculum because it was thought that pupils in schools ought to be informed about political issues.
When the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, as I sincerely hope she will, I trust she will not indicate her intention to come back with comparable amendments later but will indicate a desire to cooperate with all of us who are concerned in more practical ways to eliminate indoctrination and to encourage genuine debate and discussion on political issues in our schools.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I assure him that after John Stuart Mill we did not need lesser authors?
The Earl of Swinton: I should like to reply briefly to four questions which have been raised. My noble

609
friend Lord Renton asked whether we were not straying from primary education on to secondary. Having listened to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, I think that perhaps we are. I hope I was not guilty of it. I was trying to answer both amendments: the one about no political activity in primary schools and the other concerned with no party political activities. Those were the two points I was trying to get at.
My noble friend Lord Onslow asked me a hypothetical question. If I was sensible I should say that I never answer hypothetical questions, but I suggest that he reads this Bill. This is what it is all about—to try to get governing bodies made up of people in the community, of parents, teachers and other people who are not dominated, as some are now, by LEA representatives. That is what the whole thing is about.
My noble friend Lord Home and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked whether I would take this away and come back at a later stage. Of course I will. We will try as hard as we can. I explained why I think "party political" would be a difficult term to have in the Bill. That is among the terms suggested by my noble friend. But we shall take this away and see whether we can get further.
Baroness Cox: I am most grateful for that last-minute reassurance from my noble friend, but before I conclude may I clarify two points which I think are of great importance? First, I should like to underline the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, that those of us who are concerned about the misuse of political issues in our schools are concerned about them from whichever end of the political spectrum such influences might come.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, accused me of bias in the examples which I used. But I use only those examples which come my way, and it so happens that de facto—and I regret it—the examples which come my way are at the moment from the Left of the political spectrum. If they were to come from the Right, I should be equally forthcoming in presenting them as causes for concern. I would rather suggest that the enormously convoluted circumlocutions to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, had to resort in order to give us an example of influence from the Right (which had nothing whatever to do with primary schools) endorse my perception that most of the problems at the moment, unfortunately, are from the Left. But, as I said, the concern is there, from whatever part of the political spectrum it has come.
With regard to the point made by my noble friend the Minister concerning the panacea of guidelines, I have indicated that I welcome those guidelines as a clarification and perhaps also as some kind of framework to help those people who are having to cope, especially at secondary school level, and deal with politically controversial subjects in our schools. Those guidelines may well help to give a framework for those charged with that responsibility and also for parents of pupils who are worried when they feel there might be some unacceptable bias being introduced. I do not reject the concept of guidelines, but perhaps I may say I believe that they are in no way an alternative to enshrining in legislation a principle to which we are all committed in all parts of the Chamber, as far as I
610
can see. I am very grateful for the widespread support for the spirit of the amendment that has been expressed from all parts of your Lordships' Chamber. I am heartened by that.
I take serious note of the points about the wording of the draft amendment that have been raised. I accept that it is far from perfect and therefore I am willing to withdraw it. Cheered by the undertaking given by my noble friend the Minister in the very last minute of his contribution I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: In moving that the House do now resume it might be helpful to your Lordships if I say that we shall not resume this Committee stage before 8.50 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Future Business
7.50 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, before the House resumes itself into Committee on the Patents, Designs and Marks Bill it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that it has been agreed through the usual channels that the House will sit on Friday morning at 11 a.m. to debate the situation in Libya. The Motion will be in the following terms:
"That this House takes note of the circumstances surrounding the United States action in Libya".
The Motion will stand in the name of my noble friend the Lord President of the Council.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip for making that statement and to him and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for arranging this debate on such an important subject for Friday next. I wonder whether we can assume that it will be a five-hour debate starting at 11 a.m. and finishing at 4 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we should also like to thank the Government Chief Whip for arranging the debate. We are very grateful that he has been able to put it on so speedily, since it is a matter of great urgency.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the Leader of the Opposition and to the noble Baroness the Leader of the Liberal Party for their remarks. If it is generally convenient to the House, it will be useful to have a five-hour debate, particularly in view of the fact that we do not want to keep the House too late on Friday afternoon.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, does that mean that the noble Lord the Chief Whip will tomorrow table the Motion necessary for the time limitation?
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords.

Patents, Designs and Marks Bill [H.L.]
7.53 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRABOLGI in the Chair.]
Schedule 2 [Service marks etc.]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 11:
Page 10, line 6, at end insert—
("(6) in the Trade Marks Act 1938, section 38 and Schedule 2 (Sheffield marks).").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like also to say a few words about Amendment No. 19. The object of Amendment No. 11 was to try to bring to the Government's notice, very forcefully, the point that the famous trade mark "Sheffield" should not only be a registered trade mark but should be a service mark. In support of that submission I have a letter from the Drop Forging Research Association of Sheffield. The director says:
"We would make the strongest possible representations to ensure that Sheffield, through the Cutlers Company, retains rights of observation of service rules as well as trade marks".
In an early part of the Committee stage yesterday there was a little confusion about what amendments should be taken together. As I had only just received the official form indicating the order in which the amendments would be taken, I confused the Minister to some extent, since he had expected that I would be dealing then with this amendment and Amendment No. 19. In those circumstances the Minister made a very helpful observation on the general question of the position of Sheffield as a service mark. Having been given that explanation I do not propose to move Amendment No. 11 or Amendment No. 19, but I reserve my position on the possibility of raising the matter strongly on Report. The famous Sheffield trade mark should also have the status of a service mark.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 10, line 44, leave out ("registered") and insert ("filed").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is concerned with substituting the word "filed" for "registered" in line 44, page 10 of the Bill, in relation to trade marks. The argument in favour of what seems to be a small amendment is somewhat complicated, and I apologise for that. However, it is an important matter because it relates to when damages for infringement shall emanate. The practice and procedure for applying for international convention is governed by what remain of the Patents and Designs Acts 1907 and 1946. Those Acts are being incorporated in the Bill. However, there is an anomaly, which has been recognised for a long time in the present procedure, which is suffered by the
612
owners of trade marks registered and claiming a convention date.
As a great deal of time has been taken on other matters it may be that I can simplify my submission by saying, if it is not breaching a confidence, that I have spoken to the solicitor in the Minister's office who said that some sympathy, in principle, was felt for the amendment. In those circumstances I do not know whether it would be helpful to the Minister if I were to proceed with my argument in favour of the amendment. I should not like to embarrass him, but if what I have said is true—I see that the Minister is good enough to nod his head in agreement—it would save time if I limited my submission to what I have already said. I am sure that what I have said will be supplemented adequately by the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. There is no dispute between the Government and the noble Lord as to what Section 39A(2), which is being inserted in the Trade Marks Act 1938, is intended to mean. The earlier Act has some rather unfortunate wording and as the whole measure is before your Lordships for consideration it would be appropriate for me to make it clear that the interpretation which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, seeks is the correct one.
However, in the Government's view the amendment cannot be accepted as it stands. It refers to a mark being filed. In fact, it should refer to the application being filed. I do not want to spend the Committee's time discussing some minor drafting defects, and I am sure the noble Lord himself will accept that. May I just say, therefore, that the Government accept the amendment in principle. We shall discuss with the noble Lord how best we can achieve what we both want so that at Report stage in a short while we shall be able to put before your Lordships' House an agreed amendment.
With that undertaking, I feel sure that the noble Lord will probably withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord the Minister for taking that course. On the basis of such assurances I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 11, line 1, after ("mark") insert ("under this section").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should also like, in moving Amendment No. 13, to speak to Amendment No. 14.
Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Bill inserts a new section, Section 39A, in the Trade Marks Act 1938. This is a re-enactment of Sections 91 and 91 A of the Patents and Designs Act 1907, which are themselves repealed by Schedule 3 to the Bill. This section is concerned with priority rights, and subsection (1) provides that a person who has already made an application for protection of a trade mark in a relevant country shall be entitled to have the marks registered

613
in the United Kingdom in priority to other applicants, provided that his application in the United Kingdom is made within six months of his overseas application.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 affect subsection (3), which provides that the registration of a mark shall not be invalidated by use within the period of six months following an overseas application. However, subsection (3) does not at present say "six months", but instead directs the reader to subsection (1) by referring to "the period specified in this section". In doing this, it repeats the wording of Section 91(3) of the 1907 Act, which referred only indirectly to the duration of the period because it dealt also with patents and designs, for which the periods are not the same length. Since the present provision deals only with trade marks it is simpler to make subsection (3) self-sufficient and actually specify the length of the period, and this is what Amendment No. 14 does.
Amendment No. 13 makes clear that the protection against invalidity given by subsection (3) has effect only when registration takes place under this section; that is to say, when it follows an application made within six months of an overseas application. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 11, line 3, leave out ("specified in this section as that") and insert ("of 6 months").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 14 with Amendment No. 13, and I now beg to move it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 11, line 41, at end insert—
(".—(1) In section 20(1) of that Act (duration and renewal of registration) for the word "seven" there shall be substituted the word "ten".
(2) In section 20(2) of that Act for the word "fourteen" there shall be substituted the word "ten".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the period of registration of a trade mark and the object of the amendment is to alter a period of seven years to a period of ten years in Section 20(1) of the Act, and in Section 20(2) to alter the word "fourteen" to "ten", in an attempt to harmonise the trade mark law with that of the EC.
At present the periods of seven years for the period of registration of a trade mark and ten years and fourteen years as far as the renewal is concerned are out of step, as it were, or out of line, with most of the industrialised world and all our partners within the EC. For instance, instead of seven years, Benelux, Denmark and West Germany have ten years; Italy has 20 years for the first period of registration of the trade mark; Japan has ten years; Spain has 20 years, and the United States has 20 years.
It is submitted, therefore, that a change to a ten-year period in this country would not only bring us more into line with other Community countries and make the UK more European-looking, but would also involve the Patent Office in no overall loss of revenue. The suggested method of approaching this problem is
614
the introduction in Part III of the Bill of the amendments to Section 20 of the 1938 Act and to substitute the words "ten" for "seven" in Section 20(1) and "ten" for "fourteen" in subsection (2). I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Let me say at the outset that there is no objection in principle to the changes which the noble Lord's amendment seeks to achieve. But I have to say to him that it would not he practicable to implement them at short notice. One has to assume that the noble Lord might envisage that if the amendment were accepted proprietors would pay lower renewal fees and presumably higher initial regisration fees than at present. While it might be a relatively straightforward matter to adjust, so that the Patent Office's income measured over a long period remained the same, such adjustment would produce considerable fluctuations in income in the short term.
The Patent Office is at present required to balance its books annually, and when the office becomes a non-departmental body it will, of course, have the need to continue to match income to costs. While the noble Lord said, in moving his amendment, that overall there would be loss of revenue, certainly we would envisage such severe fluctuations over a ten-year period unless dramatic changes were made in the fee structure that the need would not be satisfied. We would really have to do a rather more detailed study on the likely effect on the cash flow position of the office before the change contemplated could be agreed.
I hesitate again to remind the Committee, but when we discussed this matter at Second Reading we were at some pains to show, and I think most noble Lords accepted, that we were moving a very small, carefully structured Bill, very largely restricted in its scope and certainly non-controversial. Acceptance of the amendment would broaden the scope and that might very well create problems for its progress in another place. Then, of course, we could—I only say it as a possibility—prejudice the introduction of service mark registration on 1st October this year, which is the aim of this Bill and which is in fact the desire of almost everybody concerned in this matter.
Perhaps, then, I could say, in conclusion, that although it may be appropriate to make the change, I think it would perhaps have to be at a later date, for example when the full financial studies have been made, perhaps in the context of the harmonisation of European laws. With that, I would advise the Committee to resist this amendment and, perhaps, to be a little less strident, I would request the noble Lord opposite if he would be kind enough to withdraw it.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the explanation he has given, and I agree with him that, of course, this Bill has a relatively narrow compass and that possibly, therefore, to make an amendment of this kind to the main Act is not suitable for the text of this Bill.
I am not sure that I can agree with everything the noble Lord says, but in view of the sympathetic approach that he has made it may be more appropriate if this is a matter which was raised on a different Bill. Before deciding upon that, I would very much like to study what the noble Lord has said and reserve the

615
right to raise the matter, if I think it appropriate, at a later stage of this Bill. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 13, line 20, leave out ("extends") and insert ("shall extend").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 16 which stands in my name, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 17 and, oddly enough, to Amendment No. 3. This arises as a result of the writing-up of the original Marshalled List to which the Chairman of Committees drew attention last night.
I want, first, to speak to Amendment No. 3, since Nos. 16 and 17 are there solely to achieve consistency and to pave the way for No. 3. This amendment replaces the Isle of Man extension provision of the Bill. I foreshadowed this change during the Second Reading debate on 3rd February 1986 at col. 923 of Hansard, when I said that discussions were still proceeding with the Government of the Isle of Man as to the form that this extension should take. I am pleased to inform the Committee that agreement has now been reached that the extension should take the form which is the subject of this amendment.
The complicated form of the extension stems from the fact that this Bill is essentially an amending measure and that the various Acts which it amends differ as to their extension provisions. For example, the Trade Marks Act 1938 merely states that it extends to the Isle of Man, while the Patents Act 1977 extends with scope for modification by Order in Council. Some of the other measures do not extend at all.
Broadly speaking, the effect of the amendment is that those provisions relating to trade marks and service marks, including those relating to the trade marks register, are extended automatically with scope for exceptions, adaptations or modifications, while the provisions relating to the patents and designs registers are extendable by Order in Council. The Government of the Isle of Man have given an assurance that they will seek to have an appropriate extending order made concurrently with the coming into force of these provisions.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 relate to the Trade Marks (Amendment) Act 1984. That Act contains a provision extending it automatically to the Isle of Man. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to this Bill amends that provision to make the extension subject to any modifications in an Order in Council and both these amendments put the extension provision of the 1984 Act into the same form as Clause 4(4) of the present Bill; that is, on the assumption that the Committee accepts Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said, and I congratulate him and his colleagues on getting agreement with the people on the Isle of Man. Perhaps I ought to declare an interest in that 'I still am the honourary treasurer of the AngloManx group in this Palace; so I agree with the amendments being made.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 13, line 21, after ("any") insert ("exceptions, adaptations or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 18
Page 13, line 25, at end insert—
(" "Certification Trade Marks
. Paragraph 18 shall be omitted.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment attempts to ensure that the word "Sheffield" can also be used as a certification mark. To get a certification mark, a man can go along to the Comptroller-General of Patents and say "My mark is associated in a certain way with particular goods" and he can ask for rules to be drawn up as to how the mark can be used in the course of trade. In other words, in complying with these rules he certifies under the Act that the mark will be used in that way.
It may be that the Government have decided that they will abolish the register in the Cutlers Company, but I strongly suggest to them that there is a great deal of support in industry for preventing the Sheffield mark from being used improperly by other people who have no connection with Sheffield or Sheffield products. It should be possible for a person who wants to use the mark in a specific way, in the course of trade under Section 38 of the Trade Marks Act, to be able to get that authority properly by application to the Comptroller-General of Patents. Again, it may be that this is not the kind of amendment that should be introduced into such a Bill, but I should like to hear what the noble Lord has to say about the word "Sheffield" being capable of being registered as a certification mark should the comptroller-general pass the rules under which it is to be used. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I studied this amendment carefully and, additionally, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said, but I have to say to him, first—and I do this with the greatest courtesy—that the amendment is not sufficient to achieve the intended purpose. I do not refer here at all to any defect in drafting because we know that we can always cover that. The Bill as it stands will have no effect whatsoever on existing certification trade marks, but it is not possible to make sense of the relevant provisions, and in particular subsection (1) of Section 37 of the 1938 Act, merely by substituting "services" for "goods".
That subsection sets the scene for certification trade marks by stating that they are marks adapted to distinguish goods certified in respect of origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy or some other characteristic from goods not so certified. In order to provide for certification service marks, it would be necessary to specify what features would be taken to characterise services as qualifying for certification. It is not apparent what these features might be, bearing in mind that they should be features that can be reasonably and objectively assessed.
Secondly, registration of a certification mark is a more complicated process than that of an ordinary

617
trade mark, because, as well as the usual examination for distinctiveness and so on to which I have referred, regulations governing the use of the mark must be deposited. These regulations must, in their turn, be approved by the Department of Trade and Industry which, in its turn, has to consider whether they are satisfactory, whether the applicant is competent to certify the goods concerned and so on. It may well be appropriate to consider at some future date whether such provision should be made, for example, in the context of harmonisation of trade marks law within the European Community. But we feel that it would be most inappropriate at this time, and for those reasons I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the Minister for his full and fair explanation of the attitude of the Government. It is a highly technical matter. The sections of the old Trade Marks Act 1938 are in many respects abstruse and need clarification. I will take the course, in view of the assurances and the explanation given, of asking leave to withdraw this amendment on the understanding that I can raise it either later on this Bill or on some other occasion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 19:
Page 13, leave out lines 26 and 27.
The noble Lord said: This is the last amendment which I have to move and—
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: With great respect to the noble Lord I am reminded by my noble friend that he said earlier that he was not going to move Amendment No. 19. If the noble Lord will perhaps deal with it formally, we can get on to Amendment No. 20, which is the last of his amendments.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am terribly sorry; I apologise to the Committee. It is entirely my fault. I misunderstood the Deputy Chairman of Committees. I thought he had called Amendment No. 20. He called Amendment No. 19, but I misheard him. I have already spoken to that amendment.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 14, line 14, at end insert—
("9. In paragraph 25(3) of Schedule 1 to that Act (modification of Trade Marks Act 1938 in application to service marks) after the last word "services" there shall be inserted the words "or otherwise in relation to services".").
The noble Lord said: I believe I have come to the last of my amendments. It is an interesting amendment and involves the scope of the monopoly which will be given to a service mark. As the Bill is now drafted the scope of the monopoly given to the service mark relates to its use on or in relation to services. If a man has a shop and he puts on the fascia board the service mark, that would be use in relation to services because it describes the shop and the services which are being given from that shop, though given under different service marks. Therefore the use on the fascia board at the present time would not be an
618
infringement of the service mark equivalent to the words on the fascia board.
This is a small amendment which extends the monopoly—I still continue to use the word "monopoly". The scope of the service mark shall be extended to be a use "otherwise in relation to services" as constituting an infringement. After discussions with the noble Lord's officials I believe there is a certain amount of sympathy for this amendment which, in attempting to be brief in my exposition at this late hour, I hope I have not made too difficult to understand. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am quite happy to be even more than sympathetic to the noble Lord and to say without further ado that the Government are very happy to accept this amendment. I thank the noble Lord very much for drawing our attention to it.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: With the leave of the Committee, I feel that as this is my last amendment I should like to say this. Without intending to raise any acrid atmosphere of party controversy I shall be leaving the Committee stage as I went in— with winners. I started the debate with the Government agreeing to four of my amendments. I leave the debate with the Government agreeing to two amendments. Though this is a small debate in a small compass it deals with matters relating to industry, intellectual property and the creation of goodwill. It redounds to the credit of the procedures of the House and reflects the spirit of co-operation between both sides of the Chamber which can be created in certain circumstances.
The Government took the opportunity of putting in seven amendments to improve the Bill. I likewise put in a number of amendments to that end. I should like again to thank the Minister for the fair, courteous and helpful way in which he has dealt with them and for the assistance he has provided through his officials.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Amendment No. 21, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I spoke to Amendment No. 21 when I dealt with Amendment No. 4. It was agreed to by the Minister.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am still bound to call it and then, with respect, the noble Lord must move it. The noble Lord can speak to later and subsequent amendments, but he cannot move them at that stage. Therefore I am calling Amendment No. 21.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 15, line 6, column 3, leave out ("Section 46.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in connection with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) The following provisions of this Act shall extend to the Isle of Man, subject to any exceptions, adaptations or modifications contained in an Order made by Her Majesty in Council—

(a) section 1 so far as it relates to paragraph 1 of Schedule 1;

(b) section 2(1);

(c) section 2(3) so far as it relates to paragraphs 1 (2)(d)(i) and (ii), 2(2)(b), 3 to 5, 7 and 8 of Schedule 2;

(d) section 3(1) so far as it relates to the Trade Marks Act 1938;

(e) section 3(2); and

(f) this section.

(4A) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for extending to the Isle of Man, with such exceptions, adaptations or modifications as may be specified in the Order, sections 1 and 3(1) above so far as they relate to the Registered Designs Act 1949 and the Patents Act 1977.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 3 earlier this evening. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for his help. As he suggests, he has come out something of a winner during the past two evenings. I should like, however, to leave the Committee with one thought. It relates to the point we raised yesterday when I gave certain assurances and which is still lying about—the right of licence. This was the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, on schedule stand part. I want to reiterate that the Government remain committed—
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: It was the noble Lord, Lord Northfield.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: It was the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, who raised the point. It was the noble Lord himself who spoke to it. The noble Lord recognised that the Government had accepted in principle the argument he had put forward. He had himself accepted the undertaking, which I had given prior to the Committee and during the discussion we had, that the Government would take the earliest opportunity to introduce legislation to meet the point which he and the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, were making earlier. I want to leave the Committee this evening with that clear understanding and assurance. If I have done that, I thank the Committee. I beg to move Amendment No. 3 to which I have already spoken.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.30 until 8.50 p.m.]

Education Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 16.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 47:
Page 19, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) It shall be the duty of every local education authority to forbid the pursuit of partisan political activities in their primary schools as part of school life, whether in their schools or elsewhere.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been discussed and so I do not propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 19, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) It shall be the duty of every local education authority to forbid the teaching or discussion of any subject in any school in a manner likely to undermine commitment to parliamentary democracy or the rule of law in England and Wales.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is in the spirit of the draft guidelines discussed in the debate on the previous amendment that were circulated for comment by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on the teaching of politically-controversial issues. If I quote a few of the relevant words from those guidelines, the incompatibility will be apparent:
"It is part of the task of schools and colleges to promote the attitudes, knowledge and skills which are necessary for the preservation of our society's fundamental values, notably its commitment to our parliamentary democracy, the freedom of the individual within the law, and the equality of all citizens under the law".
I believe that the majority of our citizens would agree with those words.
I wish that we did not have to consider the necessity for amendments such as this, but recent developments show that we would indeed be wise to enshrine that principle in law. I shall give just a few examples of why that is so. First, there is a growing number of teachers who hold political views that do not support democracy and the rule of law. I refer, for example, to members of the Socialist Workers Party whose credo, published in the Socialist Worker every week, is "Where we stand" and who proclaim an explicit commitment to,
"Revolution, not reform … the present system cannot be patched up or reformed … it has to be overthrown".
Also, the Socialist Workers Party in its youth paper proclaims that it is the party that,
"fights back at school, builds the National Union of School Students and CND".
and works with young people,
"fighting with the police on the streets and down on the picket line".
We know that there are significant numbers of teachers committed to such revolutionary politics. A recent report in The Times Educational Supplement revealed that the Inner London Teachers' Association with 13,500 members—which is just over one-half the capital's teachers—has been dominated by the Socialist Teachers' Alliance, which is a broad coalition that includesTrotskyists, communists and anarchists. The Socialist Workers Party is also active in that association.
As well, a recent report in the Daily Telegraph, on 11th April, describes one such classroom

621
revolutionary, Mr. Shaun Doherty, and quotes him as saying:
"I belong to a revolutionary organisation, the Socialist Workers Party … obviously both inside and outside school I seek to raise political issues".
Mr. Doherty is currently president of Islington's branch of the National Union of Teachers. His three brothers all teach in London comprehensives and, according to the report, two of them are Socialist Workers Party members and the other is a sympathiser.
A former teacher at the school in North London where Mr. Doherty now teaches remembers it as,
"the sort of place where the Left-wing in the staffroom affected almost everything being done in the school, controlling a lot of the curriculum reform and internal promotion".
Anne Sofer, commenting on such developments, regrets the fact that these days,
"the far Left are committed to politics, not to teaching".
It is of course possible for teachers to maintain a strict demarcation line between their political allegiances and their classroom teaching. Indeed, such has been the tradition in Britain, and I believe that the great majority of teachers hope that they still maintain that tradition and adhere to that principle. However, there are many Marxist teachers who explicitly eschew that division and claim that any attempt at objective presentation of contentious political issues is a bourgeois con. It therefore behoves us as a nation to take seriously the possibility that classrooms will be used increasingly for political teaching that might undermine commitment to democracy and the rule of law.
It is also in that context that the growth of antipolice propaganda prepared for schools needs to be seen, together with its effect on children. Not so very long ago, a student teacher told me of a very disturbing incident. She was sent, as part of her teaching practice, to a comprehensive school in the East End of London. She was trying to take a class of 14 year-olds for geography when, suddenly, the children nearest to the window started leaning out and shouting virulent abuse and obscenities. Immediately, all the other pupils in the classroom rushed to join those at the window, and to join in with their hate-filled furore.
The student teacher went to the window to see what was causing that extraordinary and very virulent response. She saw two policemen walking by on their beat. She told me that the most frightening aspect of that incident was that the children's response was so instantaneous, and yet so orchestrated, that it was obviously standard practice. She therefore inferred that it must have been condoned by the staff who normally taught that class, because it seemed to be a kind of regular behaviour.
We must recognise of course that no police force is perfect, and that legitimate criticism is essential. However, the stirring up of hatred of the police on a generalised and indiscriminate basis is a major step towards undermining respect for the force, whose responsibility it is to maintain the rule of law. It is in that context that Amendment No. 48, and a later amendment on access of police to schools, needs to be seen. Those issues are so fundamental to our education system that we run a real risk of allowing a potentially very serious situation to develop, if we do not
622
introduce an amendment such as that proposed to prohibit the use of schools for purposes calculated to undermine commitment to parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: In case any Members of the Committee should think that there is no evidence of any attempt to undermine democracy or the rule of law in any of our schools, perhaps I may point out that there has already been sent to the Secretary of State a copy of well-authenticated plans by Militant Tendency, which were not intended to be published but which have appeared in both The Times and the Daily Telegraph, to undermine authority in our schools: the authority of headmasters, teachers, and so on. One realises that that is but the first attempt and the start of an effort to undermine our democracy and the rule of law.
I shall not trouble the Committee, because it becomes boring, with repeating all the effusions of the extreme Left-wing, but I draw attention to the fact that, so far as students are concerned, we have said what should be done about governors' meetings, the head teacher, and the teaching staff. I mention the teaching staff because the advice there is:
"Infiltrate the staffroom. Hint at unfairness, awkwardness, lack of communication of Head, of some Governors, of LEA. Question morals. Always support grievance procedure, whatever the grievance".
So it goes on. Then, as regards students, it states:
"Offer to pass 'grumbles' to Head, to teachers. Offer literature"—
not what your Lordships would think of as literature, but clearly literature intended to undermine—
"especially to senior students, offer to put school in touch with … useful organisations".
That means kindred organisations to Militant Tendency.
9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I understand that he is quoting from The Times and that the quotations come from St. Helens in Lancashire. Is the noble Lord aware that exactly the same material was published in Avon four years ago? It was quite clearly exposed as being a hoax. It is in no way a genuine publication from Militant Tendency, for which I have a considerable dislike but which is certainly not as naive as the noble Lord thinks.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Before the noble Lord, Lord Renton, deals with that point, I am sure he will have noticed cuttings from the Daily Telegraph, which by happy chance I have in my hands, which read:
"Officially entitled 'Guidelines for Members of Governing Bodies of Secondary Schools' "—
this is the Liverpool document—
"the document was presented at Labour-led Liverpool City Council's Education Committee meeting by Liberal Opposition spokesman, Mr. Mike Storey, who demanded a full investigation. But it was … thrown out without discussion".
No suggestion was made that it was a fraudulent document. It was quite clearly genuine, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, if he does not have it, might like to acknowledge that point.
Lord Renton: It is rarely in one's long parliamentary life that someone who does not belong to one's own party comes so totally to one's rescue. However, even if the noble Lord, Lord Harris, had not done so—and I am deeply grateful to him—I would have had to point out to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I am not talking of a document issued four years ago and then claimed to be a hoax. I am talking of a document which has been clandestinely circulated this year. Thanks to the vigilance of certain journalists, as recently as 2nd April a full report appeared in the Daily Telegraph and as recently as 8th April a report appeared in The Times under the name of that very careful and greatly respected journalist, Mr. Bernard Levin. Therefore, I really cannot accept the diversion, by way of an interruption by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh from what I was trying to say. I hope that he will bear in mind what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
The truth is, as was said in the previous debate, that we are not legislating for the generality of people and not even the generality of people within the great Labour movement. We are legislating for the minority. When it comes to having to stop what ought not to occur in our civilised, or we hope civilised, society, we are always legislating against the minority. When we had the Theft Act we were not legislating against the whole community: we were legislating for their protection. We were legislating against a small minority of thieves.
What my noble friend Lady Cox and I, and others, are trying to do is to awaken the mind of the Government. It is not difficult to awaken the mind of Parliament because Parliament is a very alert body. We are trying to awaken the mind of the Government, especially the Department of Education and Science, to the fact that if we do not take positive and firm action things that have started to go wrong, or potentially could go wrong, will get worse.
It is only every few years that we have an Education Bill at all. This could be said to be the most important Education Bill since 1944.
Baroness David: Rot!
Lord Renton: Yes, it could be indeed, although there have been others since then. What I suggest to your Lordships is this. The case made by my noble friend on the threat to democracy and the rule of law in our schools is one which has to be taken seriously. Of course, if my noble friend says that we have no evidence of this I have a two-fold answer. The first is that all this information has been sent to him already. The second answer is that even if he had not heard a word of it and even if the Department of Education had remained deaf and blind—as it sometimes appears to me to be—we should still alert the department because it is better to shut the stable door before the horse has bolted.
Viscount Mersey: before my noble friend Lord Renton sits down, may I make a point which is directly connected with what he said about Bernard Levin. My noble friend is absolutely right. What was so impressive about Levin was not so much the text as the conclusions he drew, which were eminently sensible.
624
He mentioned his own union, the NUJ, where the tail of 3,000 was being wagged by the dog of about 50 people—but perhaps that is not the right way round although your Lordships will know what I mean. That, surely, is the nub.
The militant fringe may be a minute percentage of the whole and they may be atypical, but they are organised, powerful and dangerous. Levin goes on to say that,
"there is no reason to suppose that any area of the country is wholly immune to this kind of infiltration and corruption of the educational process. Perhaps all those involved in the process, and in particular parents, teachers and governors, should take a moment to ponder the implications of this extraordinarily detailed battle plan for the conquest and ruin of education."
I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment. I find one other relevant quotation. It is from Burke, who said:
"When bad men combine, the good must associate, else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle".
Lord Parry: I am grateful for that extensive quotation from an article that I have not read. I am grateful in particular for the emphasis at the end of it which describes our schools as a battleground, because that is what the schools have always been—a battleground for the minds of the young generation on behalf of the society which consented in their education. Our schools were created in order positively to discourage those who would defeat the constitution which had been so dearly won.
The reason why I oppose these amendments is because all the time they concentrate so much on the negative aspects. If we want to take a negative aspect then let us look at the battleground of the school rooms in which these people—even in this quotation made by the noble Lord—are getting undue emphasis put on their ideas.
At the present time the schools are divided and their teachers have been disillusioned. We accepted this in the debate which took place at Second Reading—and I am not here tonight to rehash a Second Reading speech. However, I ask the Committee to accept as essential that, having admitted, as we did earlier before supper, that there is a great deal of agreement in this Chamber that we should stand against those who threaten democracy, that democracy itself is a system which gives the dissenting voices the right to dissent, and if the system of which they are a part is at odds then they will be heard far more gravely.
If we were laying charges at Second Reading, I would have harsh words to say about the current incumbent Secretary of State; but I shall not use those harsh words because I want the Committee now to understand that the great majority of teachers dearly wish to see the schools settle down. I have heard the impassioned plea from a serving teacher, who said, "God, I do not want any more apparatus than a key for the inside of my classroom door to keep the meddlers out". This is the attitude of the true, trained professional. I am so much afraid that, in the emphasis which has been put time and again, for the best of reasons, by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the view might be gained in the classroom that no one is interested in the massive service of the majority of the teachers against the odds.

625
What if we were giving tonight in a debate on education as much careful thought and analysis to the degradation and deterioration in the position of the teacher in society, to the under-funding of the classrooms and the decay of the schools, as we are giving now to this minority of people who will be chortling in their dens tomorrow because yet again they will have been given further information and further support for the ideas that they canvass clandestinely?
Is it quite sufficient for us to say that we are on the side of the teachers who are committed to democracy—which is the great majority of them—who look forward to the day when we can bring our classrooms back to the place where they ought to be for the teaching of young minds and for leading them forward to an understanding?
Let me add one positive remark before I sit down. Who in a democracy gives a thought to the teaching of the foundation myth or the foundation belief of society, as we were cautioned by Plato that we should do? Who does? Yet any totalitatian state which is constructed on the whim of any dictator begins at once to teach and teach the myth that they have a better idea than the idea of democracy in our part of the world.
If I could I would—and I know I cannot, because this is the dilemma of this debate—but there is no way in which I can alter this amendment to read "the positive teaching of democracy" because it would be a negative amendment. The Commiteee can see the dilemma. If we are so closely in agreement, why hammer the negative?
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may just follow the noble Lord for a moment. He has just touched on what some people regard as a dilemma, but perhaps he will think back to the greatest law giver of all time, to Moses and to the Ten Commandments. Will he remember that the Ten Commandments could not have been drafted without five of them at least being expressed in negative form?
Lord Parry: Since I have been asked, there were at least two greater law givers: Hywel Dda who coded the Welsh legislation, and of course Jesus Christ who said, "My commandment, the ultimate positive, is that you love one another".
The Earl of Onslow: I thought for one moment that my noble friend Lord Renton was about to say that Moses could not have drafted the Ten Commandments without the assistance of a lawyer. But one thing I should like to take up from what the noble Lord, Lord Parry, has said is that the teaching profession was held in much higher esteem 20 to 25 years ago than it is now. I also suspect—in fact I know it to be true—that the spending power of teachers is now 82 per cent. of what it was in 1938 while that of agricultural workers is 262 per cent. There has been a fall in the status of teachers. If one has a fall in the status of teachers, one allows worms in the form of Mr. Doherty to enter into the woodwork. There is a quote which is not quite the same as that which the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, gave. It is along the lines that evil only prospers if good men do nothing about it. I am not sure who said it, and I have not had time to check it.
Lord Parry: "Only prospers if good men do nothing"
The Earl of Onslow: That is right. I am worried that the good men are in danger of doing nothing over this because that minority worm can do very serious damage.
We have no conception of how lucky we are to have the society in which we live. We live in an especially noble society. It is a kinder, more balanced society than almost anywhere else on earth, and we are rather smug about it. However, I want it to continue in that way and I want our children to be educated that our society, for all its faults, is better than most others. I want our children to be taught how to rectify their faults through the methods of discussion, argument, listening and compromise; in other words, the old English method of self-government. There has been nothing wrong with that for a very long time. If one has people such as friend, comrade—call him what you like—Doherty, what is he doing? That man is making sure that he educates the children to no jobs, and in hatred and bitterness. How can we get that out of the teaching profession, and out of the schools, without impinging on individual liberty?
I have great admiration for my noble friend Lady Cox. I consider that she thinks very clearly. That is not meant to sound nearly so patronising as I suddenly realise that it does. But I am also sure on this occasion that the wording is wrong. The idea is right and the noble Baroness is on to something very serious.
My favourite author is Edward Gibbon, and when he went up to Oxford he said of his then tutor: "Doctor So-and-so well remembered that he had a salary to receive, only forgot that he had duties to perform". I sincerely hope that we can rid our teaching system of those schoolteachers who well remember that they have prejudices to flatter and omit and forget that they have freedoms to succour.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I begin by saying that I am quite sure the wording of this Amendment—rather like those we were discussing before we adjourned—could be improved as the noble Earl has suggested. I agree very much with what the noble Lord said a few moments ago. Inevitably, a debate of this kind is, almost by definition, unbalanced because one is attempting to persuade the Government to change a Bill before the Committee. Inevitably, one talks in critical terms about undoubtedly a minority of the teaching profession. That is perfectly true. It would be absurd were we to imply that the majority of teachers behaved in the way about which we are complaining, because obviously they do not.
We have to recognise also that an increasing minority behave in this objectionable character, particularly in London, where the Inner London Teachers' Association is run by the hard Left, as we know, who have nothing but contempt for the principles of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. It is therefore right on such an occasion to relate to that problem when discussing an amendment of the kind proposed by the noble Baroness.

627
I was mildly surprised that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, implied that the articles referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, were forgeries, or fraudulent or bogus documents of some kind or another, produced in Avon (I think he said) four years ago. As I endeavoured to point out—thanks to the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in allowing me to do so—that was not the suggestion of Mr. Derek Hatton and his colleagues in Liverpool when this suggestion was made by the Liberal principal spokesman on Liverpool Education Committee, who read out the terms of this document which had been supplied to him by a local headmaster. I am referring now not to Mr. Levin's article but to the document distributed in Liverpool.
I propose to quote one or two passages, because I think that demonstrates that it is authentic. I shall come in a moment to the reason for authenticity. I quote one paragraph from the Daily Telegraph of 2nd April of this year:
"Militant sympathisers on Schools' Governing Boards are instructed to try to wear non-members down by increasing the numbers of meetings and picking 'awkward' times to hold them. They are urged to 'drag out' meetings with long speeches on unimportant matters",
and so on.
Those of course are exactly the allegations made against Mr. Hatton by the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party. It demonstrates fairly conclusively that what we are talking about here is a genuine document and I repeat that Mr. Hatton and his colleagues have made no suggestion at all that that is in any way not so.
The document makes the following suggestions to sympathisers of the present majority party in Liverpool who are themselves school governors. It is a recipe for anarchy and chaos. It says:

Closely question statements made by the headmaster implying concealment of information;

Seek to isolate the headmaster from staff and governors;

Ring up and question headmaster on all matters and seek to change the way he prepares reports for Governors;

Suggest unrest among parents, teachers and students;

Prevent headmaster from presenting a line of argument;

Continually question fundamental educational practice;

Imply poor deal for those pupils below average;

Discover whether the head has been involved in litigation and mention it;

Praise the practice in the other schools preferably neighbouring ones and ignore good exam results (at yours);

Suggest the head's unwillingness to allow student participation in running the school;

Hint at financial advantage for head in retaining 6th form;".

And so on. That is just one illustration of the kind of problem which we are facing. It is a problem which almost certainly would have been inconceivable 10 years ago, as those of us who have been members of local authorities know perfectly well.
Of course there was always a perfectly respectable Left in British politics, and by that I mean the Left wing of the Labour Party. We are now talking about people not simply in Militant Tendency but on the extreme Left who have a deep contempt for the principles of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law, and it is that which impels the noble Baroness and
628
those of us on these Benches to say that this particular set of issues should be considered carefully at the time when this important Bill is going through the House.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I cannot resist saying a brief word. Like the noble Lord, Lord Home, I find this series of amendments unduly negative. I do not like amendments which exclude and amendments which forbid. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said about Decalogue, he asked the Government for positive, firm action. I should like to change the wording of at least one of the amendments—indeed, the amendment before us at present—from a negative to a positive form—something which the noble Lord, Lord Parry, said he thought was beyond human capacity to do. I shall have a shot at it. I would make Amendment No. 48 read something along the following lines:
"It shall be the duty of every local education authority to promote"—
that is something positive—
"the teaching or discussion of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law in England and Wales".
Who could object to that? Why should that not be a positive action and a duty on every local authority? I cannot believe that any quarter of the Committee could possibly object to such an exhortation, or more a duty, to promote. I should like to think—and it may be naïve of me to do so—that if that were a duty laid on every local education authority then the good currency would drive out the bad.
Lord Parry: I second that.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to make one brief comment in reply. There is an objection to that suggestion. If you say, "You shall teach how good democracy is", you will end up by saying, "You shall teach French", or you will end up like the French Minister of Education who looked at his watch and said, "All Form 4B are now learning about Ravaillac". That is the beginning of the slope and that is why that route is not possible.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is a danger of repeating the debate which we had ostensibly about primary schools before the break, but as we know it was a debate which trespassed on the conduct of secondary schools. I intervene from this Dispatch Box again on the basis, which I profoundly believe, that we are opposed to political indoctrination in schools. But that does not mean that we accept the need for the kind of amendments proposed now, still less the kind of arguments that have been put forward. If ever there was a case of a Zinoviev letter being taken up by noble Lords, this was it.
It is beyond belief with something which is circulated by one political party at a council or an education committee meeting, taken up by the Daily Telegraph on 2nd April, taken up by The Times in the following week, and has all the aura of plausibility in that it refers to Militant Tendency, that noble Lords who bring that issue forward should not recognise that the text of that document has already been published four years ago, and therefore that the document is clearly not a document from Militant Tendency in

629
Liverpool but is something which at least emanates from another part of the country at an earlier stage.
I assure the noble Baroness that this is the case. Therefore the onus of proof that this is a genuine document from Liverpool, or St. Helens, or wherever it may be, must be with those noble Lords who adduced it in argument, and the evidence must be to the contrary. It is unbelievable that noble Lords should continue to make these statements in the face of the facts.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I find the use of the word "unbelievable" perhaps slightly excessive in the light of the fact that this document was referred to in public at a meeting of Liverpool Education Committee, and not one Labour member of that committee made any suggestion of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is now making.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not claiming that the Labour members of Liverpool Education Committee are in perfect awareness of the facts. What I am saying is that it is we on these Benches who are fighting Militant. We in the Labour Party are fighting Militant and we are winning, and it is no thanks to those who distort the issue and the arguments by falling for this blatant hoax.
We ought not to damage the validity and seriousness of the important issues that we are discussing this evening by this sort of misinformation. Of course, it is not deliberate misinformation; I would not ever dream of making that claim. But this is information which is devalued by the knowledge that the text which has been quoted so extensively is in fact four years old and comes from another place.
Lord Renton: In view of what the noble Lord is saying, can he answer two questions? Is he going to say that the document which has been quoted and has been published is out of character with Militant Tendency or within their character? Secondly, can he say whether, following publication in the Telegraph on 2nd April and The Times on, I think, 8th April, there was any suggestion then that this was a hoax?
Lord Parry: Will the noble Lord accept that inadvertently, and in his anxiety, he is making certain that for the past 10 minutes Militant Tendency have had a seat in this Committee?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have no doubt that there are people in Militant Tendency who would like to behave very much in the way that the noble Lord has been reading out, and that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has been reading out. I want to make two points. I say this out of great detestation for Militant Tendency and great confidence that Militant Tendency will not be an important matter, and ought not, as my noble friend Lord Parry says, to be considered further in this Committee.
First, they may be stupid but they are not stupid enough to set it out in writing in quite this way. Secondly, they are not going to win. They are going to be defeated. As a number of noble Lords have said, these are negative amendments. They are amendments whose wording is in danger of being
630
pored over by the courts, and could be pored over by the courts in the context of a government who wish to use them in a restrictive way rather than in a liberal way. That is the real danger in these amendments, and that is why the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and my noble friend Lord Parry are right in suggesting that we should be looking for positive ways of dealing with the issue.
Whether it can be found in legislation or whether it is better dealt with by the guidelines put forward by the Government I do not know. That is a matter still to be considered. What I am convinced about is that in over-reaction, if I may say so, to the would-be assaults on democracy of a tiny and declining minority, this Committee is in danger of distorting a Bill which would be far better phrased without these amendments.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I expect I shall be ruled out of order, but I have been listening to this criticism of negative amendments; a criticism with which I very much agree. I should point out that Amendment No. 49A in the name of my noble friend Lord Ritchie is trying to say what has been said in the negative amendments in a positive way. When we considered this in our party meeting we took the line that the proposed amendments were too negative, and so we took the negatives out and tried to make the amendment positive. It may not be as strong as some people want, but would it not save time if we considered Amendment No. 49A along with the others so that the Committee can have the opportunity to consider whether it might be preferable?
The Earl of Swinton: I start with the alleged Extreme Left Guide to Subversion of Governing Bodies alleged to be by Militant Tendency. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, or the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is right but if this goes on I am sure that every noble Lord will join me in deploring any attempt to subvert the proper function of governing bodies. The best way to deal with such malignedly inspired initiatives is to have vigorous governing bodies, composed of people with the best interests of the school at heart and free of domination by local education authority appointees. That is what the revisions in this Bill for governing bodies are designed to achieve.
Lord Parry: Will the noble Earl help me? I am a little confused because I thought we were talking here about the contents of the curriculum. There is no mention of anything in the three amendments suggested for discussion which would lead us to discuss governing bodies at this stage.
The Earl of Swinton: I did not raise the subject. I am simply replying to it as it has been mentioned on many sides of the Committee. I think perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Parry, is right and we should return to Amendment No. 48, which puts a duty on local education authorities to forbid teaching which would undermine commitment to parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. I am sure that no noble Lord would oppose the intention behind this amendment.

631
We all share a concern, as the debate this evening has shown, that classrooms should not be used for any form of subversion. However, I have to say that, like Amendment No. 47, this amendment does not overcome the problems related to definition, evidence and enforceability. Again, if it became law, the amendment would present difficulties for the courts which we should not impose upon them in defining what did or did not constitute an undermining of commitment to parliamentary democracy. As many noble Lords who have spoken in the debate will realise, and as I am sure a parliamentarian like my noble friend Lord Renton, if I may describe him as such, who knows a lot about drafting legislation will realise, this would be a very difficult task indeed. I must, therefore, ask my noble friend to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend Lady Cox replies to that, let me say that Parliament is always asking the courts to decide difficult and controversial questions. There is nothing new about that. The whole of our trades disputes legislation from 1906 to 1984 has involved the courts in deciding questions they would rather not decide; difficult questions, controversial questions, party political controversial questions. But the courts are there to fulfil the will of Parliament. What are the courts for? If Parliament considers that there is a mischief to be suppressed or a positive aim to be achieved it is for the courts to do what Parliament requires. I must say to my noble friend with all the friendliness and candour that I can command (if he thinks I can still command any) that that is not an argument which should be put forward on this occasion, nor, indeed, on many others.
Baroness Cox: Once again I should like to thank most sincerely all noble Lords who have responded so warmly to the spirit of this amendment and made such constructive contributions about the wording as it currently stands. Let me say one word about the so-called "wreckers' charter" which has been the subject of a certain amount of dispute. I suggest that it is not so much the genesis of that wreckers' charter which matters as the results of its being put into practice.
I have recently received a letter from a parent-governor of a governing body who described in great
632
detail how the implementation, line by line, of such details as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, read out with great effect, was carried out at a meeting of a school governing body; and it was devastating in its results. So, whether or not its original genesis was the Militant Tendency, what matters is that there are politically motivated people who are prepared to put into effect the kind of recommendation in that wreckers' charter, and it is that which is very serious.
Returning to the amendment before us, let me say that I take sincerely the comments that were made, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Parry, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Perhaps if we can find a formulation that is positive rather than negative that might be preferable, although it will be necessary to ensure that it meets the requirement of preventing the malpractices which the spirit of this amendment is intended to prevent.
With that, let me say that I am deeply disappointed with the response of my noble friend the Minister. I feel sad that there does not seem to be a willingness perhaps of the Government to help us in formulating an amendment which I think commands a lot of support in the Committee. But I am prepared to go away to reconsider the wording, taking account of the helpful comments that have been made. I hope to bring back an amendment which will command in its wording support from all parts of the Committee in the formulation as well as in the spirit. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, may I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench one question? Does he admit that there is a problem or not? If there is a problem, what is he going to do about it? If there is not a problem, we are all wasting our time.
The Earl of Swinton: I think there is a problem. In view of the fact that I have spent quite a lot of time telling the Committee what the Government are trying to do about it, perhaps it is the noble Earl who is wasting his time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 19, line 33, at end insert—
(" ( ) It shall be the duty of every local education authority to forbid the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in any of their schools.")
The noble Lord said: This is the last of this group of amendments and it raises most important issues. I think that the issue on this occasion can be broadly described in this way. It is whether our system of public education should devote itself to giving each rising generation good academic training so that they become well qualified and worthy to play a part in life of which they and we can be proud; or whether, on the other hand, party politicians shall be free to pursue their own ends by bending the minds of children, as has been described by noble Lords on previous amendments, by foisting upon them their own ideology. That is the broad issue with which we are faced.
I can be brief, the Committee will be thankful to know, because of the various discussions that we have already had. But I should like to pursue a little further this question of whether we are justified in framing our amendments on this and on other occasions in negative rather than in positive form, because it is very important.
I remind your Lordships that the vast mass of legislation which Parliament has passed in order to—I use the old words of Sir Edward Coke in the early 17th century—"suppress a mischief" has been in negative form, just as half the Ten Commandments are. One cannot avoid it. And if it is the best, the most effective and the most enforceable way to do it—the way that the judges can most easily understand and interpret—let it be done in that best way.
I love to be positive and I am no great enthusiast for legislation; I think we have too much. But when we have a mischief which is acknowledged (and I think we have here, because there has been plenty of evidence of it tonight) we should not flinch on this occasion any more than we do on any other from expressing the legislation in the way that will work best. That, I suggest, will generally be the negative way.
It is lovely to be perfectionist, idealistic, trusting; but when we are dealing with a minority of ill-intentioned people it may not be the safest, and it may not even be the effective, way to proceed. I make no apology for the fact that this amendment, like others before it, has been expressed in negative form. Goodness me, "forbidden", is that a terrible word in our language? Is it not a word we use frequently to put things right? If we could say "Yes, thou shalt do" all the time, perhaps it would not be necessary to have much legislation. And we have to legislate in order to say "Thou shalt not do"; we do forbid.
I ask the Committee not to cast aside the intention of this amendment merely for what I think is the superficial reason—I say that with deep respect to the Committee—that it happens to be expressed in a negative form by using the word "forbid". We have heard it from both sides of the Committee: nobody wants the promotion of partisan political views in the
634
teaching of any subject in any school, except a few ill-intentioned people.
What, then, are we to do? Are we to refuse to do anything at all or are we to proceed in a simple, straightforward and, I would suggest, honest way? There is no harm about honesty in politics and in the legislation that this amendment proposes. We have had much interesting discussion and plain talk tonight. I hope I have said enough in moving this amendment to stimulate thoughts on both sides of the Committee and to enable the matter to be considered. If any noble Lord has a better way of achieving the object of preventing (if I may use another negative term) the promotion of partisan political views in teaching in schools, let him say what it is. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I wonder whether I may intervene to put a point to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as to how the matter should be handled. I have the permission of my Front Bench colleagues to intervene in this matter. I shall relate an experience in which I participated when I was employed as a national agent of the Labour Party. I attended a special meeting called by the Hansard Society with the vice-chairman of the Conservative Party, a representative of the Liberal Party and myself from the Labour Party to draw up a charter to deal with the presentation of political matters in local authority schools.
The idea was not to ban political discussion but to ensure that it could be dealt with in a proper way on a programme drawn up by the education officer for the area. It was to be a balanced programme. We did not want to forbid the discussion of political matters but to ensure that it was carried on in a proper, balanced way with both sides of the case being presented. The students were to be allowed to discuss the matter freely in an impartial, balanced way.
Lord Renton: The amendment does not propose the banning of political discussion in schools.
Lord Underhill: The amendment forbids the promotion of partisan political views. One cannot put forward a political case on behalf of a political party unless one happens to be partisan. We drew up a charter. It was signed by the three elements attending that meeting. It was sent throughout the country by the Hansard Society as the way to deal with a balanced presentation of partisan views. That can only be done with a balanced programme which must involve and be drawn up by the local education officer. If people challenge me on that point, they can look through the records of the Hansard Society. They will find the meeting and the charter recorded. That is why Amendment No. 49A is a better way to handle this matter.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Beloff: I am very perplexed by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He seems to want to do things in the most difficult way possible. On an earlier amendment, when I suggested a much simpler way of dealing with the matter—to have a curriculum of a kind which it would be difficult to abuse—he said

635
that that was no good because I was a political innocent who did not realise how wicked men could be. I find that peculiar.
If the noble Lord had supported my amendment we should now be discussing matters in a different frame of mind. He says that we should not worry about the amendment being negative. It is not a negative amendment; it is a positive amendment. It imposes a duty upon local authorities. What puzzles me is what procedures are available should a local authority not act in accordance with the spirit of this amendment, supposing that it were accepted.
There has been confusion, if I may say so, in the minds of those who have supported the whole of this series of amendments. That applies rather less to Amendment No. 49A, with which I feel some sympathy. There has been confusion between two quite different things. The first relates to the actions of certain teachers outside the normal bounds of their professional conduct, which one hopes could and would be reproved and controlled by their ultimate employers. There is also the quite different problem of local education authorities which wish to look at these matters in their own way and promote things which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, would regard as reprehensible. There are local authorities which insist upon the spreading of peace studies in schools. That has nothing to do with the initiative of individual teachers. How is one to proceed? Are aggrieved parents to try to obtain an injunction—a mandamus in the old language—to compel a local authority of exercise its duty under the amendment?
It seems to me that by refusing to look seriously at the possibility of a national curriculum the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and his friends—I agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, supported me—have deserted the straight and most obvious route to the objective which most of us share. For that reason I hope that the serious discussion will be on Amendment No. 49A, which seems to me at least to hold out the hope of something upon which there could be general agreement.
The Earl of Onslow: Is not the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, suggesting that if the teachers or a group of teachers get it badly wrong in the Docherty worm syndrome, what we are asking is that the local authority should have the duty to make sure they do not? So the two sides of the coin are not divorced, they are very closely interwoven. That is an appalling mixture of metaphors, I quite concede, but they are inter-dependent, one upon the other.
If you have a reasonable local authority who takes what I think we would all accept as the old-fashioned liberal view of teaching, that it should be broad and what we would all like for our own children and what I would certainly want for my own children, that is all right. They can then check the worm syndrome. It is when you get the worm in the teaching profession and the worm in the local authority where there has to be some form of check. That, I think, is what my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, are trying to do.
636
I am in complete agreement, I have probably got the wording totally wrong, but I think there is a very serious problem and I do not, in all honesty, know how to deal with it.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: The question of Amendment No. 49A has been touched on several times. Would it make sense or am I out of order in suggesting that we should decide we are also discussing Amentment No. 49A at the same time as Amendment No. 49?
Lord Renton: I think it rather confuses the issue. We have some well thought out separate amendments; the noble Lord has proposed a positive method and I have proposed a negative method of dealing with the more limited aspects of the matter. If I may say so, I think we would achieve greater clarity of thought and it would lead to better results in the end if we kept the discussions slightly separate.
Lord Kilmarnock: With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, it has been agreed, I understand, through the usual channels, that Amendment No. 49A should be discussed with Amentments 47, 48, 49 and 52A. This has been circulated to all the party officers.
Lord Mottistone: We do not have that paper.
Baroness Cox: I am not aware that that had been agreed by all concerned in moving amendments. As one of the proposers of one of the amendments, I would have been a party to that agreement and I never gave my agreement to it.
Lord Kilmarnock: If she will forgive me, the name of the noble Baroness appears on the circulation list of the document I am looking at.
Baroness Cox: That is because I was notified, not consulted.
Lord Renton: Let there be no confusion. I hope I am not drawing unjustifiably on my experience from time to time in the chair when I say that the so-called grouping of amendments is done by one of our splendid officers of the House, using his own initiative, but with necessarily a limited political knowledge of what lies behind the amendments, but we are not bound by that so-called grouping.
Baroness Cox: May I just endorse what my noble friend Lord Renton has said? I took advice about whether I had to follow that suggested grouping and was advised that it was not necessary and unless we agreed at the beginning of the grouping that it should be dealt with on that group basis, they would be taken separately.
Lord Parry: Can we not agree now that the normal channels are fine when they are normal? But when they are blocked is it not better for the Chamber to get on with the business and should we not take it in the normal way?
Baroness Cox: May I take that cue and speak briefly in favour of Amendment No. 49? I should like very briefly to reinforce the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Renton for the necessity of an amendment on these lines by quoting a very small selection of examples which have not previously been mentioned in your Lordships' House.
I make no apology whatever for offering one or two more examples, because my noble friend the Minister seems to suggest that we do not have enough evidence to take this matter seriously from the point of view of considering legislation, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State also seems to think that he lacks evidence. I should like to offer one or two examples which illustrate the range of ways in which partisan—and I must emphasise that word—political views are being promulgated in our schools, in a way that is deemed by many people as educationally totally unacceptable. Very briefly, these are one or two examples within schools which are the hardest to come by due to understandable fear of victimisation.
Some time ago, it was reported that pupils at a school in Dover sung a "hymn" at morning assembly, which is meant to be for religious worship, to the merry tune of "Pop goes the weasel":
"Polaris subs, atomic bombs,
Germ research in progress.
That's the way the money goes.
What price the homeless?"
I should like to ask whether this is what we mean by religious worship. Is it not a prime example of cheap political sloganising?
A pupil from Oxfordshire has written to a colleague claiming:
"For far too long, teachers have been exploiting the naivety of many, using their positions of influence by indoctrinating 14 to 17 year-olds. I have witnessed several incidents. A CND propaganda film was organised, supervised and advertised by two teachers and it was shown on premises in prime school time at … upper school. CND posters advertising the Bruce Kent meeting in Banbury were also shown on the dining room walls.
"My younger sister has also experienced something in a similar vein at nearby … comprehensive school. In the fourth and fifth years, current affairs become a compulsory lesson. In these lessons they have had a talk by a striking miner, a Labour Party political broadcaster … the above-mentioned, like the film, were unbalanced. No other material illustrating another perspective was given".
I am sure that examples of this kind would violate the guidelines mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, but they suggest why we need to consider measures to prevent this excessively partisan promotion of political views.
Some teachers openly advocate using the classroom for partisan political teaching. One of the most famous proponents is the far Left teacher of English, Chris Searle, who is now multi-cultural adviser to Sheffield City Council and is applying, I understand from the press, for a headship at Abbeydale School. He has written prolifically. For example, his book Classrooms of Resistance advocates teaching revolutionary political activism. He is also stridently anti-American.
One other arena of great importance, illustrating the need for some kind of measure on these lines, is with reference to teaching materials, which often provide sources of political indoctrination and are often produced by local education authorities. As has been
638
mentioned in previous debates, research into resources used for peace studies has demonstrated beyond doubt its general bias. Even The Times Educational Supplement has admitted that proponents of peace studies now have a case to answer.
Other kinds of indoctrinatory material have been produced for teaching "anti-racism". I criticised during an earlier debate a teaching pack on Auschwitz. Subsequently, after my criticism, it was claimed in ILEA's defence that the Board of Deputies, who had been consulted, were content with it. However, subsequently, the Jewish Chronicle has pointed out that Eric Moonman, vice-president of the Board of Deputies, has said that the claim by ILEA's chief education officer that the material had received that board's full approval was "inaccurate and misleading". Therefore, the criticisms which I levelled against that teaching pack, on what is surely one of the most sensitive issues that it is possible to imagine—the horrors of Auschwitz—still stand and are cause for grave concern.
It is evidence of this kind which indicates that it is urgent that we prohibit—I recognise that that is a negative word and I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that we may have to think in negative terms on such a serious issue—the use of schools for the promulgation of partisan political views. We urgently need to prevent further developments.
This does not, of course, preclude legitimate political activities such as mock elections, the teaching of politics or balanced discussion of controversial political issues, especially by older pupils. Surely there can be no objection to enshrining in law the principle to which it seems to me the great majority of members of the Committee and certainly the great majority of parents in our country would subscribe; and to do so would help those parents in the spirit of this Bill by providing them with a clear source of action and of legal redress.
Recourse to a complaints procedure which leaves the ultimate action solely with the Secretary of State is not sufficient. Future holders of that office might not adhere to the commitment expressed in the guidelines on which my noble friend the Minister seems to place such great store. Therefore, on a matter of such fundamental importance it is essential that we take the opportunity of the passage of the Bill to enshrine in law the principle to which we and the vast majority of parents, and I believe the vast majority of teachers in this nation, are committed.
10 p.m.
Lord Parry: We can clearly see the dangerous ground on which we are standing and we can also see the straining of the relationship that has existed during the debate at times and the relationship where we share common anxieties. Sir Fred Clarke, writing some words which were a part of an analysis of British education and which were important to some of us at the time, said that the teacher standing in the place of the parent accepted some of the duties of the parent and that among those duties, since the parent obviously had the right to determine the direction in which society developed, the teacher, one supposed, had similar rights. So it has ensured in our education system that every teacher who is doing an adequate job

639
of teaching is able also to bear some kind of parental influence on the development of the children. If you once threaten that, you begin to weaken the whole teaching system and to make the school system a far more ready prey for extreme governments if they come into power. It is the very ensuring of the teachers' professional commitment to the children that fundamentally supports the society in which we live.
I do not want to go into that at this late stage. There is a danger that each amendment becomes a restatement of a policy and that each answer becomes not an answer but a manifesto. We have the same basic problem. Can we find a formula which will enshrine the agreement of this Committee and not give a new focus to the people who want to see both this Chamber and all the other chambers of democracy defeated?
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My understanding is that when the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, was summing up after the debate on Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 he said that he would take the matter away and think about it. I hope that when he does so he will not close his mind altogether to trying to find some form of legislation which will satisfy both sides of the Committee. I think that we are dealing with an emergency. That is why we ought to have legislation, and we ought to have it quickly. I am all for an inquiry, but inquiries take a long time and I am not sure that we can afford to wait a long time.
I should like to say that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the legislation has to be negative. We are dealing with only a very small matter but it is a very dangerous one. To me, it is like putting up a tripwire to stop a few—they are only a few, and I can see that—guilty people getting into the house and setting people up. Tripwires are negative. If you try to make it positive, it gets much more difficult to adjudicate on. We want something very simple and very limited in its effect. This amendment is not necessarily the best that can be devised but it is limited and would stop the worst abuses.
It is much more difficult to legislate for secondary schools than it is for primary ones. One can be more absolute in primary schools and say, "There will be none of this political activity". But one cannot possibly do that in secondary schools, where political activity is of the greatest importance. One must have political societies and one has mock elections, and there is nothing wrong with controversy for teenagers. I shall not go quite so far as one of my predecessors as provost at Eton, Lord Quickswood, who said he thought that the only proper occupation for a gentleman was controversy—and the more acrimonious the better. I may add that that statement was not agreed to by the headmaster, who lived next door to him.
What we want in all this is balance. I refer once more to Eton, where we try to get balance in our political society by having people to speak from all parts of the political spectrum. We have been fortunate in the past year in getting one or two who are somewhat to the left of centre such as Mr. Kenneth Livingstone and Mr. Eric Heller. However, they have
640
been balanced by Mr. Nicholas Ridley, and we are looking for a little more balance from the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, when he comes in the summer.
It is very difficult to draft a Bill but there is no lack of evidence. I should like to say a little more about Mr. Christopher Searle, to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred. He is a self-confessed revolutionary. He is bitterly anti-American and he manages in some extraordinary way to make a very clear distinction between United States violence in support of reactionary governments, which he describes as bestial and wicked, and revolutionary violence, which he thinks is a godsend.
Mr. Searle is also a teacher of English, and says that he seeks to find the literature that will give to children the reality of the people of Salvador or of whichever particular territory concerns us. I do not think that that is much in the way of education. Think of the poor children: they will not have the pleasure of reading Jane Austen at all. That is the gentleman who, I understand from the Daily Mail, which is always correct in these matters, is currently being considered for the headmastership of Abbeydale Grange. He ought not to be a headmaster. We must do something to prevent that sort of thing happening. I am very glad to give my support to this amendment.
Lord Parry: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will allow me one question. Does he not admit that the real difference between his teaching of the pupils at Eton and my teaching of the pupils at the secondary school at Haverfordwest is most likely to be that his school and his pupils are secure in the society that they believe they can readily affect, whereas those that I taught might be more likely to be feeling the difficulties and divisions of society—and therefore be more affected by people who might canvass against that society?
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: I would not contest what the noble Lord says. We are very fortunate at Eton, and Etonians are very lucky people. However, it is just the same wherever one is—one must try to achieve a balance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Will the noble Lord reflect upon the fact that the kind of political education that he has described at Eton, which involves having speakers from the Labour Party and from the Conservative Party as an adjunct to the teaching in his school, is precisely that which would be forbidden in local authority schools by the amendment that he is now supporting?
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: I entirely disagree.
Lord Renton: The effective word is "promotion".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think that it is enough to disagree. The amendment says that the local education authority will,
"forbid the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in any of their schools".
If I understood the noble Lord correctly, he said that partisan political views were expressed at his school. It

641
is not a significant difference to say that they are not part of teaching but an adjunct to the teaching. The fact is they were considered to be a valuable addition to the teaching at Eton and a valuable part of the activities of the school. It is exactly that kind of valuable partisan contribution (as the noble Lord said) which is forbidden by the amendment.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: I think that the key word is "promotion". It is perfectly all right for people to express partisan views so long as they are balanced. What is wrong, and what this amendment seeks to prevent, is the promotion of views to the exclusion of others. I am not saying the amendment is well-worded, but that is the object of the exercise.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am delighted to learn that Eric Heffer and Ken Livingstone did not promote their partisan political views. In my experience it will be the first time in history that that has been the case.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: But we had others to counter-balance it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rest my case.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I move away from the important question of Eton to the Inner London Education Authority. A few moments ago the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to Auschwitz, a publication to which I think she referred in the debate we had on the politicisation of education she introduced some weeks ago. At that stage I had not had the opportunity of reading this document, but thanks to my colleague, Mrs. Ann Sofer, a copy was obtained for me.
I think it is highly relevant to the issues we are talking about today, for one particular reason: we are not debating the activities of an extremist minority of school teachers, we are talking about a publication by a local education authority. I have the document in front of me. So that there is no misunderstanding, it states at the end of it that it is published by the ILEA Learning Resources Branch.
This document is made available in many schools in Inner London. It states:
"The materials currently available"—
is the noble Lord seeking to say something? No? I am sorry; I thought the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was saying something. The document reads:
"The materials currently available from the ILEA Learning Resources Branch for teaching around the subject of the Holocaust are as follows."
There then follow a whole series of examples. We then come to the document itself published by the ILEA. We have the heading:
"Links with today'".
This relates to the appalling happenings at Auschwitz and other concentration camps where millions of people were murdered by the Nazis. The document states:
"Such discussions"—
that is, on the subject of the Holocaust—
"could lead to more general ones, perhaps informed by an examination of contemporary events."
642
What are the contemporary events? Here we have them:
"denial of human rights?" (Consider the Prevention of Terrorism Act …)".
The Prevention of Terrorism Act? It is relating the Prevention of Terrorism Act to the murder of many millions of Jews in Germany and Poland during the Second World War. Other examples are:
"questionable police behaviour? … anti-immigration laws from the 1960s to the Nationality Act of 1982 … the GCHQ trade union membership issue."
This sort of material, published at public expense by a local education authority, is being made available for teaching purposes in schools in inner London.
Following the opportunity that I had of reading this, I wrote to the Secretary of State. I sent copies to the noble Baroness and to Mrs. Sofer. I wrote to the Secretary of State on the 18th February. I regard Sir Keith Joseph as a courteous man, and in nothing of what I propose now to say do I wish to suggest that he is other than courteous in his personal dealings. It took him two months to reply. The letter I have says:
"I am sorry that it has not yet proved possible to send a full reply to your letter of 18 February about the teaching pack 'Auschwitz: Yesterday's Racism'. I take very seriously the concern expressed by you and other peers about the pack and have asked my officials to write to the ILEA about it. I shall send you a full reply as soon as our enquiries are complete".
It is not exactly the most speedy response to what I regard as a quite outrageous example of misbehaviour by a local education authority.
10.15 p.m.
What I hope to hear from the noble Lord tonight is that there is a likelihood that we shall get some information from the Department of Education in the near future on this matter, because this is the background to the debates we have been having today. It is pointless for the department constantly to say, "Give us more examples", when we give them examples of this character and they are followed by almost total inaction on their part.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: May I remind the Committee of what I said earlier? There are 103 local education authorities in England and Wales and it is wrong for the noble Lord to quote just one education authority in the way in which he has. Is the noble Lord implying that all the 103 education authorities are being issued with propaganda of that sort? It is not so at all.
Lord Beloff: Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord who has just spoken that though that is true, this particular local authority is responsible for a very large number of children; it is the largest local authority in the country. As a member of the Jewish faith, I should also like to point out to him that this local authority area includes a very large number of Jewish children whose families are deeply insulted by a publication of this kind.
The Earl of Swinton: Again I have to say that Amendment No. 49 does not solve the problems of definition, evidence and enforceability to which I have referred. "Partisan political views", like "partisan political activities", is an imprecise term and one

643
whose interpretation by the courts would be seen by those who disagreed with it as itself politically partisan.
My noble friend Lord Renton, in a very good speech introducing the amendment, described it as simple and straightforward. I think the only way in which I can describe it as being simple and straightforward is in noting the different interpretations put upon it by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Charteris, as to what would be allowed under the amendment were it to become law. I personally believe that the way forward is by the measures which the Government have already put forward. The proposals in this Bill to increase the influence of parents and to introduce more checks and balances into the control of the school curriculum are important.
If I can deal with the very unpleasant case of ILEA's Auschwitz teaching pack, I can readily understand the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the revulsion expressed by my noble friend Lord Beloff about this "guide", the pack and materials, "Auschwitz: Yesterday's Racism". Some of the comparisons between Nazi Germany and contemporary Britain certainly seem quite obnoxious. Inquiries are currently being made of the local education authority about the use which is being made of these materials, and as soon as something comes out we shall of course inform the noble Lords who are interested in this subject.
I regret to say that my objections to this particular amendment are very similar to those on Amendments Nos. 47 and 48, and I must therefore ask my noble friend Lord Renton to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: I propose to withdraw my amendment, but, quite frankly, not for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Swinton. He has again spoken of imprecise terms, and perhaps it is my fault that my amendment was not better understood. To me it is perfectly plain. We are not talking merely about the teaching of partisan political views; we are talking about the promotion of partisan political views.
I agreed with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said about this exercise, which he described under the aegis of the Hansard Society some years ago. But that was not dealing with the promotion of party political views. It was dealing with the balanced expression of them, which is an entirely different matter, and which, quite frankly, is not the subject of this amendment.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Beloff that we should have as complete a curriculum as possible. As he said, that will leave less time for the promotion of party political views by those so inclined. But I ask my noble friend, on reflection, between now and the Report stage to consider whether it would not be better to have his belt and our braces.
We were all impressed by, and enjoyed the interventions tonight of, the noble Lord, Lord Parry. I did not understand his last intervention about straining relationships, but I shall read his speech with great care and hope to understand it better. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich.
644
I regret that, although he has produced powerful evidence, as has my noble friend Lady Cox, we had no clear answer from the Government about how they intend to deal with—again I use the ancient word—the "mischiefs" which have been revealed.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Charteris, who spoke with the authority that he has. It has now become a matter of speaking with courage because we are always legislating in the negative, and my noble friend has had the courage to say that it is right on this occasion to legislate in the negative—to forbid the promotion, and "promotion" is the operative word, of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject; that is, not merely political subjects but of any subject in schools. That is what the amendment says.
I implore my noble friends on the Front Bench to give a lot of thought to this between now and the Report stage. Serious considerations have been advanced in all quarters of the Committee. We cannot leave matters as they are. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 49A:
Page 19, line 33, at end insert—
(" ( ) It shall be the duty of every local education authority to ensure that in the teaching of any subject in any of their schools the presentation of political views shall be impartial and objective.")
The noble Lord said: I feel that after the discussion we have had on this subject there can be nothing further left to say. I feel like quoting George Bernard Shaw, who said "Gentlemen"—and ladies—"the subject is not exhausted but we are".
I shall say only a few words about my amendment. We are talking here about secondary schools. It is impossible to avoid political discussion in secondary schools. One cannot teach history, economics or political science without presenting political systems. It seems to me that there is a very important difference here between presenting and promoting. One has to present political systems and ideas. When does presenting become promoting? It is impossible to define such things. All politics are partisan in any case. It seems to me that such measures as were put foward in these last few amendments—and I am speaking particularly of the last one—and this applies to secondary schools, are unenforceable.
We are all agreed that Left or Right indoctrination of the young is deplorable. I reiterate that it happens only in a small minority of schools. The vast majority avoid this kind of thing, as do the vast majority of teachers, who, I assure the Committee, are honourable and avoid the discussion of politics in class like the plague. I have talked to teachers about it and they say "We do not touch it". They know perfectly well that some small child will go home and say "Mr So-and-so is a Communist, Mummy". The vast majority of teachers are terrified of that type of situation and, as the noble Lord, Lord Parry, said, they are very honourable about it.
To quote the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, it is entirely a question of how one avoids the type of situation that we have been discussing. The amendment that I am proposing is an attempt to put

645
forward a method that should be the aim of every self-respecting teacher. It embodies the principle that all responsible teachers know that if one controversial view is expressed the opposing one should also be expressed. That is the principle that is accepted in the profession. It is not as though this is a new subject; it is the general code of the profession of schoolmastering that if you put forward one view you must put forward the opposing view. It is the counsel of perfection and difficult of achievement, but no one would deny that it is the right goal at which to aim and the right principle, if any, to find its way onto the statute book to check the politicisation which all of us fear takes place in a small number of our schools. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I like the amendment, and the Committee must be grateful for the moderate and rational way in which it has been moved. I was particularly interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, say that it is the professional objective of teachers to ensure that in dealing with political matters a balance is achieved and that if one political view is stated the alternative view should also be stated. My only doubt is about the wording and whether that objective is achieved by the noble Lord's amendment.
The amendment says:
"the presentation of political views shall be impartial and objective".
To my mind, that does not quite say what the noble Lord was arguing: namely, that taken as a whole the presentation of political views shall be impartial and shall cover the spectrum and shall be objective. That is the criterion which is applied, for example, to television coverage of political issues, and I am sure that that is what the noble Lord wants. I hope that that is what his amendment actually implies and I hope, by the way, that Clause 17 permits the Bill to say that it shall be the duty of a local education authority to ensure this or that.
As I understand Clause 17(4)(b)(i), if the governing body disagrees with the local education authority then the governing body and the head teacher go their own way and the local education authority does not have the power to ensure what is in fact required by the amendment. I am sure that those are only technical matters which can be overcome by a suitable amendment. However, it seems to me that we have here for the first time in the past two or three hours a rational approach to the issue that we ought to have been discussing.
The Earl of Swinton: It would be very churlish of me not to look at this amendment in view of the fact that I have said that I shall look at the others, because it was no fault whatever of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, that the usual channels somewhere along the line became clogged. If we had been taking the amendments together I should have said that I would have a look at them all. Therefore, I shall certainly take this amendment away and look at it with the others. However, I must point out that again the words "impartial and objective" do not look very easy to put into law. Having said that, I shall certainly look at the amendment with the others.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I thank the noble Earl for his words. I would not pretend that the wording of the
646
amendment is incapable of improvement. In fact, as soon as I had tabled it I thought of some improvements myself. Therefore, in view of the fact that the Minister has said that he will take it away and have a look at it, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster Viscount Buckmaster moved Amendment No. 49B:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Sex education.
.—(1) It shall be the duty of each local education authority, and of the head teacher and governing body of every school, to ensure that any teaching, books, materials or other teaching aids concerned with sex and human reproduction, whether given in specific sex education lessons or elsewhere in the curriculum, shall not advocate any illegal act or act of obscenity, and any such teaching shall comply with the religious and moral beliefs of the parents of children at the school and shall be given in the context of enduring family life.
(2) It shall be the right of every parent to be informed in advance of the content of any sex education to be given at the school, and notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) above it shall be the right of any parent to withdraw his child from any sex education to which that parent objects.").
The noble Viscount said: We now move from politics to the very difficult and delicate area of human relations. I should not be moving the amendment tonight with the leave of the Committee unless I felt that I had the support of millions of parents throughout the country who are gravely disturbed at the content of so much of the sex education in our schools and at the lack of statutory provision for them to withdraw their children from such education as they consider undesirable.
This amendment is supported mainly by Family and Youth Concern, the newly formed National Council for Christian Standards in Society, the Parliamentary Family and Child Protection Group, the Medical Education Trust, which has done a great deal of work on this difficult subject, much of it yet to be published, and by many other people. I feel, and perhaps some noble Lords will agree with me, that we can sense now the turn of the tide. More and more people—millions of people, I like to think—not only in this country but in Europe and elsewhere, are beginning to realise with ever increasing clarity the pitfalls of the permissive society.
The subject of human relations and sexual reproduction touches deep issues. It goes down to the very bedrock of our being. It was Sir Frederick Catherwood who said, and how true it is:
"The morality of the bedroom cannot he separated from the morality of the boardroom".
What better place to teach the morality both of the bedroom and the boardroom than the schoolroom? But what do we find? Looking around in our schools today we find that in this sphere of moral relations, moral guidance, few would merit an alpha, not many a beta, and the vast majority, I fear, would rate gamma and even gamma minus.
At this stage I must try to answer three questions that will be in the minds of many of your Lordships, and they are crucial to my argument. First, what is the nature of this objectionable sex education? Secondly, what do parents think about it? Thirdly, is it really so

647
very harmful? The literature I have received recently—and I have received masses and masses of it; I thought I had reached saturation point three or four days ago but it still comes in, and the letters come in—has come in the form of pamphlets, booklets and so on. This leads me to the view that a great deal of the sex education today, particularly in our maintained schools, is amoral, if not downright immoral, dealing, as it does, with human reproduction in the most provocative and explicit way, with no element of moral guidance.
Indeed, the theme running through most of this literature is that sexual activity among teenagers of whatever age is quite normal and natural, and also quite harmless, provided one takes appropriate precautions to avoid pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease. Only one of these pamphlets that I have looked at makes reference to the legal age of sexual intercourse, and in several cases sexually transmitted diseases are treated as something not all that harmful and easily cured.
What is particularly shocking—and I emphasise this—is that three of the most explicit and provocative booklets, Taught not Caught, Make it Happy and Learning to Live with Sex, are issued, or approved, by the Family Planning Association, and some of these and other similar publications are also approved by the Brook Advisory Clinics and the National Marriage Guidance Council. All these bodies receive substantial support from public funds. Some of the passages in these booklets are truly appalling.
At this late hour I shall not weary the Committee with extensive quotations, but I must quote from some of them. This is from Make it Happy:
"Incest is not particularly uncommon, especially among sisters and brothers, when it can be a loving sexual relationship".
Another passage from the same booklet on bestiality is so revolting that I cannot bring myself to quote it in your Lordships' Committee, but basically it says that sexual acts with animals, other than intercourse, are not illegal.
In Taught not Caught there is a series of class projects for children of nine upwards in which various methods are used to persuade children that there are no rights or wrongs, that they must make up their own minds about who they have sex with and when, and that parents are oppressors to be circumvented. There is an almost obsessional theme running through the book to persuade young people to regard homosexual relationships as being in every way as acceptable as others.
Learning to Live with Sex contains the following passage on marriage:
"While this may be an ideal for individuals or society, many marriages do not work out quite like that. More people now are choosing to live together without formalising their vows because they may wish to separate later on, and some people are more tolerant of unfaithfulness or other close or sexual relationships outside marriage."
I could quote many more passages, but obviously I shall not do so at this late hour.
But here are two quotations from letters, one from a schoolmaster and the other from a parent. The first is:
648
"As part of our relationships course, we had a speaker from the Health Authority to speak on contraception and abortion. We were very taken aback at the line she took, in effect: 'I am here to tell you how to enjoy yourselves without any unfortunate consequences"'.
Secondly, from a parent describing a visit by doctors from a Brook clinic to a school in Bristol:
"It is difficult to escape the conclusion that this group of doctors were expecting, condoning and encouraging promiscuity".
I am willing to concede that the Family Planning Association, the Brook clinics and the National Marriage Guidance Council have done useful work in some spheres, for example, with adults, but surely there can be little doubt that the type of sex education these bodies advocate, coupled with the widespread distribution of contraceptives, very often with the active support of the manufacturers, has led to increased sexual activitity among teenagers.
I now turn to the second question: what are parents' views on this problem? I have seen a wide range of letters on this, sent mainly to Family and Youth Concern. For the most part, those letters indicate parents' amazement at the explicit and amoral nature of the education given, the unco-operative nature of many of the schools' staff and, perhaps the most interesting aspect of all, the harmful effects of such teaching on young children, particularly the 9 to 11 year-olds.
Let me read one brief extract (and it will be the last) from one letter:
"My daughter aged 11 became very withdrawn after the sex education film—and for three years following would not have anything to do with outside activities if boys were involved.
"My son aged 12, a very placid, cheerful, unaggressive child, became vicious in the extreme—using his young sisters as punchballs, really frightening them".
It is interesting to note that the MORI poll conducted in January 1985 found that 54 per cent. of parents questioned considered schools had an important role to play in the sphere of moral guidance, but that most of those schools were not doing a good job.
Thirdly, and most important of all—this is the crux of my speech—what are the harmful effects of this education? First, it encourages early experimentation because modern teaching methods deal with projects where one has to make things, and surely if one experiments in the classroom the natural tendency is to experiment in the bedroom or elsewhere. It also encourages an irresponsible attitude towards sexual activity as something which one does as easily as turning on and off a tap. Some of this education, I fear, tends to foster the attitude of the aggressive male and the passive female. Fourthly, it has a very disturbing effect on young children.
There are two very important points here. It has been argued many times that if young people use contraceptives no harm will result from early sexual activity. How wrong that is! It is now becoming widely realised that children make poor candidates for the regular, daily administration of such contraceptives, particularly the Pill, and that the failure rate among children is very high. I need not discuss here the harmful effects of the Pill as time does not permit me and I am not a doctor, but it is important to say that the Pill causes 150 different hormone changes in a girl's body.
Another fallacy, perhaps the most dangerous of all, is that the wider availability of contraceptives reduces unwanted teenage pregnancies. In fact, in the decade between 1974 to 1984, the number of illegitimate births to girls under 20 has risen from 20,900 to 33,100—an increase of 58.8 per cent. Then there is a very important and very disturbing increase in sexually-transmitted diseases, now running at about 500,000 a year, more than half in the under-24 age group. In addition, there has been a spectacular increase in cases of cancer of the cervix in young people, and the latest evidence indicates that this is linked to the use of the Pill. This condition has risen in women under 24 from 15 per cent. of all cases treated by the NHS in 1972 to 27 per cent. in 1982.
But then, is it not also well known that there are these irresponsible sexual activities, the furtive fumblings in cars, and so on, with one ear cocked for the parents' return. How can that possibly be a good preparation for a stable marriage, bearing in mind that one marriage in three ends in divorce? And is it not also possible to link some of the appalling sexual crimes that are apparent nowadays, the increase in rapes, the attacks on children? Is there not perhaps some connection between these and this appalling sex education?
I hope that I have said enough to persuade the Committee that this amendment, or something like it, is necessary. I am quite prepared to admit that it may not be in the right form but the need for something like this seems to me to be absolutely overwhelming.
I have said particularly:
"It shall be the duty of … the head teacher and governing body of every school".
Normally of course it should be "maintained schools". I realise that, and if the word "maintained" is inserted I should have no objection, but I want to try to make it as wide ranging as possible. You will see that this amendment refers to education lessons elsewhere in the curriculum. I say that because in the biology syllabus of the CSE and O-Level for this year, there is a section on the prevention of births—totally irrelevant and totally unnecessary. And, of course, I am emphasising in this amendment the importance of religious and moral beliefs of parents—difficult, perhaps, to take due account of; but not impossible—and enduring family life. And, thirdly, this amendment is extremely important because it gives every parent the right to withdraw his or her child from the education to which they object.
It seems, in conclusion, that we should get back to the basic meaning of education. I remember learning as a very small child the meaning of "education", which comes from the Latin word educere which means to "lead out". The Oxford Dictionary definition is, "to lead forth, to bring up a child so as to form habits, manners, mental and physical attitudes". Surely, this is the main object of education. It is not the stuffing of facts into the heads of children like the cramming of food into the gullet of a Strasbourg goose. And may I say, having spent nearly all my life in the developing world, that I have never come across any primitive society which does not impose stricter moral standards on their young people than ours.
This Bill surely comes at a fortunate time. It comes at a time (does it not?) when discipline and self-
650
discipline are under increasing criticism, when any restraint on acts or word is considered totally unnecessary. It comes (does it not?) at a time when moral standards are flying away like straw in the wind and the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are rampant in the land. It is against this background that I beg leave to move this amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: While speaking against this new clause, I should make clear that the Government endorse some of the thinking which underlies it. It is common ground that schools should approach sex education responsibly and sensitively, that teaching should be offered in a spirit which is supportive of family life, and that parents should be fully informed about the school's policies in this area of the curriculum.
The Government, for their part, made clear in last year's White paper Better Schools that sex education should take place "within a moral framework". In practice, this means that the physical aspects of sexual behaviour should not be emphasised unduly, or at the expense of developing pupils' appreciation of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life.
As to the need for schools to inform parents about what is to be taught in this area, existing legislation, in the form of regulations made under Section 8 of the Education Act 1980, covers the general point. Schools are already required to publish information about
"the manner and context in which education as respects sexual matters is given".
In addition, there is within the framework of the Bill provision for self-regulation, in the form of the annual parents' meeting. It is precisely this forum that can exert pressure in relation to some of the publications to which the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, referred in moving his amendment.
In short, we have sympathy for the intentions behind the new clause. However, I must resist the insertion of the clause, both on the general ground that the Bill is intended to create a framework for agreeing curriculum, avoiding both specific exclusions and inclusions, and, in addition, because the amendment is not practical.
The first subsection is impractical since it appears to envisage that, in parallel, LEAs, heads and governing bodies will search through every school book and every teaching aid to see whether it advocates any illegal act or act of obscenity. Presumably no book or teaching aid, no television or radio broadcast and no outside lecturer could be used until they had been so vetted by all three parties. In addition, some new means would have to be found to ensure that no teacher, by word of mouth, strayed into this dangerous territory.
It would be almost impossible for schools to operate in such a manner. We must look to individual teachers to exercise good judgment in planning their teaching and selecting appropriate teaching materials. We should not take away that admittedly heavy responsibility from teachers. Only they can properly exercise it, subject to the regulations and to the pressure parents can exert at their annual meetings, or other meetings.

651
As to the idea that the teaching offered should comply with the religious and moral beliefs of parents, how are these to be obtained and recorded? How can a teacher with a class of, say, 25 or more children ensure that everything she or he teaches is in conformity with the views of up to twice that number of parents? I find it difficult to see how this subsection could be made to work.
Subsection (2) also presents problems. It is one thing to require schools to set out their policies on sex education (and, as I have indicated, this is the effect of existing legislation and procedures); it is quite another to make it obligatory to inform parents in advance about the content of each and every lesson. Schools would find this not only burdensome but also hard to achieve. Often, sexual matters will be raised spontaneously by pupils, and teachers need to respond there and then.
Subsection (2) also raises the question of a parental right to withdraw a pupil from any sex education to which the parent objects. Issues relating to sexual behaviour and mores may arise in all sorts of lessons—in biology, in health education, in personal and social education and in English, for example. A school could not possibly cope with a right of withdrawal in such circumstances. I therefore hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw the amendment on this occasion.
Viscount Buckmaster: I am deeply sorry to hear that reply from the Government Front Bench. I know that it will disturb a great many people throughout the country. I remind the noble Baroness that I understand it to be the Conservative Party's declared policy that it will work for improved family standards and for the development of the family as a unit. I am told that it is to be one of the principal planks of its next election manifesto.
I am prepared to admit that there are elements in the amendment which are unsatisfactory. I felt certain that the noble Baroness would object to the provision that required compliance with the parents' moral and religious views. I should have thought, with great respect, that that would not be all that difficult whether the parents were Moslems, Jews or Christians. There is a broad measure of understanding, surely, on matters of personal relations.
In view of the considerable feeling that there is about this matter in the country and in schools I hope that the Government will look carefully at the evidence that I have adduced. I say again that it is only the tip of the iceberg. I could have given a great deal more information. As it was, I fear that I spoke rather too lengthily.
If I had some indication that the Government have not entirely closed the door, I should be prepared to withdraw my amendment. I say once more that I feel strongly that this is serious and disturbing. I look forward to receiving a ray of hope from the noble Baroness. If I receive that I shall of course beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hooper: I can only repeat that the Government do not believe that the door is closed on
652
this topic. The Government are directing their efforts and intentions to perfecting the existing regulations and systems which we believe are adequate and which would not be assisted by an amendment in this form.
Viscount Buckmaster: I am glad to hear that the noble Baroness considers that the door is still ajar, but, with great respect, I do not consider the present regulations adequate. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Buckmaster Viscount Buckmaster moved Amendment No. 49C:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Cultural and religious needs.
. It shall be the duty of each local education authority, and of the head teacher and governing body of every school, to make adequate provision, where appropriate, for the needs of all pupils in their schools, with due regard to their cultural and religious attachment.")
The noble Viscount said: I hope that I can move this amendment rather more briefly than the previous one. As the Committee will have discovered, it is basically about the ethnic minorities, although I purposely did not use the term.
I may be accused of hyperbole when I say that this amendment, like the other one, will probably have the support of millions of people in the country. There are now about 2·25 million to 2·5 million people in the ethnic minority in Britain. They represent about 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. of the total population. The largest communities are made up of Indians, West Indians and Pakistanis, followed by Arabs and people from the Far East—Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore and so on. Those minorities are found mainly in Greater London, the Midlands, Yorkshire, Humberside and the North-West.
There is a very significant community in London, and one of the most fascinating statistics of all which I came across in my research for this amendment is that there are now 161 different languages spoken in our ILEA schools. Is that not a wonderful challenge? Of course, there are widespread variations in distribution. In the London borough of Brent, for example, the proportion of ethnic minorities is 33 per cent. Ealing and Haringey is 25 per cent., other boroughs are very much less; Richmond, for example, is only 2 per cent. In Bradford, I think there are some schools where 95 per cent. of the pupils are of the ethnic minority.
Of the religious minorities, by far the most numerous are the Moslems who now number roughly 1·7 million, and religion is tremendously important for them. There are over 1,000 mosques and prayer centres in Britain. I shall not weary the Committee with Islamic theology which I have mentioned before. But I think it is important to stress here that Muslims emphasise what I have called before the three Ds: discipline, decency and dignity. Their teaching on personal relations and particularly on sexual relations is therefore more powerful, more positive and more purposeful than our own. Indeed, that is reflected by the general behaviour of our British-based Moslems, as distinct from those who come from outside.
There are other important religious groups, the Hindus and Sikhs, but somewhat strangely I have had no response from them at all. So while this

653
amendment deals adequately with their views, nevertheless it is the Moslems with whom I am principally concerned. This amendment seeks to make statutory provision for what many local education authorities are doing already. That is the point, there is nothing difficult, nothing radical about it.
There are many education authorities throughout the country which are making adequate provision for their ethnic and religious minorities. I am thinking particularly, for example, of the ILEA. They have devised a set of very useful regulations, and I can quote perhaps from one or two passages in them. These regulations cover the need for schools to make adequate provision for religious worship, and so on. With such subjects as swimming lessons, for example, it is offensive to Moslem parents to let their children take part in mixed swimming lessons, changing for physical education, for the showers, and so on. One has to consider Moslems' susceptibilities on that.
Also diet. Bradford have introduced specially slaughtered meat, so-called "Halal" meat in their schools, and in Birmingham there is a special Moslem consultative committee. So I think one can say that a great many local education authorities are making adequate provision for these ethnic minorities, but there is no statutory provision. It is surely reasonable that we should have this on the statute book, and in fact in London itself these provisions have not caused any difficulty at all. Headmasters have accepted them with good grace.
But there are still areas—and this is very important—where there is hostility to Moslems. May I just quote very briefly? I assure the Committee that this is the only quotation I shall make. This relates to 1960, before the guidelines were issued in 1981, and it relates to a London school. This is from a teacher who was about to take his senior children to the London mosque to celebrate their religious ceremony corresponding roughly to our Christmas. This is what he says:
"The children were all wearing nice clothes and looking forward to the trip to the mosque. Half-an-hour before the departure the head teacher came into my classroom where I was teaching and told me that I could not take the children with me to the mosque. When I asked the reason, he just replied to me that in a Christian country there was only one festival and that was Christmas. So he did not allow me to take the children to the mosque."
11 p.m.
It is against the attitude of teachers like that that this amendment will provide. An important point to make here is that in the view of many sociologists the unrest, the trouble-making, the crime that we find among many of these ethnic communities, particularly but not exclusively the West Indians, stems very largely from frustration and a feeling that their cultural identity and their religious needs are not being properly realised. I feel that this amendment, by making adequate statutory provision for these needs, should go some way towards reducing the frustration which leads to crime.
May I emphasise once more that there is nothing difficult, nothing radical about this? It provides a great deal of flexibility, as the Committee will see. It allows teachers to make such provision where appropriate—in many cases, it may not be appropriate—and the
654
education authorities will not have to turn their schools upside down. For example, it should be very easy to let the Moslem children go and pray, to let the Greek Orthodox children attend their Christmas and Easter when these fall, as they do this year, during term time. We enjoy in this country a long-standing and widely respected reputation for tolerance towards the ethnic minorities, and surely the Government can demonstrate that that tolerance still applies by accepting this very simple, but at the same time most important, amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: We of course recognise the problem to which the noble Viscount has called our attention, and I can understand and sympathise with the intention behind this amendment. But I believe that it may have more far-reaching implications than the noble Viscount intends. I hope, by explaining relevant provisions elsewhere, to convince the noble Viscount that a further statutory requirement to this effect is an unnecessary addition to current arrangements.
Section 8 of the Education Act 1944 already places a general duty on local education authorities to secure the provision in their areas of sufficient schools in number, character and equipment to afford for all pupils opportunities for education offering such variety of instruction and training as may be desirable in view of their different ages, abilities and aptitudes. The noble Viscount himself quoted examples of what is already being done by certain local education authorities.
If I understand the noble Viscount correctly, he intends by his reference to adequate provision in his amendment that this general duty on local education authorities should be extended to head teachers and to governing bodies. In my view, this is clearly impractical. The purpose of Clauses 16 and 17 of the Bill which is now before the Committee, as has already been discussed at some length, is to give statutory definitions to the responsibilities of local education authorities, head teachers and governors to enable them to make adequate provision in terms of curricular policy and delivery of the secular curriculum. In meeting those responsibilities, the Government would expect that the cultural preferences of parents—for example, the provision, where appropriate, of single sex schools—will be given due regard.
The provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Education Act 1980 relating to the right of parental choice of school give effect within the limits of what is practical and feasible to the general provision in Section 76 of the 1944 Act that pupils should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.
The noble Viscount's amendment also refers to "cultural and religious attachment". I believe that the existing statutory provision for religious education makes adequate and sensible provision for the views and preferences of parents to be taken into account; and the Government have sought to encourage the revision of agreed syllabuses. About half of all authorities have revised their syllabuses in the past 10 years in a way that reflects a growing awareness of the multi-faith nature of their areas.
It would clearly be unrealistic, and would have considerable resource implications, to expect the

655
education system to make provision in its programmes of religious education for the religious affiliation of each individual pupil where a very small minority of perhaps only one child in a particular school is involved. The existing statutory provisions respect the views of individual parents by allowing them to withdraw their children from the school to receive religious education elsewhere if the school does not adequately reflect their views.
The Government have no plans to propose changes in the provisions of the 1944 Act relating to religious education which have stood the test of time. I hope therefore that the noble Viscount will be persuaded to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Buckmaster: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply although I do not find it entirely satisfying. I am convinced, as I indicated earlier, that there are areas where due concern is not being shown to the various needs of these minorities. Nevertheless, I am prepared to admit that there is a fairly extensive statutory provision for the type of concern that I have in mind. Perhaps I can express the hope that this matter will be kept under review.
We have debates from time to time on the ethnic minorities—I initiated one myself—and the subject comes up occasionally. It is an important subject. I know there is resistance in many parts of the country—and indeed, let me face it, in some parts of the Committee—to making special provision for any of the needs of the minorities. Of that I am fully aware. I hope that the noble Baroness and her colleagues, particularly those in the Department of Education and in the Home Office, will bear in mind the point I made about frustration because I think it is a very good one. The performance of local education authorities appears to me to be variable. I cannot pretend to be omniscient. I have not travelled all over the country; I have been to London, the Midlands, Bradford and so on.
In conclusion, I ask the noble Baroness to give me some assurance that the situation of minorities and their needs and problems will be borne in mind by the Government. If I can get an assurance on that basis I shall be happy to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hooper: I think I can give that assurance to the noble Viscount that these matters will be kept under review. The Swann Report is evidence of the Government's involvement.
Viscount Buckmaster: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): I am reminded that before the Committee discussed these last two amendments I failed to put the Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may ask a question of those responsible for the management of the Bill. How long do they suggest we should sit until
656
we adjourn? What stage in the Bill do the Government hope to reach tonight before we adjourn? I think it would be helpful to a number of us to know that.
The Earl of Swinton: I had understood originally that we were trying to get to Amendment No. 84A but I realise that there is little hope of doing that. I understand that we are to adjourn in approximately five minutes' time.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [County, controlled and maintained special schools]:
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 20, line 5, after ("make") insert ("publish").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak very briefly to this amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that the information indicated will be available on request to people having an interest in the school. An example of precedent for that kind of legal requirement is to be found in the Education Act 1980, which required all schools to make information on examination results available to parents on demand. That is important information in helping to choose a school that is most appropriate for children's interests, aptitudes and aspirations.
Sometimes, however, it was the case that schools failed to meet that obligation, and parents or others with a legitimate interest could subsequently claim their rights at law. It is similarly important that such a legal provision should be made in this amendment in regard to the important matter of school curricular. It is for that reason that I beg to move the amendment.
The Earl of Swinton: While speaking against this particular amendment, I must say that the intention behind it—the desire to ensure that parents and others are fully informed of the governors' statement of curricular aims—is one that I fully endorse. I hope, however, by explaining relevant provisions elsewhere in the Bill and in other legislation, to convince your Lordships' Committee that a further statutory requirement to that effect would be an unnecessary addition to current arrangements.
The present Bill contains provision, in Clauses 24 and 25, for governors to prepare and furnish parents with an annual report on their activities, which can be debated at an annual parents' meeting. I should be surprised if that report did not cover, in any year in which a statement of curricular aims was adopted or amended, an up-to-date record of those aims. If it did not, parents could request such a statement at the annual meeting. Indeed, they could certainly put in a request for the exam results, too.
In addition, local authorities are already charged under the Education Act 1980, as my noble friend has said, with publishing a range of information on individual schools. Regulations made by the Secretary of State set out in some detail what must be covered and include,
"particulars of the school curriculum".
Again, I should be surprised if that did not include, when the present Bill is made law, the governors' statement of curricular aims.

657
In those circumstances, to add a statutory requirement for a third publication about each school would seem to be unnecessarily complicated and expensive. If in the event the expectations I have expressed are not fulfilled, and if there is any difficulty in parents and others gaining access to such information, then I am sure that the Secretary of State would be prepared to consider amending the regulations made under the Education Act 1980 to ensure that the statement of aims was made public.
Lord Renton: My noble friend has tried to persuade the Committee that it is all right for the parents simply to wait until the governors' annual report or the parents' annual meeting, or for the reports by the governing body and the head teachers—all of which are well ex post facto. What we want is for the parents to have up-to-date written statements published as they are made, and kept up-to-date. The situation that my noble friend the Minister has described is quite different from that which my noble friend Lady Cox is seeking to meet. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend the Minister will take this point away and look at it—it is quite different.
The Earl of Swinton: The parents will have a lot of powers that they do not have now, to insist and to have a resolution passed at their annual meeting. If they have to wait one year, say, for the first annual meeting then they can thereafter insist on having the reports published as they come out. I do not believe that there is any great problem. To ask for three publications about each school really would be very expensive and unnecessary.
Baroness Cox: I deeply regret to say that my noble friend has not met the point that I raised very briefly and upon which my noble friend Lord Renton expanded. At this time of night it is too late to explain the reasons why we cannot say that we are satisfied. We will not press the amendment at this hour but we shall study very carefully that which my noble friend the Minister has said. We may return with a revised form of the amendment at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton: We have perhaps gone far enough, although not as far as I should like to have gone—or, I am sure, some of your Lordships. I think we are beginning to feel the strain, so I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past eleven o'clock.