Lords Sitting of 30 October 1986

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

Rifat Mehmet: Escape Inquiry
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 inquired into the causes of the escape from custody of Rifat Mehmet, who was serving a sentence of 18 years' imprisonment, and with what result.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, this was obviously a very serious incident. Police and internal inquiries were instigated at once. They are continuing. Your Lordships may be assured that we will take appropriate action in the light of the inquiries.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that not particularly informative reply, may I ask him whether it was not a strange error of judgment, in view of this man's record, the nature of his offence and the knowledge of the character of his associates, to bring him from prison in order to take part in civil proceedings in a London court? Did it not occur to those responsible that this might be part of a plot to secure his release?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the prisoner's solicitor asked for Mehmet to attend the court for a case which concerned his access to his child, whom he wished to be allowed to be brought to the prison to see him. On humanitarian grounds and in the interests of justice, on balance it was considered right for him to be produced at court. I have received no evidence to suggest that these civil court proceedings were contrived for the purpose of setting up an escape attempt. However, we cannot be sure until the inquiries have been completed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if this was not contrived, was it not a very curious coincidence that his armed associates happened to be in the approaches to the court on the one particular day on which he was brought to it? Are we really being told this was pure chance?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, when I used the word "contrived" I was talking about the instigation of the civil proceedings. I am not saying that we can rule out there being any collusion after the court proceedings had been set up.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is it not a privilege of most of us to be so wise after the event? Was it wrong, considering the humanity that was behind this decision, to allow this man to attend custody
786
proceedings which so much affected him? Even if this case proves to be one which did not deserve sympathy, ought one not to give credit to the Minister who did in fact sympathise on this occasion, and ought we to hope that his sympathy will not in future be removed from proper applicants?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. As I said, the decision was made on humanitarian grounds and, on balance, we believe it to have been the right decision.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that custody proceedings in respect of a child are of much interest or significance to a man sentenced to 18 years in prison? Would not the child be grown up by the time he was released anyhow?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. The case was concerned with whether the child could visit the prisoner in prison, rather than who had custody of the child and who would bring up the child.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister, I am sure, will correct my ignorance, but is it right for us to be discussing this case if it is subject to a judicial inquiry, as I understood him to say?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I actually said that an internal inquiry was taking place.

Discharged Prisoners: Identification
3.6 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 Her Majesty's Government whether discharged prisoners are given adequate documentary evidence of identity in a form acceptable to social security offices.
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, my Lords. All discharged prisoners are given a form which introduces them to their local DHSS office and contains details which assist the prompt consideration of claims for benefit.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for answering my Question, though the Answer is not a very satisfactory one. Does not the Minister agree that many prisoners on discharge cannot get their social security payment from the DHSS office, nor can they get their Giro cheque cashed if they are homeless and have no form of identification? Is he further aware that New Bridge, of which I am chairman, out of its slender resources often has to give £5 to a discharged offender so that he can get a copy of his birth certificate?
Does not the noble Lord think that it would be a good idea if prisons were to issue a standard form of identification to prisoners in order to stop them being destitute at a very vulnerable time, just after they have been released, when they might easily return to crime?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am well aware of the noble Baroness's work in this area. We are not aware that former prisoners, or indeed other claimants, have special difficulties compared with other citizens in establishing their identity. We have no national system of identity cards. We all have to rely on a range of licences, passes and other miscellaneous documents to establish our identities.
We have considered this matter but we concluded that it would be impossible for us to devise any identity document specifically for the use of former prisoners which did not carry the stigma of previous imprisonment.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, but does not the Minister agree that an ex-offender does not have a driving licence or those other forms of identification that others of us may have, and therefore he has no way of proving his identity at the post office or the DHSS office?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, once prisoners are discharged from prison they should really be treated no differently from any other citizen, and at one time or another we all have to prove our identity.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that NACRO, an organisation of the highest repute, says that ex-prisoners are finding difficulty in establishing their identity? I noted carefully what the Minister said concerning an identification document or form which is issued, but if the nature of that form causes the sort of problems that mean that an ex-prisoner who has served his sentence and paid for his crime is then faced with insuperable difficulties, this may well lead him ultimately to resort to further crime. Can the Minister not indicate that he is prepared to examine closely what NACRO tells us on this matter?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I must repeat that we are not aware of any substantial or widespread difficulties with the arrangements I have described. However, if the noble Lord has details of any specific case I should be delighted to look into that case.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of these substantial exchanges, perhaps the noble Lord would discuss the matter with his right honourable friend and ask him to think very carefully as to what may be done to assist in these cases. While I agree with what he says about identity cards, would it not be reasonable for the governor of a prison to give the affected person a letter when he leaves which may be produced by him to the appropriate authorities, to help him and to avoid any possibility that he may return to crime?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. Prison authorities give every discharged prisoner a form with a prison stamp which assists him in getting in touch with his DHSS office. Once the DHSS office has issued him with his appropriate entitlements, then an ex-offender has to cash his cheque just as any other person would, whether an ex-offender or not.

Long-Term Unemployed: Counselling Policy
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: 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 the current scheme for counselling interviews to assist the long-term unemployed into work includes an offer, where appropriate, of basic education in literacy, numeracy, and other skills.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the counselling interviews we have been conducting as part of the restart programme have indeed indicated that problems of numeracy and literacy can be a significant handicap for long-term unemployed people; and I am asking the Manpower Services Commission to let me have proposals for tackling this problem.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that extremely encouraging Answer. I think this is the first time that your Lordships will have heard this good news. Is the Minister aware that the adult literacy and basic skills unit, who specifically study these matters, estimate that probably one in five of the people who find themselves long-term unemployed have basic literacy, numeracy or other skills problems? Unless they can find somebody to help them, it is unlikely that they will ever he able either to find or sustain a job.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. It is true that this is the very first time that any industrialised country has engaged in interviewing all the long-term unemployed and I believe that we shall learn a great deal about the nature of long-term unemployment as a result. It may well be that up to one-fifth of those who have been out of work for more than a year suffer from literacy and numeracy skills difficulties and, if that is so, we shall have to consider what can be done about it. It is a sad reflection on over a century of compulsory education.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, following upon the Answer which the noble Lord has given, can he tell the House what the likely impact as a result of this counselling and these questions will be on the unemployment figures? I understand that it has been said that there is an expectation that the number of registered unemployed who have the counselling will be reduced by 10 per cent. Is that his estimate, and what impact will that have on the unemployment figures? Can the noble Lord also say if a failure to follow the instructions given by the counsellors, whether the individual is illiterate or not, will result in the automatic suspension of benefit for 13 weeks? If this is so, why 13 weeks, and what is an example of a failure of literacy?
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord McCarthy: Perhaps he can read the answers!
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, should know full well that I do not need to read any answers on this particular subject, and the noble Lord will also know full well the rules which the House has adopted for answering Questions. This is a long way from literacy and numeracy, but if the noble Lord wishes to ask those particular questions, he is perfectly at liberty to put them down and I shall be more than happy to answer.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister recollect that he has just spoken about the great number of illiterate people among the long-term unemployed and has expressed regret in regard to it? Does he also recollect the question that I dared to put to him the other day about the effect of long questionnaires which are almost a torture for the illiterate? Does he further, and lastly, recollect that he completely misunderstood my question and got unnecessarily angry?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, as to the last part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I did not get unnecessarily angry. I thought at the time I got necessarily angry. But that is a matter of opinion. We are dealing with the particular problem of long-term unemployment. We may well find—we may not; we have yet to see the results of the surveys—that there is a far greater proportion of illiterate and innumerate people among the long-term unemployed. That is an entirely different question from that of ability to answer a very short questionnaire, with help of course from the staff of the benefit office, about the nature of the job someone has just had and the nature of the job being looked for.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that we should pay tribute to the volunteer tutors in this country who are helping and giving lessons to those who are illiterate? I think that the value of this amounts to the equivalent of £9 million. Does my noble friend the Minister also agree that to pursue this very good policy we should perhaps have more paid organisers for this work?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I think it is best for the moment to determine the size of the problem before looking for a remedy for it. I hope that by the time the first Restart interviews have taken place, we shall have a much better indication of the size of the problem among the long-term unemployed.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the case of the Jobclub experiment the problems are to a considerable extent overcome by the devotion and help of the staff who assist the long-term unemployed in making their applications? In other words, there is already some help being given in the Jobclub to people who have problems in drafting letters, and this has been a great and very helpful feature. In my own town, I am sure it has helped to lead to an enormous success rate in the Jobclub experiment.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I
790
join him in paying tribute to the work of the Manpower Services Commission in the Jobclubs, and to the help that they give to assist those who are out of work to get back into employment.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, when the noble Lord has established the size of the problem, will he consider asking the Manpower Services Commission whether they will devote some of their resources to establishing better aid for adult illiteracy, because, as the noble Baroness indicated, it is based on a lot of part-time and voluntary effort? Furthermore, is the noble Lord aware that many of the volunteers are somewhat frustrated by the lack of a proper structure?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I have asked the Manpower Services Commission to let me have proposals for tackling this problem, but I wish to make very clear the problem that we are discussing. It is the problem of illiteracy and innumeracy among the long-term unemployed. But despite all the great achievements of the Manpower Services Commission, I do not think we could put it at their door to solve any other problems of illiteracy and innumeracy.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that many further education courses are very difficult to follow if one is basically innumerate or illiterate, and that embarrassment sometimes causes people to drop out of courses midway for that very reason?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. That is the reason these proposals are quite serious for the long-term unemployed; why we are hoping to learn more about them; and why I hope, in the fullness of time, to have proposals for tackling the problem.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that there will be a general welcome for some constructive approach to the problems outlined by the noble Baroness who asked the original Question, and that I for one would certainly welcome an extension of training in that area? Can he give me some clarification on one point? If a man or a woman who is long-term unemployed accepts such a course, or any other course, and there is no job at the end of that course—I am assuming that during the period of the course such a person is, under the new rules, not available for work—will he or she revert to the normal unemployment register, as opposed to being long-term unemployed?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we must take into account the nature of the course. I suspect that most literacy and numeracy courses would be part-time courses and would result in the individual not going off the register at all. Therefore if he or she were long-term unemployed, he or she would continue to be long-term unemployed. On the other hand, if it were a skills course which was a full-time occupation of sufficient duration and was perceived to be such, people would go off the register and, in those circumstances, after the six-months' course at the skillcentre would go back on the register—if he or she was unfortunate enough not to find a job—as a new

791
unemployed person and not as a long-term unemployed person. That has always been the rule, but only in those circumstances.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is it not the case that the noble Lord the Minister informed us very recently that the questionnaire to be submitted to the long-term unemployed is a questionnaire to take away and fill in? In those circumstances, can he kindly tell us how many questions are on this questionnaire to be answered by those people who unfortunately cannot read any of the questions?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. In fact, I read out each and every question to your Lordships' House at the time of making the Statement. There are 12 questions. It is a slightly different point, but they cover no more than, "What was your last job? What is the next job that you are looking for? What was your last salary? What sort of salary are you looking for? What hours can you work each day?" Where someone is illiterate, I have no doubt that the officer of the benefit service dealing with the case can help the person fill in the questionnaire at the time, but there are circumstances in which people can take it away and bring it back next day. But I say again that there is no sense of deterrence in the report. It is to ensure that everybody knows that since 1948, and reaffirmed in 1975 legislation, benefit is only for those who are available for work.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the Secretary of State confirm that there are now waiting lists of long-term unemployed who are anxious to remedy their lack of the basic skills referred to in the original Question? Does his encouraging Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, indicate that the Government are willing to provide any additional resources that are needed to meet the demand?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I think that we should not take this too far too soon. What we have seen from the first few months' operation of the Restart programme is that there could well be a problem of innumeracy and illiteracy among the long-term unemployed. I have asked the Manpower Services Commission to let me have proposals for tackling this problem. I think that we should wait to see, first, the extent of the problem, and, secondly, what those proposals are before we start making any other suggestions.
3.27 p.m.

Nuclear Power Stations: Jobs
Lord Rodney: 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 jobs would be put at risk if the nuclear power stations were phased out as recommended at the Labour Party Conference.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, well over 100,000 jobs depend directly or indirectly on the nuclear industry. In addition, nuclear power makes an important contribution to keeping electricity prices down, and hence to the competitiveness of UK industry. There are some 800,000 jobs alone in industries which use the largest amounts of electricity. Many of these could be put at risk in these highly competitive sectors.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that Answer. If the nuclear power stations were phased out as is recommended, or proposed, by Her Majesty's Opposition, can he say what is the availability of alternative jobs in the vicinity of those nuclear power stations?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, most of our nuclear industry is situated in areas of high unemployment and I should have thought that closing down an entire industry is a strange way of solving our unemployment problem.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not extraordinary that a Question about jobs comes from a member of a party which has caused unemployment to rise by 2¼ million since 1979? Also, is the noble Viscount aware that under a Labour Government additional new jobs will be created and that we shall reduce unemployment by 1 million in two years? Is the noble Viscount further aware that Labour Party policy on nuclear power reflects a growing public concern about the safety of nuclear energy following the Chernobyl accident? Is not our cautious approach far better than the Government's gadarene gallop to introducing into this country the pressurised water reactor, which has never been built here, has never operated here and is inherently less safe than the AGR?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I find it extremely strange that a party which is promising, if elected, to reduce the unemployment figures by 1 million, should at the same time adopt a policy which could lead to an increase in the figures by the same number. With regard to safety, the nuclear industry is subject to the rigorous systems of safety assurance. Nuclear power stations are subject to the controls of the statutory independent watchdog—the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate—at all stages of their life, from initial design through construction and operation to maintenance and inspection, and we have complete faith in their future.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that even if we were to phase out nuclear power stations in this country we would still need to protect our people from fall-out caused by nuclear accidents on the Continent? Is he further aware that nuclear power stations have the advantage that they do not cause acid rain which is created by fossil fuels?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I agree with everything he said.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, will the noble Viscount agree that the question as to whether

793
phasing out affects in a positive or a negative way the level of unemployment depends entirely upon the employment required by the substitute which is being phased in; and that an answer saying that phasing out, without referring to the demands of phasing in, means so many unemployed, is simply dishonest?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will ask his colleagues what is being phased in.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I shall tell the noble Viscount in a moment.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are now some 450 nuclear power stations in the world? Is it not a fact that the casualties arising from these are fewer than one-hundredth of the tragic casualties that arise from people who continue to mine coal? Will my noble friend bear in mind that if our own nuclear power stations are progressively closed down we will be able to rely on the French supply by the cable, across the Channel where the French are expanding their nuclear power stations and producing electricity very much more cheaply as a result?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with regards to the last part of my noble friend's question, we shall be able to continue to rely on power coming from France if this Government are re-elected, but not if the Opposition are elected.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the noble Lord, Lord Paget, makes a valid point when he says that if—and I use the word "it deliberately—a policy of phasing out nuclear energy is carried out, it follows as sure as night follows day that a substitute has to be brought in? That substitute may be more labour-intensive than the nuclear energy industry. Are we not listening to only one side of the equation, and is that fair at this stage?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am afraid that at the moment there is only one side of the equation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the proportion of electricity generated from nuclear power stations is considerably more at present in Scotland than in England and Wales, and that the risk of unemployment would accordingly cause great anxiety in Scotland?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am indeed aware of that.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Viscount agree, as I am sure he will, that one of the strongest arguments in favour of the advocates of nuclear energy is that it is not labour-intensive? Is not the truth of the matter, particularly in relation to coal that the number of people employed is many times greater than the number employed in the nuclear industry? Therefore, there is not the slightest substance in the argument put forward by the noble Viscount. Does he not agree that there may be other reasons for being for or against nuclear power, but that the labour argument does not stand up?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as usual, I have to say that I am sure the noble Lord will not expect me to agree with him.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that if we go to coal, which is probably the only major alternative to nuclear power, the problem is not only one of acid rain but of the greenhouse effect? Is he aware that all scientific evidence today indicates that this could be absolutely disastrous to our civilisation? Is it not folly to give up nuclear power and merely have to go into another area where the risks are far greater for future generations?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I entirely agree. We believe that nuclear power has a vital role in meeting the world's energy demands over the coming decades as fossil fuel reserves are run down.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Viscount asked a question and I shall do my best to answer it. Is the noble Viscount aware that the United States has not built a nuclear power station for the past ten years? Is he also aware that the Labour Party policy would involve building new coal-fired stations, it would involve combined heat and power, it would involve better insulation of homes, it would involve more research on renewable sources of energy, and that indeed all those together would create far more than the 100,000 jobs which he mentioned in his opening Answer?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not propose to debate that point at the moment. All I can say is that I am speaking for the Government, not for the United States or the Opposition.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, Prorogation will take place on Friday 7th November at half past nine o'clock in the morning. It is expected that no other business will be transacted that day.
At a convenient moment this afternoon my noble friend Lady Hooper will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions.

Education Bill [H.L.]
3.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments he now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 1, I am advised that I should draw the attention of the House to two corrections which should be made on

795
the list. These are as follows. First, on page 14 in the last line of the clause numbered subsection (8), the word "it" should read "he". In Amendment No. 100 on page 19 the line reference which is missing should be line 5. I hope the House will agree that these are minor corrections.

Education Bill [H.L.]
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [References are to [Bill 168] as first printed for the Commons]

  COMMONS AMENDM
  1 Clause 2, page 2, line 26, after "body" insert "and the head teacher".
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. The Government accepted at the Committee stage in another place that the head teacher should be consulted over the new or amended instrument or articles of government for the school and, in response to the Opposition amendment, to make the reference explicit. This is what this amendment does, and similar amendments in respect of grouped governing bodies and temporary governing bodies are contained in Amendments Nos. 108 and 110.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Young.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  2 Clause 5, page 6, line 34, leave out "may be appointed by the authority" and insert "shall be appointed by the other members of the governing body.".
  3 Page 6, line 39, leave out "local education authority" and insert "other members of the governing body".
  4 Page 7, line 7, leave out "authority" and insert "other members of the governing body".
  5 Page 7, line 10, leave out "the local education authority" and insert "governors".
  6 Page 7, line 22, after "the", insert "local education".
  Baroness Young: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 en bloc. This group of amendments provides for "parent proxies" to be appointed by the other members of the governing body, rather than by the LEA. The Government accepted the thrust of Opposition amendments moved at the Committee stage in another place that, where either an insufficient number of parents stand for election as parent governors or where the LEA has determined that elections for parent governors for a residential or a hospital school would be impractical, the other governors rather than the LEA should appoint proxy parent governors because they are likely to have closer links with the parent body than is the LEA.
  There are consequential amendments to Clause 7, Amendments Nos. 12 and 14, and to Clause 53, Amendment No. 99.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Young.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  7 After Clause 5 insert the following new clause:
  Connection with local business community.
  "The instrument of government for any county, controlled or maintained special school shall provide for it to be the duty of the governors concerned, in co-opting any person to be a member of the governing body (otherwise than as a foundation governor)—

  (a) to have regard—

  (i) to the extent to which they and the other governors are members of the local business community; and

  (ii) to any representations made to the governing body as to the desirability of increasing the connection between the governing body and that community; and

  (b) where it appears to them that no governor of the school is a member of the local business community, or that it is desirable to increase the number of governors who are, to co-opt a person who appears to them to be a member of that community;".

  Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. I shall be speaking also to Amendments Nos. 15, 17, 109, 112 to 114 and 127. The new clause in Amendment No. 7 will forge vital links between school governing bodies and the business community. It will require the governors making either initial or subsequent co-options to consider first whether the existing governors are members of the local business community and to consider any representations made to them on the desirability of increasing the connection between the governing body and the local business community.
  If either no existing governor is a member of the local business community or if they consider that the connection should be strengthened, the governing body will be under a duty to make an appropriate co-option. These objectives are applied also to grouped governing bodies by Amendment No. 15 to Clause 9 and to temporary governing bodies by Amendment No. 109.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Young.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  8 Clause 6, page 7, line 36, after "shall" insert ", if the school has less than 100 registered pupils,".
  9 Page 8, line 2, at end insert "; and shall if it has more than 99 registered pupils, provide for two governors to be so appointed.
  (3A) Where, by virtue of subsection (3) above, an instrument of government is required to provide for the appointment of two governors, it may make different provision in relation to the appointment of one governor to that made in relation to the appointment of the other.".
  10 Page 8, line 9, leave out "a" and insert "any"
  11 Page 8, line 18, after "one" insert "or (as the case may be) two".
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 en bloc. These amendments provide for two representatives of voluntary organisations on the governing bodies of all but the smallest category of maintained special schools.
  Places reserved for voluntary organisation representatives are at the expense of co-options to the governing body. Increasing the number of such

  797
  representatives to two on the smallest category of governing body would have left only one place to be filled by co-option, and the Government felt it would leave too little scope for flexibility in the hands of the governing body. They could of course co-opt an additional member from a relevant voluntary organisation if they felt this to have a high priority. For the larger maintained special schools, it was accepted that the balance of advantage lay in their having two representatives of the appropriate voluntary organisation or organisations on their governing body, rather than one.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Young.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  12 Clause 7, page 9, line I, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
  "(4A) Any foundation governor of a voluntary school, or governor of a county, voluntary or maintained special school appointed otherwise than by being co-opted, may be removed from office by the person or persons who appointed him.
  For the purposes of this subsection, a governor appointed in accordance with am provision made by virtue of section 5 of this Act shall be treated as having been co-opted.".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. This amendment has the effect of removing the provision allowing a co-opted governor to be removed from office by those governors responsible for co-opting him in the first place. This does not apply to co-opted foundation governors; they, and other appointed governors, may be removed from office by those who appointed them. Elected parent and teacher governors cannot be removed from office. The second part of the amendment provides that appointed parent proxies cannot be removed from office and thus puts them on the same basis as elected parent governors.
  On reflection, the Government felt that co-opted governors could be put in a somewhat invidious position by being liable to be removed from office by their fellow governors and that it would be possible that they would be constrained from playing a full part in the governing body's proceedings and from maintaining an independent stance if they feared that by stepping out of line they would be likely to be removed from the office. The partners in the education service were consulted, and it was clear that no particularly strong views on this point were held either way.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  13 Page 9, line 23, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 25.
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. At the same time, it may be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 98. The
  798
  purpose of this amendment is to enable regulations to be made to provide for public access to the documents of school and college governing bodies. Unlike the previous reference in Clause 7, which is removed by Amendment No. 13, the new clause extends to colleges as well as schools.
  The Government will consult widely in draft on the regulations. It is intended to specify that the agendas, papers and minutes of governing bodies should be available for inspection at the school or college concerned, and at all the schools grouped under a single governing body. It is intended to provide that references to disciplinary matters concerning named individuals, whether pupils or staff, and to discussion of named individuals as potential members of staff should remain confidential.
  Moved, That this House do ageee with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  14 Page 9, line 26, after "required" insert "for the purposes of making appointments in accordance with any provision made by virtue of section 5 of this Act or".
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Young.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  15 Clause 9, page 12, line 38, after "to" insert "5, (connection with local business community) and".
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Young.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  3.45 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  16 Clause 14, page 18, line 17, at end insert—
  "(4A) The arrangements made under subsection (2)(b) above shall, in the case of any election of a parent governor, provide for every person who is entitled to vote in the election to have an opportunity to do so by post or, if he so prefers, by having his ballot paper returned to the school by a registered pupil at the school.".
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16. This amendment, again, was made during Committee stage in the Commons and fulfils the undertaking given by the Government at Third Reading in your Lordships' House to provide for a postal ballot in parent-governor elections. It also allows the possibility of pupil post being used. The arrangements do not extend to teacher-governor elections because it is thought unlikely that teachers should experience difficulty in registering their vote in person at the school.

  799
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Young.)
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baronesses will not think I have been churlish in failing to respond to the amendments which, as the Government have said, have been made in response to Opposition pressure. However, we appreciate the way in which the Government have taken account of the views expressed by the various opposition parties on this part of the Bill.
  In this particular case, the question of postal ballots was debated in this Chamber not only in Committee but also on Report and on Third Reading, and we are particularly grateful to see that the point we made, perhaps with inadequate wording, has been taken care of in the amendment now proposed, which has our strong support.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  17 Page 19, line 10, after "provision", insert "(otherwise than by virtue of section (connection with local business community) of this Act)".
  18 Clause 16, page 20, line 18, leave out second "and".
  19 Page 20, line 19, leave out "publish" and insert "make".
  20 Page 20, line 20, at end insert "; and
  (c) to furnish the governing body and head teacher of every such school with a copy of the statement and publish it in such other manner as the authority consider appropriate.".
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17, and Amendments Nos. 18 to 20. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 22.
  Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 and No. 22 clarify the meaning of "publish" currently in Clause 16(1)(b). It is clearly desirable that the LEA's statement of curricular policy should be widely available and of easy access. As copies have to be in each school, it is sensible to require schools to make them available for inspection. Similarly, Amendment No. 28 provides for public access to the governing body's statement on the curriculum.
  I am grateful for the words of the noble Lord opposite and I am glad that he has accepted that the Government have made a great many responses to amendments put down either in your Lordships' House or in the other place.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Young.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  21 Page 20, line 25, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21. This amendment and Amendment No. 83 are, in effect, tidying-up amendments because in looking at the Bill as a whole we did not feel the new provisions concerning LEAs,
  800
  governing bodies and head teachers and political indoctrination were best placed as subsections (2) and (3) in Clause 16, which is principally about the LEA's duty to state its curricular policy. Amendments Nos. 21 and 83 consequently move those provisions to a free-standing clause before Clause 39.
  The wording here has been slightly modified. The reference to "junior pupils" rather than "primary schools- ensures that all pupils of primary school age are covered; and it is made clearer that the provisions apply also to activities off the school premises.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Young.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  22 Page 20, line 36, at end insert—
  "(4) Every head teacher to whom any copy of a statement is furnished under this section shall make it available, at all reasonable times, to persons wishing to inspect it".
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Young.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  23 Clause 17, page 21, line 6, after "policy", insert "with regard to matters other than sex education".
  24 Page 21, line 9, at end insert—
  (1A) The articles of government for every such school shall provide for it to be the duty of the governing body—

  (a) to consider separately (while having regard to the local education authority's statement under section 16 of this Act) the question whether sex education should form part of the secular curriculum for the school; and

  (b) to make, and keep up to date, a separate written statement—

  (i) of their policy with regard to the content and organisation of the relevant part of the curriculum; or

  (ii) where they conclude that sex education should not form part of the secular curriculum, of that conclusion".

  25 Page 21, line 12, leave out "subsection (1)" and insert "subsections (1) and (1A)".
  26 Page 21, line 23, leave out "such statement" and insert "statement under subsection (1) above".
  27 Page 21, line 25, leave out "such statement" and insert "statement under this section".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 23 to 27 en bloc. It may be for the convenience of the House to discuss Amendments Nos. 29 to 32 at the same time.
  We have on previous occasions debated at some length the important issues associated with the provision of sex education in schools. I should like, if I may, to take a few minutes of your Lordships' time to rehearse briefly the Bill's provisions in relation to this aspect of schools' work. In particular, I should like to explain the effect of the amendments which have been introduced in another place, and a little of the thinking which lies behind them.

  801
  Clause 24 seeks to ensure that any sex education offered in maintained schools is set within a sound moral context and is supportive of family life. This clause was introduced by the Government in this House in recognition of the need to offer a clear statement, in primary legislation, of the essential principles which should inform provision in this uniquely sensitive area of the curriculum. For the majority of schools and teachers who approach their work in a responsible manner the clause is simply an endorsement of their "good practice". However, for those teachers who may be uncertain of how to approach their task or who may not have thought through sufficiently carefully what is required of them, the clause offers a clear framework for their efforts. I believe that this clause will do much to ensure that all teaching in this area lives up to the standard which parents have a right to expect.
  However, as noble Lords will be aware, concern has been growing over recent months about reports of the use of extremist and educationally unsound teaching methods and materials in the sex education field in certain authorities and schools. Parents in particular have, understandably, been alarmed by these reports, and have been anxious to see their children safeguarded from these influences. Whilst Clause 24 will do much to prevent such abuses, the Government have decided that further action is needed to give parents a greater say in the provision offered to their children in this most difficult and sensitive aspect of schools' work.
  The amendments which have been made to Clause 17 in another place will effectively transfer control over sex education from teachers and local education authorities and give it instead to the new-style governing bodies provided for under the Bill, which will have increased parental representation and will be accountable to an annual meeting of the full parent body. The governors will be responsible for deciding whether sex eduction should be given in the school and, if so, what should be its content and organisation. This is broad1y the position already in voluntary aided schools. They will he able to determine the particular textbooks and teaching materials to be used in the classroom—and those not to be used—and to decide how, and indeed whether, particularly controversial sexual issues, such as homosexuality, should be approached by teachers. The governors will also have the discretion—presently exercised by head teachers—to decide whether, in certain circumstances, individual parents will be able to withdraw their children from particular sex education lessons to which they object.
  I am confident that the measures proposed by the Government will ensure that unsuitable methods and materials are not imposed on pupils against parents' wishes. The Government remain firmly committed to appropriate and responsible sex education as an essential aspect of preparing pupils for the realities and responsibilities of adult life. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. As I understand the
  802
  amendments, the governing body may decide not to have sex education in the school for which they are responsible, and I suppose this means that parents of children attending that school who would like their children to have sex education cannot insist upon it. In a school in which the governors have decided to have sex education, they decide the form, content and organisation of it, and I understood the Minister to say a moment ago that it may be open to parents who object to particular sections of sex education to withdraw their children from them; but where the governors have decided to have sex education, it is not possible for a parent to withdraw a child completely from it.
  I wonder whether I have it right. It seems to me to lead to the conclusion that parents who want their children to have sex education will not be able to insist upon it. It also means that the teachers in schools in which there is no sex education will have no duty imposed upon them in that regard, but in schools where sex education has been decided upon the teachers presumably will or may be under some obligation to perform a duty in connection with the sex education syllabus. This seems to leave the parents in a position of disadvantage in some cases, and will also vary the conditions of service of the teachers themselves who will be required to help with sex education in some schools and be excused from undertaking any such duties in other schools. I hope that those points can be cleared up.
  I can only say that I approve of the general spirit and conditions in which it is proposed to deal with this controversial matter. Men of my generation, of course, had no sex education. We only had discovery and experience. I am not quite sure whether sex education is a form of applied science and could be regarded as a parallel with other specialist subjects in the curriculum. One day perhaps we could have a lesson in a committee room, with slides if they are provided, so that we can see what sex education in schools means and be better able to make a judgment upon it. I confess that I am completely ignorant about what goes on in schools in respect of sex education and I imagine that many other noble Lords are in the same position. Be that as it may, we are probably doing the best we can with a difficult subject, but I think that the anomalies to which I have referred should not be overlooked.
  Baroness Cox: My Lords, I wonder whether I can help the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, with one or two very brief examples which may assist in understanding the thinking behind the Government amendments, which I strongly support. Let me say that it is very unfortunate that we have to have these amendments, because in many schools there is a lot of very good work being done by conscientious teachers concerning sex education; this is much appreciated by parents and pupils. But I am afraid that it is a problem of some local authorities in London—and not only in London, but in other areas as well—who are developing an approach to sex education which I think most of us would agree is a complete inversion of the moral values and the kind of approach to sex education that most parents would wish.

  803
  For example, some authorities are encouraging in a very positive way the teaching of homosexuality. I am in favour of reducing victimisation, but actively to promote homosexuality and actively to attack heterosexuality is something about which many parents are deeply disturbed and why parents in Haringey have been taking a very courageous stand against what has been accepted in their area. Let me give your Lordships one or two examples. A relatively recent publication called Tackling Heterosexism—a Handbook of Lesbian Rights, produced by the GLC Women's Committee, has since been brought out by the other London boroughs. Among its recommendations are that ILEA and other LEAs should adopt the following course:
  "That resources should be put into developing materials and changing the curricula in order effectively to challenge heterosexism in lessons at all stages from primary schools up to colleges of further education and that a variety of materials be developed—e.g. videos for use in lessons which would raise the issues of heterosexism and present lesbians in a positive light".
  Perhaps we might have one of those videos for the noble Lord to see.
  Let me give another recommendation:
  "That heterosexism awareness training should be introduced as a compulsory part of in-service training and during teacher training programmes … That head teachers and school governors give positive support to anti-heterosexist initiatives and that schools should welcome lesbian representatives on school boards and in parent-teacher associations".
  Another recent publication from ILEA is called Positive Images: A Resources Guide for Teaching about Homosexuality, including Lesbian and Gay Literature for Use in the Library and Classroom. This is quite a large and substantial publication. It also recommends ways in which the attitudes of LEAs to homosexuality and heterosexuality are not just to be confined to classes on sex education but are to go through the whole curriculum. I quote:
  "The materiography is divided into curriculum areas to make clear that homosexuality and lesbianism are as relevant to history, religious education, music, child development or science, as to English, health education or social studies".
  In my borough of Brent, the policy commitments in its Labour manifesto of the May 1986 elections adopt the following policy:
  "Brent Labour Council will campaign for the GLC Lesbian and Gay Rights charter to be adopted by Brent. They will provide heterosexism awareness training for all employees, with the assistance of recognised trainers. They will give all councillors, co-optees, governors and officers full training in racism and sexism awareness".
  That will be followed by an assessment and anyone who fails will be unable to sit on interview panels.
  The Orwellian nature of those proposals means of course that in future all appointments committees will be packed with those who are ideologically correct and of an approved sexual orientation.
  One other disturbing development which is on the horizon is that the London Gay Teachers' Group has recently expressed sympathy with and support for paedophiles. It is against that kind of background that the results of the recent poll published by the National Council for Christian Standards needs to be seen. That poll showed that a significant majority—59 per cent.—of parents wanted to have the right to withdraw
  804
  their children from sex education classes, compared with 31 per cent. who did not want to do so.
  I have talked to a number of parents who are understandably worried about these developments. They are also worried about what will happen if politicised local education authorities' governing bodies politicise parents so that the governing bodies are also politicised. Some parents would like me to ask my noble friend the Minister whether, if there is a problem over appealing to governing bodies, in due course there may be a contingent plan for direct appeals to the Secretary of State. I should be grateful if that thought were to be touched upon in the Minister's reply.
  It is because of the seriousness of the examples that I have given that I give wholehearted support to the amendments. I regret that they are necessary, but I think that they provide some safeguard for parents caught in the trap of a system with schools teaching in ways that they cannot tolerate.
  4 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no wish to delay the House or to prolong the debate. In any reply that the Minister wishes to make to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will she bear in mind that in surveys 95 per cent. of parents have expressed their satisfaction with the sex education in schools given to their children?
  Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I do not want unduly to prolong the discussion. This matter was discussed at considerable length in another place one night last week until everyone was exhausted, and I should hate your Lordships to become so. I am a little worried that the Government do not have governing bodies quite right. They are aiming in the right direction, but there is a tendency to assume that if a responsibility is handed to governing bodies all problems are solved.
  We must bear in mind that governing bodies are not companies of sense. They sometimes include ambitious people. I understand that some people collect governorships. After all, it is a prestigious post to hold. One can include it as an item in one's curriculum vitae. Such people may not be entirely altruistic. They may not even be consumers. The Government of course are keen to appeal to consumers. In many schools members of the governing body do not have children at the school. I know of one school where half the members of the governing body educate their children privately. They cannot necessarily be described as consumers. Members of governing bodies are concerned only with the interests of their own child or children. What they want for their own child may not be good for the other children. Indeed what they want for their own child may not be good for that child. They are not always the best people to know. We must bear in mind that the handing of such a responsibility to the governing body does not solve all problems. Alas, local education authority governors remain political appointees.
  With regard to sex education, I should like to reiterate the figure quoted by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that over 90 per cent. of parents want their

  805
  children to receive some sort of sex education. Her Majesty's inspectors say that it should take place. In a recent pamphlet which I cannot identify at the moment, but which I will, they say that sex education should take place in schools. However, it appears that a governing body can negate that recommendation. Surely there is something wrong about that.
  Let us hope that the present proposal will at least do no harm, and that governing bodies will work in close co-operation with head teachers, their deputies and all the staff who have the responsibility for handling this sensitive matter. I hope that a happy solution will be found to a difficult problem in most schools.
  Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this debate until it became clear to me that literally hundreds of thousands of parents—and possibly millions—are deeply concerned about the way in which sex education is going in this country. I welcome the improvements that the Government are trying to make in this sphere; but, nevertheless, at the moment there are literally hundreds of thousands of caring, responsible parents who are deeply concerned about the matter. That is why I felt that I should address your Lordships.
  I, like the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, am in a bit of a quandary over the regulations. I hope that the noble Baroness can clear up this matter. I was under the impression—I hope that she will correct me if I am wrong—that on 22nd October in another place when this matter was debated at great length it was decided that parents are not to be allowed to withdraw their children from sex education if they find it unsatisfactory. I shall be delighted if I am wrong about that. I hope that I am. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness can answer that point.
  If parents cannot withdraw their children, will she give some words of comfort to those hundreds of thousands of deeply concerned parents and say that there will be some method of appeal which they can use if they are not satisfied with the treatment that their children are receiving? That would be extremely helpful. I heard recently about a headmaster in an outer London district. He was asked by a parent what could be done about it. The only advice that he could give was that the parents should move to another area where the sex education was more to their liking. It is for you to judge, my Lords, but we are in a pretty kettle of fish if people have to move to another area to receive satisfaction in this highly sensitive matter. I hope that the noble Baroness can give us some reassurance on this matter.
  Lord Somers: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in the debate and I shall not be more than a few moments. Sex education, like most other subjects, very much depends upon the quality of the person who is teaching it. It is a little late in the day to try and propose such a thing now, but is it not possible to insist that it is taught only by a qualified medial practitioner, or someone similar, who will teach it from the right point of view and not from what one might describe as a slightly "gay" point of view?
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, this has been yet another interesting debate. I am glad that so many of
  806
  your Lordships share the Government's commitment to appropriate sex education and to the need to take steps to tackle the problem of irresponsible and inappropriate teaching. I gladly confirm that the Government acknowledge that in the vast majority of cases teachers approach this difficult task in a responsible and sensitive manner.
  It was welcome to receive the general seal of approval of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and the benefit of his experience. I feel unable to give him any undertaking on the subject of lessons. He raised an important point which has been repeated by other noble Lords. Broadly speaking, he is right. If governors decide not to provide sex education, parents who want it will be unable to opt in. But if a sufficient number of parents want sex education, they should be able to influence the governing body accordingly through their membership of the governing body and through the annual meeting of parents, to which that body is subject. The whole intention behind the Bill is to increase parent power and to enable it to operate effectively in this sort of way.
  However, under the proposed new arrangements, the governors will, of course, still have the discretion, on the other side of the coin, where there are irreconcilable differences between the school's policies and the views of an individual parent, to allow a particular pupil to be excused from a certain lesson. I should, however, say in response to my noble friend Lord Ashbourne, that the Government remain firmly opposed to the introduction of a statutory parental right of withdrawal in relation to sex education as being wrong in principle and unworkable in practice. Much of the debate last week in another place turned on this point.
  My noble friend Lady Cox asked how we can cope with politicised governing bodies. This is a matter that the Government will keep under review. These are new arrangements and, to some extent, we have to see how they work in practice. But parents will be able to pass resolutions at the annual parents' meeting. They will also be able, as now, to complain to the Secretary of State about any abuse of governors' powers. All this reinforces the importance of encouraging proper local democracy and the importance of having the right people as school governors.
  In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, we are looking to quite new kinds of governing bodies in the new situation. These would be much more broadly based, and much more accountable and open to the whole parent body. As for collecting governorships, no person may under regulations hold more than five governorships in total. I believe that I have covered the points raised in the debate. I hope that your Lordships will confirm the Commons in these amendments.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  28 Page 21, line 25, at end insert—
  "(2A) The articles of government for every such school shall provide for it to be the duty of the head teacher to make any statement furnished to him under this section available at all reasonable times, to persons wishing to inspect it.".
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Young.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  29 Page 21, line 35, leave out "that" and insert "those".
  30 Page 22, line 2, after "(i)", insert—
  "so far as it relates to sex education, is compatible with the governing body's policy (as expressed in their statement under subsection (1A) above) except where that policy is incompatible with any part of the syllabus for a course which forms part of that curriculum and leads to a public examination;
  (ii) so far as it relates to other matters,".
  31 Page 22, line 6, after "statement", insert "under subsection (1) above".
  32 Page 22, line 12, leave out "subsection (1)" and insert "subsections (1) and (1A)".
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 29 to 32 en bloc.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Young.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  33 Clause 18, page 23, line 8, at end insert—

  "(2) The articles of government for every such school shall provide for it to be the duty of the governing body, when considering the content of the secular curriculum for the school, to have regard—

  (a) to any representations which are made to them, with regard to that curriculum by any persons connected with the community served by the school; and

  (b) to any such representations which—

  (i) are made to them by the chief officer of police; and

  (ii) are connected with his responsibilities.

  (3) Where the governing body of any such school make any statement in writing of their policy as to the secular curriculum for the school they shall furnish a copy of it to the head teacher; and the head teacher shall make it available, at all reasonable times, to persons wishing to inspect it.".

  Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33. This extends to aided and special agreement schools the same requirements as those in Clause 17(2), which apply to county, controlled and maintained special schools, that the governing body have regard to representations from the community and the police when formulating their statement of the secular curriculum. However, it acknowledges that aided and special agreement school governing bodies may not make a statement on the content of the secular curriculum. The second part of the amendment provides that, if such a statement is made, the head teacher is to allow public access to it at the school.
  The churches and other voluntary school interests were consulted before the amendments were tabled, and I understand that they welcomed them. It was accepted that it is clearly right that the community served by an aided school should have, and be seen to
  808
  have, the same right to be heard on the secular curriculum as that served by any other type of school.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Young.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  4.15 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  34 Clause 21, divide Clause 21 into four clauses, the first consisting of page 23, line 38 to page 24, line 35, the second of page 24, line 36 to page 25, line 19, the third of page 25, line 20 to page 26, line 11 and the fourth of page 26, line 12 to page 27, line 18.
  35 Page 23, line 38, leave out "Subject to subsections (2), (3) and (4) below".
  36 Page 24, line 36, at beginning insert—
  "( ) The articles of government for every county, voluntary and maintained special school shall provide—".
  37 Page 24, line 37, leave out "a child or young person" and insert "under eighteen".
  38 Page 24, line 40, at end insert—

  (ii) where he decides that any exclusion of such a pupil from the school which was originally for a fixed or indefinite period should be made permanent, to take (without delay) reasonable steps to inform a parent of the pupil of his decision and of the reasons for it; and

  (iii) where he excludes any pupil from the school to take (without delay) reasonable steps to inform the pupil, if he is aged eighteen or over, or a parent of his, if he is under eighteen, that the pupil (or as the case may be) parent may make representations about the exclusion to the governing body and the local education authority;.

  Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34 to 38, and speak also to Amendments Nos. 40, 41, 43, 45 to 72, 100 and 121.
  This large batch of amendments is not as daunting as it appears. The amendments serve two purposes. The first is to split the rather unwieldy Clause 21 into four more manageable clauses and to make various consequential and tidying-up amendments. Your Lordships may have had the opportunity to see a copy of the note we have made available showing how the clause would look with all the amendments made. It was put in the Whips' offices.
  The second purpose is to pave the way in the present clause for the new right of appeal in exclusion cases to be put in place by the new clause after Clause 21 in Amendment No. 71 and the new schedule after Schedule 2 in Amendment No. 121. The consequential amendments to Clause 21 are to ensure that there are formal decisions which may be appealed against.
  Appeals under the new clause and schedule will be open not only to the parents of a permanently excluded pupil, or the pupil himself if he is aged 18, but also to the governing body against any direction by the LEA that the pupil should be reinstated. Appeals will be heard by the appeals committees set up under the 1980 Act and which have proved their worth in school admission cases.
  Amendments No. 72 and 100 are wholly consequential on this new structure, respectively inserting an appropriate cross reference and removing a redundant definition.

  809
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Young.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  39 Page 24, line 43, leave out "three" and insert "five".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39, and at the same time it may be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 44 and 56. These amendments extend from three to five the number of days in aggregate in any one term a pupil may be excluded from the school without the head teacher having to report the fact to the governing body and the local education authority. The Government accepted Opposition amendments at Committee stage.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  40 Page 25, line 2, after "the", insert "period of the".
  41 Page 25, line 3, at end insert "and where he decides that any exclusion of a pupil from the school which was originally for a fixed or indefinite period should he made permanent, to inform them (without delay) of his decision and of the reasons for it.".
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Young.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  42 Page 25, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 19.
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment, and I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 85, 86 and 101. Both Houses of Parliament have now voted for the abolition of corporal punishment. Your Lordships' proposals for this—in the words to be removed by Amendments Nos. 42 and 101—did, however, contain a number of technical defects. Technically sound provisions come back to us from the other place in the form of the two new clauses after Clause 39 in Amendments Nos. 85 and 86.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Young.)
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this may be the only opportunity available to those of us who voted by a small majority in favour of the abolition of corporal punishment to take note of this fact, and also to recognise that by an even smaller majority another place came to the same conclusion. The Government have accepted the verdict of both Houses in the amendment now proposed. We must be grateful to the
  810
  Government for producing better wording than we put forward. We must recognise that our wording was defective, not only in detail in respect of England and Wales, but also that it did not apply adequately to Scotland.
  There are of course still defects in the law relating to corporal punishment. It is unfortunate that this Bill does not apply to independent schools as well as to state schools, but no doubt that matter will be resolved very rapidly in the European Court of Human Rights and the same rights will in due course extend to pupils in independent schools. However, it is right that we should say that an unintended, but very valuable addition, has been made to the statute book in the form of these amendments, to express our appreciation to all who took part in the campaign to see that they started on their way in both Houses, and hope that this is one change which will never be reversed in our country again.
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend who has just spoken. We spend a lot of time in this House airing our grievances, but very little time celebrating our victories. This tiresome, difficult and controversial subject has been hanging around for so long. It divided this House at one time and has given rise to considerable debate elsewhere. To have the issue settled at last and to be in the clear with regard to the European Commission on Human Rights is an achievement for Parliament. It surely dispels some of the legends regarding the domination of the Government and the dictatorial attitudes of the Prime Minister. Here is something that has been settled. Both Houses have agreed to it, sometimes in important quarters probably against their own judgment or prejudices. I think that the House ought to rejoice not solely because of the subject which has been disposed of, but for the achievement of the function and the authority of Parliament.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  43 Clause 21, page 25, line 21, at end insert—
  "( ) for it to be the duty of the local education authority, where they have been informed of the permanent exclusion of a pupil from the school—

  (i) to consider, after consulting the governing body, whether he should be reinstated immediately, reinstated by a particular date or not reinstated;

  (ii) where they consider that he should be reinstated, to give the appropriate direction to the head teacher; and

  (iii) where they consider that he should not be reinstated, to inform the pupil (if he is aged eighteen or over) or a parent of his (if he is under eighteen) of their decision;".

  44 Page 25, line 24, leave out "three" and insert "five".
  45 Page 25, line 29, after "direction", insert "for the reinstatement of the pupil".
  46 Page 25, line 30, leave out from "authority" to end of line 31 and insert ", in the case of an exclusion for a fixed period, or by the governing body, in the case of an exclusion which is for an indefinite period or is permanent;"
  47 Page 25, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 41.
  48 Page 25, line 47, after "pupil", insert "or the authority consider that he should be reinstated by a date which is earlier than that determined by the governing body as the date by which he is to he reinstated".
  49 Page 26, line 3, at end insert—
  "(cc) for it to be the duty of the local education authority where—

  (i) they have been informed of the exclusion of a pupil from the school for a fixed period; and

  (ii) they propose to give a direction for his reinstatement;

  to consult the governing body before doing so;
  (ccc) for any direction given by virtue of paragrph (c) above to cease to have effect (without prejudice to any subsequent direction given by virtue of any other provision made by the articles in accordance with this section) if the head teacher decides that the exclusion of the pupil concerned should be made permanent;".
  50 Page 26, line 7, leave out "(b)" and insert "(a)".
  51 Page 26, line 7, after "above" insert—
  "(ff) for it to be the duty of the head teacher, where conflicting directions for the reinstatement of a pupil are given by the governing body and the local education authority, to comply with that direction which will lead to the earlier reinstatement of the pupil;".
  52 Page 26, line 9, after "other" insert "and—

  (i) the pupil concerned, if he is aged eighteen or over; or

  (ii) a parent of his, if he is under eighteen;".

  53 Page 26, line 10, leave out "subsection" and insert "section".
  54 Page 26, line 10, leave out "given by them" and insert "which is given by them"
  55 Page 26, line 13, at end insert—
  "(a) for it to he the duty of the governing body, where they have been informed of the permanent exclusion of a pupil from the school—

  (i) to consider whether he should be reinstated immediately, reinstated by a particular date or not reinstated;

  (ii) where they consider that he should be reinstated, to give the appropriate direction to the head teacher; and

  (iii) where they consider that he should not be reinstated, to inform (without delay) the local education authority and either the pupil, if he is aged eighteen or over, or a parent of his, if he is under eighteen. of their decision;".

  56 Page 26, line 16, leave out "three" and insert "five".
  57 Page 26, line 21, leave out "immediate".
  58 Page 26, line 23, leave out from "or" to "by", in line 24, and insert "in the ease of an exclusion for a fixed period".
  59 Page 26, line 24, after "by" insert "the governing body or".
  60 Page 26, line 24, at end insert—
  "( ) for it to be the duty of the local education authority to consult the governing body before giving any direction by virtue of paragraph (b) above;".
  61 Page 26, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 28.
  62 Page 26, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 32.
  63 Page 26, line 38, after "pupil", insert "or the authority consider that he should be reinstated by a date which is earlier than that determined by the governing body as the date by which he is to be reinstated".
  64 Page 26, line 42, at end insert—
  "( ) for any direction given by virtue of paragraph (d) above to cease to have effect (without prejudice to any direction given by virtue of any other provision made by the articles in accordance with this section) if the head teacher decides that the exclusion of the pupil concerned should be made permanent;".
  65 age 26, line 46, leave out "and".
  66 Page 26, line 46, at end insert—
  "( ) for it to be the duty of the head teacher, where conflicting directions for the reinstatement of a pupil are given by the governing body and the local education authority, to comply with that direction which will lead to the earlier reinstatement of the pupil; and".
  67 Page 27, line 2, after "other", insert "and—

  (i) the pupil concerned, if he is aged eighteen or over, or

  (ii) a parent of his, if he is under eighteen;".

  68 Page 27, line 3, leave out "subsection" and insert "section".
  69 Page 27, line 4, leave out "given by them" and insert "which is given by them".
  70 Page 27, leave out lines 5 to 18.
  71 After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
  "Exclusion on discipline grounds: appeals.
  .—(1) Every local education authority shall make arrangements for enabling—

  (a) a registered pupil at a county, controlled or maintained special school who is aged eighteen or over, or a parent of his, in the case of a pupil at such a school who is under eighteen, to appeal against any decision not to reinstate the pupil following his permanent exclusion from the school; and

  (b) any governing body of such a school, the head teacher of which has been directed by the authority to reinstate any registered pupil at the school who has been permanently excluded, to appeal against the direction.

  (2) The governing body of every aided or special agreement school shall make arrangements for enabling a registered pupil at the school who is aged eighteen or over, or a parent of a pupil at such a school who is under eighteen, to appeal against any decision not to reinstate the pupil following his permanent exclusion from the school.
  (3) Joint arrangements may be made under subsection (2) above by the governing bodies of two or more aided or special agreement schools maintained by the same local education authority.
  (4) Any appeal by virtue of this section shall be to an appeal committee constituted in accordance with Part I of Schedule 2 to the 1980 Act; and Schedule (Exclusion on discipline grounds: appeals) to this Act shall have effect, in place of Part II of Schedule 2 to the 1980 Act, in relation to any such appeal.
  (5) The decision of an appeal committee on any such appeal shall he binding on the persons concerned; and where the committee determines that the pupil in question should he reinstated it shall direct that he be reinstated immediately or direct that he be reinstated by such date as is specified in the direction.".
  72 Clause 22, page 27, line 22, after "school", insert "in circumstances in which no right of appeal is given by section (Exclusion on discipline grounds: appeals) of this Act".
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 43 to 72 en bloc.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Young.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  73 Clause 23, page 27, line 33, at end insert—
  "(1A) The governing body and the head teacher of every aided and special agreement school shall, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2) below, consider any representations made to them by the local education authority.".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 73. The local education authority's reserve power under Clause 23 to intervene in the event of the breakdown of discipline does not extend to aided and special agreement schools, quite properly, given these schools' distinctive status under the Education Acts. Local education authorities will, however, have a legitimate interest if good order is at risk in these schools which form part of their

  813
  maintained provision. It therefore seems right by Amendment No. 73 to lay a duty on the governing bodies of aided and special agreement schools at least to consider any representations the local education authority may make on these matters.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  74 Clause 24: Transpose Clause 24 to after Clause 39
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 74. As the Government come to consider the final shape of this legislation it seems to us that Clause 24 on sex education is better placed in Part IV with other similar provisions.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  75 Clause 25, page 28, line 37, leave out "the authority may specify" and insert "may he specified by the authority or prescribed by the Secretary of State".
  76 Page 29, line 3, at end insert—
  "(2) Before making any regulations under subsection (1)(b) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned and any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable.".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 75 and 76.
  Clause 25 provides a fairly limited start to the process of financial delegation to schools, which the Government wish to encourage. It is recognised that some authorities already go further than this, and they may continue to do so. Other authorities, however, hardly delegate at all and the provisions in Clause 25 will represent a significant step forward for these. However, in order to encourage the process of delegation to continue, the amendments provide for the Secretary of State to be able to extend the areas in which delegation must take place and to do so by regulations, after consulting the local authority associations and such local authorities as he considers desirable.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  77 Clause 26, Page 30, line 34, after "school" insert "and all persons employed at the school".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 77. This amendment requires the governors' annual report to be supplied, free of charge, to all persons employed at the school as well as to all
  814
  parents. Copies of the governors' annual report were in any case to be readily available at the school for consultation but, given the close interest that those employed at the school will naturally have in the matters discussed in the annual report, it seems only reasonable that they should have their own copy of the report.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  78 Clause 27, page 31, line 16, leave out "Subject to subsection (7) below".
  79 Page 32, line 16, after "which" insert "who are boarders".
  80 Clause 36, page 41, line 1, leave out first "for" and insert "of".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 78 to 80 en bloc. These are drafting amendments and are to correct an omission of three words.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  81 Clause 38, page 42, line 34, at end insert, "and in so doing to have regard to the desirability of the premises being made available (when not required by or in connection with the school) for use by members of the community served by the school.".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 81.
  The Government support community use of school premises. We believe that the Bill's provision to vest in the governing body control of the use of school premises out of school hours will in itself increase community use, because the new-style governing bodies will be more strongly rooted in the community, especially through increased parental representation. However, this amendment will provide further impetus in the direction of community use.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Before Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
  "Freedom of speech in universities, polytechnics and colleges.
  .—(1) Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any establishment to which this section applies shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers.
  (2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) above includes (in particular) the duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the use of any premises of the establishment is not denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with—

  (a) the beliefs or views of that individual or of any member of that body; or

  815

  (b) the policy or objectives of that body.

  (3) The governing body of every such establishment shall, with a view to facilitating the discharge of the duty imposed by subsection (1) above in relation to that establishment, issue and keep up to date a code of practice setting out—

  (a) the procedures to be followed by members, students and employees of the establishment in connection with the organisation—

  (i) of meetings which are to be held on premises of the establishment and which fall within any class of meeting specified in the code; and

  (ii) of other activities which are to take place on those premises and which fall within any class of activity so specified; and

  (b) the conduct required of such persons in connection with any such meeting or activity;

  and dealing with such other matters as the governing body consider appropriate.
  (4) Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any such establishment shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable (including where appropriate the initiation of disciplinary measures) to secure that the requirements of the code of practice for that establishment, issued under subsection (3) above, are complied with.
  (5) The establishments to which this section applies are—

  (a) any university;

  (b) any establishment which is maintained by a local education authority and for which section 1 of the 1968 (No. 2) Act (government and conduct of colleges of education and other institutions providing further education) requires there to be an instrument of government; and

  (c) any establishment of further education designated by or under regulations made under section 287 of the 1980 Act as an establishment substantially dependent for its maintenance on assistance from local education authorities or on grants under section 100(1)(6) of the 1944 Act.

  (6) In this section—
  "governing body", in relation to any university, means the executive governing body which has responsibility for the management and administration of its revenue and property and the conduct of its affairs (that is to say the body commonly called the council of the university);
  "university" includes a university college and any college, or institution in the nature of a college, in a university.
  (7) Where any establishment—

  (a) falls within subsection (5)(b) above; or

  (a) falls within subsection (5)(c) above by virtue of being substantially dependent for its maintenance on assistance from local education authorities;

  the local education authority or authorities maintaining or (as the case may be) assisting the establishment shall, for the purposes of this section, be taken to be concerned in its government.
  (8) Where a students' union occupies premises which are not premises of the establishment in connection with which the union is constituted, any reference in this section to the premises of the establishment shall be taken to include a reference to the premises occupied by the students' union."
  Baroness Young: My Lords, this is a very important amendment—
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, will the noble Baroness permit me to raise this point of order. Before we go on to rowdyism on the campus I was thinking that we ought to have the Statement about teachers' pay. Is there a suitable moment at which we shall have it? It is now half past four.
  Noble Lords: My Lords, no!
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82.
  This is an important amendment. The idea that a clause on freedom of speech should be included in the Education Bill originated in your Lordships' House. But the circumstances were such that the amendment which the Government undertook to lay before the House had to be drafted in haste. Your Lordships will recall that much concern was expressed at Third Reading about the short notice which the House had had of the content of the clause then proposed and over the fact that there had been no time for consultation with the higher education authorities over its practical implications. I gave an undertaking then that the Government would undertake such consultation and would move in another place an amendment which took account of the views of the institutions.
  They did so. This clause is the outcome of that undertaking. It was debated at length in another place last week. The majority in favour of the clause was very substantial. We have rejected the argument that the clause is unnecessary and will do no good and we have reaffirmed our commitment to legislation on this subject first given in response to the wishes of your Lordships' House. The Government do not pretend that the clause is a panacea. But the clause as now drafted is to meet the very real doubts expressed by your Lordships. It is a statement of broad general principle, which imposes on institutions a general duty to secure freedom of speech and leaves each institution free to settle the arrangements for fulfilling that duty.
  Various situations have been postulated in which it is claimed that the clause could give rise to an unintended result but many of these seem based on a construction which, in the Government's considered opinion, the clause could not reasonably bear. To have attempted a clause in more specific terms designed to deal with every situation that might give rise to difficulty or to the possibility of an unexpected interpretation by the courts would have been neither advisable nor practicable. We should rely on the courts to interpret this clause sensibly.
  The Government are clear that their broader approach is by far the best because it leaves the detailed arrangements for securing freedom of speech to the initiative of each institution which will be able to tailor the code of practice it is required to produce under subsection (3) to its individual circumstances.
  The Government believe that a great strength of the clause, as my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State pointed out last week, is that its effect will be to concentrate the minds of institutional authorities on their existing arrangements and procedures, which in many cases will clearly need to be revised. There are already examples where institutions that have suffered from violent protests in recent months are re-examining their internal rules and disciplinary procedures. The clause would require all to address these matters, in the light of the duty being placed upon them to take all reasonable practicable steps to protect freedom of speech within the law.
  There will, I know, be a number of specific points raised about this matter. At this point in moving the

  817
  amendment, I should like to say to your Lordships' House that this is a matter to which the Government attach great importance. We believe that there is a great public demand for it. There have unhappily been sufficient numbers of examples where freedom of speech has not been possible in institutions where one should have thought that would be possible, and we therefore hope that your Lordships will agree with the Commons in this amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Young.)
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness is certainly right in saying that there have been a number of very unfortunate and unhappy occasions recently on which there have been breaches of freedom of speech in our universities and colleges. It must be common ground among all Members of your Lordships' House that this is not an acceptable state of affairs, and that every effort must be made to ensure that it does not happen again.
  The question, however, before your Lordships' House is whether the clause as drafted will achieve the objectives that we all share. The noble Baroness was also right in reminding the House that, when the matter was considered on Third Reading, it was not possible to deal with the substantive issues raised by the clause then proposed because—as the Government admitted—of the lack of time available to consider the proposals.
  Without going into any detail about the previous amendment, I think that it was already apparent that it had grave defects in that it referred to "duly invited" speakers going to a university or college, and it was the duty of the university or college to decide what was meant by "duly invited". It was clear to many of your Lordships that the way in which universities or colleges would interpret the phrase "duly invited" would be to avoid any risk of breach of freedom of speech or breach of the peace, and that therefore the result of restrictive codes of practice on due invitation would be to restrict the amount of freedom of speech rather than to increase it. Had we been debating the issue on Third Reading, I should have advised my noble friends to vote against that amendment.
  We are now faced with a totally different amendment. The Government have abandoned the idea of due invitation and have gone right to the other extreme. The Government now say in this amendment that every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any establishment shall have the duty to secure freedom of speech within the law and to ensure,
  "that the use of any premises of the establishment is not denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with—
  (a) the beliefs or views of that individual or of any member of that body".
  I emphasise the word "any" because that shows the breadth of the amendment now proposed and indeed the total impracticability of the amendment.
  Let us look at,
  "any individual or body of persons"
  Vol. 481
  818
  concerned in the government of any establishment. I am never sure whether, as a graduate of the University of Oxford, I am a member of convocation or congregation. I know it is one of the two, but I can never remember which. Therefore to some extent, if only in the election of a professor of poetry, I am involved in the government of the University of Oxford.
  I invite your Lordships to think how many of you are in some way involved in the government of a university or college, not merely those noble Lords who are active vice-chancellors or recently retired vice-chancellors or chancellors, but also anyone with any involvement in the government of any university who is now caught by this clause, and has the statutory responsibility laid down in the clause. That is the first difficulty with the amendment.
  I now turn to "any premises" of the establishment. Any premises, my Lords? The Master of Balliol, in a very effective article in The Times last week, pointed out what the use of the phrases "any premises" and "any individual or body of persons" could mean. He gave two specific examples. The first was that the Moonies could ask a college chaplain for permission to hold a missionary service in the college chapel. The chaplain could not refuse because the grounds on which he would be refusing would be grounds connected with the beliefs or views of the individual or any members of the body. He could not refuse by offering another part of the premises because the clause says "any premises", not, "any premises chosen by the governing body". It would be a denial of freedom of speech to have it moved to the pavilion of the playing fields five miles away from the university premises.
  The other example that the Master of Balliol gave—another very real example—is that a member of Provisional Sinn Fein may write asking for the use of a seminar room to put forward the views of Provisional Sinn Fein. There is nothing in the clause that enables the governing body of a higher education institution to deny that application.
  There are many other difficulties. There are difficulties in the public sector of higher education about the role of the local education authorities. There is the whole question regarding in what circumstances the provisions of the clause conflict with the duties on governing bodies to prevent likely breaches of the peace. There is the whole question of whether expressions of view within the law can be determined in advance. Much of the debate on the Public Order Bill centred on those points. The point I wish to make above all is that there is no discretion allowed to governing bodies, which are as widely defined as it is possible to define them, and that the result would undoubtedly be chaos in the administration of the universities and colleges of this country.
  I shall be inviting my friends, and I invite all those of your Lordships who have any concern for higher education, to reject the amendment.
  Lord Flowers: My Lords, I am a serving vice-chancellor at the present time. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said, it is upon the likes of me that the duty proposed in Amendment No.

  819
  82 will primarily fall. Nevertheless, I shall be as brief as is reasonably practical. I gladly accept that duty, of course; let there be no question about that. I shall strive always to preserve within my university the right to free speech within the law for the staff, for the students and for legitimate visitors. It is something profoundly to be cherished everywhere, but most especially in universities where rational argument should always be the order of the day. I need no Act of Parliament to tell me that.
  The question therefore arises whether the proposed legislation will help or hinder me in the execution of my duty. I have come to the conclusion—contrary, I regret to say, to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said—that it will probably hinder. For that reason and that reason only I intend to oppose it. I am no lawyer, but the amendment reads oddly to me. It defines a general duty in the vaguest of terms, but immediately relies upon each university issuing a code of practice to clarify what that duty consists of within that university. We do not need to be told by Parliament to issue codes of practice.
  I must say that I take great exception to certain remarks made in another place on 21st October, admittedly at an hour when it is better for all honest folk to be in bed, to the effect that vice-chancellors had not committed themselves collectively to uphold the right to free speech. It was on 13th December last that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals issued quite unambiguous guidelines to all universities on what was required of each of them in order to deal with a problem of growing public concern. We are now at various stages of putting those guidelines into effect.
  I can well understand the impatience of those who see little practical outcome so far, and can see evidence that the problem is getting worse rather than better. The fact is that legislation or no legislation the universities will do their best to follow the guidance of the CVCP because it is better for all concerned that we respond in a reasonably uniform manner to problems of this kind.
  The guidance is tough and specific, and the proposed legislation adds nothing to it. Let us consider what the guidance says. Briefly, it says that universities should check that their disciplinary codes make adequate provision and provide adequate penalties. University premises should be used only by those who seem reasonably likely to comply with all lawful instructions issued by the university. Advance notice must be given of meetings to be addressed by visiting speakers, and so on, in quite specific detail.
  The amendment adds nothing to all this. On the contrary, it seems likely to provide a rich source of legal disputation for many a year to come. Mr. George Walden in the nocturnal debate to which I have already referred, tried to assure his critics that the amendment did not really mean what it had seemed to them to mean. He said that to ensure freedom of speech within the law does not impose a duty to ensure that what is spoken is within the law. A visiting speaker is not someone who turns up unsolicited to speak. To ensure that the use of any premises is not denied does not imply a right to demand access to a particular part of an institution. The duty to uphold
  820
  freedom of speech does not prevent the cancellation of a meeting at which there is a substantial risk of a breach of the peace. I am comforted, but not much, until I have heard the judges pronounce in my favour when I appear before them because Mr. Walden's assurances do not stand part of the proposed legislation. The drafting leaves much to be desired, and I hope noble Lords, more learned in the law than I, will pay careful attention to that.
  Perhaps I may make one final remark. The events complained of, inexcusable and intolerable though they may be, are but a tiny proportion of the events that take place every day in our institutions of higher education and go off without a hitch of any kind. I include a great many events where there are so-called controversial speakers addressing potentially hostile audiences. Most of the exceptional cases start misguidedly to be sure, but not dishonourably, from a total condemnation of some of the worst trends of our society—the chief ones being racism, fascism, sexism. Of course, that is the origin of the no platform policy espoused by some student unions (although not mine), and by the National Union of Students. However, the students also know that when a speaker is invited who is likely to promulgate such views; external influences—I mean intruders who are not students but who cannot be kept out without action which is itself of doubtful legality, and is certainly repugnant to all concerned—will see to it that the ensuing protest is not confined to reasonable debate or heckling or even verbal uproar but will rapidly degenerate into physical violence.
  Nothing in this amendment will in any way ameliorate this problem. On the contrary, it will make it worse. Misguided though it might have been, the no platform policy had at least this merit that it prevented some violence from ever taking place.
  The grace which we pronounce on solemn occasions in the University of London describes the university as a "free and learned society". This amendment introduces concepts, and assumes procedures, that are completely foreign to such a body. By doing so it makes the task of the university authorities in trying to guarantee freedom of speech within the law less clear and therefore more difficult. Therefore, if the amendment is pressed to a vote, I shall vote against it.
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Cox: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment in the strongest possible terms. It seems to me that the need for legislative measures to provide protection for freedom of speech on our university and college campuses is becoming increasingly more urgent. Recent events have shown that violations of this fundamental freedom in our academies are still occurring with alarming persistence.
  Your Lordships will remember that only a few months ago, Professor Vincent was subjected to violent abuse at Bristol University. He was prevented from carrying out his normal teaching duties and experienced very frightening physical intimidation. The threat of further action of that kind has now caused him to take a year's leave from his teaching duties. His crime was writing for a newspaper printed at Wapping.

  821
  More recently your Lordships' will have read about David Selbourne's treatment at Ruskin College, Oxford, where he too was prevented from teaching for committing the same heinous crime. We have seen recently the violence meted out to Enoch Powell who was prevented from speaking at Bristol University after being duly invited. Those are just three examples of the kind which have hit the headlines. However, at least as serious, if not I believe more sinister, are those which the public does not generally hear about. I refer to pressures put on staff and students not to invite certain speakers because they may cause trouble, and to many cases where invitations to speakers, once issued, have been rescinded because of pressures of militant groups. I suggest that those are just as serious forms of censorship as the violent kinds of abuse which hit the headlines.
  I should like to make two general points. First about the kinds of people the censors are trying to silence. In this perhaps I may answer the two noble Lords who have already spoken in this debate. Secondly, and fundamentally, about the seriousness of the attempting to prevent freedom of speech under the law on the campuses of our country.
  First, it must be emphasised that the kinds of people who have been silenced or have been denied invitations to speak are not political extremists. In the largest measure they are not political extremists who will use the academic platform to break the law of the land. They are often government ministers. Your Lordships will remember the treatment meted out to David Waddington at Manchester University last year, or previously to David Hunt at Nottingham University when he was a junior energy minister. Others who have been denied platforms include those whose political positions find disfavour with the far left activists such as the courageous and emphatically non-racist Mr. Ray Honeyford. I could give many more examples but I shall not detain your Lordships with them. However, they demonstrate the manifest ineffectiveness of current provisions to protect freedom of speech, despite the much vaunted guidelines prepared and distributed by the CVCP and by the directors of polytechnics. In this connection, I find particularly worrying the recent statement made by some leading figures in the academic world; namely, Dr. Beishon, director of the Polytechnic of North London, who has attempted to justify censorship, even arguing that he would think it appropriate to examine the motives behind a proposed speaker's potential contribution. He told a recent conference:
  "Anyone who espouses a view which would lead to a policy restricting the freedom of other people should not be granted the right of freedom of speech."
  In this context, he mentioned three Conservative M.Ps. He also said:
  "If people are not coming to contribute to genuine academic debate and are using a platform for political motives there is no reason to accept them. We have a perfect right to say certain people should not be allowed on campus."
  This seems to he slightly at variance with what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was sayng that everyone is committed to the principle of freedom of speech on campus.
  822
  I would suggest that such explicit support from a polytechnic director for the notorious no platform policy is deeply worrying.
  I should like to conclude with a general point. It is impossible to overstate the seriousness of developments such as these. In a free society, the academy—under which I include universities, polytechnics and colleges—must be the ultimate repository of freedom of speech under the law. It is in academies that ideas and evidence must be put forward for critical discussion and evaluation and where issues of truth and falsehood, validity and invalidity, logicality and illogicality must be debated. This means that is imperative that all evidence be presented and that differing views be heard. Once self-appointed censors start to interfere and to deny platforms to speakers whom they assert will give offence we are on the road to the totalitarian censorship of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
  I have both read and heard the reservations expressed by some of the representatives of our academies concerning the proposed legislation. In reply to them I would emphasise that this clause in no way puts visiting speakers above the law or gives them licence to transgress the law by, for example, incitement to racial hatred. Nor does it open up the campuses to anyone who wishes, as it were, to walk in off the street. It applies only to genuine visiting speakers to the establishment and to members, students and employees.
  As I draw to a conclusion let me remind your Lordships that some institutions have singularly failed to protect this fundamental freedom and some seem unwilling even to commit themselves to do so. Dr. Beishon's readiness to examine "motives" seems to me to indicate a particularly sinister dimension.
  Therefore, in considering this amendment, please may we not forget the reality of the situation as it is now—the fact that freedom of speech is not assured on our campuses. University and polytechnic authorities find themselves unable to protect visiting speakers who are sometimes subject to physical abuse or to other forms of silencing, and sometimes those in authority have to resort to covert censorhip in order, they claim, to forestall violence. Given all those facts, it is imperative, if we wish to protect this fundamental freedom, which is essential to a free society, that we underpin it with the force of law. Would that this amendment were not necessary, but, given the circumstances, I hope that your Lordships will wholeheartedly support it. If it were to be defeated today it would encourage those who are willing to violate freedom of speech and it would be a tragic day for Britain as a free society.
  Lord Somers: My Lords, I never thought that I should find myself differing from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on such matters, but on this occasion I feel that I must do so. Like the noble Baroness, I take the view that freedom of speech is precious and must be preserved. However, it must always be conditional, because otherwise would we have, for instance, a law of slander? There is a limit to the freedom of speech there as there must be in other areas.
  There are many insidious movements today which are doing their best to infiltrate the minds, particularly

  823
  of the young. There should be some way of preventing them if they prove a danger to our national way of life. How one can do that remains to be seen. I do not believe that one person should have total authority to prevent their entry into universities, but there certainly should be some method of preventing them. To go back quite a long way, would we have allowed, for instance, Hitler, to come and address our universities just before the war? If we had done so, I think that it might have had a very bad effect.
  As the noble Baroness has just said, freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but like all wonderful things it must be controlled.
  Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I fully share the serious concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, but I am sorry to have to strike a discordant note from these Benches. We are all devoted to the cause of free speech, most of all in our universities and polytechnics. However, it is the proposed method of achieving it which greatly worries me, although I fully accept that the amendment stems from the highest motives and the best intentions.
  First, I believe that legislation of this kind has no place in an education Bill. It was inserted as a result of a somewhat emotional reaction to very unfortunate, very damaging and very bad events that occurred not so long ago. However, it is concerned with law and order and it involves the role of the police and similar matters.
  Secondly, many of the provisions of the amendment are unworkable and I fear that they will bring the law into disrepute. There is a duty to ensure free speech and that duty is spread very widely indeed. Anyone who has worked in a university, as I have done, knows well how very wide and disparate are the opinions and the types of people who work there. As I understand it, failure to carry out the provisions of the amendment will not be criminal, so who will sue whom in the civil courts and how will damages be assessed? How will attendance at conferences by various people be dealt with? How does prevention of free speech in universities differ from similar problems at other meetings—perhaps in village halls or other public places? Who will determine whether the code of practice in subsection (3) meets the requirements of subsection (1) or whether reasonably practicable steps have been taken to secure that the code of practice has been complied with, as required in subsection (4)? The list of questions requiring clarification is very long indeed.
  Thirdly, I believe that there is a much more satisfactory alternative to legislation in the code of practice which has been drawn up by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and which was issued in December 1985. Such a code would be far more effective: it could not be circumvented by clever lawyers; the organisers of meetings could be required to give assurances to abide by it; legal points on the definition of public and private meetings, of who is a visiting speaker, or whether the code of practice that has been drawn up by the university is adequate or not, could not be raised. The code of practice could be interpreted flexibly to meet all occasions and in the
  824
  spirit of maintaining the freedom of speech which we all believe is so important. That is what matters—not the letter of the law to be settled and argued in courts.
  Therefore, I implore the Government even at this very late stage—and I know that there has been a great deal of discussion about it—to reconsider the wisdom of the amendment, preferably to remove it altogether, and give an opportunity for the code of practice drawn up by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to be given a chance to operate. If it does not operate properly, if the vice-chancellors and principals of our universities and polytechnics cannot carry it out, cannot keep order and cannot provide free speech under that code of practice, then let the Government come back and propose a suitable amendment to the law. However, let us give a chance for self-regulation in our great universities and polytechnics, which should be the great bastions of free speech.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I have listened with mounting concern to some of the exchanges which have taken place so far. Is it really possible that people do not understand what is going on in vast areas of this country, especially in our centres of higher education? I wonder, were we not moved recently by the cries that came from four of the Eastern European countries, from people who were crying out to the rest of the world to bring them back some of their freedoms? If one had asked them, as I have asked many of them, what is the freedom that they most cherish and the absence of which they most regret, it would be the freedom of speech.
  That is what is going on in some of our universities. People are being deprived, because they hold certain views, of the right to express those views in the open and in public. As has already been said, it reminds me of nothing more than the 1930s in Germany and what has gone on in the Soviet Union since 1917. It is a form of totalitarianism writ large. When people come and say, as someone has recently said in a letter to the press, "Oh, but if you do this the Moonies may come and preach in our chapel and Sinn Fein may come and hold seminars", I dare say that, like most Members of this House, I should regret that deeply, but it is a small price to pay for maintaining the freedom of speech in a parliamentary democracy.
  There is nothing worse than the beginning of gagging people because of their political opinions. We have heard the no platform policy referred to this evening. No platform, no campus, is one of the phrases we have learnt to become used to in the barbarous language of our modern educational system. What it simply means is that a number of young people, alleged to run their student unions, have decided that there are certain views which may not be expressed at any cost in their universities, and the no platform policy deprives people of the right to express those views.
  I should like to ask your Lordships to think for a moment which way that balance goes. How many times has the no platform policy been operated against anyone who was attacking a right-wing organisation, or a right-wing personality, and how many times have platforms been given to people who wanted, for reasons of their own, to attack left-wing targets and

  825
  left-wing organisations? If you examine the basis of the no platform policy you will find, as I have found from examining this in some detail, that the balance is very much one way.
  You would have great difficulty in getting a platform in any university if you wanted to attack the Contras in Nicaragua, but no problem if you wanted to go the other way. Similarly in any kind of debate in which there is a clear distinction between the Left and the Right. I think you would have no difficulty whatsoever in detecting which way the no platform rule operates.
  This appalling wedge of totalitarianism is being operated in areas where freedom of thought, freedom of inquiry, freedom of debate ought to be at its most precious—in our universities. That is where people first learn to think freely about issues and to, put the views on both sides of an argument and to arrive at some kind of intelligent conclusion. I wonder whether these brave young censors in our universities realise that if they get their way they are moving towards the kind of society in which the first casualty will be freedom of education. I wonder whether they really want that?
  I shall not delay your Lordships any further. I feel deeply about this issue. It was once said that people who start by burning books end by burning people. Denying freedom of speech is a form of burning books. It is a form of denying to people the right to examine all the sides of an argument however much they may disagree with them.
  We have heard tonight, and in the course of some fairly intensive lobbying that has gone on before this debate, that the vice-chancellors and the governing bodies of universities do not need to be told how to do these things. It seems to me self-evident that they do need to be told how to do these things. The evidence of recent months has been much too clear to enable us to accept any longer that self-imposed codes of practice are any good. If we are to prevent what I believe to be the thin end of a totalitarian wedge from entering our centres of higher education, what we need is not the power of persuasion by vice-chancellors, however that might be expressed and however forcefully it might be expressed: we need the force of law, and I shall vote for this amendment.
  Lord Grimond: My Lords, I feel that those of us who passionately believe in free speech must make some protest on behalf of the universities against the sort of speech that we have just heard. It is totally untrue that either this country or the universities are in the state of Germany in the 1930s. It is a monstrous and useless exaggeration to pretend that they are. In point of fact the universities of this country today are in a highly creditable state. They are extremely well run by their governing bodies, they do a marvellous teaching job, and, so far as they are able within the customs of this country, they protect free speech.
  I would put in a strong word on behalf of the vice-chancellors. It seems to me that the Government of this country lately have got into trouble in education because they have simply shown no respect for the universities. They have shown no respect for the people who run them. They are highly intelligent, able and liberal men. They may not be able to speak for themselves—although I suspect that they will—but
  826
  anyone who goes near a university must be deeply impressed by the standard of those who run them. It seems to me time that the Government said that, and stood up for the universities.
  Of course we all deeply respect the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and I was much moved and shocked by the quotations she read out from the principal of a polytechnic. But I would ask the Government how many university vice-chancellors do they believe are in any way opposed to free speech? Have they any evidence that any vice-chancellor in this country is really opposed to free speech?
  I would secondly ask the Government, has any vice-chancellor said anything in favour of this clause? Do they think it would be helpful to them? Do they think it would be helpful to free speech? Do they think it would be helpful to the good running of the universities? They may well have such evidence, but so far it has not come my way. I ask them to take some notice of the people who are in charge of the universities.
  Some years ago it was certainly true that there was an unpleasant atmosphere in some of the universities and almost a revolutionary notion. It has greatly improved over the last years, and do not let us spoil it. On the whole, visiting speakers are well received. On the whole members of the universities are entitled to say what they like. There are deplorable exceptions. Deplorable exceptions at Bristol, and so forth. But they are exceptions, and the question, as so rightly put by the last speaker from the Conservative Benches, is not whether free speech is a good or a bad thing but, does this amendment improve the chances of getting it? That is the point. I think the unanimous opinion of the universities is that it will not. It will lead to the sort of difficulties which have been pointed out on both sides of the House.
  Let us be clear that the present method of legislation is to start by putting in some general bromide, such as, "We should all be virtuous". And we then think that people would be more virtuous because it is written into a statute. I assure your Lordships that they will not. Secondly, they will be given a detailed description of how they are going to be virtuous. The result of this method of legislation is that the bad boys take advantage of it and the good boys get into trouble. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said the sort of people who will take advantage of this clause are atheists who will demand to preach in Balliol Chapel, and the only person who will suffer from it is the Master of Balliol, who will be involved in litigation of all sorts. It is a serious business. It is not the good boys who are going to be protected by this, it is the bad boys who will take advantage of it.
  I beseech the House if they must pass this clause—which no doubt they will—not to delude themselves that by passing it they are going to make everything in the garden rosy. They are not. The vice-chancellors have to carry on the difficult business of running a contentious organisation with difficult people in it, protecting free speech, and protecting all that universities stand for. What they have a right to expect is that the Government do not go on pretending that the universities need nursemaids to look after them, but give the universities the general support to which they are entitled.

  827
  Let me finish on one other matter. The Government are constantly lecturing the universities about being out of touch with business. It just shows that they are out of touch with the universities. The ivory tower exists in the Ministry of Education and not the universities. They are in the closest possible touch with business. They know all about freedom of speech. They know all about the difficulty of visiting speakers and protecting unpopular causes. It is for the Government to show that they have some respect for these institutions and not treat them as though they were aberrant children.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, of course the vice-chancellors have a responsibility, but even since they formulated their guidelines we have had some serious cases in the universities of interruption both of teachers and of visiting speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, who asked us to rely upon the vice-chancellors' guidelines (to which my noble friend Lord Caldecote properly referred as a code of practice) pointed out that according to his view nothing in the Bill added to the vice-chancellors' guidelines. But surely by having statutory codes of practice—the vice-chancellors' guidelines do not have the authority of Parliament—we shall indeed be adding something and be strengthening the hands of the vice-chancellors.
  The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, also said that we have to deal with only a small proportion of cases in this legislation. That is true of nearly all legislation that we have to enact. We are not acting very often for the generality of people. We are acting for the small minority of determined wrongdoers, trouble-makers whatever they may be, but small minorities. That, alas, is what legislation is mostly about.
  If I may have the temerity to refer to this new clause, this particular legislation, I suggest that it is on the right lines. It properly states its objectives in general terms. It does not attempt to go in for a vast amount of hypothetical detail. Indeed, some of the criticisms we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, by implication criticise it for not spelling out things even more than it does. But the clause has the further advantage that it enables flexibility to take place because we know that circumstances vary considerably in various universities, in the colleges of further education and so on. By having guidelines which will be formulated by each of the governing bodies to meet their own circumstances, then we are trusting those authorities in a much greater way than we would be doing if we fell into the temptation—which I think we have been invited to fall into—of doing something, as has been said, more positive.
  I ask your Lordships to bear in mind also that the initiative for a provision of this kind started early last summer in your Lordships' House. We added a clause to the Bill. On further consideration and in their wisdom, after taking further advice, my noble friends in the Government asked another place to substitute our clause with another better and more flexible clause. That is what has been done. It was carried by a very large majority in another place.
  Surely at this stage of this Session, on a matter on which the motive must surely be agreement between
  828
  us (because there is a mischief to be corrected) it would not be right for us to raise a constitutional conflict just now.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no question of constitutional conflict. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House himself said that, since there had been no opportunity to consider this matter earlier on Third Reading, we would now have a full opportunity to consider and, if necessary, to amend the legislation proposed.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I should briefly answer the noble Lord. If we now vote this clause down it will have to go to another place. They will have to consider whether they agree or disagree with us. It may be that my knowledge of English is not as good as that of the noble Lord, but I call that a conflict.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Briggs: My Lords, I feel that there is no doubt in this House about the ends for which this clause is intended, but, having listened to the arguments, there is a very serious doubt still in my own mind about the means. It wa said during the 1960s that the only thing vice-chancellors had in common was that they knew something about vice. One thing that they have had in common throughout the decades is some knowledge of the issues arising out of the question of free speech.
  I was interested in the rather frightening words of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, from one member of the academic profession, but in my own experience I have known of no vice-chancellor who did not believe in the virtues of free speech. We in universities are dedicated to free speech. We cannot organise new knowledge, we cannot transmit existing knowledge without free speech. I am utterly appalled when I read of any attempt to stop anybody from saying what he wishes to say in a lecture, or for that matter in a speech. However, if one looks at the situation inside universities, which I have known for a very long time, it is much more difficult to deal with these matters if you are on the spot than it is to talk about them in abstract terms.
  When I was an undergraduate myself at the University of Cambridge I remember the two most tumultuous political meetings that I ever attended: meetings addressed in the first instance by Sir Oswald Mosley, and, secondly, by Winston Churchill. The first speech ended in utter chaos and Oswald Mosley was hooted out of Cambridge with fireworks and crowds from the Corn Exchange. It was a meeting which did not take place on college premises. It was held in the Corn Exchange in Cambridge. The speech by Sir Winston on conscription was a speech which made its way through by force of the personality of Sir Winston himself and he succeeded in having a very good hearing.
  I have seen the disturbances in the 1960s and I have looked at universities since the 1960s. I feel that while all the cases that arise—and we have had many of them in recent weeks—are very serious, on the whole in this country we have had fewer problems in relation to free speech in the universities than we have had in most other West European countries or in the United States. We all want to preserve freedom of speech, but

  829
  when the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, spoke of a wedge, I think of another wedge. It is a wedge driven by statutory legislation into what have been traditionally thought of as the responsibilities of universities.
  In this country we desperately need intermediate institutions where a degree of responsibility can be shown by the people on the spot. They will work in universities through councils and other bodies so that there will always be no complete freedom of action on the part of the vice-chancellor. There will be a body of opinion brought to bear on his own judgment, but ultimately at the moment he is responsible. He is now being asked in terms of this clause to carry out a series of responsibilities which are extremely difficult to follow. First, there is the question of premises. I am not sure in my own college in Oxford what fully constitutes college premises. The second point I am not clear about is to what extent intruders who come in from outside really are my own responsibility. In many universities the real trouble arises not from undergraduates in the university, not even from a small minority, but from people who come in, choosing the university as an arena which will immediately capture the attention of the media and will be in the newspapers the following morning. There is no conceivable way, whatever legislation is passed, in which we will be able to stop people from coming into universities and using and turning university places into centres of action.
  The third point about which I am worried is where the new clause says:
  "Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any establishment … shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable".
  "Every individual"? In what university in the world since the beginning of time would every individual be pledged to that particular conception—in any university in the freest possible society or country?
  We all believe in freedom of speech. I believe in it passionately, as strongly as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, or the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. But I believe that if this amendment were to be passed we should not get rid of incidents in universities. We might even magnify their difficulties. The real answer to these questions lies in creating a responsible body of opinion among the people associated with universities, polytechnics and other institutions, and also in ensuring that they follow their own guidelines about what they wish to do.
  I have no problems at all about the first part of this clause. It is when you turn what is in fact a responsible obligation into a statutory duty that the real issues of difficulty begin to arise.
  Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I speak as one of those university pro-chancellors of which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has such a poor opinion. In my university, which is an obscure one—the City University in London—we have had a succession of notable speakers including, I am glad to say, the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and not one hair on his noble head was injured on that occasion: nor has anything untoward happened to any others of our speakers.
  I support strongly the pleas made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh and by the noble Lord, Lord
  830
  Flowers, first, in their defence of free speech, and secondly, in their critique of this amendment. I yield to no man in my defence of free speech; and to the young of our universities I would say that the measure of a man's support for free speech is the extent to which he allows it to his opponents or even, for that matter, to his enemies. I would not be as worried as my noble friend Lord McIntosh if Sinn Fein got a platform in Britain, although I would not expect to agree with a single word they said. I would not worry too much if an atheist were to speak in the chapel at Balliol, but I would hope that he did so by invitation. I would not he likely to hear him anyway.
  I think we are facing a fairly simple problem here. There have been a number of untoward and even despicable outbursts in our universities in recent times, which none of us in any corner of this House would defend in any way whatsoever. But I think the Government's reaction has been one which we have found in our parliamentary experience over a number of years: that is, over-reaction to an event or a series of events which may be temporary or may be longer term for all we know.
  Faced with that problem—which is a difficult one—the Government have rushed to pass a law of some kind which they hope will deal with the problem. First of all, the power in the amendment which they are proposing is put into the hands of the university authorities themselves, but they have not quite got the power all the time to apply the full rigour of that law in the way the Government might want. The Government might learn from their own experience of reacting to problems of this kind by passing a law. In the last six years or so, prompted by iniquities and deplorable behaviour on picket lines, we have passed a number of laws dealing with the behaviour of pickets. What has happened? We have had the miners' strike and we have Wapping going on. The laws are there on the statute book and they clearly define what pickets can or cannot do, but they are almost wholly ineffective.
  The same kind of fate would be quite likely to apply to the law as amended by this amendment. I think the Government are reacting to an evil—and it is an evil—in an ineffective and inefficient way. As the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, said earlier, this is not a proper subject for an Education Bill. It is a proper subject for a public order Bill of some kind, because it relates to public order not only in universities but as a whole. The sensible procedure for the Government, even at this late date, and even at the risk (as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, fears) of provoking some kind of constitutional crisis—though I am sure a very small one—would be for them to withdraw the amendment now and reconsider the problem which they see in the context of public order as a whole.
  Lord Chalfont: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I briefly set the record straight? I do not have a low opinion of the vice-chancellors of universities. For most of them I have a high opinion and great admiration, but that is totally irrelevant to the purpose of this clause.
  Lord Annan: My Lords, after that encomium, I rise to my feet delighted! But I am bound to say that I take

  831
  a slightly more cynical view about this matter than has been shown in some of the high-minded speeches which have been made today. I agree with something the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, said when we debated this matter in July. That is, that an amendment of this kind cannot deal with such a wide issue. Nevertheless I shall explain why I shall vote for this amendment, in contra-distinction to my ex-colleagues in the academic world.
  First, I think that the amendment itself is quite carefully drafted and it contains some words, to which no one has yet drawn attention: that people are to take such steps "as are reasonably practicable". That phrase is very important and it appears in three subsections. I say that because—although I dare say the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will despise me for revealing this story from my past—in the 1960s, shortly after Mr. Enoch Powell made his famous speech about "rivers of blood", he was invited by the Conservative Association at University College, London, to speak. I returned late in the evening to be told this was going to happen and that there was no question but that there would be a riot of momentous proportions.
  I thought about this; and I asked the President of the Union and the leader of the Conservative Association to come and see me. I suggested that Mr. Powell might be invited to talk to his Conservative students at the Liverpool Street Station Hotel. And there a most successful meeting was held and there was no kind of commotion. Your Lordships may say that was an act of cowardice, but it seemed to me that I was taking such steps "as were reasonably practicable" to produce, on the one hand, freedom of speech and, at the same time, maintain law and order in the institution. I do not think this clause will stop that happening again.
  Various points have been put forward and one of the things the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, said was that the Vice-Chancellor's Committee had done everything they could. They had sent out a warning to universities to say, "You must look at this situation: the Secretary of State has asked us to draw your attention to it." That was all they did. The committee has a large secretariat. Could they not have produced a code of practice and—much more importantly, as I shall come to later—draft disciplinary regulations which in the light of experience of the past 15 years—and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors know a great deal about this matter—could have been circulated to universities? Universities should have been asked, "Have you brought your procedures up to date? Are they in line with the advice that we are giving you?"
  Again, the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, said: "Give the universities a chance". But they have been given a chance time and time again. I must refer to the situation in the University of Bristol. Here Professor Vincent was prevented from lecturing and about twenty students were brought up before the disciplinary body. I am informed by the Vice-Chancellor of Bristol that in the end eight of them faced the tribunal.
  First, let me say that by the laws of natural justice every university has to have a disciplinary body, and a
  832
  body to which there can be an appeal from that body. Natural justice demands that when university students are up before disciplinary bodies, they must be informed of the nature of the offence with which they are charged, the time and place at which they have to appear and sufficient time must be given to them to prepare their defence. They have a right of appeal from the verdict, although I should not say that they would have a right to appeal from a fine which is a trivial penalty.
  However, it is not part of natural justice that students should he defended by solicitors and barristers in front of disciplinary bodies. When Mr. Ian Botham appears before the MCC, does he have a barrister arguing his case? When a doctor appears before the General Medical Council, does he have a barrister arguing his case? I gather that they can and do, but I should be surprised if it is part of natural justice for lawyers to be employed in such defences. It would be perfectly proper to have an amicus curiae (i.e., someone from within the institution itself—either a senior or a junior member) to come and help the student in trouble; but even that is not part of natural justice.
  What happened at Bristol was that these cases dragged on and that every conceivable procedural argument was used by the barristers defending students. Then the miracle occurred. Sentences were handed out. The students appealed to the appeal court. A professor of law was the chairman of that body. I dare say that for that professor of law the visions which had always been before him had come true. He saw himself as Lord Chief Justice of England; perhaps he saw himself sitting on the Woolsack, handing out justice according to the niceties of the law. And what did he find? He found that because two members of the original disciplinary body had not been present throughout the proceedings but had been substituted—although it was a perfectly properly constituted body—all the sentences were null and void and the whole proceedings fell to the ground.
  That is the sort of thing that has been going on. Exactly the same sort of thing happened when I investigated the disturbances in Essex in 1974. There, again, the head of the appeal body took it into his mind that he could bring peace to the university if he suspended all sentences upon students who had done £30,000 worth of damage and had more or less immured the university from contact with the outside world and assaulted the vice-chancellor. It is these continuing disturbances which throw doubt on the willingness of universities to take this matter seriously.
  The noble Lord, Lord Briggs, said that the solution lay in what I think he called "building up a responsible body of opinion". I am afraid I think that that is an opaque generalisation. I do not believe that building up responsible opinion is going to stop disturbances in universities. I do not think that anything is going to stop disturbances in universities. But I do believe that this amendment may at last force the universities and similar bodies to put their disciplinary proceedings in order.
  At Oxford, at a similar time to that at which the £30,000 damage was done in Essex, students invaded.]

  833
  premises in the Indian Institute. They were told to get out and not do it again. They did it again and 13 of them were sent down for good. That is the type of disciplinary procedure which alone will solve this matter. That is why I believe that this amendment is a shot over the bows of those who run our institutions. It reminds me very much of what happened when Sir Thomas Beecham, before the war, got vexed with the ballet company for whom he was conducting. He conducted the dance of the little swans at double the normal pace and then said at the end of it, "That will make the beggers skip". I suspect that is what the Government have in mind by this amendment.
  5.30 p.m.
  Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, this debate is not about freedom of speech in universities and institutes of higher education. In this House, as we are aware, all of us are committed to freedom of speech and the debate is about whether or not this clause is the best means of achieving freedom of speech.
  I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that this is the first opportunity this House has had to debate this subject in detail. The clause that went to another place was not the clause from this House. It was a government clause and it went to another place on the understanding that it would come back to your Lordships' House for debate. It is that debate which is taking place today.
  I support my noble friend Lord McIntosh, the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and others who have opposed this amendment. I do that on the basis of my experience as a member of the councils of two universities in Yorkshire, one of which has some problems. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, has drawn upon his experience. I think the experience of Bradford University is relevant to the debate this afternoon. It was named in another place as one of the universities which had led to the introduction of this clause. The problems that Bradford has experienced illustrate the problems that universities and vice-chancellors generally are having.
  The two events in Bradford to which I wish to refer concern, first, a proposed visit by Harvey Proctor to the university. This was at a time when controversy was raging in the city about the case of Ray Honeyford, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has referred. The university authorities were conscious of the fact that a speaker on the subject of Ray Honeyford could be controversial and they contacted the city authorities and the police. The advice they received was that opinion in Bradford was very sensitive and very tense. It was generally agreed that a meeting of this kind would not help the situation there. Moreover, examinations were taking place in the university at the time and disruption would not have been to the benefit of the students.
  In the light of all those circumstances, the vice-chancellor decided to cancel the meeting at that time because the time was not opportune. I happen to think that the vice-chancellor was right, but others criticised him. Others would have criticised him had the meeting taken place and had there been racial disturbances in the city. But surely this is the
  834
  responsibility of vice-chancellors. They must weigh up the evidence and make a judgment. Sometimes, as with the rest of us, their judgment may be at fault. Sometimes it will be the correct judgment. However, if vice-chancellors are not able to make judgments of this kind, then what is the purpose of having a responsible person in charge of a university?
  Would the clause we are now considering have assisted the vice-chancellor of Bradford University at that time? I doubt it very much. Either he would not have been able to take that decision under subsection (2) of the clause or, if he had, he might have found himself in the courts with litigation on his hands. The noble Baroness, in her introduction, said that we must leave it to the courts to interpret this clause sensibly. We do not want our vice-chancellors spending their time in the courts defending their actions. I do not think that this particular clause would have helped the situation at all in those circumstances.
  The second incident also involved a visiting MP, John Carlisle. Again, the university anticipated trouble and took what steps they regarded as appropriate to deal with the situation. They alerted the police, and the police were present at the meeting. In addition to the Conservative Union group who were responsible for the meeting, the Students' Union itself had stewards at the meeting.
  Nevertheless, there was a disturbance but it was not caused by the students. The disturbance was caused by outsiders, by a group of youths who came into the meeting and caused the disturbance. Again I ask: What help would this clause be to the university in those circumstances? Nobody has subsequently been able to identify the youths who caused the disturbance and therefore no subsequent action has been able to be taken, nor would it be able to be taken under the clause as proposed.
  The universities do not have the resources to establish a security force that would keep people like that out of the meetings and I doubt very much whether your Lordships would wish them to have such a security force. Therefore, we have this problem of outsiders, which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and by other noble Lords. It is one that would not be dealt with by this clause. Universities can deal with the problem of student indiscipline by their own statutes and ordinances.
  Again, if I may refer to Bradford, they have a very strong ordinance which covers members of the university—that is, both staff and students—which enables the university to take disciplinary proceedings against any hindrance in academic fields, against any obstruction of the university's business being carried out, including the legitimate business of visitors, and against obstructing the university in its activities, again including visitors. Therefore if we have ordinances and statutes like that, they can protect the student body and enforce discipline on the students, but they cannot deal with this other problem that comes from outside. So I would say to your Lordships that we ought to consider very seriously what the Master of Balliol College asked in a recent article in the Independent:
  "Is it appropriate that the duty of providing specially secure political platforms should be placed uniquely on institutes of education?"
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments. We are enmeshed in the procedural and political difficulties that we have created for ourselves. Look, my Lords, at what we did. Earlier on it was this House who wished to have something put in the statute law to deal with this problem. The pressure on the Government was so strong that, while the amendment that was put down was not acceptable to them, they promised to bring forward after consideration an improved version to meet the wishes of the House. The Government's version was brought forward, but unfortunately the notice of it was so short before the Third Reading of the Bill that protests were made that we were asked to consider it at too short notice.
  The only way of dealing with that situation was not to deal with the amendment at all, but for the Government to promise that after further consideration they would introduce a suitable clause in the Bill in another place. That is what happened. The other place has endorsed the amendment before the House by a very large majority indeed. If we reject this amendment now, we shall create confusion in the Parliament and convey serious misunderstanding to the public.
  The public have not been mentioned this afternoon. The public's attitude towards universities, polytechnics and other institutes of higher education has come to the point where they regard much of what goes on there as part of the problem of violence and law and order, and think that it ought to be stopped. After all, when trade unions call strikes, and when there is violence in the exercise of free speech and free opportunity for action, that conveys to government and public the serious need for remedy, and I do not think that we can turn back from where we are now. It is a strange situation if it is more difficult to legislate for the establishment of free speech than it is to legislate to take it away.
  We are prone to chip at free speech, and when it comes to flawed legislation show me something in the race relations legislation, show me something in the Public Order Bill that we have had in this House in the last few days, that cannot be flawed on definition, construction or the meaning of words. What is the incitement of racial hatred? Tell me what "hatred" is. One can go on indefinitely. In all the morals and humanities we are in difficulties over definition in our legislation.
  But the main thrust of what people want done is in legislation, because they cannot see it being done by any other means. We shall be in serious difficulties. The public will wonder whether Parliament cannot make up its mind. It will wonder what difficulties have arisen. It will wonder: are they afraid of free speech after all? It is a curious feeling that I have this afternoon, that I am probably being a reactionary in insisting on free speech. It is not a party political matter with me. We have to nail free speech to the mast, take the risks that that entails and deal with them if they arise and become intolerable. That is where legislation on deprivation of free speech arises from.
  836
  When it is said that this may be unworkable, let us see. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, has surely given us the answer on the common sense construction of the legislation when we get it, and on the avoidance of the absurdities that lawyers may wish to invent in their attempt to undermine its effectiveness. So I am afraid that we shall be in serious trouble if we reject the amendment this afternoon. This is the best we have, it is better than nothing at all and it is far better than turning back in retreat.
  Lord Swann: My Lords, I share the concern of those who have spoken in favour of this amendment. I also share the worry about the doubts that have been expressed by those who are against it. But I shall not go over the ground that many noble Lords have already covered ably and I want to look at the problem from rather a different point of view. I think I can claim rather a lot of experience of the problem, having been Vice-Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh throughout what was called the student revolution in the late '60s and early '70s. And, unlike members of the Government, and in common with only a very small handful of noble Lords I have had to deal with near riots and attempts to prevent visiting speakers from being heard on a scale far worse than anything we have now.
  I remember all too well trying to quieten down mobs by shouting through loud hailers, on one occasion for two hours, because the chief constable could not muster enough policemen, and insisting on sharing lectures with visiting speakers when I thought that matters were going to get out of control, in order to try to set an example to the staff and students in my university. Very wearing it was. All this led. I am told, to my being regarded as a hard-liner in these matters and that, I suppose, might lead your Lordships to think that I should like to see the law brought in if only this amendment could he cleaned up and made workable.
  On the contrary, I came to the conclusion long ago that as a matter of principle the law should not be brought into the delicate area of freedom of speech, and I want briefly to explain why. Were I a scholar in the humanities, I expect I should be tempted to give your Lordships a brief tutorial on the conclusions of great men from the past who thought greatly about the proper limits to freedom and the extent to which the law should rightly be used to define those limits, but I am afraid that I am only a scientist. I think, however, that your Lordships might like to reflect on a few passages from a very remarkable speech by a former Member of this House, made more than 70 years ago to the Authors' Club of London, allegedly impromptu and taken down in shorthand, since when so far as I know it has only been circulated more or less privately. It puts the case for keeping the law out of such areas far better than I could possibly do.
  The speaker was John Fletcher Moulton, the first Baron Moulton. He was an exceptionally able mathematician, turned later to the law, became an MP, became a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, chaired a remarkable number of Royal Commissions and such-like committees, many of them forerunners of bodies we know today, and lastly, at the age of 70, became Director-General of Explosive Supplies in the Ministry

  837
  of Munitions throughout the first world war. He died in 1921.
  His speech was about that area of human behaviour which lies between what he called the domain of positive law and the domain of free choice. This area he called the third domain, of "Obedience to the Unenforceable":
  "The domain which covers all cases of right doing where there is no one to make you do it but yourself. It might be thought that I wish to annex this third domain, and bring it under the rule of positive law. That is not the case. There are countless supporters of the movements to enlarge the sphere of positive law. In many countries there is a tendency to treat matters that are not regulated by positive law as being matters of absolute choice. But these movements are encroachments on the middle land, and to my mind the real greatness of a nation, its true civilisation, is measured by the extent of this land of obedience to the unenforceable. It measures the extent to which the nation trusts its citizens, and its existence and area testify to the way they behave in response to that trust".
  He continued in memorable words:
  "Mere obedience to the law does not measure the greatness of a nation. Nor is the licence of behaviour which so often accompanies the absence of law, and which is miscalled liberty, a proof of greatness. The true test is the extent to which individuals can be trusted to obey self-imposed law".
  Surely those are sentiments that must come close to a Conservative Government's heart.
  There is no substitute for reading Moulton's whole speech, which is full of flashes of insight. I want to quote just one, a chilling passage on the tendency of governments to legislate on matters where they would do better to hold back. He said:
  "Between "can do" and "may do" ought to exist the whole realm which recognises the sway of duty, fairness, sympathy, taste, and all the other things that make life beautiful and society possible. It is this confusion between "can do" and "may do" which makes me fear at times lest in the future the worst tyrannies will be found in democracies"
  Can we, I wonder, glimpse just this at the present time, in the behaviour of some of our democratically elected local councils? I should not like to see that trend spreading any further.
  Towards the end of his speech Lord Moulton started to summarise what I believe to be the core of his argument. He said:
  "I … dread lest we should hurriedly let positive law come in and check the growth of self-reliance, check the growth of the sense of personal duty, and lead people to feel that if they obey the law, they have done all their duty".
  Finally, and most important of all, he went on to say:
  "I am not afraid to trust people—my fear is that people will not see that trust is being reposed in them. Hence I have no wish that positive jaw should annex this intermediate country. On the contrary I dread it. Instead of the iron rule of law being thrown over it, I would rather see it well policed by its inhabitants. I am too well acquainted with the inadequacy of the formal language of statutes to prefer them to the living action of public and private sense of duty".
  Thus Lord Moulton, speaking more than 70 years ago. Do the Government really prefer throwing the iron rule of law over this present problem, rather than encouraging the universities—vice-chancellors, staff and students—to solve it for themselves, as they did 15 or so years ago in the later stages of the student revolution? And which course do they really think bodes best for the nation's health in the future? I can only hope, for the good of our society, that when we come to vote on this amendment the "Not-Contents" will have it.
  Lord Adrian: My Lords, before I speak on this amendment—and I am conscious that we have devoted a long time to it—I have to declare an interest. I am one of those individuals concerned with the government of a university, and therefore very much affected. Indeed I am one of those whom the noble Lord, Lord Annan, wants to make skip. My present position—not this particular one but my position in Cambridge—makes me feel as if I am skipping most of the time.
  Perhaps I may say at once that, as all of us are, I am committed to freedom of speech and I do not have any difficulty whatever with the intention of this amendment. I, too, am shocked by recent events and I deplore them, but I do not think as many have said already that this amendment will do very much to meet our difficulties.
  Cambridge University already has in its disciplinary code, which is subscribed to by all members of the university, senior and junior alike—a rule which states:
  "No member of the university shall intentionally or recklessly impede freedom of speech or lawful assembly within the precincts of the university".
  I believe that this rule in a substantially more succinct form than this amendment actually protects freedom of speech much more effectively than will these present proposals. I am wholly with the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, when I say that this amendment will not help us in Cambridge.
  The grim picture painted by the proponents of the amendment is certainly not part of my experience. Our rule is not ignored by the university. In a recent incident where we had cause to believe that interference with an invited speaker was intended, the proctor and the university constables, whom some of your Lordships will remember as bulldogs, with police co-operation and help before the meeting, removed some of the students and others from the meeting place. They had chained themselves to the furniture and they had to be cut free. They were taken to the police station where they were detained for several hours until they had been identified.
  Prosecution was seriously considered because they had broken into the building, but we were advised by the police that in the circumstances this conviction of individuals would be difficult to obtain. The colleges of the involved students were informed and a clear warning given to each student that further incidents would involve either prosecution or a charge before the university court of discipline. The meeting took place as advertised without incident and, of course, without publicity. I have been informed, I hope unreliably, that the speaker was not a little disappointed. Perhaps we were lucky in this case, but it shows, I think, that sometimes we succeed, that our intention is clearly to support freedom of speech, that we have the will and the means to do so and that we already work in close collaboration with the police. I hope therefore that what I say further on the amendment will not be dismissed by the moral right as wet or soft or as remote and ineffectual.
  I have sought the opinions of lawyers in Cambridge on the drafting and the meaning of the amendment. Two general views prevail: either that it is so badly drafted that universities have nothing to fear; or that it

  839
  is so badly drafted that there is no knowing exactly what it means and that universities have good grounds for caution. I can only conclude that in legal terms this amendment is not well considered. When is someone a visiting speaker? Indeed, how is a visiting speaker to be identified? Must he be invited by a member of the university; or is it anyone who visits a university seeking to speak?
  These points have been raised already. If half-a-dozen undergraduates invite someone to speak to them in their college rooms, is the vice-chancellor responsible for ensuring that speaker's freedom of speech within the law, and in breach of his duty if that speaker is prevented from so doing? At the moment, the vice-chancellor does not even know about many such meetings. Must he now consider imposing a mechanism by which he does?
  It may be said that since the intention of the amendment is clear, these are just academic quibbles. I ask your Lordships to recall the pleasure of teasing college and university authorities and to recall that we are dealing with intelligent young people who will actually enjoy the game of devising conundrums of this kind. The second subsection, which refers to not denying any premises to a visiting speaker on the ground of his beliefs, will be a rich source of fun. We may laugh at the prospect of Moonies in King's Chapel, the Animal Liberation Front in the physiology department and Flat Earthers in the geography department, but hard-pressed people in universities will have to deal with students probing in this way. If nothing else, we shall waste a great deal of time and effort which would be better used on more serioius matters.
  I repeat that I do not dissent from the overt intentions of this amendment, but I believe that as a consequence of passing it universities and vice-chancellors will be forced to take actions which will exacerbate present confrontations. If Parliament chooses to stress the overriding importance of free speech by forcing vice-chancellors to rigid and codified responses there is, I believe, a real danger of more violence. The young, or some of them, often enjoy and indeed seek a fight. The deployment, for example, of the rugger club to preserve good order would in my day have been seen as an invitation to a scrap. None of us wants to see the mindless hooliganism of the soccer field in our universities and I for one will do my utmost to prevent it.
  I am fully aware, however, that if it does develop vice-chancellors will be blamed for it. If it does, we shall of course deserve some of the blame; but I believe that the supporters of this amendment, however well-intentioned, will carry the lion's share of the blame. I believe we are in danger of making fools of ourselves over this tendentious amendment. Vice-chancellors will be at even greater risk than before of being made fools of if they have Parliament and the courts breathing down their backs and demanding fierce action; and of course a flock of visiting politicians set on testing our resolve!
  Parliament runs the same risk by passing vague and ill-considered legislation with unforeseen consequences. After listening to some noble Lords I
  840
  have to say that I am inclined to wonder whether the temptation of making fools of vice-chancellors has made them blind to the dangers of making fools of all of us and of the law. I shall vote against this amendment if the matter is pressed to a Division.
  6 p.m.
  The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I shall try to be brief. There is one vice-chancellor to whom I am particularly close, and that is the vice-chancellor of the university of which I am the chancellor. I asked him about this amendment. He said that it plays into the hands of those who seek publicity. My noble friend Lord Briggs dealt with that so I shall not dwell on it.
  The amendment removes the power of vice-chancellors to prevent provocative invitations. It is virtually impossible to identify culprits on these occasions; and that was dealt with by the noble Baroness. Lady Lockwood. If identified, they cannot be apprehended without calling in the police, and the universities have no funds to pay for that. The vice-chancellors' document, which the noble Baroness presented, is a very good document, so I turn to that. The duty, they say, is spread across an impossibly broad front. The term "visiting speakers" is broad and ill-defined. The burden of proof as regards lawfulness is not identified with respect to the person on whom it rests.
  We have had three articles in newspapers from distinguished academics, two of whom have been quoted this afternoon. One is Patrick Neill, the vice-chancellor of Oxford. The third is John Griffith, emeritus professor of public law at the London School of Economics and chancellor of the University of Manchester. In a recent article he ended by saying:
  "But for the Government to seek to codify and define in legally enforceable terms so ambiguous a concept as freedom of speech within the law is more likely to impede than to achieve the desired end.
  We must ask ourselves why the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is universally against this amendment. It is going to make their job of safeguarding free speech more difficult and not less difficult. Therefore we should look at it on the old principle, "Above all things, no zeal." We must not be so zealous on free speech that we do the wrong things to defend it. I thank your Lordships for allowing me that brief intervention.
  Baroness Young: My Lords, as I expected, we have had a very important debate. I should like to begin my remarks by addressing the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, on his intervention. He implied—and it has been implied by a number of the vice-chancellors or former vice-chancellors who have spoken today—that somehow, by supporting this amendment, we are being anti the universities and, in particular, anti the vice-chancellors. Perhaps I may make absolutely plain, because I think everyone has produced their academic credentials, that I do not claim to be as academic as many who have spoken; but I am after all the daughter of a don and I married one. I have lived in Oxford all my life and I therefore think that I know just a little about universities myself.
  I have listened to the very eloquent and sincere speeches that have been made by many speakers who

  841
  have had to deal with a lot of difficult situations. I should like to say that we in government too are faced with difficult situations and have difficult decisions to take. This amendment is in no way an attempt not to acknowledge the very good work that is done in our universities, which are so highly regarded throughout the world.
  The second point I should like to make concerns why we have this amendment before us. It was of course tabled in your Lordships' House when we debated this Bill on Report and at Third Reading. But that is not the only reason. I believe that it was tabled because, sadly, our Ministers' attention had been drawn to a series of incidents which have occurred over the past two years involving the disruption or suspension of free speech in institutions of higher learning. Indeed, my honourable friend Mr. Walden, in answering a parliamentary Question on 25th June this year, listed 14 such incidents in the first half of 1986. Until May of this year we as a government had resisted calls for legislation on precisely the grounds that have been enumerated today; that is, that the institutions should be expected to resolve those problems themselves.
  It gives me no pleasure at all, nor do I think it gives any of my noble friends pleasure, to feel that those problems have not been solved. Indeed, almost everyone who has said we ought not to have this amendment has quoted difficulties in the universities. They have given long and involved explanations as to why they have not been able satisfactorily to deal with them. The truth of the matter is that there have been these incidents. We have all been deeply shocked by the kind of cases raised by my noble friend Lady Cox—the case of Professor John Vincent; the case of the lecturer at Ruskin College; the invitations to speakers that are rescinded; the pressures from militant groups—and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, quite apart from the points made by my noble friend Lord Renton. Therefore there is a reason why we made those decisions.
  As I said in introducing this amendment, we do not regard it as a panacea, but it will do what I think the noble Lord, Lord Annan, quite rightly said. He said that it will oblige people to look and look again very hard at what they do to see whether they can meet the principle which every single speaker in this debate has agreed ought to be met; namely, the principle of freedom of speech. I am sure that we all listened with enormous interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, had to say from his experience, and also to what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said. If I may say so, that once again was the voice of reality. He brought in, and brought to our attention, what the outside world thinks about this situation and he said it very well indeed.
  Three specific points have been raised by almost everyone who has spoken, and I shall try to answer them. They are criticisms which have come from the letter of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors. The first criticism—given again by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury—is that the clause spreads the duty to protect freedom of speech across far too broad a front. It takes in a very large number of individuals. But this provision is deliberate; it underlies the general principle that everyone involved in the life of an
  842
  institution of higher education should share the duty. It can be left to the code of practice required under the clause to delineate where particular responsibilities will lie within each institution.
  However, I stress the importance of the requirement that the steps taken to fulfil the duty imposed by the clause should be such as are "reasonably practicable", and reference to what is reasonably practicable appears three times in the clause. There have been a number of suggestions in recent weeks, advanced in the press and in correspondence, and indeed in your Lordships' House today, about situations in which the clause may be expected to apply. I believe that those were dealt with for the most part by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place and I shall not reiterate all that he had to say.
  I shall, however, repeat two important points, because this brings me to criticism No. 2, which is the possible interpretation of the term "visiting speaker" which is used in the clause we are considering today. The clause, which was withdrawn by the Government in June, referred to "a person duly invited"—that is the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he spoke. But the Government concluded that this concept raised more questions than it answered and posed the risk of conflict with one of the two fundamental purposes of this legislation; namely, to outlaw no platform policies in higher education—and that is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
  Subsections (1) and (2) of the clause read together are therefore intended to secure freedom of speech for members of the institution and those whom they invite to speak on the premises and to ensure that no interest group within the institution can be prevented, on the grounds specified, from inviting a speaker. The Government do not believe that the courts would be likely to interpret the term "visiting speaker" as meaning any person who elects to turn up unsolicited, expressing a wish to speak on the premises of an institution. A visiting speaker will be someone who has a justifiable claim to be on the premises, and that claim can be tested against the provisions of the institution's code of practice.
  I come to the third criticism, which concerns the premises that ought to be made available on a particular occasion. The duty laid on those concerned is to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech is secured. I repeat the assurance given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary that the clause is not intended to give anyone the right to demand access to a particular part of an institution. All institutions will have rooms which are commonly used by visiting speakers. The clause could be expected to imply a right to the use of such rooms when available, but that does not mean that if all such rooms have been booked on a given date a visiting speaker or student society could demand the use, for example, of the senior common room or the library of the college chapel. They might have to look for another date when accommodation customarily used for visiting speakers was free.
  The clause does not lay upon institutional authorities the responsibility for ensuring that a visiting speaker observes the law. He must be afforded

  843
  the opportunity to speak within the law—that is the point made, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Somers—but it is his responsibility to observe the law as it bears upon the expression of opinion in public and it is he who is vulnerable to prosecution if he fails to do so.
  I shall now try to answer a number of specific points. My noble friend Lord Caldecote asked: who will decide what the clause means? The answer is that in the last resort it is the courts, but the whole thrust of the clause is on establishments of higher education putting their own houses in order. Provided that they come out with a sensible code of practice and take reasonable steps to enforce it, they will have nothing to fear.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, raised two particular cases. I say to her that the vice-chancellor can still make a judgment where he fears that disturbances will result if the meeting takes place. That is something which can be provided for in the code of practice for the establishments concerned. He must take such steps as are reasonably practicable; he does not have to be infallible.
  In listening to this debate I have been very struck by the observations of all those who have spoken against the amendment. I am thinking of the noble Lords, Lord Flowers, Lord Briggs and Lord Swann, who have said, "Yes, we want freedom of speech. We do not think that this clause will achieve it". Actually, they have not put up any alternative. In effect, what they are saying to us is, "Carry on as now". Nor indeed, if I may say so to them, have they made suggestions since this matter was raised in the summer when surely they had opportunities to do so. They have had consultations. They could have looked again at the kind of points which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, suggested and which I am sure other noble Lords can think of from their own practical experience.
  Indeed, if I may say so, I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, was being less than fair to the Government when he gave as his suggestion that we must wait—I forget the exact form of words he used—until we have the support of public opinion. That is really waiting for a very long time. The Government have the support of public opinion to enforce freedom of speech in higher education premises. I am quite certain that that is what people want.
  What we are talking about when we come to legislation and to Parliament is something that actually will work. It is very easy to make a general statement. At the end of the day it requires the knowledge, the courage and the right framework to ensure that is is possible for it to work. It simply does not take place in a vacuum. That is one thing that is quite clear.
  One could say a great deal more but the hour is late. I hope that we shall agree with the Commons in this amendment. It is something that all of us believe to be right in principle. There has been no argument against that. If we do not support it, it means that we accept that everything is all right and, given the evidence of what is going on that sadly and regrettably we have had, we know perfectly well that we should not be
  844
  doing our duty if we left the matter as it is. It would be perfectly clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, made plain in his very effective intervention, that if we did not pass this amendment today we would send the wrong signal everywhere. We would not send the right signal. We have an opportunity today to do something that we all believe in principle is right. I ask my noble friends and your Lordships to support this amendment that we have received from another place.
  6.19 p.m.
  On Question, Whether this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment (No. 82)?
  Their Lordships divided; Contents, 129; Not-Contents, 78.

  DIVISION NO. 1

  CONTENTS

  Aldington, L.

  Hesketh, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Hives, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Holderness, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Home of the Hirsel, L.

  Annan, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Houghton of Sowerby, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Barber, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Beaverbrook, L.

  Knollys, V.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Lane-Fox, B.

  Belstead, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Bessborough, E.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Blyth, L.

  Layton, L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Long, V.

  Brightman, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Brocket, L.

  McAlpine of Moffat, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Broxbourne, L.

  Manton, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Margadale, L.

  Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Mersey, V.

  Carnock, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Molson, L.

  Chalfont, L.

  Monson, L.

  Charteris of Amisfield, L.

  Morris, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Munster, E.

  Colwyn, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Cork and Orrery, E.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Newall, L.

  Cox, B.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Onslow, E.

  Croft, L.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Davidson, V. [Teller.]

  Pender, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Perth, E.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Dilhorne, V.

  Poltimore, L.

  Dormer, L.

  Portland, D.

  Eccles, V.

  Reay, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Renton, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Renwick, L.

  Elton, L.

  Rodney, L.

  Faithfull, B.

  Russell of Liverpool, L.

  Ferrier, L.

  Saint Oswald, L.

  Forte, L.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Sandford, L.

  Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

  Savile, L

  Gibson, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Gisborough, L.

  Shannon, E.

  Glanusk, L.

  Shaughnessy, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Somers, L.

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

  Swansea, L.

  Henderson of Brompton, L.

  Teynham, L.

  845

  Thorneycroft, L.

  Vickers, B.

  Tonypandy, V.

  Vivian, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Trenchard, V.

  Whitelaw, V.

  Trumpington, B.

  Wolfson, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Young, B.

  Vestey, L.

  Young of Graffham, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Adrian, L.

  Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

  Airedale, L.

  Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

  Allen of Abbeydale, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Amherst, E.

  Longford, E.

  Ardwick, L.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Attlee, E.

  McCarthy, L.

  Avebury, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Alyestone, L.

  McNair, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Mais, L.

  Bernstein, L.

  Morton of Shuna, L.

  Birk, B.

  Mulley, L.

  Bonham-Carter, L.

  Oram, L.

  Bottomley, L.

  Pitt of Hampstead, L.

  Briggs, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

  Briginshaw, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Rochester, L.

  David, B.

  Sainsbury, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Seear, B.

  Diamond, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Elwyn-Jones, L.

  Sherfield, L.

  Ely, Bp.

  Silkin of Dulwich, L.

  Ewart-Biggs, B.

  Stedman, B. [Teller.]

  Falkender, B.

  Stewart of Fulham, L.

  Fitt, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Flowers, L.

  Swann, L.

  Gallacher, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Thurso, V.

  Grimond, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Underhill, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Wallace of Coslany, L.

  Irving of Dartford, L.

  Wells-Pestell, L.

  Jacques, L.

  Whaddon, L.

  Jeger, B.

  White, B.

  John-Mackie, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Kilbracken, L.

  Wilberforce, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Winstanley, L.

  Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions
6.27 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should now like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The Statement reads:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about school teachers' pay and conditions of service in England and Wales.
"For more than two years the local authority employers and the teacher unions have been negotiating about school teachers' pay and conditions. During this time the education of the children in our schools has been repeatedly disrupted. The children have been the victims. The local authorities and teacher unions sought help from ACAS because they were unable to reach a settlement within the Burnham Committee. Limited progress has been made as a result of
846
ACAS's work. Some heads of agreement were negotiated at Coventry in July, but little has been achieved since then. Now, scandalously, further disruption is threatened. A further negotiating meeting is planned for 8th November at Nottingham. I must make the Government's position clear.
"We now also have the Main Committee's report about pay and conditions of service for school teachers in Scotland. My right honourable friend will shortly make a statement giving the Government's response to that report. The Government regard the recommendations in that report relating to the teachers' pay structure, and to their duties and conditions of service, as well judged. We consider that similar arrangements should he adopted in England and Wales, although existing differences in practice mean that it is not appropriate to seek to apply the Main Committee's findings in their entirety to England and Wales. I am therefore writing today to the chairman of the Burnham Committee's Management Panel explaining the additional resources the Government are willing to make available for teachers' pay in England and Wales; and spelling out our conditions for releasing those resources. I have placed a copy of that letter in the Vote Office.
"The Government will make additional resources available only when two very important conditions are delivered. First, there must be a pay structure with differentials which reflect the varying responsibilities of teachers and the need to recruit, retain and motivate teachers throughout the school system and at all stages of their careers. The pay structure envisaged at the Coventry meeting in July does not meet this condition. A structure more in line with the recommendations in the Main Committee's report is necessary, and I have set out such a structure in the letter which I have put in the Vote Office. All teachers will receive higher pay; more than half of them on promoted posts reflecting varying responsibilities. The crucial importance of head teachers, who carry the biggest responsibilities, will be recognised.
"The second condition is that teachers' professional duties must be more sharply defined and clarified leaving no room for ambiguity about their duties and this must be carried through into enforceable contracts of employment. Contracts and conditions of service must be brought into line with the 19 points under discussion at the Coventry meeting. In particular, school teachers should be under an express contractual obligation to cover for absent colleagues, and to he available to work at the direction of head teachers for 1,300 hours over 195 days each year. All of this is set out in more detail in the letter I have placed in the Vote Office.
"In return for delivery of these conditions, teachers' pay would be increased in two instalments. The first instalment would increase average school teachers' pay by 8·2 per cent. from 1st January 1987, and the second instalment would be a further 8·2 per cent. from 1st October 1987. These two instalments would cover the full percentage increase in average school teachers' pay implied by the Main Committee's recommendations. This would settle

847
teachers' pay for 1986–87 and 1987–88. The increase of 8·2 per cent. from 1st January means that teachers' pay will have increased by over 16 per cent. since 30th March this year. Teachers will have had an average 25 per cent. increase over the two years to October 1987. This means that a good honours graduate in his third year would receive after two years' of teaching £10,000, an increase of about 20 per cent. The head of the largest comprehensive would get an increase from £26,250 to £30,500. I want to emphasise that these increases are only justified by the fundamental change in the terms, conditions and structure of the service which must accompany them.
"If, and only if, these conditions are met are the Government prepared to add £118 million in 1986–87 and £490 million in 1987–88 to planned expenditure on education in England and Wales. Education GREs would be increased accordingly. Block grants to local education authorities would be increased by £56 million in 1986–87 and £200 million in 1987–88. The cost of these increases would have to be shared by taxpayers and ratepayers. We estimate that rates would increase by between 2 per cent. and 4 per cent. compared with the decisions that local authorities would otherwise have taken.
"I hope that the meeting at Nottingham will accept the position I have outlined. I look to the employers and unions to act quickly and positively. I must make it clear that the matter must now be resolved on all the terms and conditions I have set out. The Government will not be prepared to amend them further, or to make any additional resources available.
"Now let me turn to the future. Over the last few years it has become widely accepted that the present negotiating machinery should be replaced. The Government therefore intend to repeal the Remuneration of Teachers Act and to bring forward proposals to this House for new machinery which will involve an interim committee to advise the Secretary of State on conditions of service and the distribution of pay within the resources available at the appropriate time.
"The Government are making these proposals in the interests of the whole country. I believe they will be seen as fair and continued disruption will be seen to be unforgivable in these circumstances. My proposals constitute a very special offer for very special people—the children of our nation."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we must express our gratitude to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in another place. We welcome it to the limited extent that it is apparent that the Secretary of State has won what purports to be a battle in Cabinet with some of his Cabinet colleagues and has achieved expenditure levels that his predecessor was not able to achieve. That leads us inevitably to ask the Government why the money was not made available two years ago. Why have we had to suffer this long period of disruption in our schools
848
because of the previous intransigence of the Government and their unwillingness to recognise the justifiable demands of teachers for more comparable pay, and also their justifiable demands to make up the losses in real terms and in comparative terms that they have suffered over previous years?
I must ask the noble Baroness whether she thinks that the contract conditions attached to this offer from which, on the face of it, I do not dissent—I have, however, only the first page of the letter to which the noble Baroness refers (the rest apparently not having gone through the photocopier)—can possibly be effective unless there are also the resources in terms of capitation allowances, of improvements to premises and of all the other forms of expenditure other than teachers' pay that are necessary for lasting peace in our schools.
I would also ask the noble Baroness what she thinks will be the effect on the negotiations in Nottingham next week. The Statement refers to the future repeal of the Remuneration of Teachers Act. But, in fact, the Statement itself constitutes a unilateral repudiation of the Remuneration of Teachers Act. The Government have stepped in without waiting for the formal repeal of the Act and they have, in effect, abolished the negotiating machinery. Is it not the case that the Government are seeking in the Statement to take the credit for any success that there may be in subsequent negotiations, and yet are distancing themselves from the possibility of failure or responsibility for the possibility of failure? Is it not in fact the case that the Government will have to take the blame for any failure in the talks and that they cannot take credit for any success that there might be, for this would be achieved despite the actions of the Government today?
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I wish to reiterate the words of the noble Lord. Lord McIntosh. It is unfortunate that the Statement has come two years too late. All the disruption and distress that the profession, parents and children have endured during that time could have been avoided. Among other things, the question of out-of-school duties for teachers would not have become the bone of contention that it is. As we know, teachers have withdrawn their services from such activities as midday supervision, parents' meetings, supervision of the arrival and departure of children, supervision of out-of-school activities and extracurricular activities. They have been forced to withdraw their voluntary service in what have now become issues for confrontation and matters of binding duties. This has led to the rather harsh words used by the Secretary of State when he refers to there being no ambiguity about teachers' duties, and how they must be sharply defined and clarified. It is regrettable that services and activities freely given previously on a voluntary basis should now become matters of no ambiguity and of sharp definition and clarification. So there is a strong element of tough bargaining.
The Secretary of State refers to the motivation of teachers. The teachers, two years ago, did not need motivation. They need it now only because of two years of de-motivation. Teachers have become so

849
discouraged over this whole unhappy business that now the moment has certainly arrived when they need motivation. It is largely the events of the last two years that have made this necessary.
There is reference to an increase of 25 per cent. over two years to October 1987, which sounds generous. But an increase of 25 per cent. would not have been necessary had teachers' pay initially not been so shamefully low. One union unfortunately threatens further action. The Secretary of State's Statement is couched in somewhat dictatorial and uncompromising terms. It is to be hoped that these will not produce the due reaction from unions and teachers, so that the whole weary process starts up again. We must hope that in the discussions at Nottingham there will be a genuine air of negotiation and not an air of dogmatism or a veiled threat of legislation on the part of the Government.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords for their somewhat muted welcome to the Statement. They both asked the question: why intervene at this stage? Why has it not happened before over the two-year period? It has been necessary to allow negotiations to follow the normal channels. We were told when we reached the Coventry agreement in July that this was an historic agreement, but as events have proved it was being re-written before the ink was dry. One union did not sign and the rest quickly distanced themselves. In the middle of this month they put in a string of extra demands, adding about 50 per cent. to the original Coventry cost. It is for this reason that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has decided to intervene at this stage because, in view of the meetings in Nottingham next week, it is important that the parties can now go there with the Government's position crystal clear on the provisions that we shall make for spending on teachers' pay, on the levels of grant we shall make available, and on the shape of the pay structures on contractual duties and on conditions of service. We hope that on this basis they will be able to achieve a more lasting and beneficial result at Nottingham.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, also referred to teachers' duties and motivation. Again, we appreciate that clarity and incentive have been lacking. I apologise to the noble Lord opposite that he does not seem to have the complete version of the letter in which there are 19 points very clearly set out, that we believe will give increased help to teachers in defining their duties and in providing incentives for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, also suggested that the increase was not very generous. However, I do not feel that 16.4 per cent. over two years is a bad deal. The figure of 8.2 per cent. this year on top of 7.4 per cent. already awarded since 30th March can hardly be called an ungenerous increase. The increase of 16.4 per cent. will take the average salary of teachers in England and Wales from £11,150 to £13,000. By next October teachers will have had an average increase of 25 per cent. over two years. This is a very good offer.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will recognise that there will be widespread appreciation of the fact that the Secretary
850
of State has been so decisive and clearcut in the action that he has taken in this matter. Nonetheless, does the noble Baroness not feel that this is an extremely generous award in the light of the very widespread disruption that has been caused over recent months during the course of these discussions by some of the members of the teaching profession? Can my noble friend indicate whether any thought has been given to the impact of this award, if it comes to be fulfilled, on the private sector—in which I declare a financial interest—and which no doubt she wishes to see preserved?
Lastly, can my noble friend say whether there is any time scale to be imposed by the end of which agreement is to be achieved—if that is to he the case—or whether the whole matter is to be left open-ended for continuing argument and debate?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend that in effect this settlement is a reward for disruption. The Government have been aware of the problems in schools. They have phased in the increase in salaries over a number of years in order to ensure that relativity between teachers and other professions is not entirely lost sight of.
I believe that there may well be an impact on the private sector although the terms of the agreement, which we hope will be reached in Nottingham, do not directly apply to them. With regard to the timescale, this very much depends on the parties in their negotiations in Nottingham. We certainly hope as a result of the Government making their position so clear, and as a result of the long period of time they have had to discuss these matters since Coventry in July, that some agreement will be reached.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I congratulate the Secretary of State on this deal. I have always thought that competent teachers should be treated and paid in a manner which reflects their importance to the nation. However, I want to be assured that one of the conditions of this deal is that there shall be regular assessments of ability in the classrooms, because it is quite clear that many of the difficulties in the schools today are due to the fact that we have teachers who are not up to the job.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. Appraisal is one of the matters enumerated in the letter which is available in the Library of your Lordships' House. Obviously the Statement referred to the Vote Office in the other place. Appraisal is certainly one of the items mentioned in that list.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that from any point of view the Statement which she has made to the House marks a momentous occasion in the history of the teaching profession and teachers' pay. We must recognise that. I do not want to look back very much because I am quite ready for my modest place in the history of teachers' pay to be overrun by the Baker Report, or the Main Report, or any other report that will settle this unhappy business. But I think that the history of the whole subject would have been different if the committee over which I had the honour to preside

851
were not circumscribed by the statutory conditions and conventions and the history of the whole subject 12 years ago. We were inhibited from making any report on conditions of service. We were stopped from considering the remuneration of any part of the educational system outside the Burnham Report. We therefore had to deal with the higher ranges of teachers' pay and polytechnics but we could not touch the universities. A lot of trouble ensued because we were not able to look at universities at the same time that we were looking at polytechnics.
I drew attention to the main problem in my covering letter on the report, which was separation as between conditions of service and remuneration. I said that nowhere else in the public sector—and probably nowhere else at all—is pay kept entirely separate from conditions of service. The composite job and composite conditions of service have to be taken together to appreciate their full significance and importance. We therefore had to stick to pay. That was a considerable handicap in the work we were doing. We were bold, but we could have been much bolder had we been able to accompany our proposals on pay with something like the package deal that is now open to the teachers. However, that is all I want to say about the past.
It would be unfortunate if the blame for the delay were put on any particular party. I think that everyone was strung up with the past conditions, which were out of date and which it was inopportune to revise and reform while there were strong pressures on pay.
The question that I wish to ask the noble Baroness is this. I am a little unclear—I missed the first two minutes of the Statement—as to the nature of the discussions that will take place at Nottingham. Are they within the machinery of the Burnham system or are they ad hoc to deal with the composite pay and conditions proposals that are being made? Will the Government be represented at the discussions or are we still maintaining the fanciful concept that teachers are employed by local government? These are the problems all the time. Is the machinery that is available for discussion at Nottingham able to negotiate on the total package that has been presented by the Government? If so, then we can hope—I am sure we all do hope—for a settlement to be reached. If they are not competent to settle, where will the final decision be taken?
Can we be assured that this will really be the show in Nottingham when everything will be put on the table and those representing the teaching institutions will be able to reach conclusions, even though in the end they may have to put the totality of what is available to their members by ballot or by other means? Are we approaching the end—that is what I really want to know—because this miserable business cannot go on indefinitely. Here, it seems to me, is the opportunity to reach a settlement. The conditions seem to be pretty tough, but they are negotiable, and that is what the final meeting is all about.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for his initial remarks in particular. I am glad that the Government have at last met the points that the noble Lord voiced some 12
852
years ago by bringing pay and conditions into one package. Perhaps I might add that now in real terms against the retail price index teachers are back to Houghton levels of pay, thanks to the fact that we have brought inflation under control.
As to the nature of the meeting in Nottingham, as I understand it, the committee is of an ad hoc kind. It was set up for the July meeting in Coventry at the instance of ACAS. As your Lordships will recollect, when the negotiations broke down, the parties brought in ACAS. ACAS suggested the setting up of this ad hoc committee. The committee consists of the employers and representatives of the unions, and an impartial chairman. The Government as such are not represented; but naturally the Government are hopeful that the decision will be made in Nottingham, taking the Government's position into account, and that this statement will be helpful in bringing the disruption and problems to a speedy end.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, would the noble Baroness be good enough to clarify two points arising out of previous questions? First, my noble friend Lord Houghton said that these conditions were negotiable. I read the Statement to mean that they were not negotiable in any way. I wonder whether she can confirm that is the case. Secondly, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred to this as a deal. As I read the Statement, there is no deal. The deal has to be made between the unions and the local authority employers. This is simply an ultimatum made by the Government of the conditions on which the Government are prepared to allocate a modest amount of taxpayers' money and a very large amount of ratepayers' money.
I have one final question genuinely for information. The Statement says,
"The Government therefore intend to repeal the Remuneration of Teachers Act and to bring forward proposals to this House for new machinery"
by which the Secretary of State means another place. Does that imply that the new machinery will not be brought before Parliament as a whole, and therefore not brought before your Lordships' House? In what form will the machinery come before Parliament?
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I used the word "deal" in the sense that the Government on the one side are offering money and the teachers on the other side are asked to agree to conditions.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I think I would agree with my noble friend that what is intended is that there should be a balanced package on the lines advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and he expressed it clearly when he said that in no other area is pay divorced from service conditions. I shall try to make the matter clear to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I believe that I said in answer to a previous supplementary that the Government, in making this Statement, have now made their position crystal clear well in advance of the talks in Nottingham so that there is time for the parties to look at the statement and to digest it, and I trust that they will take careful account of what my right honourable friend said.

853
Obviously we have to be patient. The Nottingham talks take place the weekend after next. Once we have the outcome to consider, we shall consider it. I think we have enough actual questions to think about without resorting to hypothetical ones.
There was a final point made by the noble Lord, which now escapes me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, even if the noble Baroness cannot answer it now, I should like her to write to me about this. The Statement says that the Secretary of State will
"bring forward proposals to this House for new machinery which will involve an interim committee".
My question is whether such proposals should not be brought before Parliament rather than simply before another place. I wonder whether she can advise me in what form it will come before Parliament?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, if I understand correctly, it will come before Parliament as a whole. If I may be permitted, since the noble Lord offered me that way out, I shall clarify the position and write to him. Indeed, I shall place a letter in the Library so that everybody may be informed.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is of course extremely interesting to a Scot to know that the proposal is to model the package on that which has been proposed by the independent Main Committee in Scotland. I am wondering when we shall hear from her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland what is happening in Scotland about the Main Report. She said it would be shortly—does she know how short "shortly" is?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that a separate Statement on Scotland has been made in another place, but that it was not requested that it should be repeated in this House.

Education Bill [H.L.]
6.57 p.m.
Consideration of Commons amendments resumed.

Education Bill [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  83 Insert the following new Clause:
  "Political indoctrination

  .—(1) The local education authority by whom any county, voluntary or special school is maintained, and the governing body and head teacher of the school shall forbid—

  (a) the pursuit of partisan political activities by any of those registered pupils at the school who are junior pupils; and

  (b) the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school.

  (2) In the case of activities which take place otherwise than on the premises of the school concerned, subsection (1)(a) above applies only where arrangements for junior pupils to take part in the activities are made by any member of the staff of the school (in his capacity as such) or by anyone acting on his, or the school's behalf.".

  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree wih the Commons in their Amendment No. 83.
  854
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  84 Clause 39, page 43, line 1, leave out "should be" and insert "are".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 84. This amendment makes a grammatical correction.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  85 After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
  "Abolition of corporal punishment.
  .—(1) Where, in any proceedings, it is shown that corporal punishment has been given to a pupil by or on the authority of a member of the staff, giving the punishment cannot be justified on the ground that it was done in pursuance of a right exercisable by the member of the staff by virtue of his position as such.
  (2) Subject to subsection (3) below, references in this section to giving corporal punishment are references to doing anything for the purposes of punishing the pupil concerned (whether or not there are also other reasons for doing it) which, apart from any justification, would constitute battery.
  (3) A person is not to be taken for the purposes of this section as giving corporal punishment by virtue of anything done for reasons that include averting an immediate danger of personal injury to, or an immediate danger to the property of, any person (including the pupil concerned).
  (4) A person does not commit an offence by reason of any conduct relating to a pupil which would, apart from this section, be justified on the ground that it is done in pursuance of a right exercisable by a member of the staff by virtue of his position as such.
  (5) In this section "pupil" means a person—

  (a) for whom education is provided—

  (i) at a school maintained by a local education authority;

  (ii) at a special school not so maintained; or

  (iii) at an independent school which is maintained or assisted by a Minister of the Crown (including a school of which a government department is the proprietor) or assisted by a local education authority and which falls within a prescribed class;

  (b) for whom primary or secondary education, or education which would be primary or secondary education if it were provided full-time, is provided by a local education authority otherwise than at a school; or

  (c) to whom subsection (6) below applies and for whom education is provided at an independent school which does not fall within paragraph (a)(iii) above;

  but does not include any person who is aged eighteen or over.
  (6) This subsection applies to a person if—

  (a) he holds an assisted place under a scheme operated by the Secretary of State under section 17 of the 1980 Act;

  (b) any of the fees or expenses payable in respect of his attendance at school are paid by the Secretary of State under section 100 of the 1944 Act or by a local education authority under section 6 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1953;

  (c) any of the fees payable in respect of his attendance at school are paid by a local education authority under section 81 of the 1944 Act; or

  (d) he falls within a prescribed category of persons.

  (7) The Secretary of State may prescribe, for the purposes of subsection (6)(d) above one or more categories of persons

  855
  who appear to him to be persons in respect of whom any fees are paid out of public funds.
  (8) A person shall not be debarred from receiving education (whether by refusing him admission to a school, suspending his attendance or otherwise) by reason of the fact that this section applies in relation to him, or if he were admitted might so apply.
  (9) The power conferred on the Secretary of State by paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the 1980 Act to terminate a participation agreement under section 17 of that Act if he is not satisfied that appropriate educational standards are being maintained includes power to do so if he is not satisfied that subsection (8) above is being complied with.
  (10) In this section "member of the staff" means—

  (a) in relation to a person who is a pupil by reason of the provision of education for him at any school, any teacher who works at the school and any other person who has lawful control or charge of the pupil and works there; and

  (b) in relation to a person who is a pupil by reason of the provision of education for him by a local education authority at a place other than a school, any teacher employed by the authority who works at that place and any other person employed by the authority who has lawful control or charge of the pupil and works there.

  (11) An Order in Council under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule I to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (legislation for Northern Ireland in the interim period) which states that it is made only for the purposes corresponding to those of this section—

  (a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament); but

  (b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.".

  86 Insert the following new clause:
  "Abolition of corporal punishment: Scotland.
  .—(1) After section 48 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, there shall be inserted the following new section—
  "Corporal Punishment.
  Abolition of corporal punishment of pupils.
  48A.—(1) Where, in any proceedings, it is shown that corporal punishment has been given to a pupil by or on the authority of a member of the staff, giving the punishment cannot be justified on the ground that it was done in pursuance of a right exercisable by the member of the staff by virtue of his position as such.
  (2) Subject to subsection (3) below, references in this section to giving corporal punishment are references to doing anything for the purposes of punishing the pupil concerned (whether or not there are also other reasons for doing it) which, apart from any justification, would constitute physical assault upon the person.
  (3) A person is not to be taken for the purposes of this section as giving corporal punishment by virtue of anything done for reasons which include averting an immediate danger of personal injury to, or an immediate danger to the property of, any person (including the pupil concerned).
  (4) A person does not commit an offence by reason of any conduct relating to a pupil which would, apart from this section, be justified on the ground that it was done in pursuance of a right exercisable by a member of the staff by virtue of his position as such.
  (5) In this section "pupil" means a person—

  (a) for whom education is provided—

  (i) at a public school,

  (ii) at a grant-aided school, or

  (iii) at an independent school, maintained or assisted by a Minister of the Crown, which is a school prescribed by regulations made under this section or falls within a category of schools so prescribed.

  (b) for whom school education is provided by an education authority otherwise than at a school, or

  856

  (c) to whom subsection (6) below applies and for whom education is provided at an independent school which does not fall within paragraph (a)(iii) above.

  (6) This subsection applies to a person if—

  (a) he holds an assisted place under a scheme operated by the Secretary of State under section 75A of this Act,

  (b) any of the fees or expenses payable in respect of his attendance at school are paid by the Secretary of State under section 73(f) of this Act,

  (c) any of the fees payable in respect of his attendance at school are paid by an education authority under section 24(1)(c), 49(2)(b), 50(1) or 64(3) of this Act, or

  (d) he falls within a category, prescribed by regulations made under this section, of persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be persons in respect of whom any fees are paid out of public funds.

  (7) In this section "member of the staff" means—

  (a) in relation to a person who is a pupil by reason of the provision of education for him at any school, any teacher who works at the school and any other person who has lawful control or charge of the pupil and works there; and

  (b) in relation to a person who is a pupil by reason of the provision of school education for him by an education authority at a place other than a school, any teacher employed by the authority who works at that place and any other person employed by the authority who has lawful control or charge of the pupil and works there.

  (8) The Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument, prescribe—

  (a) schools or categories of school for the purposes of subsection 5(a) (iii) above; and

  (b) categories of persons for the purposes of subsection (6)(d) above.

  (9) A person shall not be debarred from receiving education (whether by refusing him admission to, or excluding him from, a school or otherwise) by reason of the fact that this section applies in relation to him, or if he were admitted might so apply.
  (10) The power conferred on the Secretary of State by paragraph 4 of Schedule 1A to this Act to revoke a determination under section 75A of this Act if he is not satisfied that appropriate educational standards are being maintained includes power to do so if he is not satisfied that subsection (9) above is being complied with.".".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 85 to 86 en bloc.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  87 Clause 40, page 44, line 12, at end insert—
  "(4) Before making any regulations under subsection (I) above, the Secretary of State shall consult—

  (a) such association of local authorities, and representatives of teachers, as appear to him to be concerned; and

  (b) any other person with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable.".

  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 87. This amendment requires that the Secretary of State consult
  the local authority

  857
  associations and teachers' associations, and anyone else with whom he thinks consultation desirable, before making the teacher appraisal regulations. The Government conceded this point at Committee stage and moved the amendment at Report stage in response to the evident wish of committee members that the consultation, which it was always intended to take, should appear on the face of the Bill. It is a measure of the Government's concern to ensure that a scheme of appraisal has the widest possible support.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  88 Clause 41, page 44, line 18, at end insert—
  "(bb) education welfare officers;"
  89 Page 44, line 20, leave out "and"
  90 Page 44, line 21, at end insert " ; and
  (f) such other classes of person, employed in connection with the discharge of any of the functions of such authorities, as may be prescribed.".
  91 Page 45, line 1; at end insert—
  " "education welfare officers" means any person who is employed by a local education authority, or employed by any other authority in connection with education, and whose duties include securing the regular attendance at school of pupils of compulsory school age;".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 88 to 91 en bloc. These amendments reflect the Government's acceptance of the Opposition's arguments in another place, that the scope of in-service training grant arrangements should be extended to cover a wide range of education staff—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: And here, my Lords.
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  92 Clause 42, page 46, line 6, after "apply" insert—

  (a) in relation to pupils who do not fall within a prescribed category; or

  (b)".

  93 After Clause 42, inset the following new clause:
  "Recoupement: cross-border provisions.

  .—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring or authorising payments of amounts determined by or under the regulations to be made by the one authority to another where—

  (a) the authority receiving the payment makes, in such cases or circumstances as may be specified in the regulations, provision for education in respect of a pupil having such connection with the area of the paying authority as may be so specified; and

  (b) one of the authorities is a local education authority and the other an education authority in Scotland.

  (2) The basis on which amounts payable under the regulations are to be determined shall be such as the Secretary of State sees fit to specify in the regulations and may, in particular, be similar to that adopted by him in relation to directions given under section 42(1) of this Act.

  858

  (3) Any question concerning the connection of any pupil with the area of a particular local education authority or education authority shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of the regulations.

  (4) The reference in subsection (1) above to provision for education includes a reference to provision of any benefits or services for which provision is made by or under the enactments relating to education.".

  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 92 and 93. Amendment No. 92 is a drafting amendment designed to protect the freedom of providing authorities to refuse admission to further education students from other authorities when they know that recoupment will not be forthcoming. The new clause provides for the making of regulations dealing with cross-border recruitment between England, Wales and Scotland and vice-versa. It is an equivalent provision to that currently found in Section 31(5) of the Education Act 1980.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Hooper).
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  94 After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
  "School Transport.
  .—In section 55 of the 1944 Act (provision of transport and other facilities), the following subsection shall he added at the end—
  "(3) In considering whether or not they are required by subsection (1) above to make arrangements in relation to a particular pupil, the local education authority shall have regard (amongst other things) to the age of the pupil and the nature of the route, or alternative routes, which he could reasonably be expected to take.".".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 94. This new clause is designed to clarify for the benefit of local education authorities how they should approach the duty which is placed on them under Section 55(1) of the 1944 Act. That duty is to make such arrangements for the provision of transport, and otherwise, as they consider necessary in order to facilitate the attendance of pupils at schools. Where local education authorities conclude that it is necessary to make such arrangements the transport must be provided free of charge. The Government have been aware for a long time that the concept of what is necesasry is not very explicit and the new clause enriches Section 55 by giving some examples of the kind of factor which has to be taken into account.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  95 Clause 47, Page 50, line 29, leave out "but not" and insert "(including provision for allowances not to be paid in respect of certain categories) but shall not make different provision".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 95. This amendment makes it absolutely clear that a local education authority

  859
  scheme for allowances to governors need not provide for travel and subsistence allowances to be paid to all categories of institution. The purpose of subsection (2) is to allow local education authorities to provide for travel and subsistence allowances for the governors of, say, an establishment of further education, where the governors may have to travel quite considerable distances, but not necessarily for the governors of schools. The local education authority may not, however, make different provisions for different types of governors on the same governing body.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  96 Clause 50, page 52, line 8, after "is", insert "a student of the institution or is."
  97 Page 52, line 9, at end insert—???quote>
  ?quote>"(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision restricting—

  (a) in relation to such matters or classes of matter as may be prescribed;

  (b) in such circumstances as may be prescribed; and

  (c) to such extent as may be prescribed;

  the participation of any student of such an institution who is a member of its governng body in the proceedings of that body.
  (3) The instrument of government for any such institution may make such provision in relation to restricting the participation of any such student in the proceedings of its governing body (in addition to that made by the regulations) as the regulations may authorise.".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 96 and 97. These amendments allow students at further education colleges who are minors to be governors, but to provide for their withdrawal from the discussion of matters as described in regulations or in the instrument of government for the college.
  As a result of representations made by tertiary college principals and governors, the Government conceded this extension at Committee stage in another place, and moved the amendments at Report stage. It may be suggested that there is an anomaly between allowing student governors at tertiary colleges and not pupil governors at sixth form colleges. In tertiary colleges, students are by definition either adults or on the threshold of adulthood and are in a more adult environment. It is common ground that student governors should not be party to all of the governors' business and the regulations will ensure that certain items of business will he reserved from such under-age governors.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it certainly is suggested that there is an anomaly between the treatment of tertiary colleges and sixth form colleges. I have never heard a more feeble brief read better in this House in all the time I have been here. The point that was made, not only in another place but here, was
  860
  that not only in sixth form colleges but in schools there have been many successful examples of pupil governors taking an active part in governing bodies, but withdrawing without any embarassment or difficulty from those parts of the agenda with which they should not be concerned. It is disappointing that the Government have not recognised the full force of those arguments, and moved a more widely worded amendment.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  98 After Clause 50, insert the following new clause:
  "Access to papers etc. of governing bodies
  ?quote>.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the governing body—

  (a) of every county, voluntary and maintained special school; and

  (b) of every institution of a kind mentioned in section 50 of this Act;

  to make available, to such persons or classes of person as may be prescribed, such documents and information relating to the meetings and proceedings of the governing body as may be prescribed.".???quote>
  ?quote> (2) Documents and information required by the regulations to be made available shall be made available in such form and manner, and at such times, as may be prescribed.".???quote>
  99 Clause 53, page 53, line 5, at end insert "but does not include a governor appointed in accordance with any provision made by virtue of section 5 of this Act".
  100 Page 53, line 5, at end insert—
  "exclude", in relation to the exclusion of any pupil from a school, means exclude on disciplinary grounds;".
  101 page 53, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 8.
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 98 to 101 en bloc.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  102 Clause 54, page 53, line 35, leave out "Section 49" and insert "Sections 49 and 51 to 53, this section and section 55(1) to (3) and (7)".
  103 Page 54, line 2, at end insert "including, in particular, for the purpose of bringing particular provisions into force only in relation to particular schools or categories of school.".
  104 Page 54, line 11, after "Act", insert "(including, in particular, the provisions which the order brings into force)".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 102 to 104. These are tidying up amendments in respect of the commencement provisions.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  105 Clause 55, page 54, line 14, after "1985", insert "and the Education Act 1986".
  106 Page 54, line 24, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
  "(7) In this Act—

  (a) sections (Abolition of corporal punishment: Scotland) (Recoupment: cross-border provisions), 51(1) to (3) and 54(3) to (6), this section and so much of Schedule 5 as relates to any enactment which extends to Scotland, extend to Scotland; and

  (b) section (Abolition of corporal punishment) (11) and this section extend to Northern Ireland;

  but otherwise this Act extends only to England and Wales.".
  107 Page 54, line 25, leave out subsection (8).
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 105 to 107. Amendment No. 105 reflects the fact that the Education (No. 2) Bill reached the statute book first. It became therefore the Education Act 1986, so this one will become the No. 2 Act.
  Amendment No. 106 extends the scope of certain provisions of the Bill to Scotland and Northern Ireland, reflecting the fact that the corporal punishment clauses extend there and that the cross-border recoupment new clause extends to Scotland too. This amendment is therefore a consequential of Amendments Nos. 85, 86 and 93, while Amendment No. 107 removes the privilege amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  108 Schedule 1, page 55, line 16, after "body" insert "and head teacher.".
  109 Schedule 2, page 57, line 38, at end insert—
  "(2A) In co-opting any person (otherwise than as a temporary foundation or teacher governor) to be a member of a temporary governing body of a new school which will be a county, controlled or maintained special school, the temporary governors concerned shall—

  (a) have regard—

  (i) to the extent to which they and the other temporary governors are members of the local business community; and

  (ii) to any representations made to the temporary governing body as to the desirability of increasing the connection between the temporary governing body and that community; and

  (b) where it appears to them that no temporary governor of the new school is a member of the local business community, or that it is desirable to increase the number of temporary governors who are, co-opt a person who appears to them to be a member of that community;".

  110 Page 59, line 3, at end insert "and head teacher.".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 108 to 110.
  Moved, that this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Hoopper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  111 Schedule 2, page 61, line 36, after "any", insert "new".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 111, and at the same time that we may discuss Amendments Nos. 115, 117 and 118.
  862
  These amendments are clarificatory to ensure consistency of reference throughout the schedule to new schools.
  Moved, that this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  112 Schedule 2, page 62, line 5, after "(4)", Subject to paragraph 2(2A) above".
  113 Page 62, line 9, at end insert—
  "(4A) Sub-paragraph (4) above does not apply in relation to foundation governors.".
  114 Page 63, line 4, at end insert " ; and shall recommend (with reasons) persons who belong to the community served by the new school and who are, in the opinion of the temporary governing body, suitable for appointment as co-opted members of the governing body.
  (3A) Before making any recommendations under sub-paragraph (3) above, a temporary governing body shall consult representatives of the local business community.".
  115 Page 63, line 9, after "any ", insert "new".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 112 to 115.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question. Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  116 Schedule 2, page 63, line 13, at end insert—
  "(2) Where, under sub-paragraph (1) above, any requirement is imposed by a local education authority on the head teacher of a new school which will he an aided school, the authority shall notify the temporary governing body of that requirement; and the head teacher of any such school shall furnish that body with a copy of any report which he makes in complying with any such requirement.".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116. This amendment makes for temporary governing bodies of new aided schools the same provision as that added by your Lordships to Clause 28 (2), requiring the local education authority to copy to the governing body of an aided school any request for a report which it makes of the head teacher, and the head teacher to copy the subsequent report to the governing body. This is to safeguard the special interests of the governing body of an aided school as the employer.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  117 Schedule 2, page 63, line 15, after "any", insert "new".
  118 Page 63, line 40, after "any", insert "new".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 117 and 118.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  119 Schedule 2, page 64, line 28, leave out from "(6)" to "shall" in line 29 and insert "Sections 6 to 8 of the 1980 Act (admission to schools)".
  120 Page 64, line 33, leave out sub-paragraphs (7) and (8).
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 119 and 120.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  121 After Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule:
  EXCLUSION ON DISCIPLINE GROUNDS: APPEALS
  General

  1. The articles of government for every county, controlled and maintained special school shall provide for it to be the duty of the local education authority when (following the consideration which they are required to give to the case by virtue of section 21(5)(a) of this Act) they inform a pupil, or a parent of his, of their decision that he should not be reinstated, to inform the pupil or (as the case may be parent) of his right to appeal against the decision.

  (2) The articles of government for every aided and special agreement school shall provide for it to be the duty of the governing body, when (following the consideration which they are required to give to the case by virtue of section 21(6)(a) of this Act) they inform a pupil, or a parent of his, of their decision that he should not be reinstated, to inform the pupil or (as the case may be) parent of his right to appeal against the decision.

  3.—(1) Where, in accordance with any provision of the articles of government of any school made by virtue of section 21(5)(a) of this Act, the local education authority give a direction to the head teacher of the school for the reinstatement of any pupil who has been excluded, the direction shall not have effect for a period of seven days beginning with the day on which the governing body are informed of the direction by the authority unless, within that period, the governing body inform the authority that they do not intend to appeal against the direction.

  (2) Where, before the end of that period, the governing body lodge an appeal against the direction in accordance with the relevant arrangements—

  (a) the local education authority shall inform the pupil (if he is aged eighteen or over) or his parent (if he is under eighteen) of his right to make representations to the appeal committee; and

  (b) the direction shall not have effect unless it is confirmedby the appeal committee or the appeal is withdrawn.

  (3) No appeal against such a direction may be made by the governing body after the direction has taken effect.

  4. Part I of Schedule 2 of the 1980 Act (constitution of appeal committees) shall have effect in relation to appeals with the necessary modifications.

  5. The Secretary of State may by order amend this Schedule.

  Procedure

  6. An appeal shall be by notice in writing setting out the grounds on which it is made.

  7. On an appeal by a pupil or parent, the appeal committee—

  (a) shall afford the appellant an opportunity of appearing and making oral representations;

  (b) may allow him to be accompanied by a friend or to be represented; and

  (c) shall allow—

  (i) the local education authority and the governing body to make written representations to the committee; or

  (ii) an officer of the authority nominated by the authority, and a governor nominated by the governing body, to appear and make oral representations.

  864

  8. On an appeal by a governing body, the appeal committee—

  (a) shall afford a governor nominated by the governing body an opportunity of appearing and making oral representations;

  (b) shall afford the governing body an opportunity to be represented;

  (c) shall allow the pupil, if he is aged eighteen or over, or a parent of his, if he is under eighteen, to make written representations to the committee or to appear and make oral representations; and

  (d) shall allow the local education authority to make written representations or an officer of the authority nominated by them to appear and make oral representations.

  9. The body responsible for making any arrangements under section (Exclusion on discipline grounds: appeals) of this Act shall, in setting any time limits in connection with appeals, have regard to the desirability of securing that appeals are disposed of without delay.

  10. In considering any appeal, the appeal committee shall take into account (amongst other things) any representations made to it by any of the persons whom it is required to afford an opportunity to make representations.

  11. In the event of a disagreement between the members of an appeal committee the appeal under consideration shall be decided by a simple majority of the votes cast and in the case of an equality of votes the chairman of the committee shall have a second or casting vote.

  12. The decision of an appeal committee and the grounds on which it is made shall be communicated by the committee in writing to the pupil (if he is aged eighteen or over) or a parent of his (if he is under eighteen) and to the local education authority and governing body.

  13. All appeals shall be heard in private except when otherwise directed by the authority or governing body by whom the arrangements are made but, without prejudice to any of the provisions of this Schedule—

  (a) a member of the local education authority may attend any hearing of an appeal by an appeal committee, as an observer; and

  (b) any member of the Council on Tribunals may attend any meeting of any appeal committee at which an appeal is considered, as an observer.

  14. Two or more appeals may be combined and dealt with in the same proceedings if the appeal committee consider that it is expedient to do so because the issues raised by the appeals are the same or connected.

  15. Subject to the preceding provisions of this Schedule, all maters relating to the procedure on appeals, including the time within which they are to be brought, shall be determined by the authority or governing body by whom the arrangements are made; and neither section 106 of the Local Government Act 1972 nor paragraph 44 of Schedule 12 to that Act (procedure of committees of local authorities) shall apply to an appeal committee constituted in accordance with Part I of Schedule 2 to the Act of 1980.

  16. In this Schedule, references to appeals are to appeals under section (Exclusion on discipline grounds: appeals) of this Act.

  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 121.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  122 Schedule 3, page 69, line 9, leave out paragraph 3.
  123 Page 69, line 18, at end insert—
  "The Education (No. 2) Act 1968 (c. 37)
  . In section 3(3) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1968 (application of enactment to certain establishments)—

  865

  (a) after the word "applies" there shall be inserted the words "and special schools maintained by local education authorities"; and

  (b) after the word "establishments", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "and schools".".

  The Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7)
  In paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1974 (matters not subject to investigation by Local Commissioner) after the words "Act 1944" there shall he inserted the words "or sections 16 to 18 of the Education Act 1986".
  The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c. 65)
  In section 51 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (acts done under statutory authority) the following subsection shall he added at the end—
  "(3) This section shall apply in relation to instruments of government and articles of government for schools made under the Education Act 1986 as it applies in relation to instruments of government and articles of government for schools made by or under any Act passed before this Act.".".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 122 and 123. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3, removed by Amendment No. 122, was originally intended simply to clarify the scope of Section 114(2) of the 1944 Act. On further examination, however, it serves more to call into doubt the application of Section 114(2) to other aspects of the school's running costs and is thus better removed.
  Amendment No. 123 simply updates other legislation to take appropriate account of this Bill's revision of education law.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  124 Schedule 4, Page 69, line 29, after "is", insert "in force".
  125 Page 69, line 30, after "force", insert "and continues in force".
  126 Page 69, line 32, at end insert—
  "(2) any such instrument shall, after the commencement of section 1, be treated for the purposes of this Act as having been made by order under that section.".
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 124 to 126. These amendments clarify the provisions already in the Bill to ensure that aided and special agreement schools will not require new instruments of government to be made as a result of the enactment of the Bill, as the provisions in Clause 4 concerning the composition of their governing bodies merely repeat the provisions in the 1980 Act, and all their instruments of Government should therefore comply already.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  127 Schedule 4, page 69, line 40, at end insert—
  "Recommendations by outgoing governing bodies

  3.—(1) The governing body for any county, controlled or maintained special school which is constituted under an instrument of government or arrangement in force immediately before section 1 of this Act comes into force shall recommend (with reasons) to any governing body who will succeed them persons who belonging to the community served by the school and who are, in their opinion, suitable for appointment as co-opted members of their successor.

  (2) Before making any recommendations under subparagraph (1) above, a governing body shall consult representatives of the local business community.".

  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 127.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  128 Schedule 5, page 70, line 23, column 3, at end insert—
  "In section 3(2), the words "or subsection (4) of section 2".".
  129 Page 70, line 28, column 3, at end insert—
  "In section 35(1), the words from "(other" to (b))".".
  130 Page 70, line 29, at end insert—
  "1980 c.44.The Education Section 23(5) to (7)" (Scotland) Act 1980.
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 128 to 130. These are consequential repeals, tidying up the references to maintained special schools in the 1968 (No. 2) Act, and, for the 1980 Act, reflecting the recoupment amendments and new clause for cross-border recoupment in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Baroness Hooper.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Salmon Bill [H.L.]
7.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments he now considered.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 1, I should draw the attention of the House to a correction which should be made to the list of amendments. On page 8, in subsection (4), line 3, the word "includes" should read "include". I call Amendment No. 1.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to [Bill 97] as first printed for the Commons]
1 Clause 1, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) where an island or part of an island is not within the area of a salmon fishery district by virtue of subsections (1) or (2) above, include in the area of a salmon fishery district—

(i) that island or that part; and

(ii) the sea within three miles from mean low water springs on that island or that part;".

Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. The purpose of this amendment is to enable the Secretary of State, after appropriate consultations, to bring islands which are not part of an existing salmon fishery district wholly within the area of an existing salmon fishery district. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 48 which is purely consequential.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 After Clause 7, insert the following Clause:
("Use of baits and lures
.—The Secretary of State may subject to the provisions of this section, make regulations specifying baits and lures for the purposes of the definition of "rod and line" in section 24 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 195.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations under this section only on—

(a) application to him by a district salmon fishery board; or

(b) a joint application to him by more than one such board,

and regulations made in respect of such application shall be made only in respect of the district of the applicant.
(3) Regulations under this section shall specify, subject to such exception as may be provided therein, all or any, or a combination of, the following—

(a) baits and lures or classes of baits and lures;

(b) times when the regulations apply;

(c) areas to which the regulations apply.

(4) An application under subsection (2) above shall be accompanied by the applicants' written proposals which shall state—

(a) the baits and lures which it is proposed should be specified;

(b) the places to which and the times during which the proposed regulations should apply; and

(c) the reasons for the proposals.

(5) Paragraphs 3 to 9 of Schedule 1 to this Act shall apply to the making of regulations under this section as they apply to the making of a designation order, and for this purpose—

(a) references to a designation order shall be construed as references to regulations under this section; and

(b) references to an applicant, and to an application, under paragraph 1 shall be construed respectively as references to an applicant, and to an application, under subsection (2) above.

(6) in section 24(1) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951, at the end of the definition of "rod and line" there shall be inserted the following—"and, in the case of fishing for salmon in an area to which and at a time during which regulations made under section (use of baits and lures) of the Salmon Act 1986 apply, is not specified in such regulations in respect of that area and time".".
3 Page 9, line 4, after "6", insert "and section (Use of baits and lures)".
4 Page 9, line 23, at end add—
" ; and
(d) section (Use of baits and lures) of this Act includes power to amend section 6 of the Tweed Fisheries Amendment Act 1859.".
5 Page 9, line 25, after "6", insert ", 10".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 en bloc. Amendment No. 2 and the related consequential Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 provide the regulation-making provision for baits and lures which my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin promised during earlier stages of the Bill. The regulations depend upon local initiative where there is a perceived need for some control over baits and lures. In this respect there is a difference from the amendments moved then by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and my noble friend Lord Burton Which would have required the Secretary of State to rake the initiative in all circumstances.
Regulations under the clause may be made by the Secretary of State at the request of a district board or boards. There are safeguards for those who may be affected or who may consider that regulation is unnecessary in the relevant district or districts. There will have to be some local consideration by the board on which anglers will have a say. A baits and lures regulation will also have to go through all the statutory procedures for designation and annual close time orders which require the Secretary of State to consult; to cause the proposals to be advertised; and to hold a public inquiry if he considers it necessary. I consider that these safeguards are sufficient for all interests and I hope that those who fear that they might be adversely affected by unreasonable regulations will be reassured by the arrangements for detailed consideration that are provided in the clause. Your Lordships will have noted that district boards only have the power to ask for regulations, not to make them. And also that regulations can be made for part of a district so that upper waters, for example, could be treated differently from lower waters.
Amendment No. 5 is a minor technical amendment.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Glenarthur)
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and indeed his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, for honouring the pledge to deal with this matter in another place. In my view the matter as dealt with is very satisfactory and will be of satisfaction to those of us who promoted it. I thank the noble Lord very much.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
6 Clause 10 page 10, line 18, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
"(6) Subject to subsection (5) above, a qualified proprietor in a salmon fishery district shall not be eligible for election, co-option or appointment to the district salmon fishery board for that district in respect of more than one salmon fishery.".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. This is a technical amendment.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
7 Clause 11, page 11, leave out lines 9 and 10.
8 Page 11, line 16, leave out subsection (2).
9 Page 11, line 24, after "is", insert "a sole proprietor".
10 Page 11, line 25, leave out "only one proprietor of salmon fisheries".
11 Page 11, line 29, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"( ) A person appointed as a water bailiff by a sole proprietor mentioned in subsection (3) above shall, on the commencement of this section, cease to have the powers and duties of a water bailiff conferred on him by or under any enactment to the extent that such powers and duties relate to that appointment.".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 to 11 en bloc. These amendments represent, I hope, an appropriate response to the concern which has been expressed about the appointment of water bailiffs by the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Carmichael.
We have accepted the argument that it is inappropriate for sole proprietors to continue to have the power to appoint bailiffs at their own hand, in the light of the statutory powers which bailiffs enjoy. When the Bill is enacted, appointments of bailiffs by sole proprietors will cease and those bailiffs appointed by sole proprietors under existing legislation will no longer have statutory powers. This is not to say that we are removing from the sole proprietor the ability to protect his fisheries. Sole proprietors will be able to apply to the Secretary of State for the appointment of a bailiff under the provisions of Section 10(5) of the Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951. There is an established administrative procedure for the application, which involves consultation with the police. The system works well in practice.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, assure the House that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland are geared to receive all the applications that may arrive? Otherwise what may well happen is that after the passing of this Bill into an Act all the bailiffs on this kind of river will suddenly cease to exist. Unless the machinery is ready to deal with the applications they will receive there may well be a hiatus if there are no bailiffs with any legal standing at all. I should like to receive an assurance that they are geared to deal with this matter at the speed at which it may happen.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should first like to thank the Minister for having gone some way towards meeting the genuine worries that my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock and I expressed during the earlier stages of the Bill. The
870
noble Lord will appreciate that while he has gone a long way we would want to go rather further, and perhaps we shall get an opportunity to do that at a later date.
In order to save time, perhaps I may say that there is a later amendment tied up with the question of bailiffs, and I feel grateful to the Government for having gone so far as they have in Amendment No. 21 to curtail some of the two great powers that bailiffs have. Perhaps that will dispose of the necessity to speak again when the time comes.
The point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is administrative and one which I am sure the Government will have well in hand. There is the point that there could be a hiatus, but I do not think that I should be one to grumble too much if there was a short period when there were no bailiffs on one or two of the rivers; but perhaps that is not in the right spirit on the Salmon Bill. I congratulate the Minister on giving us what he has given. It is something to go on with until we are in a position to be more specific about the qualities of bailiffs.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He mentioned a later time. How late would be late? It is a matter for anyone to guess. In answer to the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, I can assure him that we are geared up to cope with that particular issue.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
12 Clause 12, page 11, line 31, after "proprieter", insert "or an elected member or chairman of a district salmon fishery board".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. This is a drafting amendment.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
13 Clause 13, page 12, line 30, leave out "of an association".
14 Page 12, line 34, leave out "of an association".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 en bloc. Again, this amendment is purely drafting and technical.
Moved, that this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
15 Clause 14, page 13, line 26, after "accounts", insert ", which shall be audited,".
16 Page 13, line 29, leave out from "and" to end of line 31 and insert "the audited accounts".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 en bloc. Again, they are drafting amendments.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
17 Page 14, line 16, at end insert—
"( ) The powers under subsections (5) and (6) above to recover arrears of fishery assessment include power to recover interest, chargeable at such rate as the Secretary of State shall, with the consent of the Treasury, determine, on such arrears from—

(a) in the case of recovery of arrears under subsection (5) above which have been outstanding for at least three months from the date of issue of a notice of assessment, that date; or

(b) in the case of recovery of arrears under subsection (6) above which have been outstanding for at least three months from the date of the coming into force of this section, that date,

until payment of the commencement of an action for payment, whichever is the earlier.".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 49.
The Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards asked for a power to charge interest on arrears of fishery assessment. There was support for this in the earlier discussions in your Lordships' House. Unfortunately, the amendments produced at that time were defective and my right honourable friend undertook to look at the possibility of producing an acceptable form of words. These amendments enable the new boards or transitional boards to recover interest on arrears of fishery assessment imposed by them or their predecessors. Proprietors will, in effect, have three months' grace after which, if a board so decides, they will be able to recover interest from the date of demand for the fishery assessment. Provision is made for transitional situations.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, this is a helpful amendment which will be welcomed by district fishery boards. In these days of high interest rates, poor payers can be a great drain on any organisation. The ability to recover the interest, which is after all what the boards will lose if the due assessments are not paid in time, is of enormous help to them, and I am grateful.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
18 Clause 15, page 15, line 16, leave out subsection (4).
19 Page 15, line 25, leave out subsection (6).
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 en bloc. Again, these are technical amendments.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
20 Clause 17, page 16, line 36, leave out from "he" to the end of line 37 and insert "shall cease to be a member of that board".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. At Committee stage in another place an amendment was tabled which would have substituted "shall" for "may". This amendment achieves the same end. We believe it is entirely reasonable that a person must cease to be a member of a board when he ceases to be appropriately qualified.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
21 Clause 19, page 18, line 16, at end insert "but not so as to enable these powers to be exercised in any dwelling-house or any yard, garden outhouses and pertinents belonging thereto or usually enjoyed therewith".
22 Page 18, line 17, leave out subsection (2).
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 en bloc. As your Lordships will know, some misgivings have been expressed about the possible extent of the powers of search and entry which may be given to water bailiffs under the dealer licensing scheme. It was made absolutely clear that they would not be given any such powers in respect of domestic premises, with or without a search warrant. We were conscious, however, of the continuing concern on this point and thought that it would be desirable to carry the undertaking into the Bill. Amendment No. 21 does that.
With regard to Amendment No. 22, the doubts on this clause expressed in another place centred upon possible loopholes which might arise from excluding on the face of the Bill dealing in live salmon and processed or preserved salmon. After further consideration, it was decided to remove subsection (2) so that nothing is pre-empted. We will specify in the order introducing the dealer licensing scheme what class or classes of salmon or dealing in salmon are to be excluded from the scheme. I remind your Lordships that the order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act, so that there will be an opportunity for further discussion, for example, on definitions of processing and preserving when we bring the order forward.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
7.30 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I had not really intended to speak to this amendment. I rise merely to put the Minister's mind at rest. There is nothing secret waiting towards the end of the Bill to change the points that have been made on Amendment No. 21. When I suggested "at a later date" I meant a much later date when we have the

873
power perhaps to make alterations by way of an amending Bill.
We are pleased that the Government have gone as far as they have. A point of great disturbance to many of us was the immense powers that appear to have been given to bailiffs. One or two examples were given of powers being used more aggressively than they should have been. We welcome this. When I suggested that there might be slight changes at a later date, there still is, if I remember—I am sorry it was not brought out in another place as well as it should have been—the power of the bailiffs to search cars on the highway and certain motorcars off the highway. They could demand that car boots be opened; and I believe they could even force entry.
So far as the Bill goes, I think that it is on the right lines and, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock (who would have agreed with this had he been here), I gladly accept the Minister's reassurances and wish godspeed to the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
23 Clause 21 , page 20, line 32, leave out "(1)" and insert "(7)".
24 Page 21, line 2, after "premises", insert "(other than a dwelling-house or any yard, garden, outhouses and pertinents belonging thereto or usually enjoyed therewith)".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 en bloc. Amendment No. 23 merely corrects a printing error.
With regard to Amendment No. 24, it was made clear in another place that honourable Members were concerned about police powers to enter and search dwelling-houses without a search warrant in cases of urgency, even though there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that the offence of possession of illegally taken salmon had been committed and that relevant evidence was to be found on those premises. An undertaking was given to consider whether in these circumstances a dwelling-house should be exempt from the possibility of such entry and search. The Government reconsidered the position and concluded that we can dispense with the power to search without a warrant in urgent cases for dwelling-houses and for their pertinents. The possibility of urgent action will remain in hotels or commercial premises where delay in obtaining a warrant could allow the removal of incriminating evidence. Amendment No. 24 gives effect to that conclusion.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments—[Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
25 After Clause 23, insert the following clause—
" . After section 7 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951, there shall be inserted the following section—
"Fixed engines in the Solway.
7.B.—(1) Any person who, for the purpose of taking or obstructing the free passage of salmon, places or uses an uncertificated fixed engine within the limits of the Solway Firth in Scotland shall be guilty of an offence and liable on
874
summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(2) In subsection (1) above—
"fixed engine" includes any net or other implement for taking fish which is fixed to the soil or made stationary in any other way; and
"uncertificated" means not having been certified as privileged under section 5 of the Solway Salmon Fisheries Commissioners (Scotland) Act l877.".".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25. This is a purely technical amendment which follows from changes in the 1975 Act made by Amendment No. 35, which my noble friend Lord Belstead will refer to in due course.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
26 After Clause 23, insert the following clause—
Poaching in the Esk

" .—(1) Section 21 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951 (non-application of that Act to the River Esk in Scotland) shall be renumbered as subsection (1) of that section and—

(a) at the beginning of that subsection there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (2) below."; and

(b) after that subsection there shall be added the following subsection—

"(2) Section 1 of this Act and sections 3 and 18 to 20 so far as relating to an offence under that section shall apply to so much of the River Esk, including its banks and tributary streams, as is situated in Scotland.".

(2) In section 39 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (application of that Act to certain Border waters including the River Esk) there shall be inserted after subsection (1) the following subsection—

"(1A) In the application of this Act, under subsection (1)(b) above, to the River Esk in Scotland, references to this Act in sections 31 to 33 and section 36 shall be contrued as including references to sections 1, 3 and 18 to 20 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951 as applied to that River by section 21 of that Act.".

(3) In section 43(3) of the said Act of 1975 (Scottish extent) after the words "39(1)" there shall be inserted the word ", (1A)".

(4) Section 9 of the Solway Act 1804 shall, so far as relating to salmon, cease to have effect in relation to much of the River Esk, including its banks and tributary streams, as is situated in Scotland.".

Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26. It may be convenient for the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 52.
The intention of Amendment No. 26 is to close an existing and unintended loophole in the law affecting the Scottish part of the River Esk. Without going into detail I believe this is widely welcomed.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
27 Clause 24, page 22, line 15, after "that", insert "(a)".
28 Page 22, line 17, after "place", insert ", being a salmon fishery entered in the valuation roll,".
29 Page 22, line 17, leave out "has" and insert "; and
(b) if there is one, the district salmon fishery board for that district have".
30 Page 22, line 19, at end insert "and, in relation to that River, "district salmon fishery board" means the River Tweed Council".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 to 30 en bloc. These amendments are intended to ensure that a district board—and for the Tweed, the River Tweed Council—has to consent to any proposed exemption under Clause 24 before the Secretary of State agrees it. As drafted at present, only affected proprietors have to give consent.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
31 Clause 25, page 22, line 36, after "roe", insert "or eggs".
32 Page 22, line 39, after first "for" insert "(i)".
33 Page 22, line 39, leave out "or for" and insert "; (ii)".
34 Page 22, line 41, leave out "salmon" and insert "fish; or (iii) the purpose of conserving any creature or other living thing.".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 to 34 en bloc. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak also to Amendment No. 51.
Amendment No. 31 recognises that there is a difference between roe and eggs and therefore a need to mention both in the Clause. Amendments Nos. 32, 33, and 34 ensure that the exempting power under Clause 25, which relates to acts that would otherwise be offences against provisions to protect salmon, is not restricted only to protecting salmon but could be used, where necessary, for conservation reasons to protect other species of fish or other animals. They sensibly extend the provision for a very appropriate purpose.
Amendment No. 51 is a technical amendment designed to maintain the present position with regard to exemptions relating to trout and other freshwater fish.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, these amendments deal with conservation matters. They might well involve the seeking of advice by the appropriate department or ministry. At this point it is only fair to say that we know what went on in another place because Hansard reported it. We know that, as a result of this Bill, a conservation committee has been promised which will consider problems and proffer advice to the Ministry
876
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland.
This gives me an opportunity at least to draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that we know this committee will be set up. Those of us who wish this Bill well, as indeed I think we all do, wish it to be successful in the conservation of salmon stock and in the proper exploitation of these stocks for all purposes. We are slightly sorry that the conservation committee, which will be giving advice on these matters, will not be the subject of debate in either House of Parliament so far as one can see. We are not, at this important stage, to be able to give any advice to Ministers on how they might set up this committee (that we may welcome when we know about it) which will have an important role to play in advising what salmon conservation policy will be.
I know that there is disquiet in certain parts of the salmon industry in Scotland about the composition of the new committee. It would be helpful if someone from the Government Benches could inform us a little more about this committee which will have such very important powers and perhaps might even be able to offer a suggestion that in the early part of the next Session it might be possible to discuss this in your Lordships' House when pressure on parliamentary time is not too great. This may take the form of a response to an Unstarred Question, be the subject of a short debate or something of that kind. This matter is so important. For those of us who have a real, genuine and abiding interest in the good salmon industry of Scotland in particular to allow it to come into existence without any positions being stated or discussion being made in public is wrong. Indeed, it would be for the good of the salmon industry in England and Wales. Perhaps one might even add Northern Ireland too! That seems to have been left out totally in the cold. It seems curious that the fish that swim through the Irish Sea will pass by us without the benefit of advice from anybody.
I think it would be helpful at this stage if a little more could be said by the Minister about this committee and if he could give us some indication about whether we shall have an opportunity to discuss it before it comes into being rather than being left in the invidious position of perhaps finding ourselves criticising it in some way or other after it has been brought into existence.
Lord Moran: My Lords, may I follow what the noble Viscount has just said? As we are discussing conservation matters, I should like to say first of all that I warmly welcomed in this House the setting up of the advisory committee which the noble Viscount has just mentioned. Equally I warmly welcome the appointment of Professor George Dunnet as its chairman. I think this will be a great encouragement to everyone interested in salmon conservation, because the appointment of such a distinguished chairman shows that the committee is going to be a serious one and that the Government are going to take its work seriously. That I warmly welcome.
I should also like to mention to the House that last week there was held in Biarritz, under the sponsorship of the Atlantic Salmon Trust and l'Association Internationale de Defense du Saumon atlantique, the

877
international symposium on Atlantic salmon. It was attended by 17 countries, which brought together experts on this species from all over the world. This symposium passed a resolution which, with the leave of the House, I will read out. It is very brief and it states:
"In view of the greater income and employment potential of salmon angling and its appreciably smaller harvest of limited salmon populations, each national government of salmon-producing countries is urged to declare a salmon policy which will institute, as a conservation measure within its area of jurisdiction, management programmes to reduce commercial harvesting of salmon with a view to increasing salmon stocks and improving recreational salmon fisheries".
In the light of some of the remarks made on Third Reading in another place by Mr. John Gummer, when he stressed that salmon is of limited importance as a food resource but is of great importance as a recreational and economic resource, particularly in under-populated areas, I think that recommendation should be welcome to the Government. I hope very much that they will consider it and take it seriously.
I should mention also that the symposium made four other recommendations. These were, first, that NASCO investigates the value of a salmon-tagging scheme such as is in operation in Eastern Canada and Spain, and that it recommends the adoption of this by all member countries for both a more reliable collection of catch data and a more effective control of illegal fishing. It recommends, secondly, that all methods of enmeshing salmon, such as drift nets and fixed hang nets (excepting the operations off Greenland) should be phased out and that fishermen relying on these methods should be given other opportunities to participate in the salmon fisheries of related industries, including salmon farming and ranching.
The third recommendation is that we should support the recommendation of the rapporteur to the European Community Sub-Committee on Fisheries that Community funds should be made available to improve and co-ordinate national salmon fisheries inspectorates. Fourthly, following the action taken by Canada, the recommendation was that each nation, through its salmon conservation bodies and sport fishing organisations, should encourage the introduction of a reasonable daily and season rod-catch quota, prohibit the sale of the catch and consider the adoption of a "catch and release" philosophy.
The symposium was a success and was very useful. I hope very much that the Government will study its recommendations and will take them very seriously. I hope that, where possible, they will act on those recommendations which are directed to individual governments. That is especially so as, in his final speech to the symposium, the American delegate, Mr. Buck, listed what a great many governments are doing, including the United States, Canada, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, the Soviet Union and a great many others who have banned the selling of rod-caught fish, drift netting and other matters. He was critical of both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, saying,
"Sad to say, in both these nations, which produce around one-half of the world supply, there has not been a major forward movement. Drift netting is condoned, and illegal operations continue unabated".
878
I hope very much that when the next salmon symposium is held we shall not be the subject of criticism of that sort.
I should like to make only one other point, and that relates to Wales. I see that both the chairman and the deputy secretary of the new advisory committee are to come from Scotland. That seems very appropriate, because Scotland produces more salmon than any other part of the United Kingdom. The secretary is to come from MAFF in London, but nothing has been said about Wales. I hope very much that there will be arrangements to ensure that Wales is properly represented on the committee, particularly as Welsh requests for a salmon-tagging scheme in the Principality—which were supported very eloquently on Third Reading in another place—have been rejected by the Government. I hope that they will think about that.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the words of the noble Viscount, particularly in his reference to the forthcoming committee. I should like to say that on this side of the House we look forward with the greatest interest to hearing what the noble Lord the Minister is going to say about the future.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am glad that both the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, welcome the establishment of this committee and the fact that Professor Dunnet of Aberdeen University has agreed to lend his very distinguished services to the committee as chairman. Of course I am well aware, as your Lordships might expect, of the need to concentrate on conservation. There is always a balance to be struck in these things, but I believe that the advisory committee is an appropriate body to deal with the interests set out by the noble Viscount.
The Scottish interest in this committee is readily acknowledged by the Government. As my right honourable friend said in another place, the membership is bound to have a Scottish focus and the first chairman of the committee is a Scot—not only a Scot but one who is actually domiciled in Scotland. We hope and expect that this committee will be taken very seriously, and therefore we will give great attention to its structure, its balance and its spread.
If the committee is to have as its objective a national policy, it really must represent the whole of Great Britain. As for Northern Ireland, that falls outside the scope of the Long Title of the Bill. For this reason the secretariat will be London based. The secretariat will be headed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with the deputy secretary, as the noble Viscount indicated, coming from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. For the reassurance of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, there will be a Welsh Office input as well.
It will be up to the committee to decide how often and where it should meet, and we shall shortly be consulting interested bodies about nominations to the committee. The committee will be charged with considering and reporting on salmon conservation

879
issues referred to it by the three fisheries Ministers in Great Britain. In the early stages, we shall be asking the committee to look particularly at aspects of the availability of information on salmon stocks.
Lord Ferrier: Hear, hear!
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am glad to hear that that is approved by my noble friend. It will also be asked to advise on the influences on the level of those stocks, including the effects of predators and fishing at low water levels. I realise that concern was expressed about those particular points in your Lordships' House at an early stage of the Bill. Once we have obtained some experience of the working of the measures in the Bill, the committee will be asked to look at the effect of those measures on poaching. So far as concerns debating this matter further, the noble Viscount will be well aware that this is a matter for him and the usual channels to decide. I leave it to him to do that in the usual way.
However, in answer to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, about the symposium at Biarritz, perhaps I may briefly respond to him. As regards the resolution, the importance of angling is of course fully recognised in Scotland. The policy has been for many years to limit the commercial catch so as to protect and maintain stocks. That is clear from the Whole basis of the legislation and most recently from the measures against increased salmon fishing in the sea. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that this Bill will better enable us to implement that policy.
On the question of the recommendations (and perhaps I may deal with the NASCO resolution first) the Government recognise the importance of game fishing for salmon and are fully committed to a conservation policy which includes the limiting of the commercial catch. This recommendation seems not only to suggest an investigation but also anticipates the outcome. However, I certainly look forward to seeing the result of any investigation that NASCO may make.
In regard to recommendation 2, in Scotland the use of drift nets and other hang nets for salmon fishing is already prohibited. On recommendation 3, I am aware of the recommendation of the rapporteur and note that the Biarritz symposium supported it. We have noted the fourth recommendation and will be interested to see what comments the various sport fishing organisations make.
I believe I have been able to cover most of the concerns that have been raised and I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving me notice that he would raise this particular point. I hope that he has been reassured.
Lord Moran: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I ask him one question? I should first like to thank him very much for the information he has just given us. However, I wonder why the Government have resisted pressure from many of us to write this new advisory committee into the Bill so that it becomes permanent and statutory.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is not statutory. I think that is the point.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I wondered why the Government had resisted pressure to make it so.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, having in the past dealt with the Red Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Act, which the noble Viscount will remember, I seem to recall that very serious objections could be put up to making every committee of this kind statutory. If we have a non-statutory committee, such as the one which is suggested here, we end up with a committee which is almost overbearingly inflexible and unable to compete with the changes, and which does not have the degree of flexibility required in a case such as this. That is the main reason, and I hope that satisfies the noble Lord. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
35 After Clause 29, insert the following clause:
Placing and use of fixed engines
"(1) For subsection (1) of section 6 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (under which it is an offence to place a fixed engine in any inland or tidal waters or to use an unauthorised fixed engine for specified purposes) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(1) Any person who places or uses an unauthorised fixed engine in any inland or tidal waters shall be guilty of an offence."

(2) In subsection (3) of the said section 6 (definition of unauthorised fixed engine), at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "; or

(c) a fixed engine the placing and use of which is authorised by byelaws made by a water authority under this Act or by byelaws made by a local fisheries committee by virtue of section (Byelaws under Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966) (2) of the Salmon Act 1986."

(3) In Part II or Schedule 3 to the said Act of 1975 (byelaws), after paragraph 21 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"21A. Authorising the placing and use of fixed engines at such places in the water authority area (not being places within the sea fisheries district of a local fisheries committee), at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed by the byelaws and imposing requirements as to the construction, design, material and dimensions of such engines, including in the case of nets the size of mesh.".".
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35.
This clause fulfils an undertaking given to water authorities and to sea fisheries committees to clear up the difficulties arising over the interpretation of Section 6 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. Section 6(1) of the 1975 Act, as interpreted by the court in the case of Champion v. Maughan and Groves, makes it an offence to place any fixed engine in tidal or inland waters. That interpretation makes it necessary to clarify the meaning of Section 6 and to make provision for the use of fixed engines for purposes other than for catching salmon or sea trout, which is what the ban in Section 6 was originally intended to prevent:
The answer contained in this clause, taken together with the new clause at Amendment No. 37, is to clarify the meaning of Section 6(1) of the 1975 Act in

881
the sense that the placing or use of unauthorised fixed engines is illegal, but fixed engines may be authorised by byelaws made by either a sea fisheries committee or (in areas where such committees do not operate) by a water authority.
Perhaps I may add that to enable sea fisheries committees to make byelaws for this purpose, Amendment No. 37, which we have not yet considered, extends their powers under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 to allow them to authorise the placing and use of fixed engines for the purposes of Section 6 of the 1975 Act. Subsection (3) of that clause, however, requires that such byelaws may only be made with the consent of the relevant water authority. That would ensure that the salmon conservation aspect would be fully protected.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Moran: My Lords, perhaps I may say that I think the essential objective of this amendment is to achieve integrated management of the resource, and I hope we can do that. I am bound to say that I was concerned about two rivers in Wales, the Dee and the Usk, but since I last spoke on this matter in your Lordships' House I have discovered that the Welsh Water Authority is also the sea fisheries committee for these rivers, so I hope that there will be no conflict on that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
36 Clause 30, page 26, line 23, leave out from first "or" to second "the" in line 25 and insert "the inland water is one which consists exclusively of, or of part of, a fish farm and which, if it discharges into another inland water, does so only through a conduit constructed or adapted for the purpose.
In this section "fish farm" has the same meaning as in".
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36. Section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 makes it an offence to introduce fish or spawn into any inland water without the consent of the relevant water authority. There is no right of appeal if the water authority says no. Although the Government recognise the need for Section 30, we consider that it represents a considerable and unnecessary burden for the general run of fish farms. We therefore have Clause 30 of this Bill.
However, we received representations that Clause 30 was a little more extensive in its scope than might be desirable for the protection of wild fisheries, especially when fish farms are in very close contact with wild fish, such as happens in sites using cages. The Government considered these representations very carefully and in their light decided to amend Clause 30 in another place. Amendment No. 36 narrows the exemption from Section 30 controls to those fish farms which are either not connected to another inland water or are only connected by a conduit (such as a pipe or a ditch) constructed or adapted for the purpose. This means that Section 30 controls will be retained on the introduction of fish or spawn into fish farms operating in cages or netted off sections of rivers or other waterways.
882
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
8 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
37 After Clause 32, insert the following clause:
Byelaws under Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966

"(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, the power of a local fisheries committee to make byelaws under section 5 of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 shall be exercisable for the purposes of protecting salmon and of preventing any interference with their migration and shall be so exercisable as if the references in that section to sea fish included references to salmon.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the power of a local fisheries committee to make byelaws under the said section 5 shall also include power to make byelaws which for the purposes of section 6 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 authorise the placing and use of fixed engines at such places in their sea fisheries district, at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed by the byelaws and impose requirements as to the construction, design, material and dimensions of such engines, including in the case of nets the size of mesh.

(3) A local fisheries committee shall not make byelaws for any purpose mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) above unless the water authority whose area for the purposes of functions relating to fisheries includes the whole or any part of the committee's sea fisheries district have consented to byelaws being made by the committee for that purpose.

(4) For the purposes of any byelaws made by virtue of this section the references to sea fish in sections 10(2)(c) and 12 of the said Act of 1966 (which include provision with respect to the seizure of, and searches for, sea fish taken in contravention of byelaws) shall be deemed to include references to salmon.".

(5) In this section—

"fixed engine" has the same meaning as in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975: and

"salmon" means fish of the salmon species and trout which migrate to and from the sea.

Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37. This clause fulfils an undertaking to consider whether action could be taken to prevent fishing for salmon in estuaries and coastal waters under the guise of sea fishing. Your Lordships will recall that this problem was originally raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, to whom the Government are most grateful for so doing.
Subsection (1) allows byelaws to be made for the protection of salmon and to prevent interference with their migration. This is designed to close a gap in the law to which the noble Lord drew attention. Water authorities are responsible, under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, for regulating salmon fishing, but they cannot control what is ostensibly fishing for sea fish. On the other hand, sea fisheries committees may make byelaws regulating sea fishing but cannot at present use those powers for the protection of salmon. This loophole, identified by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, had made it easier for people to fish illegally for salmon in the guise of fishing for sea fish.
The new provision will, the Government hope, close that loophole. Sea fisheries committees will (with the consent of the relevant water authority) be given powers to make byelaws which restrict certain sea fishing in circumstances where it is clear that salmon

883
or migratory trout are likely to be caught. This is a further conservation measure which I am sure will be welcomed.
I have already referred, on Amendment No. 35, to the second type of byelaw for which this clause provides, which amends Section 6 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, so that the placing and using of fixed engines may be authorised by byelaws made either by a water authority or a sea fisheries committee. Subsection (2) of this clause enables sea fisheries committees to make byelaws under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 for this purpose, provided they have the consent of the relevant water authority. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, will feel that we have stopped up this loophole in an effective way.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Moran: My Lords, may I very briefly express my gratitude to the noble Lord the Minister for having arranged for this amendment to be introduced. I welcome it very much and I hope that with goodwill on all sides it will work effectively, and will prevent the illegal fishing in coastal waters that has gone on in the past. I am very grateful to the Government.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
38 After Clause 32, insert the following clause:
"Disclosure of information furnished under the Diseases of Fish Act 1983.
.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 9 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1983 (disclosure of information obtained in pursuance of section 7 of that Act), after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the words "or
(d) for the purpose of enabling a water authority to carryout any of their functions under the 1937 Act".".
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38. This clause will allow my right honourable friends to disclose information, collected under the fish farm registration scheme, to water authorities for the purposes of enabling the authorities to carry out their functions under the Diseases of Fish Act 1937.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
39 Clause 34, page 30, line 4, leave out "all".
40 Page 30, line 7, leave out "all".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. These are drafting amendments.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Glenarthur.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
41 Clause 34, page 31, line 2, after "enactments", insert "except section (Disclosure of information furnished under the Diseases of Fish Act 1983)".
42 Page 31, line 7, after first "32", insert "and (Placing and use of fixed engines)".
43 Page 31, line 7, after second "32", insert "and (Placing and use of fixed engines)".
44 Page 31, line 7, after second "32", insert "and (Byelaws under Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966)".
45 Page 31, line 7, after second "32", insert "and section (Disclosure of information furnished under the Diseases of Fish Act 1983)".
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 41 to 45. These are consequential on Amendments Nos. 35, 37 and 38.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
46 Clause 34, page 31, line 10, leave out "sections 24, 25 and" and insert "section".
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46. This amendment reflects the fact that Sections 24 and 25 are to be included in Part II of the Salmon Act and therefore reference need not be made to them.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
47 Clause 34, page 31, line 11, leave out subsection (6).
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47. This amendment removes the privilege clause.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
48 Schedule 1 page 32, line 10, leave out "a salmon fishery district" and insert "the area",
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 7
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
49 Schedule 3, page 38, line 34, at end insert—
"( ) The power under subparagraph (3) above to recover arrears of fishery assessment includes power to recover interest, chargeable at such rate as the Secretary of State shall, with the consent of the Treasury, determine on such arrears from—

(a) in the case of recovery of arrears due before the date of the coming into force of section 13 of this Act which have been outstanding for at least three months from that date, that date; or

(b) In the case of recovery of arrears due in respect of an assessment imposed by a transitional district board which have been outstanding for at least three months from the date of issue of a notice of assessment, that date.

until payment or the commencement of an action for payment, whichever is the earlier.".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49. This is consequential and I spoke to it with Amendment No. 17.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
50 Schedule 4, page 40, line 7, at end insert—
Diseases of Fish Act 1937 (c.33)
In subsection (3) of section 8 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 (penalties and legal proceedings) for the words after "be" there shall be substituted the words "proceeded against and punished in Scotland".''.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50. This amendment ensures that offences committed in Scotland in waters with respect to which functions under the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 are exercisable by the North-West Water Authority will be proceeded against and punished in Scotland.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
51 Schedule 4, page 40, line 21, leave out "in relation" and insert "to an act relating".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 51. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 31.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
52 Schedule 4, page 40, line 39, at end insert—
"Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (c.51)
In section 39 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (Border rivers and Solway Firth), after subsection (4) there shall be added the following subsection—
"(5) Nothing in this section shall authorise a water authority to take legal proceedings in Scotland in respect of an offence against this Act."
In section 43(3) of that Act (Scottish extent), for the words "and (4)" there shall be substituted the words "(4) and (5)".".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 26.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
53 In the title, line 8, after "1975", insert "Section 5 of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 and section 9 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1983".
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53. This is a necessary expansion of the Long Title of the Bill. It is consequential on Amendments Nos. 37 and 38.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (England) (No. 2) Order 1986
8.7 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 30th September (S.I., 1986 No. 1689) be approved. [32nd Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this order and, with your Lordships' permission, would speak to all three statutory instruments which are on the Order Paper. In moving these orders, may I just very briefly recount the sequence of events following the accident at the Soviet nuclear power station at Chernobyl on Saturday, 26th April.
The first indication of an accident was only received in the West on Monday, 28th April, following the detection of increased levels of radioactivity by the Swedish authorities. On Tuesday, 29th April, the Ministry of Agriculture in London initiated daily testing of milk and obtained meteorological forecasts of wind movements. On Friday, an increase in radioactivity was detected by the Ministry's Lowestoft laboratory. Arrangements for more extensive monitoring were immediately put in hand, with

887
particular attention being paid to those foodstuffs most immediately affected—namely, milk and leafy vegetables. On Sunday, 4th May, at two o'clock, the Ministry opened its operations room to co-ordinate assessments of monitoring results and to handle the large numbers of inquiries which were coming in from the general public.
My right honourable friend made a number of television and radio appearances over that bank holiday weekend to reassure the public that radiation levels in food did not present a hazard to health, and that there was no need for anyone to change the normal consumption patterns for milk or for other fresh foodstuffs. Nevertheless, activating our existing contingency plans, we set in train one of the most extensive monitoring operations of foodstuffs ever undertaken. The results, together with those for water, air and the environment generally, were co-ordinated by the Department of the Environment who made them available for inspection in London.
Our monitoring showed that after the first week levels of radioactivity in milk and vegetables had declined. It was, however, recognised that radio caesium, being a longer term problem, would need continued monitoring as it builds up in the muscle of animals grazing contaminated pasture. From about the middle of May levels of radio caesium in young unfinished lambs not then ready for slaughter in those areas of high rainfall over the bank holiday weekend indicated such levels building up. We immediately intensified our monitoring to identify the exact locations where radio caesium levels in sheepmeat might cause concern. We also commissioned the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology to undertake more detailed surveys of deposition patterns across the country to identify the precise areas likely to be affected.
Since most early lamb comes from lowland areas it was here that action had to be considered most urgently and it became clear by mid-June that we should not be able to guarantee that radio caesium in all sheep was going to fall to acceptable levels before some of the animals from these areas went for slaughter. My right honourable friends therefore decided to use, for the first time, the powers available under Part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act and made an order on 20th June which applied restrictions on the movement and slaughter of sheep for 21 days in certain areas in Cumbria and North Wales. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland introduced similar controls in parts of Scotland on 24th June. These three orders are for Cumbria, Wales and Scotland.
The purpose of these controls introduced on 24th June was primarily to ensure that no animals with levels of radio caesium above the internationally recommended action level of 1,000 becquerels per kilogram would reach the consumer and also to enable us to monitor closely the levels of radioactivity in these areas. However, levels above 1,000 Bq/kg were found particularly in upland areas, where the greatest deposition occurred, and made it necessary to continue restrictions after the expiry of the original 21
888
days. Further orders therefore had to be made on 3rd July and 8th July continuing the restricted areas for a further period of 21 days. However, restrictions were lifted progressively as monitoring indicated that it was safe to do so. But in the upland areas we encountered a number of special factors arising from the terrain and the grazing habits of upland sheep. This meant that we could not lift restrictions at the time farmers would normally need to move their sheep for fattening in lowland areas.
To meet this problem we introduced a scheme which would allow sheep marked on the head and neck with a long lasting paint to be moved out of the designated areas. Restrictions on the slaughter of such sheep remained in operation. From our monitoring we knew that levels were falling in certain areas and these would be ready for release earlier than others, so we divided the designated areas into higher and lower deposition areas, and marked sheep coming from the higher deposition areas with blue paint and those from the lower deposition areas with green, paint. Restrictions on slaughter would be removed only when all restrictions in similar areas in the United Kingdom had been lifted. I am glad to say that it was possible to release the green marked sheep from all restrictions from 30th September. We also allowed from mid-September the sale and movement of breeding animals inside and outside the designated area provided they were marked on the head and neck with red paint.
The restrictions caused real losses to farmers, and from the outset the Government pledged that they would compensate them. Throughout we were determined that our schemes would meet real needs rather than producing more speedy solutions which would have turned out to be inappropriate. The farming unions faced the same problem, in that the situation was changing rapidly and it was not always easy to foresee what their members would need. Our first compensation scheme was designed to help producers of those finished lambs which, through being held back by the restrictions, were subsequently rejected for variable premium on the grounds of overfatness when their areas were released from the restrictions. Later, we introduced a second scheme to compensate producers for their market price losses on marked sheep which were released from the designated areas and presented at store markets and sales, as well as liveweight certification centres. Finally, our third scheme, announced last month, provides assistance towards the direct costs incurred by producers of finished lambs and cast ewes.
Looking to the immediate future, farmers want to know how long the remaining controls will continue. The restrictions introduced on 20th June imposed controls on more than 4 million animals in Great Britain. Today, fewer than 300,000 will remain under restriction and many of these would not normally leave the upland areas before next spring. Our research has been greatly assisted by the recent development of new instruments by British instrument manufacturers which enable us to live-monitor sheep under field conditions.
Two factors appear to be contributing to the persistence of radio caesium in the upland areas: first,

889
the dietary and grazing habits of the animals; and secondly, the peaty soil conditions in many parts of the upland areas where there are pockets of poorly drained land, in some cases devoid of the kinds of clay and mineral binding agent which immobilise caesium in the soil. Two natural processes may help to improve the situation during the coming months of winter. First, winter frosts will break up the soil and allow enhanced drainage of surface water; and secondly, new plant growth will be coming through in the spring, diluting the radioactivity in the animals' diet. We are looking at various possibilities to speed things up. Tests have already been carried out on the use of claylike materials to absorb radio caesium, both within soils and within the animals themselves. Preliminary results are encouraging and we shall continue the work in the hope that some simple treatment may be available to ensure the earliest possible return of these hill areas to their full productive potential.
Finally, in moving these statutory instruments, I should like to pay tribute to the farmers in Cumbria, Scotland and Wales who have co-operated with the Government on the introduction and implementation of the controls which were brought into effect through no fault of their own. It has also been a difficult time for many people in the farming and food industries who have had to deal with a new and complicated situation. We are over the worst and I hope it will not be too long before all restrictions can be lifted. I beg to move the first of the statutory instruments standing on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 30th September (S.I., 1986 No. 1689) be approved. [32nd Report from the Joint Committee] (Lord Belstead.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we must first of all thank the Minister for explaining in such detail the sequence of events arising from the accident at Chernobyl and the consequential damage which it caused throughout Europe and, in particular, in the specified areas of the United Kingdom. We little thought when we were taking the Food and Environment Protection Act through this House last year that the first use of its provisions would apply to an external hazard. I am sure that at that time most of us imagined that the powers were not likely to be used at all and that if they were they would more likely be used internally than externally.
One must express appreciation to the farmers affected by these movement orders for the manner in which they responded; especially ahead of the settlement of compensation terms. It says much for them and for their unions that they were able to cooperate as fully as they have done with the Ministry throughout this long and difficult period for them. In addition I think it would be appropriate also to say that the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture acquitted themselves, as they always do on occasions such as this, quite remarkably well in dealing with a situation which was unprecedented and that they did so expeditiously and effectively.
It is not possible to congratulate the USSR, not because they had an accident but because they took so long to inform the world of the seriousness of that
890
accident. Indeed it was the monitoring in Sweden, as the Minister has said, which first alerted the West to the serious nature of the difficulty which had arisen and of the consequential problems for the rest of Western Europe. The fact that the question of compensation by thelJSSR for the damage caused has not yet been settled is another point which attracts added criticism to the conduct of the USSR in this whole unhappy business.
I do not think that the event has in any way reassured the public about the risks and hazards in connection with nuclear power stations in general. I do not think that the public are necessarily reassured by statements made in Britain about the superiority of United Kingdom design, or even such things as the close understanding between the United Kingdom and France to inform each other at once in the event of any mishaps at nuclear power stations. The public are especially worried about the importation of nuclear fuels, and so on, for reprocessing in this country. Such importations may work wonders for the balance of payments, but I do not think they do a great deal for public confidence.
The Minister said that 4 million sheep were originally involved in the movement orders and that the number has now been reduced to 300,000. I take it that that is still the current figure. Is the Minister in a position to say whether there is any likelihood of the 300,000 being released in the not too distance future, or whether the problems which he described still appertain, and therefore it is impossible to predict when further release movements might be possible?
The problem appears to be greatest in the upland areas. The Minister has offered the explanation that poorly drained land is probably responsible for that. Can he say whether he thinks there is any connection in the uplands with the fact that the land in question may be close to afforested areas where trees may be acting as umbrellas, bearing in mind the meteorological conditions of wind and rain which gave rise to the problem in the first place? I raise this issue because one of your Lordships' Select Committees is currently looking at the question of forestry and among the many ideas canvassed on the expansion of forestry is that we should bring it downhill. If forestry uphill has this vulnerability to meteorological conditions it might be that instead of bringing forestry downhill, we should leave forestry where it is.
Are the farmers satisfied with the basis of compensation, having regard to the three stages which the Minister described to us? More especially, can the Minister say how soon all payments of compensation now due will be made? Farmers are inevitably borrowers and with an inflation rate of only 3 per cent. and a borrowing rate on overdrafts of 14 per cent. or more, it is obvious that farmers, like myself, must have liquidity problems at the present time.
Can the Minister tell the House how long compensation will continue? It is suggested that there may be long-term effects as a result of what has happened affecting genetics, fertility and the like. Is it possible that compensation will have to be paid at some future date?

891
There is no reference to what is of interest to all of us—namely, the impact of all this on home sales of lamb, particularly compared with the sales of New Zealand lamb. Has the consumer played safe or is she prepared to purchase the home-produced article? Have the events had any effect on United Kingdom exports? In particular, has France any justification as a result of the Chernobyl infestation for being non communautaire over our current exports to that country? If France does not have a justification of that kind, we face a situation in which something rather stronger than the correspondence currently taking place between Ministers in this country, the French agricultural Minister and the Community agricultural Commissioner is called for. This repetitious conduct of blocking imports from the United Kingdom by French farmers is becoming somewhat tedious, having regard to the subtantial benefits accruing to them from the common agricultural policy.
Finally, I should like to ask the Minister whether Community action against nuclear disasters of this type is under active discussion and whether in these discussions we can take account of, as well as the circulation of information, the question of compensation. It seems to me that if in this case the polluter did not pay we should perhaps be thinking in terms of a Community scheme of compensation which would to some extent lighten the load on the United Kingdom.
Those are some of the salient features which arise from the Minister's statement. In general we welcome what has been done. We believe that the Minister has acted thoughtfully, quickly and urgently, and is deserving of our congratulations upon its initiative.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I should like to associate those of us on these Benches with the congratulations given to the Ministry on the speed and thought with which it dealt with the problem that arose from the Chernobyl disaster. It would also be right to associate ourselves most sincerely with the co-operative attitude of the farming industry, and the way in which it helped to make the various measures work, and work satisfactorily. We have to be very grateful to our farmers for the responsible attitude taken all round.
I do not share the suspicion of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, of the peaceful uses of atomic energy in general. I do not believe that the danger lies in that direction. However, there is very real danger from the testing of atomic weapons in the atmosphere and if more and more countries throughout the world reach the stage of becoming atomic powers, conducting weapons tests, we should be under some considerable danger of receiving fall-out from such tests.
That is not just idle supposition. It is known for a fact that we were contaminated by atomic weapons testing when such tests were being conducted in the open by ourselves, the United States, and other countries. Indeed, so great was the contamination that I know of a case at Dounreay where a whole body monitor was being used to monitor the levels of
892
radiation in people. As a control a member of the administrative staff was put through the whole body scanner and found to be more radio active than anyone else on site.
On investigation they discovered that he had a small estate on which there were deer. He was very fond of his venison and ate a considerable quantity. The deer he was eating had accumulated the atomic fall-out from bomb tests through their habit of grazing—this is exactly similar to hill sheep—and had become sufficiently radioactive to pass on this radioactivity to the member of staff concerned. He had concentrated that radioactivity within his body, therefore becoming more radioactive than the average person working on the site at Dounreay. It did not do him any harm because he is still hale and hearty, although retired, and well into his seventies. However, the radioactivity was measureable and noticeable. I give that example because if anyone restarted testing atomic weapons in the atmosphere there could be a danger to us; so it is not scaremongering to think in terms of continuing vigilance in such directions.
At this stage I draw attention to the excellent work done by the Rowett Research Institute in identifying the use of clays as a means of, as it were, absorbing the radioactive caesium within the stomach of the sheep and getting it passed out harmlessly. I hope that those experiments will continue, not because they are needed so much in this particular instance now, nor necessarily so much that we fear similar accidents from other peaceful uses of atomic energy, but simply for the reasons I have given to your Lordships—that there is no security from atomic fall-out while it is possible for countries to test atomic devices in the atmosphere. Until there is a total atomic test ban throughout the world we are always liable to some atomic fall-out which, in the upland areas, could cause problems.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, in praising the work that has been done. Finally, I join with him in hoping that compensation will continue, if necessary, for those farmers particularly in the upland areas—the most fragile part of the whole farming industry—who may still be at risk for a much longer period than farmers in other parts of the country. I hope that if any hardship is suffered by hill farmers they can look to the Government for full and fair compensation for their losses.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his very admirable description of the situation. Perhaps I may ask him a question. If the immobility of 300,000 sheep is to continue until the summer time, are the grants for the farmers who are unable to sell their sheep, or to move them about, still to continue? It will be very hard luck on them if they cannot make use of their own sheep, yet will not be given any compensation.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and my noble friend Lady Elliot for their response to this introduction to the first of the

893
statutory instruments on the Order Paper and to my remarks on all three of them. I am grateful to both noble Lords opposite for the tribute that they paid to the farmers who have dealt with a difficult situation in a very reasonable and steadfast way. My noble friend Lady Elliot is herself a farmer, so she has to face this difficulty along with other farmers. I am also extremely grateful on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture for what has been said by your Lordships so far as concerns the performance of the ministries throughout Great Britain.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, made the point that I had said that the numbers released had brought down the number to 300,000 now, subject still to designation. He asked whether it was possible that that number would continue to reduce. I very much hope so. Successive orders have been introduced in order to keep on releasing areas, and if our monitoring shows that that is possible, I am sure that is what we shall do. I very much hope, as I remarked at the end of my introductory speech, that the use of clay-like materials to absorb radio-caesium, both by treatment to the soil and to the animals themselves, may be successful. I was very interested that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made the point that work at the Rowett Institute on the use of clays had been directed to this particular problem. As I understand it, there is a form of powdered clay mineral called bentonite which has the effect of binding radio-caesium into the soil and preventing it from entering into the biological systems of plants or indeed into the intestines of animals. I said in my speech we are working away to see whether some simple treatment of this clay-type material which has been worked on at the Rowett Institute could be effective in cleaning up soils, particularly in the high hills, and also from the point of view of the systems of the animals themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked me whether there was any connection in the uplands where trees were acting as a kind of umbrella. My advice is that deposition on the ground underneath the trees will be lower than in open fields but that there is no reason to suppose that forestry is responsible for greater persistence in forested areas. I hope that that brief reply will be of interest to the noble Lord in the consideration being given to these matters in the committee of which he is chairman.
The noble Lord asked me whether the farmers were satisfied with compensation and how quickly payments were being made. The compensation that we have given to producers was provided as soon as we were able to establish the real needs of the situation, and we believe that we have gone as far as we can to meet those needs. Our compensation has taken account of marketing and sales patterns which are already disrupted by the late spring and poor finishing conditions, and detailed discussions with all the farmers' unions involved have of course been necessary. This has been hard work for all concerned arid I should like to pay tribute to the farmers unions for their joint efforts in bringing three different compensation schemes forward. We believe that the totality of the compensation arrangements that we now have agreed upon—and we are giving priority to
894
getting the sums paid out as quickly as possible—represents a fair and balanced response to the needs of producers. In fact, payments began to be made early in September and I believe they are now proceeding well.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, also asked me whether events have had an effect on exports, particularly to France. My answer can be commendably brief. France has not stopped importation of any British lamb for reasons of radiation level. The noble Lord asked me further about international agreements on compensation. The Paris Convention of 1960 and the supplementary Brussels Convention of 1964, to which the United Kingdom and most of the countries of western Europe are partners, already established the principle that the polluter is responsible for damage caused in other states party to these agreements, but the trouble is that the Soviet Union and eastern European states are not party to those conventions. Discussions which include encouraging the possible widening of membership of the existing conventions are taking place at an international level to consider compensation issues raised by the accident at Chernobyl. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy recently stated that the British Government were anxious to see a wider system of compensation in respect of nuclear accidents and would support a binding international agreement to provide that compensation. So far as concerns future compensation, about which I think all your Lordships asked, we shall maintain our existing arrangements to cover market losses as long as restrictions have to be maintained.
Finally, there was a question which was put to me by my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood. I think my noble friend is referring to the ewe premium. Of course there is no reason why ewes should not be tupped and should not, as I understand it, qualify for the ewe premium. However, think the real answer that I want to give to the question of my noble friend is to come back to first principles; namely, how long do we think that these restrictions will last? As I said at the very end of my speech, although we have introduced arrangements through marking to allow the movement of sheep into and out of designated areas, we very much hope that all restrictions will be lifted in the comparatively reasonable future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 8) Order 1986
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 11th September be approved. [33rd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Wales) (No. 2) Order 1986
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 29th September be approved. [32nd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before nine o'clock.