Lords Sitting of 7 March 1987

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

Baroness Blatch
Emily May Blatch, CBE, having been created Baroness Blatch, of Hinchingbrooke in the County of Cambridgeshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Renton and the Baroness Trumpington.
Baroness Blatch

  Unemployment
  2.47 p.m.
  Lord Dean of Beswick: 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 when they expect to reach the targets for reducing unemployment which they set themselves at the last general election.
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government did not set themselves specific targets for reducing unemployment. Since the last election we have seen continuous economic growth and the creation of more than 1 million jobs, and unemployment is now falling.
  Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Secretary of State recall that during the last general election campaign the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the specific statement that if a Conservative Government were re-elected there would be a reduction in unemployment? Is it not a fact that, had the criteria for assessing the figures not been altered on innumerable occasions since the last general election, there would be an increase in the figures? Is that not an outstanding example of the Government indulging in something which they often accuse local authorities of doing these days—creative accountancy to produce the figures that they want, which are not the real figures?
  Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord Lord Dean of Beswick, does not serve the House well by repeating the story that the figures have been changed on innumerable occasions. It is some years since the figures were changed. They were changed for good reason, and since then unemployment is down. It will continue to go down. If I may echo the words of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the country elects a Conservative Government unemployment will continue to go down into the indefinite future.
  Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in the present circumstances it would save the
  122
  country a great deal of money if we did not bother with an election and just carried on as we are?
  Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suspect that this is not the correct House in which to make such a suggestion.
  Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we appreciate that the noble Lord must make the best case that he can, but, despite the economic growth to which he referred, does he agree that unemployment is deplorably high in many areas of this country and that a reduction of a few thousand per annum does not help those areas? For example, in my area, unemployment is about 25 per cent. of the insured population. The same is true in many other areas. What are the Government going to do about that great crisis?
  Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I should like to assure the noble Lord that I did not by any means make the best case that can be made for the tremendous decline in unemployment that we have seen over the past eight months. We should not underestimate the change that has taken place in this country. For the past eight months we have seen unemployment fall by an average of 25, 000 a month. I suspect that it will continue to do that. However, no one in your Lordships' House or in the country should delude himself. As unemployment comes down stagnant pools of high unemployment will be left. Promises made by political parties will not deal with that problem. It is a serious problem and one to which I hope we shall begin to find some answers.
  Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that all of us on this side of the House appreciate and welcome any decrease, however small—25, 000 or whatever it may be. But he has not answered my question. What are the Government doing about the problem in extensive areas of this country—Wales, Scotland, the North-East and North-West—where unemployment is unacceptably, nay, deplorably high? How is the economic growth evincing itself there?
  Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, in a very simple way. Unemployment has fallen fastest in the North-East and Wales and is now falling in all regions of the country. The Government do not have control of all aspects of the destiny of employment or unemployment in this country. However, we are seeing the economy growing faster and better here than in any other country. We are seeing unemployment dropping faster in this country than in any other country. Unemployment is falling at a rate which noble Lords may consider to be unsatisfactory, but a reduction of 180, 000 in the past eight months must leave all of us feeling satisfaction that the direction has changed. What we can do is work to see it accelerate faster. I assure the noble Lord that when we see unemployment substantially below the present figure we shall still have, unfortunately, some areas in the country where it is too high. In that respect we must work a great deal harder.
  Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that one of the most important measures

  123
  for reducing unemployment among youngsters is that they should be trained? Is he aware that many of the schemes cannot find enough people who want to be trained or are prepared to stick to the courses for more than a few days?
  Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we are now in a period in which we offer a nationwide guarantee to all school-leavers under the age of 18 that they have a place awaiting them on the youth training scheme. I hope that they will accept the offer of a place. We shall need to look carefully at the position if young people persistently refuse to accept such places.
  Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are skillcentres in the South-East which have been unable to provide courses due to lack of instructors? In one area with which I am familiar a young man tried last October to train in painting and decorating. The skillcentre accepted him but he has not yet been offered a place because there is no instructor. That is becoming a common situation in the South-West and South-East.
  Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am aware that there is a considerable skill shortage in the construction industry. That is apparent particularly in the South-East, but there are signs of it all over the country. We are urgently looking at ways to improve the standards of skill training within the construction industry. I believe that the job training scheme is one method which will prove a good way of helping to remedy the situation.
  Lord Oram: My Lords, does not the Minister recall that in October last year, in a lengthy Written Answer to a Question that I tabled, he listed in great detail the very many changes that have taken place in the calculation and definition of unemployment figures, thus producing figures lower than those produced by previous calculations? How does that square with his claim, in answer to the Question on the Order Paper, that there have been no such changes?
  Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord reads the Answer in Hansard. He will see that during my time as Secretary of State for Employment the only change has been to delay the count by two weeks, thus reducing an overrecording of 65, 000 a month to an overrecording of 15, 000 a month. The majority of the other changes—there were three substantial changes—took place following the change in 1981 and 1982 when we went from a period of voluntary registration to one of benefit count. The only other indices of unemployment are through the Labour Force Survey, which is a method used by many other countries and which shows that unemployment is under 3 million.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that the Government can do nothing about persistent pools of unemployment? Is not that contradicted by the experience of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and other government-sponsored bodies?
  Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Government can do a great deal but what they must never do is make promises which they cannot keep and deliver. I believe we are entering a period in which a great many promises may be made, but I hope that all Members of your Lordships' House appreciate that the only promises this Government will make are those which we can and will deliver.
  The problems of unemployment, and the stagnant pools to which I referred, are in the South as well as in the North. They are often in the inner cities, in the suburbs and on large council estates. They are proving difficult to cure but I suggest that they are problems to which all sides must turn their attention.
  Lord Parry: My Lords, since training schemes for young people are so important and basic to the questions being discussed, since it is understood by the Secretary of State as much as by anyone else—perhaps more—that there are unsatisfactory aspects of the schemes that are causing blockages and the inability of young people to move into positions of real training, and since also a great many young people will never get a job despite the fact that they are on these training programmes, is it not time for him to introduce a debate in this House on that aspect of unemployment?
  Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord will do well to look at the facts. Nearly two-thirds of young people who left the one-year YTS went into employment. Far too much is made of statements that young people are not going into jobs. There are some areas in the country—but very few—where the employment situation is difficult for young people. However, in that part of the country where I live 98 per cent., or 95 per cent., of young people leaving school go into jobs. I hope that under the two-year YTS the percentage of young people going into employment will increase substantially. I am the first to admit that not every YTS in the country is perfect, but we have had compulsory education for 110 years and not everyone in your Lordships' House thinks that the education system is perfect either.
  Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that even with his own figures, which he is claiming are a success, over the past 12 months there has been an average loss of 7, 000 jobs a month in the manufacturing sectors of our industries? That loss is continuing, with no sign of abatement. Is not that a dangerous trend? Can he indicate when we can expect those losses to stop? If they do not stop the future of this country as an industrial nation will be absolutely devastated.
  Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord was going to congratulate the Government on actually reducing the rate of job losses in the manufacturing industries. In the 10 years after 1966 manufacturing jobs were lost at the rate of 10, 000 a month. They have been lost on a fairly consistent basis throughout every industrialised country in the world. They are now being lost in Japan at a fairly fast rate and are even beginning to be lost in Korea. That is a sign of the world changing, with more third world countries going through an industrial revolution. We must ensure that we have a profitable

  125
  manufacturing sector and also pay regard to the fact that the majority of jobs in the future will come through the service sector.
  Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord is accustomed to making favourable comparisons on an international scale. Can he answer—and answer directly—the question that I have asked him on previous occasions? Which developed country in Europe among our competitors has a percentage of unemployment which is higher than that in this country?
  Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord is keen to make international comparisons of an unfavourable nature. If he would care to put a Question down I should be happy to answer it in considerable detail. However, I recall that certainly the Benelux countries, which are the only other countries in the Community that have similar social security systems, have unemployment rates considerably above ours. France and Italy have unemployment rates of the same order of magnitude as ours. If the noble Lord would care to put down a Question I should be more than delighted to answer it in full detail.
  Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that unemployment has fallen marginally in the last few months—and we welcome that—not because of the Government's policy in their first seven years of office but because they have changed their policy in the last six or nine months? If by any chance they are re-elected, which policy will they follow? Will they follow the policy of the last six months or the one of the previous seven years?
  Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, if, unfortunately, unemployment had gone up by 180, 000 in the last eight months, I wonder whether the noble Lord would have said that it had risen marginally. Nevertheless, I am not aware that the Government have changed their policy over the last few months. We are now seeing the fruits of eight years of consistent monetary control and growth. I suspect that we have before us another eight years in which we shall reap the fruits.

  Opinion Poll Standards
  3.3 p.m.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: 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 any qualifications or other requirements are necessary before entry into the opinion poll industry.
  Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, there are no statutory qualifications or requirements necessary to carry out opinion polls, although market research firms employ statisticians to plan and interpret surveys. I understand that the industry does exercise self-regulation in the conduct of market research and opinion poll work.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Considering the influence that these polls exert on the timing of certain constitutional events, is it not strange that anyone can start in this business without training or a licence? Does he foresee a day when instant sampling has been brought to such perfection that it will no longer be necessary for the country to go to the trouble and expense of holding general elections?
  Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I suppose that one could say that the general election is the ultimate opinion poll.
  The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that polls which sample 1, 500 people are touching no more than 0.005 per cent. of the electorate?
  Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I do not have a calculator with me but if my noble friend says so I am sure that he is correct.
  Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, even at this late hour will the Government consider issuing some kind of order prohibiting the publishing of the results of polls during the fortnight preceding a general election?
  Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, no. The Government do not believe that there is a case for doing so. However, I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that a Bill is tomorrow being presented in another place entitled Political Opinion Polls (Regulation) Bill. It is being introduced by George Foulkes, MP.
  Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1970 the opinion polls on the Sunday before the general election showed Labour to be winning by 14 points? That is ominous, as that is the figure indicated today. The Minister will know his history. In 1970, on the Thursday, Labour were defeated. I do not know where the polls got that 14-point lead from. Perhaps he can explain it all to me.
  Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I certainly cannot explain the figure to the noble Lord. However, I should point out that the polls at the 1983 general election predicted the outcome accurately.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, do we understand from the Minister's reply to the supplementary question that one should disregard existing polls, and that whenever the general election comes the public will not necessarily reflect them but might favour the Labour opposition?
  Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord would like to disregard the current polls. I suspect that he might wish to.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there have been complaints from the older established practitioners that newcomers in this field have not carried out polls thoroughly? For example, they have taken telephone polls and produced results without taking into account that part of the population that does not have a telephone.
  Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, if there are deficiencies in the sample—and telephone polls would only reflect opinion among people who have telephones—I do not believe that the reputable press in this country would wish to have anything but an accurate reflection of opinion.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said, what action can the Government take to ensure that these curiously biased opinion polls are not reported in the popular press? What opportunities are there for the Government to take action?
  Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, a biased opinion poll has been brought to my attention which was circulating somewhere in west London two or three weeks back. I believe that the responsible elements of the press would not wish to publish such blatantly wrong information. I do not believe that they would ultimately sell many newspapers if they continued to do so.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, would the noble Lord like to define further what he means by the "responsible" press?
  Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, that is becoming increasingly difficult these days.

  Dowding Memorial
  3.8 p.m.
  Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government what would comprise "a sufficiently influential body of public opinion to support the proposal [to erect a monument to Lord Dowding] and to raise enough money to pay for the erection of the statue and its future maintenance, " these being words used by the Minister on 18th March. (H.L. Deb., col. 1418)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, there appears already to be sufficient public support in principle for the erection of a statue to the late Lord Dowding. However, before giving his consent under the Public Statues (Metropolis) Act 1854 my right honourable friend will want to be satisfied that all the costs of erection and maintenance can be met from the funds subscribed.
  Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, I very rarely worry your Lordships these days but I must tell the House why I have done so today. I find that I am the only member of the Air Council of 1938 and 1940 and I worked alongside Lord Dowding daily for a long time. Therefore, I could not let this Question go by without asking leave to pay tribute to him.
  It is not for me to say anything except to ask a question. My question to the Minister is this. He is no doubt well versed in his history. Does he know that two actions by Lord Dowding in 1940 removed from
  128
  this country the dark, grey cloud of possible defeat which then existed? The first action of Lord Dowding was to demand to see the Air Council and to get an assurance from it that no further aircraft would go to France. He obtained that and we withdrew our force from the wreck of France. The second was that he deployed a force inferior in numbers against the Germans and won the Battle of Britain. Those are the reasons why I think that it is worth recording his great achievements.
  I should like to ask the Minister this. Is he willing to pursue the matter of getting the negotiations completed for the statue for Lord Dowding? I am grateful for the reply today which said that there is sufficient public support to do it. On the other hand, there is still outstanding the matter of finance. The finance required is not great. Some £50, 000 will probably cover the whole matter and leave money for maintenance in the future. However, one cannot expect to demand money from the public if, on the other hand, there is no permission given by the Government. Directly the permission is given by the Government then the money can be collected. It is a case of which came first, the chicken or the egg. I hope that they will get together now with the Battle of Britain council and come to an amicable arrangement for both sides which will allow the appeal to go out forthwith.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that series of questions. I shall answer the last and most important one. I can inform him and the House that I am in correspondence with Air Chief Marshal Sir Christopher Foxley-Norris in his capacity as chairman of the Battle of Britain Fighter Association. In a letter to me dated 31st March this year he said:
  "The matter of Government sponsorship … does not arise in this case".
  My advice to the Battle of Britain Fighter Association would be to submit an application for consent as soon as possible with supporting documentation and as much information as possible about the support and funds obtained so far. When that application is received, I assure the noble Lord and the House—bearing in mind not only the feeling exhibited all round your Lordships' House, but also my own feelings on this matter—that it will be sympathetically entertained.
  Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have in my possession a letter from the Prime Minister on this subject which indicates in principle support, but states that the Government are bound by a decision taken in 1956 not to have any more monuments placed in situ by successive governments? Is he also aware that the letter says that planning permission has been given and a site provided by Westminster City Council? It is hoping now that funds will be made available. Does the Minister not agree that I speak for the vast majority of your Lordships when I say that though that is distinctly desirable, it is still the view of the majority of us that what Lord Dowding did was so tremendous in the history of this country that a monument ought to have been provided before now by the nation that he served so well and not by public subscription?
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's last point; but I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has misinterpreted my right honourable friend's letter which I have in front of me. I should like to quote from that:
  "It has been the policy of successive Governments since 1956 not to sponsor further memorials to leaders of the Second World War".
  That does not mean not to have memorials of this sort. Westminster City Council has granted planning permission on a pedestrianised site in the Strand between St. Clement Danes and Australia House so one hurdle has already been overcome.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one problem that has been put forward is the cost of maintenance of the statue once it is erected? Can he confirm that the trifling sum involved will be covered if necessary by the Government in acknowledgement of the enormous services, of which we have already heard, given by the late Air Marshal?
  Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords. It would be a very sweeping thing for me to suggest that the Government could cover what my noble friend calls the trifling sum involved. It is suggested to me at this moment without knowing details of the statue in question that the capitalised sum for maintenance could be between £15, 000 and £25, 000. In other words, what we are expecting is a capitalised annual maintenance for some 15 years. It would be difficult for the Government to commit themselves to that at this time.
  Baroness Seear: My Lords, how mean can we get?
  Lord Skelmersdale: As has already been made clear—not by me in answer to supplementary questions, but by my noble friend Lord Balfour who asked this Question—it has been the policy of successive governments, all governments, since 1956, not to make payments of this nature.
  Lord Harvington: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that perhaps I too can join the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, in this business of being one of the Few? I am probably the only Member of your Lordships' House who commanded a flight in a fighter squadron in 1940. I can only say that this news we have had today that Her Majesty's Government will, provided certain requirements are forthcoming (which I am quite sure can be made to be forthcoming), have a favourable attitude towards the idea that there should be a statue, is something that those of us who are left who were involved with the late Air Marshal would very much like to see.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am certainly grateful to my noble friend for putting into a very few words what I have been attempting to explain to your Lordships in rather too many.
  Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend, in using the phrase "to sponsor", wish to encourage a financial contribution towards the erection of a statue?
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, sponsorship means exactly that; namely, the provision of a capital sum.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I received a number of very touching letters after the last occasion this matter was discussed in the House which included cheques from pensioners who remembered with great gratitude what Lord Dowding had done for them 40 years ago? In view of the feeling expressed and the Minister's own very co-operative attitude, will he not approach his right honourable friend in order to make an exception at least to maintain the statue if the erection is paid for by public subscription?
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I said on 18th March, the first thing that has to happen is that we have to have a proper application which I advised the association today to submit to my right honourable friend as soon as possible. I think that would be, if I quote my words correctly, sympathetically entertained. What the noble Lord has just said in his supplementary question is proof of my opening remarks this afternoon. There appears already to be sufficient public support.
  Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I think the whole House will welcome the change of attitude on the part of the Minister to this proposition. Now we have a sponsor and now we have planning permission will the Government make sure that their contribution is as generous as possible, especially in view of the neglect of the contribution made by Lord Dowding?
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not think I can usefully add anything to the words I have already uttered on this subject: "sympathetic" means sympathetic.
  Lord Parry: My Lords, I believe the Minister told the House on one occasion that he was born in 1945. Will he join with me in saying that the pleasures of the Question this afternoon have been the tribute paid to Lord Dowding and being able to hear the voices of the last of the Few in this House? Can I, as president of the British cleaning industry, suggest that, since he was unprepared to make, as he said, a sweeping contribution to the cleansing of the statue if it is erected, the British cleaning industry itself might be prepared to sponsor the cleansing and maintenance of it?
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, sponsorship comes from surprising places, as occasionally does advertising in your Lordships' House. I am sure that suggestion will be welcomed by the sponsors.
  Lord Parry: My Lords, may I just point out to the House—because it is a point of interest and I must do so—that my presidency is an unpaid position and I have no financial interest whatsoever?

  Environmental Projects
  3.18 p.m.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

  131
  The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government what support they are giving to the Watch Trust for Environmental Education in the continuation of its project on acid rain, and whether they are encouraging other youth organisations on projects to mark European Year of the Environment.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government approved last year a grant of £23, 667 to support this worthwhile project and I am glad that I am able to tell the House that we have now agreed to make a further £10, 000 available in the current year.
  The United Kingdom European Year of the Environment Committee regard it as particularly important to involve school children and young people in the year. As part of this it is making a grant of £5, 000 towards the cost of extending the Watch Project to other European countries during the year.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I know that the Watch Trust too will be very grateful for what he has just said. Does he agree—I think he does from his answer—that it is important in terms of environmental care for the future that we should involve young people and do everything we can to draw in as many as possible? Can he say whether further grants will be forthcoming for Watch, because the sum which he has just mentioned, generous though it is, is something like 50 per cent. of the amount it has asked for?
  Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords; I understand that it is in the region of 75 per cent. and that Watch asked for about 16, 500 for the current year. As I said in my original Answer, the Government are giving £10, 000. The project has attracted a considerable amount of private sector sponsorship—in excess of £40, 000—which is why the individual packs are remarkably cheap. The involvement of young people generally in the European Year of the Environment is a distinct project of the British Committee for the European Year.
  Lord Hunt: My Lords, with regard to the second part of the noble Baroness's Question, does the Minister agree that the BBC provides a splendid service for education in environmental and wildlife programmes, especially for young people, through some of the episodes of its "Blue Peter" series? Is he aware of the excellent work done by young people through the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers and by the national park authorities through their information and interpretation centres, which are visited by many thousands of young people from schools and youth organisations?
  Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. I certainly agree with both the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The Government are most grateful for the work of my noble friend Lord Buxton, who chairs the media panel of the European Year of the Environment Committee. The "Blue Peter" series and also the "Wild Side of Town" programmes on BBC2 have made a tremendous environmental impact among
  132
  children. There has also been Television South-West coverage, more BBC 2 coverage and coverage by Yorkshire Television, and Super Channel satellite television is screening or preparing a series of programmes directly related to the theme. I too have seen BTCV projects involving young people and I regard them as very valuable both as social programmes and as environmental programmes.
  Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, to what extent are the recipients of this poison—notably Norway and Germany—blaming us for its production?
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, to a certain extent. I received a delegation from Norway at the end of last year on exactly this subject and I had to make the point that not only is this transboundary pollution but there is also a certain amount produced in the countries which are themselves complaining.

  Business
  3.23 p.m.
  Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the need for a review of the operation of the security services in the mid-1970s.
  With the leave of the House, I should like to say a brief word about the length of speeches in this afternoon's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. On the principle that the mover is allowed approximately 20 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, all other speeches should be limited to a strict upper limit of 12 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length he will be doing so at the expense of other speakers in the debate.

  Aberystwyth Harbour Bill
  Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
  National Provident Institution Bill [H.L.]
  Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  Post-School Education
  3.25 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to call attention to the state of post-school education; and to move for Papers.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, a number of noble Lords, including some of my own Benches, have asked me why the title of this Motion on the Order Paper has changed more than once since it was first put down. The second change was an error in which I had no

  133
  part, and an unimportant error at that. The reason for choosing the title "post-school education" rather than higher and further education was deliberate on our part and I think it is necessary for me to share our thinking on this with the House.
  The first reason is simply a matter of numbers. The number of students in our universities is 290, 000. The number of students in the non-advanced further education sector is 1, 619, 000. But if we take the non-advanced further education sector and the adult and continuing education sector, which is included in the title "post-school education", we have a figure of 4, 852, 000 students, which is more than 10 per cent. of the post-school population and is educated in something like 600 colleges throughout the country. It is for that reason that we have chosen this wider title.
  It is our firm belief that we will not get a true analysis of the status of tertiary education in our country by confining our analysis to the higher education sector or even to the higher and further education sector. No doubt individual Lords taking part in the debate will have things to say about the particular sectors of education in which they are experts—and that is no bad thing—but the House as a whole must in our view be concerned with the full state of post-school education in this country and the effects of the state of post-school education on our economy and society.
  Before moving to that analysis I should like to say something about the question of education and training, which appears sometimes to be an obstacle to a full understanding of these issues. Far too often vocational training, particularly vocational training at entry to working life, is training for the first job that a person enters into. But we know very well now with the rate of technological change in our society that the first job a person enters into is certainly not going to be the last, and the skills that are relevant at the age of 16, 18, 21 or 25 will almost certainly not be relevant later on in a person's working life. For those reasons it is important to recognise both the fact that education is a wider concept than the vocational training first entered into and that it is a concept relevant and continuing throughout life.
  There should be no need for us to deny the importance of the broader issues to which I have referred, or indeed to deny the great gap between our present performance and the performance of our competitors in the industrial world and the needs of our society. Perhaps I may look first at all at the issue of workers with recognised qualifications. In Germany, 66 per cent. of the labour force have a recognised vocational qualification. In the United States, 78 per cent. of the civilian labour force have a high school diploma. In Japan, 60 per cent. of the adult population have a lower secondary diploma. In comparison, the figures for the United Kingdom show that only 50 per cent. of the working population have even one certificate of secondary education. That by any comparison is a severe criticism of our existing system.
  If we look at those bodies which have been considering the projections of future demand it is clear that, even taking into account the advances which have been made in recent months in government thinking—and I pay tribute to them as I have done on
  134
  previous occasions—the official projection of an increase of 4 per cent. in the number of students by the year 2000 is, to use the words of the Committee for Industry and Further Education,
  "at odds with the UK's ambitions for renewal and growth".
  The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals calls that figure too unambitious and says that the need for mature and part-time students over the next 10 years means an increase of 50 per cent. in the numbers of mature and part-time students. Thus there is no doubt that we have needs greater than are being recognised at present by society or by government.
  What is the present position so far as concerns government policies and the effects of government policies on the provision that is available? I know that the Government object very strongly when we use the word "cuts" to apply to higher, further and advanced and continuing education, but the facts are without doubt. Let us look at the vacancies for university teachers. In biological, mathematical and physical sciences there are 175 vacancies for lecturers and 44 for professors. In engineering and technology there are 162 vacancies for lecturers and 27 for professors. In administrative business and social sciences there are 159 vacancies for lecturers and 15 for professors, and in medicine and dentistry, 152 and 15. If we look at the recurrent grant for education in real terms, taking into account changes in the funding system, in 1985–86 it was 89 per cent. of that in 1980–81.
  The White Paper made welcome concessions for higher education, but even after those welcome concessions we learn from this morning's newspapers that Hull University, with an academic staff of 346, is forced to cut 90 academic staff from that number or face a £7 million deficit by 1990. That is despite the fact that it has achieved a 37 per cent. increase in external funding of research and has already cut its academic staff by 50. If one takes the Government's current predictions for the Open University, which is universally recognised as being the most successful innovative educational institution in the country, even on the higher projection that the Government have now accepted, there is no proposal for an increase in the number of Open University students.
  If we look at the funding side and the most recent government attitude, Mr. George Walden, speaking at the Universities Council for Adult and Continuing Education on 14th April this year, is using phrases such as "maximising income from students" and "keeping fees at a realistic level". In gross terms the money available in the government thinking does not square with the student numbers that they are projecting. They talk about 50, 000 more students by 1990 or 33, 000 full-time equivalent of students, but about an increase in grant between 1988–89 and 1989–90 of only £3 million, from £2, 327 million to £2, 330 million. That £3 million will not provide the funding for the additional 50, 000 students. On any reckoning of the success or seriousness of the Government's approach to post-school education there are serious defects.
  I want to go further than that. I suggest that there are barriers to development and change in our post-school education system which are not simply the responsibility of government but deserve the serious

  135
  consideration of all who are concerned with these matters. They have lessons for the academic institutions concerned, employers in industry and commerce and in the public sector, and the Government. I suggest that there are things that need to be done by all those if there is to be the kind of improvement that the country needs.
  The first barrier to change and growth to which I want to refer is that of formal education qualifications. It was a great step forward in its time when the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, as Secretary of State for Education, established the principle that there should be a place for everybody who had two A-levels and had found a place in an academic institution. I pay tribute to him for that. It was a necessary step on the road to expansion in higher education.
  I pay tribute also to the fact that in the recent White Paper the Government restated their belief in the Robbins principle that all those who have the intellectual competence, the motivation and the maturity shall have an entitlement to post-school education. However, it is still the case that far too many academic institutions at all levels are treating academic qualifications in themselves as part of the screening process without recognising what is now very well established—that those without prior academic qualifications perform extremely well at all levels of the post-school education system.
  The Council on Industry and Higher Education in its recent report called A-levels a convenient ticket for limiting entry to a small academic world. The Council for National Academic Awards has indeed made significant progress in recent weeks towards opening up the higher education system. Even so, the general certificate of education is to be used as a benchmark and the use of access courses, which is very much to be welcomed, will remain only peripheral in its thinking.
  If we are to expand the post-school education system, can we afford any longer not to be giving serious consideration to the entry into that system of those with qualifications from the technical and vocational education initiatives, from the CPVE and indeed from the YTS and JTS? Why, for example, should the de Ville review of vocational qualifications apply only to the further education system and not to the higher education system? We simply have not made enough effort to force academic insititutions and educational institutions in the broader sense to recognise the skills that are available in the country for more people to take advantage of post-school education.
  In this context the old saying—I am sure that Mr. Kingsley Amis will not be grateful for its being revived—that more means worse has been proved so conclusively to be untrue since it was first made that no one has taken the trouble to learn the lesson that more means different; and difference is what is to be welcomed.
  The second barrier to which I wish to refer is that of finance. I have referred to it to some extent in talking about government financial policies. We are still at a very early stage of thinking coherently and consistently about student grants and the relationship between grants for part-time students and mature students and
  136
  the barrier of six hours' education for those on unemployment benefit. All those will be referred to by my noble friends who are much more qualified to speak about such matters than I am, in particular my noble friend Lady Blackstone, to whose maiden speech we are much looking forward this afternoon.
  We have not yet faced up to the fact that mandatory grants must take a larger role and discriminatory grants—grants in which anyone, whether it be government departments, employers or local authorities, can discriminate against certain kinds of applicants—must play a smaller part. We have yet to take account of the huge financial pressures, placed by the Government on local education authorities, which have forced them to charge what Mr. Walden calls "realistic fees", which are in fact the full cost of much provision and have done a great deal to inhibit growth in provision.
  The third barrier is the barrier of geographical accessibility. Here there are prospects with distance learning, with open learning, for many of these barriers to be overcome, particularly by those organisations such as the Open University which have taken care to use distance learning where it is appropriate, but to. make face-to-face access available wherever possible.
  The fourth barrier, perhaps the most important barrier of all, is the barrier of the structure of our educational system. Our post-school educational system is divided almost arbitrarily into what is called higher education, further education, and adult and continuing education. Even the changes taking place within the CNAA, and even the changes proposed in the recent higher education White Paper, go far too short a way to overcome those barriers. We are abolishing the University Grants Committee and the National Advisory Board, but we are not creating one body in their place; we are creating two bodies.
  The credit accumulation and transfer scheme of the Council of National Academic Awards is a worthwhile initiative, but it only applies to public sector higher education and not to universities. The White Paper itself takes the easy step for any government to take by centralising; by taking the polytechnics away from local authority control. It does not take any of the more difficult bolder steps of breaking down the barriers in the binary system between the different parts of our post-school education.
  Above all, there is still inadequate recognition paid to the need for adult and continuing education. The Council for Industry and Higher Education reckons that 1.3 per cent. of university income, £30 million, comes from the short courses which surely are the central component of the kind of retraining that our industry needs. It describes it as being an "underfunded spare-time activity" of our academics, and it contrasts it with the way in which the departments of continuing education in very many United States universities draw on the academic strength of the whole university.
  If anybody should think this were too recent, Sweden has had the 25-4 system, which says that anybody who reaches the age of 25 and has been in work for four years shall be entitled to continuing education throughout life whether it is in the form of retraining, the form of purely academic pursuits, or in

  137
  any other way that the student wishes it to be. That retraining has taken place since 1969 and it has successfully raised the calibre of the Swedish workforce in a way that cannot be compared with any activities in this country.
  I have said that there are demands on our institutions, our Government and our employers. I am conscious of the time and I certainly cannot repeat in any way what I have been saying about the institutions. It is obvious that a partnership between government, employers and our institutions is going to demand great changes on the part of our universities, our polytechnics and our colleges. We can no longer afford for our academic institutions to be producers' co-operatives as they have been in the past.
  Demand on industry and employers has been in my view very much mistaken by the present Government. They have talked as though contribution towards, for example, city technology courses is an adequate demand to be made upon employers. In fact, the demands upon employers are going to be much greater. They are going to be in terms of support for students, support for collaborative research, support for certain kinds of academic staff posts, for courses and for buildings, and only in the last resort for cash. Employers are going to have to learn to take the responsibility for their employees throughout their working lives for all the retraining which is going to be necessary as the world changes around them.
  So far as concerns government, the demands have been throughly set out in many of the documents from the unions, from the academic organisations and from those other public bodies which have commented; and not least the Council for Industry and Higher Education. If, to take one example only, the Government cannot get their act together as between the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Education and Science, and if we still have the situation where the job training scheme is in competition with MSC-funded non-advanced further education places, it is clear that the Government have not thought through the whole range of the problem of our futher, higher and advanced and continuing education.
  More means different. It means changes for all of us. It is not going to be easy for us to achieve. It means a recognition of the lifelong rights of our people for a better education. It means the creation of a learning society. It will certainly not be done with present policies or even by demanding more of the same. It can only be done by a recognition of the partnership of all those involved. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
  3.46 p.m.
  Lord Blake: My Lords, I am sure that we all welcome the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. It is important that we should discuss these matters. As he said in his opening remarks, there are a wide number of subjects to be discussed and each person contributing to this debate will have his own field that he would like to talk about. I am going to concentrate on the university field, which is the one I happen to know something about, and with particular reference to the White Paper to which the noble Lord referred.
  138
  I welcome some features of it. It is right that the polytechnics should be removed from local authority control. This removal will be generally appreciated, though possibly not by the local authorities themselves. The recognition that the polytechnics and colleges are national and not local institutions seems to me to be important and that is a good thing.
  I also welcome the projection of student numbers in the White Paper. It may be a bit of a deathbed repentance on the part of the department to produce figures which correspond faintly to reality, unlike previous ones, but still, deathbed repentances should be welcomed along with others. Certainly it is much more realistic than what has appeared before.
  I also welcome the creation of a new body to replace the University Grants Committee. This largely follows the lines of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Croham, though not entirely. I think it is right that we should have a body which is more representative of non-academic interests and less exclusively dominated by academic interests. This is a change for the good.
  However, I am worried about the White Paper in certain respects. In a short speech, as this has to be, I can only pose this briefly. I am worried about exactly what is intended by the new University Funding Committee—the UFC—which is to replace the UGC. It is apparently to be a strong and independent body but it does not seem as though it is in a position to advise the Government. At least it does not look like that from the recommendations of that report.
  However, there is some obscurity in its role. What is meant exactly—and I hope that the Minister may be able to explain this when she replies to the debate—by the substitution of "contracts" for "grants"? Who exactly contracts with whom, for how long and on what basis? The whole affair is somewhat obscure. I hope that we shall be told just what is meant.
  I have a faint feeling that this business of contract in the White Paper—something which at any rate does not appear in that form in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Croham, —is a belated, bright idea thought up by someone or other in Whitehall or elsewhere rather late in the day. It reads as though it has been superimposed on the document at the last moment. If its purpose is to restrict still further universities' independence and ability to decide their use of resources, I am somewhat depressed by the prospect. One cannot make contracts to produce Nobel prizewinners.
  There is in the White Paper a certain spirit of utilitarian commercialism which bodes not too well for our future. What will happen to universities which fail to win contracts? On one interpretation, this new body will have enormous power; on another, it will be the UGC under a new name. I think that clarification of this point will be welcome.
  I can see all too easily the possibility of elaborate bureaucratic supervision which will hamper and hinder the natural development of ideas and initiatives. We do not want the kind of rigid control which prevails in the highly centralised state-run universities in continental Europe, where even the most trivial issues must be referred back through endless tiers of authority for final decision.
  After all the battering, cuts and shifts in finance, what is now needed in the university world is a

  139
  measure of predictability. It is essential to see a least some distance ahead. I note that the White Paper, if accepted, substitutes a rolling programme rather than the fixed triennium which the noble Lord, Lord Croham, and his colleagues recommended. I am far from sure what that means. It sounds all right and it appears in the context of a statement recognising:
  "the importance of giving higher education institutions as much advanced information as possible about total resources likely to be made available".
  That total is absolutely crucial.
  I revert to my uneasiness about the UFC's role in the matter of finance. It is disturbing that it does not appear to be in a position to advise the Government on this matter. In the White Paper there is a specific statement that the UFC's essential responsibilities relate to allocation of funding between universities rather than to its overall amount, which is a matter for the Government to decide after considering all the evidence. Under our system the Government must have the last say in funding. What is the evidence that the Government will consider? Would not advice from the UFC at least be a useful element in that evidence?
  In conclusion, I should like to make certain suggestions which may seem slightly outrageous. When Mr. Gladstone lost a certain election in Oxford he came to his new constituents and said, "At last I am come among you unmuzzled". There are perhaps remarks that one can make towards the end of one's time in academic life which are difficult to make when one is currently involved. I have two points which I believe the Government, or whoever is involved in university education, should consider quite seriously.
  First, can this country afford to have research spread over 46 universities? It is the scientific research which costs money. I know of all the difficulties that might be involved, but is there not a possible case for considering whether advanced scientific research in that sense should be confined to a smaller body of universities; 10 to 15, rather than 46? I think that economies could be made in that respect which might be important.
  The second suggestion which I should like to float to your Lordships is this. Is there anything sacrosanct about all dons and professors being paid more or less equally? Is there not a case for considering whether certain talents and suchlike are in short supply, and that those should be recognised by additional payment? After all, that is a normal feature in most aspects of life in the country. I cannot see that this rather dullard egalitarianism, which prevails all too often in the university world, should continue.

  Security Service: Inquiry Request
  3.55 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question which has been asked in another place on the need for a review of the
  140
  operations of the Security Service in the mid 1970s. The Statement is as follows:
  "Mr. Speaker, the right honourable gentleman the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has today called for an inquiry into recent allegations about the security service in relation to the Government led by the right honourable and noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, between 1974 and 1976.
  "Allegations of this nature first gained currency 10 years ago, in July 1977. They were summarised in a speech in this House on 28th July 1977 by my right honourable friend the member for Blackpool South. The allegations ranged widely, but were to the effect that the security service had sought to discredit the duly constituted government of the day, and in particular its Prime Minister; or that some members of the security service had conspired together to do so.
  "On 23rd August 1977, the right honourable gentleman the then Prime Minister issued a statement in which he said that he had conducted detailed inquiries into the recent allegations about the security service and he was satisfied that they did not constitute grounds for lack of confidence in the competence or impartiality of the security service or for instituting a special inquiry. On 8th December 1977, he told the House that Lord Wilson associated himself with that statement and therefore there was no reason to carry the matter any further.
  "I accepted the right honourable gentleman's statement and conclusions without question. I believed them, and I still believe them, to be correct.
  "Early in 1978 a book was publised, entitled The Pencourt File, which contained fuller accounts of these allegations. My honourable friend the member for Woking has let me see copies of correspondence which he exchanged with the right honourable gentleman the then Prime Minister. My honourable friend drew the right honourable gentleman's attention to the contents of the book, and in particular to a number of statements attributed in the book to the then Sir Harold Wilson. My honourable friend urged the then Prime Minister to arrange for a full inquiry to be undertaken by the Security Commission.
  "In his reply dated 20th February 1978, the then Prime Minister said:
  'So far as I can see, there are no significant statements about matters of national security in this book of which the authorities were not aware when I issued a statement on allegations about the Security Service on 23rd August last; I put the statement in the Official Report on 8th December.'.
  He concluded—and I again quote—
  'I have nothing to add to it.'.
  "In recent weeks these allegations have been given renewed currency in press reports which the right honourable gentleman, in his statement issued this morning, says go into greater detail than the 1977 inquiry knew about.
  "It would not be appropriate for me or other members of this Administration to see papers relating to that time, and we have not asked to do so.
  "I can, however, tell the House that the Director General of the Security Service has reported to me

  141
  that, over the last four months, he has conducted a thorough investigation into all these stories, taking account of the earlier allegations and of the other material given recent currency. There has been a comprehensive examination of all the papers relevant to that time. There have been interviews with officers in post in the relevant parts of the security service at that time, including officers whose names have been made public.
  "The director general has advised me that he has found no evidence of any truth in the allegations. He has given me his personal assurance that the stories are false. In particular he has advised me that all the security service officers who have been interviewed have categorically denied that they were involved in, or were aware of, any activities or plans to undermine Lord Wilson and his Government when Lord Wilson was Prime Minister.
  "The then director general has categorically denied the allegation that he confirmed the existence within the Security Service of a disaffected faction with extreme right-wing views and he has further stated that he had no reason to believe that any such faction existed. No evidence or indication has been found of any plot or conspiracy against Lord Wilson by or within the Security Service. Further, the director general has also advised me that Lord Wilson has never been the subject of a security service investigation or of any form of electronic or other surveillance by the Security Service.
  "The right honourable gentleman the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, in a statement he issued on 22nd March this year, declared that he had every confidence in the integrity and ability of the present Director General of the Security Service. So do I. I accept the assurance and the advice which he has given me.
  "This latest investigation, taking account of recently published material, confirms the conclusions reached and announced by the right honourable gentleman in 1977, which I then accepted without question. That was in accordance with the tradition of bipartisan Front Bench support for the security and intelligence services and the work they do.
  "Like the right honourable Gentleman in 1977, and again in 1978, I do not propose to institute any other inquiry into these matters. In the light of the director general's assurance and advice, I do not believe that any further inquiry would be justified.
  "So, Mr. Speaker, once again, as in 1977, detailed inquiries have confirmed the conclusion that there are no grounds for lack of confidence in the competence or impartiality of the Security Service or for instituting a special inquiry. It is time to stop raking over the embers of a period over 10 years ago and to assert confidence, as I readily do, in the Security Service's strict adherence to the directive under which it carries out its duties, and in its skill and loyalty in carrying out the tasks which it is called upon to undertake in the defence of our security and freedom."
  Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the reply to
  142
  the Private Notice Question, and we also appreciate the detail in the Statement itself. I personally say at once that the director general's words must be taken seriously. Nevertheless, I am sure the House would agree that in a parliamentary democracy there is nothing worse than a conspiracy to overthrow the elected government. If there is any doubt whatsoever that such a conspiracy may have been contemplated by individuals in positions of authority, then the circumstances should be examined in detail by an independent tribunal or committee.
  The Statement has referred on a number of occasions to the inquiry of 1977, but it is the fact that the inquiry of 1977 was directed to a very narrow study and examination. As I recall, it was directed to the question of bugging. Since then of course far wider issues have been thrown open. Mr. Peter Wright, in his book, is reported to have accused a number of security officials of this most serious offence and, whatever our views of him may be, I believe we are obliged to take his words very seriously indeed. A failure to do so would make us uneasy about the future of our democratic form of government. If it is true that there was a plot, the country should be told who was involved and they should be brought to account for their actions. No one, including the director general or anyone in the security system, is above the law.
  I would stress that it would be quite wrong to prejudge the question of whether any security officers had planned to destabilise my right honourable friend's government. However, the accumulation of charge and accusation and the increasing list of names referred to by the noble Viscount appearing in the press from day to day make it essential, in my view, that this whole thing should be cleared up once and for all. With the greatest possible respect, I do not think that this Statement by the Prime Minister satisfies me. I therefore hope that the matter will be reconsidered—as I think it will have to be before long.
  Lord Diamond: My Lords, this is a very important Statement and we are most grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating in full the Answer to the Private Notice Question by no less a person than the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition and in connection with a statement made by an ex-Prime Minister relating to issues affecting another ex-Prime Minister.
  The totality of these circumstances make it immensely important that we should get the right answer. From these Benches it is hardly necessary for me to say that we accept completely the integrity of and the total trust to be placed in the director general of the service. I repeat, my Lords, completely. What we have to deal with is another question. We have to deal with the question of whether these allegations, on whatever foundation they rest, will be dissipated satisfactorily without a full and independent external inquiry.
  It is my view, and the view of my colleagues in the Alliance that that will not take place. We therefore urge the Government to hold an inquiry in the interests of the health and the morale of the service, and with a view to removing any doubt whatever about the inaccuracy of these allegations. I very much hope and believe that they can be removed. We take the view that it is essential for the protection of the

  143
  services and indeed for the protection of democracy that there must be a proper external inquiry as to the incidents involved.
  For that reason we would support the suggestion made in another place that a senior judge should be appointed to head that inquiry after the fullest consultation. I am bound to add—I am sorry to take up your Lordships' time—that if we are concerned with expelling all doubts whatsoever in the public mind, it is essential that the fullest consultation should take place before such a judge is appointed so that he can be seen to have the confidence of our people. We want this removed once and for all.
  Questions would also arise as to setting up machinery with regard to the future of the services. Perhaps this is not the appropriate occasion, in view of the Prime Minister's surprising judgment—I hope I may be permitted to say that in my view it was an error of judgment—to consider that fully. However, I hope that I may add one further suggestion and ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware that we feel the morale of the service, which has suffered considerable blows recently, will be helped and restored if they find an ally to whom they can turn and to whom they can explain their difficulties, perhaps in the form of a committee of chosen Privy Councillors who could be relied upon to listen (and only to listen) and to present a report which would not include any detail whatever of what they had heard. Without such an ally and such encouragement, I fear that the morale of the service may not adequately recover.
  So I am bound to support what has been said by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in this House; that further consideration should be given to this most serious matter in order to reach the same conclusion that every person in this House wants to reach: that there is nothing whatever in these allegations.
  Lord Glenamara: My Lords—
  Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord, I fully appreciate that he wishes to question me, but I think it right that I should answer first, in the normal form of this House, the noble Lords who have spoken from the two Front Benches.
  I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for their very strong confidence in the Director General of the Security Service. I think we should all start from the extremely important premise that both of them were prepared to accept immediately the total integrity of the Director General of the Security Service. I am very grateful to them for what they have said.
  Therefore, it is important to look at everything that has been said subsequently against the background of the conclusions reached by the Director General of the Security Service. His conclusions were perfectly clear and set out very fully in the Statement: that he had found in extensive investigations in the service no evidence of any plot or conspiracy against Lord Wilson or his government. Those are important statements from someone whose integrity both noble Lords have fully endorsed. So I would start from that point.
  144
  Despite his confidence in the director general, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, feels that it is still important that further bolstering, if that is the right word, of that position is necessary in the interests of the morale of the services. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, suggests that further investigation should be made to confirm basically what were the views of the Director General of the Security Service.
  I have to point out that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, having had the benefit, as the Prime Minister of the day has, of a report from the director general, has come to the same conclusion as the right honourable gentleman the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth came to when he was Prime Minister—that no further investigation is necessary. Both Prime Ministers have had the benefit of evidence from the Director General of the Security Service, in whom both noble Lords have trust. That is a very important factor and one that I must put before the House.
  So far as any comments in Mr. Wright's book are concerned, I think the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will realise, as I am advised, that it would be totally improper for me to make comment on anything which concerns that particular legal action. Although I understand it would be perfectly in order to do so, I think it would be wrong for a Member of the Government so to do, and I will not take that point.
  I note the views expressed by the two noble Lords and of course I shall report them to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, but I have to come back to what I have said very plainly—that, as in 1977, as the right honourable gentleman the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth decided that no further inquiry was necessary, so my right honourable friend the Prime Minister decided today. I hope the House will see that there is a certain logic and clear continuity in the views of both my right honourable friend and the right honourable gentleman the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, whose integrity in these matters I know all noble Lords would wholly accept. Bearing in mind that they have both had the great responsibility of being the Prime Minister of the day, I think that conclusion on both their parts is something of great importance for this House to understand.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the House will recognise that I have a rather special personal interest in this matter. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement, but what he has said is that the security service has investigated itself and given itself a clean bill of health. In no way do I impugn the integrity of the director general, but I find that totally unacceptable.
  It will surprise noble Lords to hear that I have not heard a word from the Director General of the Security Service. He knows about the allegations concerning myself. Why has he not asked to see me or to see the documents which I have? There has been no word from him in this investigation. I find that absolutely unacceptable.
  I agree with my noble friend Lord Cledwyn and with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that there must be an adequate inquiry of some kind which has power to

  145
  send for persons and papers, including, may I say, police records, which are extremely important in this matter—to send for them and require their presence. If nobody else will do it I hope that a Select Committee of the other place, or perhaps a joint Select Committee, will do it. But I must tell the noble Viscount, for whom I have enormous respect, that I am not going to let this matter drop and nor will my friends. We shall continue pressing day in day out until it is investigated thoroughly.
  Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, it would be quite improper for me to comment on the personal position of the noble Lord, which he has set before the House. He will be the first to appreciate that when these matters were investigated in 1977 it was the view of his then Prime Minister, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, that there was nothing in the various allegations. I understand from what he has said, and I have to accept it, that that does not satisfy him. Clearly it is not for me to pursue that matter further. I can only say that I regret the understandable feelings that the noble Lord has and I shall certainly see that his views are passed to the appropriate quarter.
  I do not think it is possible for me to go further than to state my belief in what the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said on that occasion about these allegations and many others, which has been confirmed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister today.
  Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Diamond, said that we should have an inquiry to clear up the doubts. Having watched governments in this place for the last 36 years, I am convinced that if an inquiry were set up now it would add to and exaggerate the doubts. It is not possible for an inquiry to clear away the slurs in that way in view of the categorical statements made today by the Prime Minister and by the right honourable Gentleman the Prime Minister in 1977.
  If ever there was a time when Members of the two Houses of Parliament should be prepared to accept the authenticity and objectivity of statements from the Dispatch Box this is it. Damage to the morale of people at home and of our allies abroad could be immense, to a point which can hardly be exaggerated, and to have an inquiry now would confirm the doubts which have been expressed by Mr. Wright, who has gone back on his undertaking not to disclose these matters. To take that risk now would be dangerous and wrong.
  Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I note what my noble friend has said. In accordance with the position that I have taken so far I think that it would be appropriate if I did not comment further on what he said. Above all I do not think it is for me to seek to second-guess not one Prime Minister but two.
  Lord Beswick: My Lords, can the noble Viscount answer the specific point that has been made by my noble friend Lord Glenamara? How can an inquiry be considered deep and widespread if it has not been given an opportunity to question the noble Lord, who has been mentioned in these matters?
  Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I can only tell the noble Lord that I said that I shall pass on the point that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, to those who are most nearly responsible, and I shall do so.
  Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Viscount is being ingenuous. The right honourable Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has made it perfectly clear both in statements and today in another place that he regards the inquiry of 1977 as reflecting a situation that is quite different from the one today and that further evidence has come to light which needs investigation.
  It is quite ingenuous to put together the Statement made by the right honourable Member who was Prime Minister at that time in 1977 and the Statement that has been drawn out from the Prime Minister and the noble Viscount by the statement of the right honourable Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The noble Viscount has not said what the Government intend to do now. Surely if the Government have any regard for the morale of the security services they will recognise that no matter what they do there are newspapers in this and other countries that will dribble out the information in the book of Peter Wright, whether it is false or true. What will the Government do about that constant dribble of information?
  The Statement mentions the honourable Member for Blackpool, who in 1977 commented on an article in the Observer and matters that were public knowledge. Do the Government now intend to try to stop the public from having information about what is contained in Peter Wright's book? If they are, then they are doing a grave disservice to the security services which they now profess to be safeguarding.
  Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, the noble Lord considers that I am being ingenuous in repeating the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and associating with it the statements made by the right honourable Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth at that time. I do not at all accept that 1 am being ingenuous.
  Equally I do not think that it would be right for me to proceed down the road to which the noble Lord wishes to direct me. First of all, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, I have made clear that I think it would be wrong for me to comment on any of the matters described in Mr. Wright's book and the case that is taking place in Australia. I hold very strongly to that.
  So far as concerns other statements being dribbled out in the press, I note what the noble Lord has said but my right honourable friend has made perfectly clear—indeed, so did the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Diamond—that she has complete confidence in what the Director General of the Security Services says. If one has such complete confidence and believes that that is right I think that one can accept, as the noble Lord says, that statements in the press are likely to drip out—I think that was the term he used.
  If that is what the press want to do, they will do it whether or not one has an inquiry, and they will still do it even after there has been an inquiry. The noble Lord

  147
  and everyone else knows it. There comes a time when one has to decide whether something is right or wrong. My right honourable friend has made her position very clear.
  Since noble Lords have made their representations to me, I think it is right for me to say that I shall bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister the views that have been expressed in your Lordships' House. It is my duty to do that and I shall do it. I believe that the House will recognise that I am in the position of repeating a Statement and therefore that I must report to the person who made it initially. Of course I shall do that but I am not prepared to be pushed down the road indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, when he says that information may be dribbled out in the press. I am one of those people who, had I gone down that road during my 30 years in public life, certainly should not be here today.
  Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the Statement vindicating the conduct of officers of the security services tends to support rather than quash the numerous allegations that have been made against named people that they are security risks? I think that it tends to increase fears about the vulnerability of No. 10 to the intelligence services of foreign governments during this period. I am not now speaking about a conspiracy against the Prime Minister, but is there not a need to clear up these apprehensions and to draw lessons from them to make sure that such a thing does not happen in the future?
  Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I think I can only say that those who have a complete belief in the integrity of the director general have to take into account the advice he has given to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that he has found no evidence of any truth in the allegations. The Statement says:
  "He has given me his personal assurance that the stories are false".
  I must ask the noble Lord to consider that.
  My right honourable friend says:
  "In particular he has advised me that all the security services officers who have been interviewed have categorically denied that they were involved in, or were aware of, any activities or plans to undermine Lord Wilson and his Government when Lord Wilson was Prime Minister".
  If one believes in the integrity and indeed the strength of the director general of the security services, at least one must take account of the comments that he has made.
  Lord Parry: My Lords, does the noble Viscount accept that so much depends on the integrity of the leader of the services? During the time that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House was the distinguished Home Secretary of this country he established inquiries many times about difficulties arising within police forces in this country. That did not signify that he was questioning the integrity of the chief constables of those forces. A chief constable would make initial inquiries and then an independent chief constable or his representative would be brought in to examine the charges. Is there not a complete analogy with that case?
  Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not think it is a direct analogy. Whether I was right or wrong when I did that, I have to say that some of the people concerned questioned whether I was questioning their integrity.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, can the noble Viscount clear up one point that appears to be puzzling some of us? Who asked the director general of the securities services to conduct this inquiry? Did he do it as a result of a request from the Prime Minister or did he do it on his own account?
  Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, there is no question that in view of the various allegations that were made the director general of the security services thought that that was right and proper and I know he conducted this inquiry entirely on his own account. Obviously he realised that he would have to report to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the many allegations that were coming forward.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recognise that we are not talking about the confidence of the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Cledwyn, in the integrity of the director of the security services? The events of the past few months and years have led to a grave lack of confidence in the security services felt by. the public at large. Does he recognise that the old saw about justice not only being done but being seen to be done applies in this case, and can he tell us—as he repeated in the Statement—that there are no grounds for lack of confidence in the competence of the security services? If so, how was it possible that they employed Mr. Wright?
  Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I simply say to the noble Lord that taking it from the general position of all those who have expressed confidence in the director general, I have considerable confidence in the security services of this country, and so do a very large number of people in this country. If the noble Lord or anybody else were to say that because they found a mistake made by some organisation or some individual they did not have confidence in that organisation or individual over a broad field, there would be very few things in this world in which one would have confidence.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Leader of the House aware that there are many noble Lords on this side of the House who find this Statement not only entirely satisfactory but a welcome relief?
  Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.

  Post-School Education
  Lord Denham: My Lords, before the debate is resumed, I think that I should inform your Lordships that the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of. Haringey, is now due to end at 9 p.m.
  4.32 p.m.
  Debate resumed.
  Baroness Seear: My Lords, in the opening pages of the government White Paper the authors state that the higher education system in this country is one of the "best in the world". One is therefore tempted to comment: "If it is not broken, don't mend it!". Why meddle so much with a system which is said to be one of the best in the world? That is not of course to say that there is no room for change and development; quite plainly there is.
  I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that change and development is the order of the day. However, along with that change and development it is surely of the highest importance to maintain that quality which is said to be of the best in the world. Because of the short time allowed, and for that reason only, I shall concentrate on the higher education system. Others of my colleagues will be speaking on other aspects of post-school education. I should like to make it quite clear that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the whole field of post-school education needs to be examined thoroughly and with a willingness to make quite radical changes.
  We say that because we have to recognise that the future is to the highly educated countries. Any country which hopes to hold its place economically, politically and socially in the world of the future must have a far higher level of education than it has had in the past. We in this country are nowhere near the level at which we need to be. A quantum leap is required throughout the whole education system, not just a slight improvement here and an adjustment there.
  When it comes to higher education I find myself in many respects, though not in all, very much in line with much that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Blake. The changes that we need in higher education are surely of two kinds: an increase in the numbers involved, a development and maintenance, and where possible an improvement, in the quality. As regards the numbers of people entering higher education, it is a good thing that the Government have accepted in the White Paper the higher level projection for the future and not the lower level which it was feared at one time they would consider was adequate.
  Although that is certainly a step in the right direction, there is also reason for disappointment in that, although the Government agree that there will be an increase in the number of people entering higher education up to 1990, they accept that because of falling school rolls there will be a decrease in the number between 1990 and 1996.
  In the same White Paper the Government stress the importance of mature students entering higher education. Surely the fall in school rolls gives us a first-class opportunity, not probably to be found again for decades, to make a real onslaught on the entry into higher education of mature students. Why should we not keep up the numbers, and indeed expand them, and see to it that because there are falling school rolls we can attract into the university system many of those now mature people who for one reason or another did not have the opportunities to go or did not take them
  150
  earlier on? If we are to do that we need to be prepared to keep the upward flow in the numbers, but we also need now—and I say now—to start preparing ways in which those mature students will be ready for the places that should be there for them in 1990.
  There are many different categories among those mature students. I wish to mention particularly the very many women who have been under-represented in the higher education system in the past and who undoubtedly have ability, many of whom would now like the opportunity to enter into higher education of that kind. I say this as a challenge to the Minister who will reply. Can we not between now and 1990 study and quickly put into action a plan to make it possible for far more of those people to be ready to take higher education schemes in the years 1990 to 1996?
  Some specific things need to be done as regards women. It needs to be made very much easier for them to attend courses by virtue of better child care provision. Let us get that one out of the way first because it is an important element. There must also be adequate financing. At present it is often very difficult for women to take courses, let alone access courses. Women need preparatory access courses if they are going to move on to higher education, but it is difficult for them to take those courses because of the regulations which state that people cannot take a course of that kind unless they are unemployed—and a married woman is not unemployed, is she? Therefore, she is not eligible.
  Let us look at the whole question of the financing of women who have good potential for higher education. With that is linked the whole question of part-time students. If we mean business by mature students we must provide facilities for part-time higher education. If that is the Government's intention, I can only say that their behaviour over Birkbeck College, which is the prototype of part-time higher education, does not bode well for the future. Let them think again about that. This is an opportunity certainly not to be missed.
  On the matter of quantity there are among men as well as among women people who should be coming forward. We need something like the FET courses which were made available to people who came out of the services at the end of the war. I had the privilege of teaching some of those people—I am going back such a long way—and anyone who taught in the universities at that time would confirm my view that they were some of the best students that we ever had and they were people who had never thought of going to university before they became involved in the war. However, they seized the opportunity of the FETs and it has been of great benefit to the nation that they did so.
  On the matter of maintaining and improving the quality of our higher education, the Government must not allow the continuing flight from this country of some of the ablest people in the universities. I know that there has been a return brain-drain as well as a brain-drain, but the distinguished list of names of people who are leaving this country is a matter for real alarm and the Government should be deeply concerned about it. They should find ways of reversing the trend. It is not only a matter of money. The penny-pinching over university salaries has obviously not helped, but it is also a matter of providing resources

  151
  and opportunities and the sense of being able to do a really first-class job.
  Part of the raising of quality, and part of the way of giving high-level academics a feeling of doing a really first-class job, is to make sure that there are good graduate courses in our universities. With the extension of knowledge, and with the fact that in the future we need people who are both broadly based and have a high level of specialist knowledge, the graduate course in the universities will be of the very greatest importance. The fourth year, the graduate-taught higher degree, is something which gives encouragement and scope to good academics and which produces the kind of people who in all fields—in industry, in education, in the Civil Service—can give the leadership which we need and which at the present time we are not getting; and yet we are very under-provided so far as graduate courses are concerned. Will the Minister tell us what thoughts the Government have about this? It is inadequately covered in the White Paper.
  Along with that I should like to say that I think it is not a good policy to suggest—and it will certainly not be encouraging to good academics—that there should be universities which undertake research and universities which only teach and do not undertake research. Of course it is sensible to have a certain amount of rationalisation. I do not for one moment defend the small department which keeps going because it wants to keep going with a very small number of students and a very small staff and which cannot possibly support good research. On the other hand, I believe it is a contradiction in terms to talk about a university as a university if it is not doing research. The interplay between research and teaching—I know it has been said many times, but that does not make it wrong—is of the essence and I strongly oppose the proposal that there should be some so-called universities which do not undertake research.
  In looking at the White Paper, I find reason for considerable concern about the proposed control of the universities to maintain and improve quality as they see it. As regards this new body which is being set up, this Universities Funding Council, there is nothing wrong with that in itself but, as the noble Lord, Lord Blake, asked: what is the nature of the contract that we are hearing about? A contract implies that the body will lay down conditions presumably which the university has to accept. There is running through all this part of the White Paper a tendency towards central control and bureaucratic interference which is the very contrary of what is needed in a university.
  For example, the White Paper says:
  "The Government should provide guidelines at appropriate intervals to set the framework for the planning process which the UFC and the universities should conduct".
  Again:
  "Arrangements for the flow of management information and for accountability from the universities to the UFC and onwards to Government should be much improved".
  And, most sinister of all,
  "The Government will, in particular, be concerned to see that the UFC's arrangements for making funds available to universities
  152
  properly reward success in developing co-operation with and meeting the needs of industry and commerce':.
  I have always been strongly in favour of the close working together of industry and the universities. When I was teaching I did a very great deal of this and in fact I got money out of them, which will surely give me credit on the Front Benches. But that is not what a university is about. That is not what a university is for. At the risk of being corny, I remind your Lordships that what a university is for—of course it makes its contribution to wealth creation and to industry—is the discovery, dissemination and safeguarding of truth. If that is not compatible with its other duties, then those other duties will have to go.
  That aspect is not developed by direction from on high. Why do the Secretary of State and his advisers think that they are the people who will be able to create the creativity inside the universities? Creativity does not come in that way. The imaginative leap of research does not come in that way by instructions from on high. The wind bloweth where it listeth. But that sort of wind will not come from the nostrils of the Secretary of State and his civil servants.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Adrian: My Lords, this afternoon we are debating post school education. I think we are all agreed that it is a subject of major importance. I think we are mostly agreed that post-school education is in some disarray. We are probably disagreed on the reasons for that state of affairs. But in the relatively short time that I have I shall, like the noble Lord, Lord Blake, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and for fairly obvious reasons, confine myself to universities. If I echo what has been said already, I hope that the Government will recognise this as some little force to what has been said.
  The reason I speak on universities is that I have some direct experience of them and for a brief span some responsibility as Vice-Chancellor at Cambridge. That is an interest that I think I have to declare in this debate. Perhaps I may say at this point how very much I am looking forward to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.
  I do not believe your Lordships will need telling that morale at universities is low. It is hardly surprising that it should be. Seven lean years and, much more depressing than that, years of rebuke and criticism, not all of it justified—some of it has been—not all of it well informed and culminating in the Green Paper of 18 months ago, have reduced our confidence to a low ebb. Therein lies the danger that your universities may become so demoralised that they will uncritically accept whatever is suggested by Whitehall, especially if it is presented with a friendly smile and a little praise.
  A government who have reduced their universities to merely licking the hand that feeds them may have saved themselves some immediate trouble, but I do not believe they will have done much for our children's future. Universities which simply do what they are told to do by government will eventually cease to be universities, because independent and adventurous minds will no longer wish to work in them. They will go elsewhere. Indeed, they are already going elsewhere.

  153
  So we must look very carefully at the White Paper Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge to see how it charts the future of universities. As has been done already, we can welcome the Government's explicit commitment to increased access and to their new projection of student members. Now that the Department of Education and Science has at last agreed with universities, the Association of University Teachers, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Royal Society and the Confederation of British Industry, that student numbers in tertiary education are unlikely to fall below present levels in the period to the end of the century, we have at least now a common framework.
  The important task is to develop our institutions and change our universities so that they meet the needs, as they change in the coming years, of those coming to the universities from school, and the wider needs of society and the economy into which those students will graduate. I include in those wider needs both the provision of qualified graduates and the advancement of knowledge and technology.
  I have great faith that with dialogue, encouragement and support the universities will respond to these needs. After all, Cambridge responded quite early on in the provision of scientific education in the nineteenth century, when it was much more independent of government than it is now, and it was in the very forefront of computer development and molecular biology in the middle of this one. What we need is confidence and some room to take risks. We have not had much of either in the last few years. Universities produce, as was said so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, ideas and knowledge as well as graduates equipped to build the economy. We must never lose sight of either of these vital functions.
  In contrast to the White Paper's positive and encouraging stance on student numbers, its other proposals seem to me to endanger some of the few good features of the present system. Like the noble Lord, Lord Blake, I am concerned that the newly proposed universities funding council seems to be deprived of one of the most important functions of the University Grants Committee—the provision of advice to government. Section 4.40 says—in a way that is all too characteristic of the many rather imprecise details in this White Paper—that the Government will have to give further consideration to the terms of reference of the universities funding council. I hope that they will do so. But there is no suggestion in the White Paper that the universities funding council will be asked to provide public evidence or advice to government to aid them in making the decisions they very properly claim to be theirs.
  Of course I welcome a wide representation on the universities funding council and I hope that it will go considerably wider than just the universities and manufacturing industry, as has been suggested in some quarters. But to get the benefit of that wider representation and membership surely its voice must be heard. If we are to be successful in remoulding our universities there must be public debate. Published advice from the universities funding council must surely be part of that dialogue.
  154
  There is a further major area to which the Government will surely have to give more consideration, and that concerns university and indeed polytechnic funding. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, has already noticed the new phrase that has appeared in the White Paper. Grants are to be replaced by a system of contracting. It is insufficiently clear just what that implies. Until we know more, at this stage we can only speculate. Are we to bid in competition with other universities for contracts? Can we seek contracts from the universities funding council to finance new projects? Contracts may even have attractions: both parties to contracts are bound by them. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, suggested that we could not plausibly seek a contract to produce, for example, two Nobel prizes a decade. However, perhaps we could do better, in view of the Treasury's well-known view that Nobel prizes are an expensive luxury, and contract to produce no more than two Nobel prizes in a decade.
  More seriously, if contracting means that all funds are earmarked, universities will lose what little control they now have over their own affairs. We must reserve judgment until we know much more about the contracting system. But we can wonder about section 4.41, which says inter alia that financial relationships between the universities funding council and universities should be governed by financial memoranda. Having recently experienced the imposition of financial memoranda on two major grant-aided institutions I am left wondering how these may be reconciled with the notion of contracts between two independent bodies.
  I remain profoundly sceptical that the White Paper sets the right course as regards funding our universities. If we want diversity and development of the kind suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, rather than uniformity, which has, one must admit, developed in the years of Robbins and thereafter, the universities must regain some degree of independence of action and innovation. Much of the White Paper, though printed in glorious technicolour, is still too green for me.
  4.53 p.m.
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I must first of all declare an interest in the subject brought forward for debate by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. In the autumn I become the Master of Birkbeck College, where 92 per cent. of the students are part-time. I hope very much that the difficult financial situation which faces the college can be resolved. If not, I fear that both providers and potential students elsewhere will be discouraged and will draw their own conclusions about the value attached to part-time studies in our system of post-school education. Birkbeck has a special symbolic importance as an institution which for over 150 years has helped people who work in the day to study at night. I know that many Members of your Lordships' House have supported Birkbeck in recent months and how much this has been appreciated. I also appreciate the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on this matter.
  Access to post-school education should be readily available to all social groups in our society. Unfortunately some groups have for many years been

  155
  under-represented, especially in what has traditionally been known as higher education in the universities and polytechnics. These include women, young people from working-class backgrounds and the black and ethnic minority community. Moreover too much of our post-school education has been concentrated on the years immediately after leaving school at the expense of older people, many of whom could greatly benefit from returning to education with the advantage of more experience and maturity.
  When I was visiting Canada recently I was told at the University of Toronto of a student who is 96. She is slowly working towards obtaining a first degree on a part-time basis. She now has 10 credits out of the necessary 15. Everyone at the university is very much hoping she will live long enough to get her degree. Recently, when the press were seeking to interview her, it was discovered that she was travelling around Europe on her own. She is currently so fit and energetic that the auspices are good. I am not suggesting that it is necessary to wait until the age of 96 to become a truly successful undergraduate, but I am claiming that we should get away from the absurd idea that education should be largely confined to those aged between five and 22.
  One way of broadening access is to make it easier for older students to get back into education. Let me illustrate with the example of women. When I went to univerisity in the early 'sixties about a quarter of undergraduates were women. Today the figure is 44 per cent.—a big improvement, although it ought to be 50 per cent. I contend that many of those women caught in the gap between the 25 per cent. then and the 44 per cent. now who missed out earlier could benefit from returning to study in their thirties or even later.
  There are two ways in which we should make it easier for them and similar groups. The first is to relax the entry requirements in higher education for older students on a much greater scale than at present. I believe that to expect older people to go through a two-year A-level course is unreasonable, and will put off many prospective students. Instead encouragement should be given to local education authorities to provide a network of short access or return to study courses along the lines of those successfully established by the Inner London Education Authority.
  I also take the view that to ask for A-levels is unnecessary. Recent research at Brighton Polytechnic funded by the Council for National Academic Awards, based on a large sample of students in both universities and polytechnics, demonstrates that. The degree results of those accepted on the basis of entry qualifications other than A-levels were slightly higher than for those accepted on the basis of A-levels. The non-A-level group did, however, include people with other recognised qualifications for higher education such as Higher National Certificates. When these are excluded, those in the non-standard entry categories still fared no worse on average than other students. The research also found that degree performance improves with age up to the age of 40. So providing opportunities for increasing numbers of mature students and relaxing entry requirements for them will not affect quality adversely. If anything it will improve it.
  156
  The second way to help older students return to education is to have more part-time places. Many potential students over the age of 25 will have jobs which in these days of high unemployment they will be reluctant to give up; many others will have dependants and the associated financial commitments which mean that they cannot afford to become full-time students; some will simply prefer to combine work and study. In the United States, Canada, Australia and a number of European countries a high proportion of students are taking courses and holding down jobs at the same time. In the UK, in spite of the excellent work done by the Open University, the proportion is much lower, partly I suspect because of the way the system discriminates against part-time students.
  It is a strange anomaly that full-time students automatically have their fees paid by their local authorities, however well off they or their parents are. Part-time students automatically have to pay their own fees, however poor they may be. Part-time students cannot set these fees against tax as happens in some other countries. It seems extraodinarily inequitable that students who are taxpayers and work much harder than most other people, combining a job and a degree, should be treated in that way. Moreover, their cost to the Exchequer is much less than full-time students because they are not eligible for maintenance grants. They do not even receive small grants towards the extra costs of studying, such as purchasing books and travel. Surely those hard-working and highly motivated people, committed to self improvement, deserve better treatment than that.
  In the Government's White Paper on higher education there is a welcome reference to the need to extend access to a wider range of students and to encourage more mature students. Positive action must now be taken to make that happen, along the lines that I have suggested. Central and local government, the UGC and NAB (or their replacements), the universities, polytechnics, colleges and, last but not least, employers will need to work together to achieve the necessary change. Employers can play a big role by encouraging their employees to obtain further education and training, by giving them some time off to ease the burden of part-time study and full-time work and by providing some financial support.
  Improving access to post-school education, especially to more part-time students, would do two things: it would enrich the lives of people deprived of the benefits of education that many of us have had, and it would also be in the country's longer term interest. Noble Lords in all parts of the House will agree that investment in our human resources has not matched that of many of our industrial competitors.
  We cannot afford to waste talent. There are thousands of people all over our country with undiscovered or unrecognised talents who have not had the chances to have them developed that they so richly deserve. We ignore them at our peril if this nation is to flourish. As the numbers of 18 year-olds decline in the next decade there can be no better time to increase the number of older students. I hope that the means will be found as a matter of the greatest urgency to make that happen.
  5.2 p.m.
  Lord Butterworth: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will agree with me when I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on an excellent and confident maiden speech. Those of us, and I know that there are many, who regard adult and continuing education as of vital importance at present will have found what the noble Baroness had to say imaginative and moving. The noble Baroness has the widest experience not only now of Birkbeck College, but, going back through the ILEA, of some excellent reports from the think tank. We look forward with the greatest pleasure to her future contributions.
  I should have liked to follow her on this important subject of education for the mature, but I must recall that I was deputy chairman of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Croham, on the future of the UGC, and so I think that like a cobbler I had better stick to my last this afternoon.
  The Croham Committee has, I think, cause to congratulate itself on the fact that so many (not all) of its recommendations have been so speedily accepted. The new universities funding council (the UFC as it is to be called) has in some sense become the precedent for the PCFC (the Polytechnic and Colleges Funding Council). When the polytechnics become independent, there will be a dual structure with the UFC on one hand and the PCFC on the other.
  There was one sentence from the White Paper quoted by my noble friend Lord Blake which has attracted considerable comment. I shall quote it again. It states: "It"—that is to say, the Government
  "wishes to emphasise, however, that the UFC's essential responsibilities should relate to the allocation of funding between universities, rather than the overall amount, which is a matter for the Government to decide after considering all the evidence".
  That sentence is unexceptionable as it stands, unless of course one sees in it evidence of the Treasury and other organisations creeping cat-like through the White Paper.
  It would be a pity, as has been said, if there is cut out from the duties of the UFC the duty of advising government on a whole range of university issues, including the financial provision which should be made for them. The Croham Committee recommended that the terms of reference should include the duty and the power to give that advice.
  The present UGC has four complementary functions in its relationship with universities. First, it is to give advice to government; secondly, to distribute to individual universities the resources made available by government; thirdly, the collection and publication of information about universities; and, fourthly, to maintain systems of financial control and accountability for resources which the UGC allocates to universities. The Croham Committee considered that the role of advising government and the executive role of distributing resources to universities are not in practice wholly separable. It said:
  "An advisory body which did not have to deal with the consequences of its own advice would be less credible and might be less responsible".
  If I may put forward a personal view, as the NAB had the duty to publish its advice it was commonly agreed that the advice of the UFC and the PCFC should also be published. The difficulty about
  158
  published advice is that the advisers tend to become more firmly attached to it by virtue of the very act of publication, and may find themselves slipping into arguing or lobbying on behalf of the universities and therefore carrying out the function which is more appropriately served by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. The UGC and therefore the UFC is not outside the machinery of government. To be successful, it must be an integral part of it.
  Much has been said this afternoon about the problem of contracts. The Croham Committee foresaw the advantages of something akin to a contractual relationship being developed between the council and the universities, a relationship which would entail a continuous review by the council of the academic plan of each university, assisted by performance indicators and the like. Indeed, the Croham Committee wanted the staff of the universities funding council to be strengthened to enable these duties to be carried out. So far, so good, my Lords. If, however, the contract with the university became too detailed, so that the block grant was converted into a series of earmarked grants each to be contractually enforced, the autonomy of universities as presently understood would be greatly impaired.
  As has been said this afternoon, one of the most valuable consequences of that autonomy has been the initiative which universities have continually taken to meet new demands and new needs. No council can foresee everything that will be needed nationally from the universities. So often the function of the UGC, and therefore of the universities funding council, will be to respond to the initiatives of the universities and to reconcile their separate strategies with perceived national need.
  I should like to speak briefly about medical education and to consider the difficulty of applying the contractual concept to medical education. Medical and dental schools account for about one-fifth of the UGC's total recurrent grant, although dental and medical students amount to only one-tenth of the total undergraduate population. That, however, is only part of the financial story. Training in medicine and dentistry relies not only on the resources of the UGC. An equally substantial contribution comes from the NHS, especially in the teaching hospitals, and the time of NHS staff. Capital is dealt with by what is known as the Pater formula. An important aspect of this formula is that recurrent costs incurred by NHS staff are not strictly accounted for but are considered to be parallel to the contribution made by the UGC-funded staff to the health services, on the basis of mutual uncosted assistance, as it is called. It is the famous knock for knock principle. To put it more bluntly, it means that no one knows or works out the costs of these mutual contributions.
  It was graphically explained to us in this way. Let us take a professor of surgery doing his rounds, accompanied by a group of his students. As he leans over a patient it is impossible to say whether the professor is devoting his time to teaching, research or patient care. Hence we have the knock for knock principle. The relative contributions of the UGC and the NHS vary from institution to institution and indeed among specialisms.

  159
  Let us take one example. The UGC contributions to medical schools historically have always been higher in the provinces than in London. Therefore when the UGC moved from historical funding and based itself on the actual cost of a student in different disciplines the application of that principle to medicine resulted in additional resources being moved into London just at the time when the national policy, as expressed by RAWP, tended to withdraw NHS resources from the London teaching schools.
  How shall we apply a contractual machinery to this situation? Who are to be the contracting parties? Is the NHS to be a contracting party? How would performance indicators and the like be adjusted to measure the respective contributions funded by the NHS and by the UGC? I submit that the organisation and funding of medical schools might first be the subject of a special inquiry. That inquiry should consider the problem of enabling universities to pay to clinical teachers the salary award made by the medical profession because the universities have just given notice that they may have to break the link between the pay of clinical teachers-and hospital doctors and dentists since they are not in possession of the funds to carry out their undertaking.
  The Croham Committee pointed out that the mechanisms for joint policy development between the DES, the health departments and the UGC are weak. Recently a joint note between the DES and the health departments has been produced, which is one step in the right direction. At least it recognises the existence of the problem. However, the content of that note is bland. It is clear that these bodies have a long way to go before any solution is found.
  5.16 p.m.
  Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I should first like to add my congratulations to those of the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, to my noble friend Lady Blackstone on her excellent maiden speech. I hope that she will not mind my saying that I saw her work at close quarters when she was a member of the central policy review staff—if that is what it was then called; it has had many changes of name. I was delighted when she became a Member of your Lordships' House. I hope that we shall hear much more from her in the years ahead.
  I intend to confine my remarks entirely to higher education. In the Green Paper published in November 1986 the Government put forward a thoroughly depressing view of the future of higher education. However, this present White Paper has an expansionist tone. The tone at least is, by contrast with the Green Paper, very welcome.
  The question for the House is whether we can trust this Government to provide the resources to turn their expansionist plans—produced on the eve of a general election—into reality if they are returned at the election. If the record over the past eight years is anything to go by—and that is the only guide we have—we certainly cannot trust them to do so.
  The number of students in higher education is crucial to the whole debate. The Green Paper in November 1986 put forward two projections. The first was called projection P. It assumed that a constant
  160
  percentage of sixth formers and other groups—mature students, women and so on—would go into higher education. I hope that that projection has been abandoned and that we shall never again hear anything about it. If we as a nation are not to go into economic decline in the two or three decades immediately ahead, we must achieve in full the numbers in projection Q; that is, numbers based upon an increasing percentage of sixth formers, women, mature students and so on going into higher education—but especially an increased percentage of sixth formers. The sheer arithmetic of demographic change demands this.
  The position is quite simple. Between now and 1996—which is not very far ahead—the number of teenagers will drop by a third but industry and commerce will not need a third fewer recruits. Indeed, with their growing sophistication and dependence on technology especially electronics, they will need more, not fewer, recruits. The percentage last year of sixth formers going into higher education was 14.2. That percentage will be quite inadequate in the late 1990s.
  In the White Paper projection Q estimates that the number of sixth formers going into higher education in the year 2000 will be 18.5 per cent. That is after a considerable and dangerous drop in the middle 1990s. It also estimates that the number of sixth formers qualified to go into higher education in the year 2000 will be 20 per cent., which it is already, I may say, in Scotland; therefore, 20 per cent. qualified in the year 2000 and 18.5 per cent. going into higher education.
  At a number of points in the White Paper the Government make the claim that they are so improving our schools and the education in them that this target will be achieved. That is rich coming from a Government who have presided over the greatest and most devastating demoralisation in the education service in my lifetime. If English and Welsh schools reach the 20 per cent. target in the year 2000 it will be in spite of the Government and not because of them.
  There is a considerable reservoir of ability in this country which is not being tapped as it should be. If it were tapped it would enable us to reach that target in the year 2000 and, indeed, to surpass it. The vice-chancellor of Durham University made a speech to the Institute of Bankers in March of this year. He said that,
  "the untapped reservoir is mainly within the working class; it is in our large, inner-city comprehensives that need, urgently, to get a good supply of maths, physics, chemistry and language teachers, with first-class equipment".
  How right he was—the large inner-city comprehensives, where a considerable proportion of our secondary school population is taught and where they under-achieve in old, very often much demoralised schools.
  I can only assume that the Secretary of State has also reached this conclusion, but the remedy he has put forward is the wrong one. It will make matters worse. His remedy is to establish city technology colleges. Have the Government really considered the effect that these city technology colleges, if they get off the ground, will have on existing comprehensive schools in our inner cities by denuding them of their keenest and most able students? Anybody who understands schoolmastering will know what effect that will have on the schools in which the vast majority of our

  161
  secondary school pupils will continue to be taught. I believe such colleges will make the position worse, not better.
  The answer surely is that there should be more generous provision of resources with more and better—indeed, the best—qualified teachers, especially in science, mathematics and languages. With that approach I believe the 20 per cent. target can be assured and indeed exceeded. However, it is needed now because this autumn's intake into the secondary schools could be the newly qualified graduates in the year 2000.
  If the Government's White Paper—an expansionist White Paper—is to be more than a pre-election bauble, adequate resources must also be provided in higher education for student support and for teaching support. The colleges, polytechnics and universities have proved in the past eight years that they can make bricks without straw, but they at least need clay. We are rather afraid that the clay will not be forthcoming. In the past eight years the Government have eroded the unit of resource to such an extent that universities and polytechnics are now teaching the country's best brains with second best equipment.
  Of course the Government call all this an increase in productivity. I find this constant reference to productivity—which I do not equate with getting value for money and which is altogether different—in a White Paper on education to be nauseating. Look at what has happened. Unit costs from 1980 to 1986 are down by 5 per cent. in the universities, by 15 per cent. in the polytechnics and by 20 per cent. in the voluntary and other grant-aided colleges. The Government call that higher productivity. I say that it is an appalling under-funding of institutions which are absolutely vital to our national well-being. What has been achieved in the universities and polytechnics during the 1980s reflects no credit whatever on the Government but it reflects a great deal of credit on the dedicated people who are working in the universities, polytechnics and colleges.
  Many noble Lords can speak with much more knowledge that I about funding but I should like to make two points. First, the White Paper rejects the Croham proposal that funds should be set in cash terms for three years. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, referred to this. The so-called rolling programme of the annual public expenditure planning process is no substitute for that; and, like the noble Lord, Lord Blake, I have never known quite what it means. It is no substitute for the certainty of a three-year horizon which allows the universities and the polytechnics—it will apply to them—to plan ahead. When I was Secretary of State there were quinquennial reviews and now they are denied even a triennial review.
  Everyone accepts—the universities and everyone else—as did the Croham Committee, that in a national emergency planned allocations might have to be altered. We understand that. However, short of that—and I hope the noble Baroness will answer this—why on earth do the Government reject this sensible proposal for a three-year horizon?
  Secondly, in paragraph 4.41 the White Paper states:
  "The Government should provide guidelines at appropriate intervals to set the framework for the planning process which the UFC and the universities should conduct".
  162
  This is clearly essential and also endorses the recommendations made by the Croham Committee. However, the White Paper omits an accompanying Croham recommendation for two-way communication and consultation, including advice from the UFC to the Government on the views, aspirations and funding requirements of the university system. The rejection of these two Croham proposals is extremely disappointing and I invite the Government to reconsider them.
  In conclusion, there is one aspect of the White Paper which I greatly welcome. I refer to the proposal to remove the polytechnics from the sphere of local government. I do not welcome it for the reasons given in the White Paper. I am sure that the Government are doing that because of their non-stop vendetta against local government. The polytechnics, which were formed by the Labour Government in the 1960s, are the real success story of education in Britain over the past two decades. However, the Labour Government never intended that local authorities should dominate the polytechnics indefinitely. Indeed, I remember expending a considerable amount of time and effort to ensure that their articles of association did not allow them to do so as far as their governing bodies were concerned.
  Legally of course they are owned by the local authorities and their staff are local authority employees. The articles of association cannot change that. The local authorities have nurtured those bodies from designation to maturity with, on the whole, a commendable sense of responsibility and sensitivity and with considerable pride. However, like all our offspring, they have outgrown the context in which they grew to maturity. It is now almost like the tail wagging the dog, with some large polytechnics of 15, 000 students owned by and governed by a relatively small local authority, and that is not satisfactory. The provision for capital expenditure having to come through the local authority has reached the point where it is positively harmful to the polytechnics. Therefore, I think this proposal is very much to be welcomed.
  At the same time I hope very much that the polytechnics will retain links with the local authorities. I have here a letter from a director of a very large poloytechnic. He says this:
  "My line is to draw an analogy with a teenage son becoming of age and leaving the family home and standing on his own feet—and without any 'topping-up' pocket money. This then allows the son and his parent to have a much better relationship as two relatively equal adults, rather than an adult-child relationship.
  "I thus see the more independent Polytechnic having an improved relationship with its local authority—and with other neighbouring local authorities, as we are regional, not local, institutions.
  "I personally undertake to ensure that Newcastle Polytechnic develops even closer links with [the] … Local Authority".
  I hope other directors will take the same view.
  Finally, as one who was present and assisted at their birth—I designated most of the present polytechnics —I wish them success in their new independent status. I know they will make an increasingly valuable contribution to the well-being of our country in the years ahead.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I was technically outside the Chamber when the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, made her maiden speech, but I heard it well and clear because I was standing behind the Woolsack. I should like to endorse what both my noble colleagues said before me that she performed in a most impressive manner, managing not merely to be non-controversial but to utter one or two sentiments which were quite welcome on this side of the House as well. I hope that we hear from her often, though I do not suppose that she will be as uncontroversial in the weeks to come.
  The debate is about a crucial aspect of education. I am sure your Lordships are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for directing your Lordships' attention to it. I hope that the Secretary of State for Education, advised by my noble friend, will himself take note of its content. The advantage of a timed debate is that it means one has to cut out the trimmings and get straight to the facts. That makes the task of looking at the debate easier.
  The fact which I find most immediately interesting is that the debate is concerned with the superstructure of the ship for which the Secretary of State is responsible and not for its hull. Even if the design, maintenance, crewing and general arrangements of the superstructure are perfect, if the hull is rotten the ship will sink. The hull is the school education system, since all but a handful of both staff and students in it come from the primary and secondary schools. There can therefore be no doubt that the quality and product of our post-school system depend upon the quality and product of our school system. That makes one part of our post-school system of paramount importance: it is the part that trains our teachers.
  The Government have taken recent and welcome steps to ensure that this sector accepts only applicants with the right qualifications and, I emphasise, the right characteristics for the job. They have also established minimum criteria for the content of the courses that these students will follow and have established the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education to apply them. The CATE will be joined in the fullness of time by the PCFC announced by the White Paper. I hope that neither body will overlook the need for practical as well as academic training in these courses. I raise this simply because I know that at least one course of admirable intellectual content some years ago entirely neglected to provide a single session upon how to mark the register or how to keep order in the classroom. You cannot capture the imagination of a child if you cannot first capture his attention. It seems to me that in this debate we should remember the practicalities of the training of teachers and the situation into which they find themselves catapulted as soon as they qualify, and should teach them how to deal with those matters as well as with the intellectual management of the material they have to transmit to their students.
  On the subject of the White Paper, incidentally, it would not be out of place to mention how very different this document looks from the White Papers we have been accustomed to see in the past. I think for a Secretary of State for Education to produce a White Paper that is readable and challenging deserves a good
  164
  mark for achievement and, noble Lords opposite should accept, for effort at least.
  Another new and welcome departure by my right honourable friend has been to recognise the urgent need to recruit more teachers to shortage subjects: those subjects from whose short supply industry and commerce are already suffering, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, reminded your Lordships a moment ago. This year, in spite of the well advertised discontent of existing teachers with their present pay and condition arrangements, I was delighted to see that applications to all initial teacher training courses are up by 14 per cent. and applications for courses covered by the bursary scheme have risen still more sharply: for maths postgraduate certificate courses by 44 per cent.; for physics postgraduate courses by 82 per cent; and for craft, design and trade courses by 88 per cent. That seems to be an early answer to the prayer which the noble Lord quoted a moment ago.
  It is all of 15 years since I taught in a college of education and a great deal has changed since then, but I believe the priorities remain the same. Of these, the first must be the overriding duty of all concerned in teacher training to serve the interests of the pupils whom the students will teach. Neither the interests of the lecturing staff, the aspirations of the students, the reputation of their institute or department nor the intentions of government should override the primacy of the welfare of the children who are to be taught and who will make up the education system, indeed the government, in years to come. That therefore means that the graduates the system produces must be both profesionally and morally competent to have the care of the children and to lead them to and equip them for their adult lives. That in turn means that it is of great importance to staff departments and institutes of education with men and women of ability and experience.
  Coming down again to practicalities, the first thing I ask the Secretary of State to do in a practical sense is to consider the relationship between the salaries of senior teachers—teachers with authority as well as experience—and the salaries which they may receive if they join the staff of teacher training colleges. A few such people are invaluable in every college, not only because what they say carries great weight with the students but also because it carries great weight with the staffs of the schools in which those students will have their teaching practice.
  If one had to single out a sole aspect of teacher training, one would select classroom practice before qualification as being that part of the students' education which gave most value for the time it took: in fact I believe it is indispensable. We must therefore do what we can to make it as effective as possible. I think this process carries on after qualification in the probationary year—I believe it is now called the introductory year.
  Secondly I ask the Secretary of State to consider the difference in the arrangements made—in the allocation of time and resources given by different local education authorities to this process in their schools. Presumably the local education authorities will still be involved after the changes foreshadowed in the White Paper. I accept that it is expensive because what is needed is not merely to take the newly

  165
  qualified probationary teacher out of the classroom but also to take a senior teacher from somewhere to give the benefit of his advice and counsel.
  Teaching is a profession where you have to live with your mistakes as long as you are in the institution in which you first committed them. How often we have seen very able people commit disasters in the first week of their first term and have to wait for the witnesses of those disasters to grow right through the school, take their final exams and leave, and then for the rumours and tradition left behind to evaporate as well before the difficulty is overcome.
  The first weeks in a teaching career are of crucial importance beyond that of almost any other. I think that the Secretary of State should concentrate on that. Indeed, there would be something to be said for establishing and monitoring net minimal criteria for it.
  I shall take only a moment longer. On the matter of in-service teaching, I notice that the Secretary of State is proposing—and I for one welcome it—to give greater autonomy to the heads of individual schools. In preparation for this he will no doubt be considering giving suitable training to the head teachers, and perhaps the deputy head teachers, of these schools. I have a moment of anxiety about this. It has always seemed to me one of the central anomalies of our educational system that people are promoted for teaching well, and the further they get promoted the less often they teach. When a headmaster or headmistress is responsible for an autonomous school it would be a great pity if important resources were devoted finally to extinguishing his or her teaching load. Adding extra expenditure to make sure that they carried out new duties for their abilities for which they had not been promoted and about which nobody necessarily knew anything until they were promoted—then it may not have been a pleasant surprise—would be a pity too.
  I hope that my right honourable friend will think a little about the Bursars who still persist in the private sector or, if that is not a popular model, some other way in which the purely administrative and managerial functions of a headmaster, where they do not affect his pastoral functions, could be devolved to some other stream within the profession which might well take into it those unfortunates who come into the profession longing to teach and find that they do not have the greatest gift for it but who are very good at organising timetables and doing other things without which a school cannot function.
  In conclusion, I repeat that I believe that the salvation of this country rests in the hands of the teachers of the future and that they will succeed if teaching is a profession and a vocation rather than a trade. I believe that the great majority are such people. I have great confidence in them—more confidence, may I say, than I have in their leadership. I believe that they will come through their present difficulties and I hope that they will do so swiftly and that the Secretary of State's Green Paper will allow them to do so.
  The children who are now 12 to 15 and deciding what a teacher is are looking at the teachers of today. The teachers of today are therefore determining to some extent who will be the teachers of tomorrow. That is why it is important to get out of our present
  166
  difficulties quickly. I believe that teachers of the next generation deserve the confidence of this country provided they see that the trust which they have is for the generation beyond theirs; our grandchildren.
  5.43 p.m.
  Baroness White: My Lords, my first concern in this debate is not only to add my warm congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on a memorable maiden speech but to support her argument that the part-time facilities offered at Birkbeck College to women as well as to men are a most important encouragement to obtaining qualifications which would otherwise remain out of reach. "Flexi-time" is vital to many women whose careers have been interrupted by domestic responsibilities, particularly a career in science or technology which almost inevitably will require updating or extra qualifications appropriate to a more senior position. So to withhold grants or to reduce facilities, as has been proposed at Birkbeck, is surely counterproductive, wasteful and to be deplored.
  Meanwhile a record of women returners who are qualified and who wish to take up scientific research, either academic or in industry, is now being compiled by Professor Daphne Jackson at the University of Surrey, that place to which vice-chancellors go, or not, as the case may be, to be trained in business management, where special courses are arranged for them. Towards this task Professor Jackson has received the rather less than munificent sum of £2, 000 from the Department of Trade and Industry. But she has collected many thousands of pounds from non-governmental sources in order to provide updating fellowships for women who are concerned with a career in science or technology. Twenty such women have already been supported. There is a waiting list of 90, so I am reliably informed. I am sure that someone from the serried ranks of British industry who are listening so attentively to this debate on education will be able to provide some of the resources that are required for this admirable enterprise!
  Even more flexibly perhaps the Open University has been meeting the needs of women students and has proved its worth despite having been under a cloud of official disapprobation only a few years ago. A number of noble Lords have no doubt received a short video presentation recently produced by the Open University and circulated, I understand, to Members of both Houses of Parliament who are likely to be interested. The most telling moments in this presentation are surely the juxtaposition of two graphs, one showing the apparent increase in Government support for the Open University over the past few years, and the next one showing the persistent decline in those resources if calculated in real terms.
  Right at the end of the second of the Open University graphs there is a tiny upturn, in real terms, due to the official mind having at last grasped the fact that the Open University provides a most helpful way to combat the very dangerous decline in maths and physics teachers, for which extra funds have now been made available to it. This is to be greatly welcomed, as at a different level is the work of the Open College; but the facilities in both these organisations depend for full

  167
  use on the student having at least the necessary basic scholastic attainment. Not everyone has this.
  Anyone familiar with adult education, as opposed to continuing education in the more professional sense, knows that some otherwise intelligent adults in their last years at school simply drop out, mentally if not physically. Often this is due to psychological problems—the break-up of a family, the loss of a parent or sibling and so on. It is for such people in particular that the very few residential adult education colleges which we possess can be so very important.
  We have one in Wales at Coleg Harlech, funded directly by the Welsh Office, called familiarly "the College of the Second Chance". It is well known to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, and to other noble Lords with Welsh connections. About 90 per cent. of its students go on to university or polytechnic degree courses which they could not possibly have achieved without the intensive preparation which such a residential college provides. Like village schools, such colleges have their special significance; but like so much else in our post-school system these colleges are finding their funding, again in real terms, diminishing at quite an alarming rate. The discrepancy between the academically-related inflation index—the so-called Tress-Brown index—used by the CVCP and the deflator and forward assumptions still in use at the DES makes a significant difference.
  In referring to Harlech, perhaps I may say in parenthesis that this is the only reference I propose to make today to post-school education in Wales despite the very obscure references to the Principality on page 36 of the White Paper. High level discussions are in progress which preclude current comment. At the University of Wales the Institute of Science and Technology with which I am myself connected is competently managed. We had adopted the acceptable parts of Jarratt long before that report appeared.
  All Welsh colleges are in serious difficulties. One major difficulty is that the majority at least have no substantial industrial hinterland on which they can depend for support either in cash or in kind. So far we feel that the University Grants Committee has not adequately appreciated this difficulty in the Principality. These institutions, like the others that I have mentioned and other universities in England and Scotland, are also aware of the discrepancy between academic spending and the spending in domestic life—the retail price index and so on—which seems still to be used by Her Majesty's Government even in situations that are not appropriate to it. The relationship between supposition and reality is crucially important in the area which causes perhaps the greatest concern of all, the funding of university science and technology and the science base, on which so much of our future depends.
  I am not a scientist, but I can turn to those who speak with authority in this field. Last week I received a letter from a correspondent. I am not at liberty to name him because I have not asked his consent. Suffice it to say that he is a Fellow of the Royal Society and professor of inorganic chemistry at a large provincial university. He wrote to me as follows:
  168
  "I can presume to speak only for chemistry. But here the problem"—
  that is to say, of the funding of scientific work—
  "can be stated quite simply. Our community has responded enthusiastically to the challenges of new and more multi-disciplinary research initiatives but once we actually try to start a new direction we find there is too little money available. It is the classic underfunding of research. To remain internationally competitive today is quite an expensive business. In January 1986 the SERC Science Board (on behalf of chemistry, biology, mathematics and low cost physics, that is to say, excluding nuclear physics and astronomy) put forward a request for some £100 million over five years to build up our major instrumentation in these areas to a respectable international level. No money has been made available for this.
  One of our new initiatives is Molecular Recognition".
  He goes on to explain in lay terms what that means and continues:
  "This initiative was designed to compete with similar projects in the United States. A reasonable effort could be achieved for a total cost of some £18 million over a five-year period. We have been given £4.7 million and only for three years. Three-quarters of the problem will therefore remain untouched. Further, although the Research Councils were recently given money to compensate for the new salary awards to university staffs, this is guaranteed for one year only. The consequence is that we again have diminished resources for the future and we cannot offer sufficient moneys to our other initiatives, for example, the very important and timely "synthesis of 21st century materials", to say nothing of our real blue skies research, which most people would argue is our prime role to support.
  To be of real use to industry academic science research is a longterm effort and must therefore have long-term funding. Instead funding is becoming capricious. We are trying to get started the few "new blood" people we have in the system. Within a cash limits situation, if we fund the young we will not be able to fund older, established groups. Almost the worst aspect of the present mess in which university science finds itself is that now that the "new blood" scheme is finished there is no real way forward to recruit young people with new entrepreneurial ideas into our now seriously ageing profession. Please let me know if there are any points I can clarify further".
  That is a very serious letter from a highly experienced academic. It is against this depressing background that the universities have to seek industrial support in areas where it is appropriate or to struggle on where it is not. Some noble Lords may be going on tonight to the Royal Society to discuss these problems yet again.
  In many areas there are of course very encouraging success stories, but it is hard to persuade industrialists that unless their munificence fully covers overheads the relevant departments may turn to using other departmental funds which should be used to teach and train the next generation rather than to solve the immediate problems of industry. There is all too little in the White Paper to sustain the hopes of those who realise that ends without means are an illusion.
  5.55 p.m.
  Lord Annan: My Lords, I can think of few whose appearance in your Lordships' House has been more eagerly awaited than that of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and after her maiden speech it is quite clear why. I congratulate her warmly on it. I agree wholeheartedly with her that continuing education is not only a wonderful therapy for a lady of 96 but also a matter of retraining people in their thirties and forties.
  Everyone knows that the last six years have been grim years for those in higher education, and morale is

  169
  very low. The dons feel that they are in the dog-house. Their pay has been reduced in real terms, many have been forced to retire and many others prefer to emigrate to America; they are doing so in quite large numbers. They feel despised by government.
  But these grim years have been made much worse because the Government have failed to tell the institutions of higher education what their policy is. Can the Government not take a leaf out of Field Marshall Montgomery's book? You cannot get people to change their ways and do disagreeable things unless you explain to them why it is necessary and how it is to be done. The equivalent for a don of landing on the beaches in Normandy is to be told that he must move his department to another university, and has got to be convinced that it will be the death of his subject and of university education as a whole, unless savings in costs can be made.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, may well say to me, "Have you not read our White Paper?". The noble Baroness will remember that I said some rather disobliging things about the civil servants who drafted the Green Paper. I want to congratulate her and them on the White Paper, which is in a totally different class. It is full of good sense. However, if I may say so, it is a document more for vice-chancellors, principals and directors to read than for those who teach and research in higher education. It is all about productivity, planning, access and efficiency. Those in higher education want something more which, I suspect, it is impossible to give them until after the general election. They want to be told what is going to happen to their individual institution and to their own department.
  The White Paper is full of information about polytechnics, but is much less full of information about universities. One cannot tell people in universities that unless one has answered a question which I hear the Secretary of State shortly after appointment put to the University Grants Committee. He asked:
  "Where should universities be in 10 years' time?"
  I do not quite know whether he received an answer, but should it not perhaps have run something like this? Quite recently the UCG set up a peer review of the work in each university. Every department was subjected to a review of professors in that field. Of course when the results came out there were loud gnashings of teeth. My information is, though few dons say so in public, that there is general agreement among academics that the review got it right.
  What did the review show? It showed that seven to eight multi-faculty institutions are in a class by themselves in research. It showed also that about 10 institutions are below average, and some really very poor. Most of these are small campuses of 3, 000 students or fewer, often in Scotland or Wales. If we are to save the reputation for research in those top seven universities, if they are going to keep the reputation of our country in the world as great institutions of teaching and research, with all that that implies for industry and business, there will have to be fewer resources for the bottom ten.
  The bottom ten will have to change their character. Some places will no longer be able to do science. They will have no graduate students, just like many
  170
  first-class colleges in America such as Swarthmore. Others will have to obtain their research money mainly from business and industry, like Salford. Science will have to become concentrated in fewer institutions—that is expensive fundamental science—just as engineering and medicine are concentrated at present.
  It does not mean that those institutions, which are not great research places, gaining large sums of money from the UGC or the research councils, will not be able to do research. But they will have to get it funded from another source, and that will direct them, as in Salford, to get their research money from, and to direct their research towards, industry.
  The first thing that the Government should explain is that they are trying to do what Lord Robbins advocated for years. They are trying to arrange for more students to be taught by fewer staff. That is why there have been the so-called cuts. This is not unreasonable. Even now, after the economies of the last few years, the staff student overall ratio is something like one to 11 or one to 12. That is far more favourable than in any other country. Of course this ratio enables British institutions of higher education to have a low drop-out rate. Those who are admitted get their degrees. But I think the ratio could lengthen gradually without ruin. Ask the greatest of the American universities how they do it. It is of course done by a different system of teaching.
  The second thing that the Government should explain is that they are trying to rationalise resources. Should not this go a good deal further than it has at present? The University Grants Committee has the remedy in its own hands. It has a formula for financing. Why not apply it with financial sanctions and say, "No university will get a grant for any major subject in a department with fewer than 16 staff and 250 students"? Small subjects would then be concentrated in a few universities. There really is not much future for scientific departments, or even departments such as economics, much smaller than this.
  The alternative of course is for the University Grants Committee itself to arrange shotgun marriages. I am afraid that it will be shotgun because persuasion does not work. The rationalisation of small subjects, like Russian, has been fought with terrible intensity. For example, in London the merger of colleges is still largely a paper exercise. There will never be major savings until sites are vacated and small campuses closed.
  Why on earth, you may ask, is this necessary? My Lords, we set up 25 years ago a system of higher education which no country—not even America—could afford. We doubled the number of university institutions. We funded them all on the same scale. In America staff at Oxford, Mississippi, are not paid the same as staff at Cambridge, Massachusetts. But let me not be thought to apply that comparison to such named institutions in this country.
  We next founded 32 polytechnics. They were given parity of esteem (and indeed almost parity of salaries) with the universities. They were to teach three-year degree courses. We upgraded further education colleges. We founded business schools, the Open

  171
  University, two new research councils, four new medical schools. We created student services for health, sport, careers, and lavished funds on the student unions, and all students of course got grants. That is why the White Paper demands the better use of resources. I think the White Paper spells out admirably, and in far greater detail, the Government's plans for the public sector of higher education. The polytechnic and college funding council will be set up and will make contracts with each polytechnic.
  There is one vital set of institutions which will fall under it, and that is the colleges which provide teacher training. I hope that the Secretary of State will at once detail part of the inspectorate to monitor the work in those places where teachers are trained, because many of us think that some of the worst instances of bad teaching in the schools spring from the wrong kind of training in these colleges. The low expectation of achievement in some of our schools is due to inadequate instruction as to how to teach a given subject, and this monitoring exercise need not wait upon government legislation.
  It is a matter for regret, I think, that the White Paper admits that it will be several years before these new arrangements can come into being. It may well be that no executive decisions can be taken in regard to the polytechnics as a whole, but surely discussion between the new PCFC and individual institutions could begin at an early date so as to give those in each polytechnic a clear idea of what the Government require of them so that they can begin discussing how to achieve that end.
  I do not want to labour the point that I have made in the past that the universities and polytechnics have in part brought their troubles upon themselves by alienating Westminster and Whitehall in refusing to vary the model that was set up in the 1960s. From Mrs. Shirley Williams's 13 points, government initiatives to reduce expenditure were so often rejected. Then in 1981 push came to shove, but the Government respected the autonomy of the universities and did not dictate how they were to meet the cuts which were imposed upon them.
  I shall say no more about how they responded to meet them except to say that they allowed so many of their best staff to go, and made no attempt really to get rid of the dead wood among staff recruited during the crash programme of the 1960s which is causing the log-jam in promotion.
  I think that the Government need to build a new structure, but they cannot do so without the help of the dons, and they will not get that help from academic staff unless they tell them what they want and where they hope to see each institution go. I should like to lay symbolically at the door of the Department of Education and Science a carrot. That is why we need to set up the new universities funding council and the polytechnic and college funding council as quickly as possible.
  6.8 p.m.
  Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, my noble friend Lord McIntosh may well feel gratified at having set on foot this most interesting and, if I may say so, widely
  172
  informed debate, and a debate that has been greatly embellished by the fine maiden speech contributed by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. I trust that we shall hear her on many future occasions.
  I want to devote my ration of time to a field of post-school education which for those of us who sit in Westminster is under our noses. I refer to the network of classes and courses of instruction that are provided partly directly by ILEA through its evening institutes, partly by co-operation between ILEA and the Workers' Educational Association and partly by co-operation between the Workers' Educational Association and the University of London.
  If we look at these all together we find that they provide for the needs of all ages, from those who have just left school to grandparents and they provide every kind of course, from those regarded as the most strictly utilitarian that will help you to put up the wallpaper in your house, to those which some people will regard as a sheer waste of the ratepayers' money like trying to help people to understand great pictures or great writing.
  This is not new, but I believe that it is of special importance now because London has become a city which for the first time has begun to suffer seriously from unemployment. The great depressions of the past never struck London as hard as it is being struck now. Also London has become, as never before, a multi-lingual and multi-cultural city. The problems of getting people of different races and languages to live together are of exceptional importance.
  This kind of structure of adult education is not peculiar to London. Other great cities have something similar but none has developed it to anything like the same extent. That is partly due to the sheer size of inner London. If one wants to set up a wide range of courses within reach of the people who want to attend them, one must have a large population living fairly close together. The proportion of the population who will want to learn Russian is rather limited at any time. It will not be possible to provide adequate facilities unless there is a fairly large population in a fairly small area. That is one of the justifications for the continued existence of the Inner London Education Authority.
  It was rather disquieting that in the discussions we had on the government of London so many noble Lords spoke of ILEA as though it did not have that kind of educational provision and as though the schools were the sum total of ILEA's work. I should like to look at the relationship of those courses of instruction to the problem of unemployment. One of the reasons for unemployment, though only one, is that in some cases jobs are waiting to be done but there are insufficient people with the necessary skills to do them. The vocational courses provided at many evening institutes are one remedy. I believe that a considerable proportion of those who pursue the professions of accountancy and banking began to equip themselves for them in an ILEA evening institute. There are many other examples of useful vocational education, the value of which nobody disputes.
  There are also classes in the teaching of the English language. Many of those who came here from other countries to make their homes found that the evening

  173
  institute was not only a place to learn the English language but a place where they could make friends and begin to belong to the community. It is rather remarkable that at the time when it became apparent that we would have a considerable immigrant population there was not much of a concerted national effort to help integrate those people into the society in which they were to live. In its modest way the ILEA education service was achieving that through its language classes and through the social activities that grow up round an evening institute.
  There were also classes dealing with sociological and, if one dare use the word, political matters. One could pursue a course of study on how local government was supposed to work. I do not know whether it is still true, but in the past many people became London borough councillors partly as a result of the courses of study they pursued either at evening institutes or through the workers' educational associations. It is true that they did not follow the tenets of the party opposite to the extent that that party would have liked, but they made good borough councillors nonetheless.
  Some courses of instruction have been of a purely vocational character, but I think none the worse for that. If one is suffering from unemployment it is useful to be competent about the house; to be able in your enforced leisure to do things in the house which you had not previously been able to do and which you might not originally have had the skill to do. When one visits an evening institute and finds people learning how to put up wallpaper, one realises that this is at all times a useful thing to learn. It may be particularly useful for a man who is unemployed to acquire a skill of that kind.
  As I suggested, there will be courses of a purely cultural character. In this connection one sees letters in the local paper asking why the ratepayers should pay for someone who wishes to study Greek drama and why he cannot pay for it from his own pocket.
  One rather solemn reflection occurs to me. If we study the statistics of crime it is painfully apparent that we now live in a more violent and, I am afraid, less civilised community than that in which we lived 10 or 15 years ago. I believe that we are living in a more greedy and acquisitive society. Therefore it is important that there should be some element in the state which helps to promote the nobler aspects of human nature. If anyone has the idea that ratepayers are being reduced to poverty and that businessmen are being driven into neighbouring boroughs because of excessive expenditure on cultural classes at evening institutes, he has not studied his figures correctly.
  What ought governments to do about this problem? First, they should refrain from penny-pinching. When governments have been short of money it has always been a temptation to push up the fees charged to students at evening classes. We might remember that most of those who attend classes do not have a great deal of money in the first place; and they are people who know the value of money, spend it carefully and do not waste it. I hope that in future governments will try to avoid pushing up the cost to the individual of the evening institute and workers' educational association study.
  174
  The second point as regards London is that government must leave alone the Inner London Education Authority. It is its existence that makes the important contribution to adult education possible. If the area covered by the Inner London Education Authority was divided up into the dozen different constituent boroughs and each borough was told to run its own education, they would not find it too easy to achieve that as regards schools and they would find it absolutely impossible to provide adult education facilities on this scale. We may be told that they could group together and form a joint committee to achieve it; that is to say, the excuse for cutting the thing to pieces is that one can, with trouble and care, sew it together again.
  I stress that point because it seems to me that at the moment we have the misfortune to have a Secretary of State who dislikes teachers and dislikes London. At the present time those are particularly unfortunate characteristics for a Secretary of State to possess. I hope that he will reconsider matters and possibly entertain the idea that some of the difficulties he has may be partly due to an excessive hastiness in his approach to the matter.
  The network of adult education which I have described is paid for by the joint contributions of the individuals who benefit from it and from public funds. In effect, it is a civic achievement. It is something of which any great city or local authority may be proud. I trust that London will always continue to be proud of this extremely valuable, if modest, and straightforward contribution to civilisation.
  6.20 p.m.
  Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in his introduction to this debate, for which we are very grateful, invited us to speak on our own sectors of interest. I shall seek to speak today on the training and education of social workers.
  When I enrolled at Birmingham University to train as a social worker, I was somewhat taken aback when at the first lecture we were told that throughout our social work career we should learn to work for our own extinction. Our role, we were told, should be to work alongside the vulnerable in society in such a way that ultimately, wherever possible and practicable, the vulnerable should be enabled to grow towards a belief in themselves, to acquire skills and to be independent so as to lead their own lives in their own families and in their communities. To this end, we were told during our training to show sensitivity to the needs—physical, emotional and material—of each individual with whom we worked alongside, to learn to make a commitment to their needs and to acquire a knowledge of the tools by which we could help.
  The fields of social workers are wide: mental health, law, public health and the social structure of our society. While good work is being done, often unsung and unrecognised, by many social workers, nevertheless their reputation has received some hard knocks of late. This morning we read in our papers of the dreadful death of a child. We read in the Clough Report of the plight of old people in homes in Camden.

  175
  I contend that all political parties must be responsible for these very sad occurrences. The training of social workers has been inadequate, and I pay tribute here to Her Majesty's Government who are now seeking to review the situation. The Council for Training and Education of Social Work was set up 15 years ago. The council was given an impossible task. Prior to 1970 there were two councils. One carried out training for work with the elderly, the disabled, the mentally-handicapped and the mentally ill; and the second council carried out training in childcare and in working with families.
  Each council provided a two-year course, followed up by refresher courses and post-qualifying courses. For instance, my authority allowed three members of staff each year to go to the Tavistock Clinic twice a week. In 1970, with the setting up of the social service departments, the Council for Training and Education of Social Work was started. However, the two councils were merged and there was then one course only for the two sets of social workers from both councils. The course was telescoped from two separate two-year courses into one two-year course. Furthermore, courses mushroomed throughout the country to meet the needs, often with tutors who were inexperienced in the subjects they had to teach.
  Again, since 1970 there have been changes in legislation, changes in social needs and changes in responsibilities and in the expectations of society. I would refer particularly at this moment to the change from institutional to community care. I have to tell your Lordships that for community care to be carried out sensitively, adequately and well takes training, experience and money.
  I would make three pleas to Her Majesty's Government. The first is that social work training should be extended to three years. To train for two years only means that we do not train the social workers adequately, and we do not give them the tools to do their work. In fact it is not cost-effective because if they do not learn properly how to do their job we have wasted that period of two years' training.
  Secondly, I would ask that we take on mature students for training in social work. Here I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for her splendid speech; and I should like to support her in respect of the training of mature students as well as students from the ethnic groups.
  I believe various speakers have already mentioned mature students, and I would include not only women but men. In my own area we started a course at the Oxford Polytechnic for mature students, and we took on a number of men between 45 and 50 who in fact had been in the services and had retired at that age. The mature men and women were absolutely invaluable in the field of social work. However, I also have to say that serious consideration must be given to mandatory grants. I recall that the first amendment I ever won in your Lordships' House was one that concerned mandatory grants. I won that amendment with a considerable majority but, alas, it fell in the other place
  Thirdly, I suggest that local authorities must pay heed to the provision of good and well-supervised
  176
  practical work. Without the combination of practical training in the field with academic training in the polytechnic, the college of further education or the university, you do not get a balanced qualification.
  I should also like to say that I think post-graduate courses should be included in the training of social workers: there should also be refresher courses. I believe that social work should be acknowledged and should live up to the reputation of being a profession. Sadly, in our profession of social work and—dare I say it in your Lordships' House?—in education, party politics so often overlay the performance of professional skills. To use the vulnerable for party political motives instead of providing professional service is to diminish those who so badly need help. It is humiliating to use them in this way.
  I pay tribute to the newly constituted Council for Training and Education in Social Work and to Professor Saul, the vice-chancellor of York University, who is the president of that council. I should also like to pay tribute to the new director, Mr. Tony Hall.
  I make this plea to Her Majesty's Government to support the extra year's training for social workers; and to the social work profession and those who train social workers to provide a professional social work service to the country, whereby knowledge and skills are translated into accountable professional practice.
  6.29 p.m.
  Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I must apologise to the House, and in particular to my noble friend Lord McIntosh, for not being in my place at the opening of the debate. I was fulfilling a long-standing educational engagement downstairs, which had a threefold purpose. The first was to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for her 15 years' service as president of Hillcroft College. The second purpose was to celebrate the diamond jubilee of that college and the third purpose was to launch an appeal for funds. I think those are all very relevant to the debate today; so I hope I may be forgiven.
  Hillcroft College is the only adult residential college catering solely for women. For 60 years it has been offering "second chance" education to women who, for a variety of reasons, stalled at the barriers to higher education in their youth. It is now adapting to the changing circumstances of the times. As well as offering full-time residential education, it is also offering part-time access education. But, like the majority of educational institutions, no matter how relevant they are to the country's needs—and I think the education of women is very relevant to the country's needs—it is suffering from a lack of finance; hence today's appeal.
  I want to concentrate the remainder of my remarks this evening on some of the barriers in higher education, and to draw on experience from three of the universities with which I am associated.
  The White Paper Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge is based on the need to widen access for both young people and mature students. Paragraph 2.15 of the White Paper states:
  "Not only will entry requirements and procedures have to be changed; institutions of higher education will have to adapt their teaching methods and the design of their courses to accommodate new types of student".

  177
  That is absolutely true. We are not just talking about numbers; we are talking about a new approach to higher education of which the universities, perhaps with the exception of Birkbeck College, have so far had little experience. How, then, will they adapt and respond to the new approach outlined in the White Paper? We might also ask what incentives there will be for them to modify their present procedures and courses.
  About a year ago most of the universities in the country were discussing their response to the Jarratt Report, which among other things was concerned with efficiency and performance indicators. The two premier indicators revered by universities in the past, not only because of their intrinsic merits but also because of the financial advantage placed on them by the UGC, have been A-level scores and research grants. In the 1981 cuts a number of universities, among which was Bradford, suffered on the grounds of A-level scores, and in the recent changes which the UGC has introduced on selective funding for research Leeds University has not come out very well on that score.
  I have to say that unless there are other criteria—I am not knocking A-levels and research grants, but I am saying that unless there are other additional criteria—which are given equal weight in the future, paragraph 2.15 will remain merely a paragraph in a White Paper. Bradford University is planning to take its first clutch of TVEI students in the next academic year. Those students will not necessarily possess the same A-level qualifications as would normally be expected from 18 year olds, but they will have performed well on their TVEI options, and the university feels that the TVEI courses will have given them a wider experience than that of the average youngster.
  Bradford University has some experience of what adaptations will be necessary based on its experience with B. Tech. students and it is now hoping there will be a 20 per cent. intake of those on some of its degree courses. Experience has indicated that adjustments to presentation and pace have to be made. In some cases special teaching has to be provided, and more counselling is required. But once the hurdle of the first year has been passed students have performed extremely well. They possess a maturity which other students tend to lack and which benefits all on the course. You might say that that is very commendable and a valuable input into the university, but it brings no bonus points to the university because, unlike A-level scores, the UGC attaches no financial implications to it.
  Leeds University is very closely associated with industry, which is one of the areas on which the White Paper has placed some emphasis, but the university feels that its close contact with industry for research purposes brings it no increased ratings from the UGC. Indeed, it feels that it suffers financially as a consequence. In a letter which I have had from the Vice-Chancellor of Leeds University he indicates that while the reearch might be important to the national economy of the country it has disadvantages to the university for two reasons. Incidentally, in 1986 Leeds University was rated by the ABRC as coming third
  178
  only after Oxford and Cambridge for its industrial research contracts.
  The vice-chancellor says:
  "First, for Research Council Contracts the UGC provides full compensating 'overheads' as an additional grant to the universities gaining them. For Industrial Contracts it does not, and overheads that we obtained from industry may be either inadequate or restrictive.
  "Second, and more important, this industrial research may be quite unknown to the UGC or those who advise on selectivity of UGC funding. The value judgements made in selective funding will thus reinforce universities whose main source of research income is the Research Council and deprive those whose main source of research income is industry".
  So there is not much incentive there for the university.
  My third area concerns part-time education, which has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lady White, and which was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Blackstone, whose speech I was lucky enough to hear from behind the Bar. I look forward to working with her not only in the House in the future but also when she takes up her appointment as Master of Birkbeck.
  Your Lordships have concerned yourselves with the problems of Birkbeck College on a number of occasions in recent months. You are familiar with the fact that undergraduates are solely part time in Birkbeck College and that the new UGC funding formula has worked against the financial interests of Birkbeck. A number of factors in relation to Birkbeck must be taken into account. One of them was mentioned by my noble friend. The cost of a degree from Birkbeck is much lower than that of a degree from any other university. Secondly, the cost to individuals is quite considerable. Part-time students do not qualify for a mandatory grant. Therefore the majority of Birkbeck students have to pay their own fees out of already taxed income. Thirdly, because students are mainly self-financing, student fees are cut to the very minimum by the college. In that way the college is squeezed at both ends.
  It may be felt that Birkbeck students fit exactly into the criteria of the White Paper—namely, access, maturity, updating and continuing education, as well as encouraging self-help—yet the college is penalised and is now facing a very real financial crisis. With the help of your Lordships, among others, the crisis was stayed during the current year but the college is now advised that the special factor assistance that was given to it during the current year will not be available in the coming year. That is despite the fact that the college has again sought to help itself, and there has been a review of the college carried out under the chairmanship of Sir Barney Hayhoe.
  Recommendations have been made for restructuring and rationalisation with a view to economies. There have also been recommendations for a link with the ILEA in order to widen access even further, particularly among women and ethnic groups. Again, one should have thought that such an example of self-help would be rewarded by at least a continuation of the special factor funding, but that was not so.
  Therefore we must ask: what are these institutions to do when they find that far from their being rewarded for their efforts, the system penalises them? I suggest that in the case of Birkbeck there are two essential steps for the Government to take. One is to extend the

  179
  mandatory grants to equivalent part-time students. That would immediately relieve the position of many students and at the same time enable the college to be more realistic in setting the level of fees. The other measure for the Government to take is for them to do with part-time students what has been done with continuing education through the pick-up scheme; namely, to provide an earmarked sum for the UGC to use both for the introduction, of adult and part-time education and for the continuation of activities such as those in which Birkbeck is involved.
  The whole thrust of my remarks has been toward illustrating that however welcome in emphasis the White Paper may be, there will be no real changes unless both the Government and the UGC are prepared to put funding behind the principles.
  6.43 p.m.
  Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I have not previously ventured to take part in a debate on education and I rise with considerable diffidence to make a modest contribution as an amateur among so many professionals. The terms of the Motion have permitted an important and very wide-ranging debate to take place and we are fortunate to have had it illuminated by such a distinguished maiden speech. For my part I propose to speak only about universities.
  I cannot help being concerned when the president of my Cambridge college, the college of Erasmus, tells me that we must look for damaging changes that are likely to affect adversely the future life of the college and when the university itself—if my noble friend Lord Adrian will forgive me for saying so—seems to have lost some of its former glory. However, on the wider issues I want to make only one point, to underline a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, earlier in the debate.
  I find it disappointing that in paragraph 4.42 the White Paper rejects a key recommendation in the Croham Report, following a similar recommendation in the Jarratt Report, for a longer funding horizon for universities and prefers instead that there should be a rolling programme and that the Universities Funding Council should give universities planning parameters for the medium and long term. Leaving aside the fact that it is deplorable that the word "parameters" should be so utterly misused in a document purporting to deal with higher education, I find it rather sad that, while telling everyone else what changes to make, the Government themselves refuse to act on a matter within their competence to which successive independent reviews have drawn attention.
  For the rest, I shall limit myself to the experience of one of the constituent colleges of London University simply as a practical illustration of how present policies impinge on one of the perhaps less glamorous university institutions. The college of which I am speaking is Royal Holloway and Bedford New College.
  A few years ago I joined the councils of Royal Holloway College and Bedford College which were then separate institutions. The university already had well advanced plans for concentrating and reducing the number of science sites in the university and for
  180
  cutting down on the total of multifaculty schools by a process of merger. One of the mergers then in prospect was that of the two colleges that I had joined.
  A declaration of intention to merge was made in July 1982 and it is a quite remarkable achievement that the new college was able to come into existence on 1st August 1985. By that date an Act of Parliament had been passed and millions of pounds had been committed to new buildings. Bedford College had given up its site in Regent's Park and moved out to what the Post Office, with its somewhat uncertain geographic touch, regards as Egham but which is actually Englefield Green, where just a century earlier the astonished inhabitants had seen the Chateau de Chambord rise up in the green fields of their village. I expect that a number of noble Lords have gazed at the building with some fascination as they have driven past it on the A.30. It is now accompanied by many others and on that perfectly splendid site there exists a well equipped college for nearly 3, 000 students. What is more, there has been a proved saving of some £1 million a year compared with the annual costs of the two separate colleges.
  I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Annan is not in his place because I can assure him that that did not seem like a paper exercise. However, a price had to be paid for achieving the merger in such a short time, and I do not mean simply that for some months everyone had to walk around the site in a sea of mud. Student examination results did not suffer but research undoubtedly did. For example, low temperature physics experienced a complete hiatus between the closing down of the old laboratories and the coming into being of the new. So when the UGC formula for grant allocation was applied, with the weight given in it to research, the new college did not fare all that well.
  By the end of the first year, the council of the new college was faced with the fact that the savings that had been achieved, along with such special help as had been received for the merger, had been swallowed up by the continuous real reduction in grant, and despite all the improvements in management which had won a ministerial encomium from the DES, no less, a substantial deficit seemed inevitable for 1986–87, with even worse prospects to follow. So we again buckled to and commissioned an efficiency study, with professional help from outside, to examine every activity in the college and assess whether it was essential and, if so, what was the minimum level of staffing required. It does great credit to the staff, academic and non-academic, that they accepted the need for this unpalatable exercise and accepted the conclusions, even though they meant abandoning some activities and reducing the staff bill by some 10 to 12 per cent. over 18 months.
  Once those reductions had been made the outcome in the council's view would be to leave the college with the minimum of staff and activities needed to ensure that it remained a viable academic body. But now, after all this, we have had an indication of grant levels for the coming two years which paint a financial picture even worse than anything we had ever envisaged. So, far from being able to put all our efforts into attracting more mature students and students from overseas, making sure that all our graduates are numerate, exploiting our location in the Thames

  181
  valley to develop still more our links with industry and commerce, and all the rest of our plans, we are instead thrown back on a new round of introspection and self-examination with, at the end, no very obvious way of finding a solution which will not render nugatory all the investment of time and money in creating the new college. We are doing our best to raise funds from sources other than government, but we feel that we are teetering on the very edge of viability.
  I am not saying all this to make a special plea this evening for more money for the college. I am saying it to illustrate the kind of problems that one college faces, given the present resources allocated to the university system. Nor incidentally am I suggesting that London University should step in and solve our problems, although I must say a rather more generous allocation would certainly be welcome, for we are only too conscious of the fact that the university itself is struggling with inadequate resources to meet its manifold commitments.
  Against that background, when the college is finding all it has hoped to do put at risk, how can we keep up the feeling of mission and commitment among the staff? How can we plan for our research projects, and attract and retain the necessary high quality people? How can we fully develop the great attractions of our site and make our contribution to carrying out the fine words of the White Paper?
  Just the other day the Prime Minister was speaking of the booming optimism of industry and the new found pride of the British people in their country. I fear that optimism and pride are in somewhat short supply among the members of the Council of the Royal Holloway and Bedford New College.
  6.54 p.m.
  Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I feel privileged to enter this debate this evening. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Blackstone on what we in Lancashire would say was a gradely speech. For the benefit of the noble Lords who do not understand that, it means that the noble Baroness did a very good job indeed and we are very proud of her. Long may she continue to do so in this House.
  I do not wish to mention my sorrow at the findings at Lancaster and my connections with the university there over the past 23 years. Neither do I wish to dwell on the difficulties that we are facing at the Lancashire polytechnic based in Preston. I wish to go down a different road entirely and recall my experience in education over a number of years.
  In my early days as a member of the education committee, I remember being privileged to serve as a governor on what was named the People's College. The People's College in Blackburn was a tripartite college with the extra-mural department of Manchester University, the Workers' Educational Association and the local authority joining together. That was a first-class institution where people could go and do all the things that my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham mentioned earlier. I acknowledge that we could not do all the things that the ILEA were doing, but nevertheless we had a shot at trying to help people to lead a fuller life. That is what further education is about: to lead a fuller life and to enjoy life to the full.
  182
  We also used to run what we used to call night schools in those days. I am sure that that is just a different way of saying evening classes. We used to encourage people to go to night school to improve their opportunities at work. Many of our boys in Lancashire were able to take their higher national certificates and to benefit a great deal from the work that they did at night school and at technical college.
  I also remember encouraging a study in politics during my time as a member of the governing body at the People's College. I regretted that a few years afterwards because a number of people who attended that college and took that particular subject started opposing us and they became members of the Liberal Party. After a time I was a little worried as to whether we had done the right thing in starting that course because for many years, until the course started, there had been no Liberals at the college. Their education certainly was expanded and they benefited from that course.
  We then progressed to another item which gave a great deal of encouragement to people; that was the extension of our schools to make them institutions as well, because we realised that no manufacturer would invest a considerable amount of money in his school and only use that school for 190 to 195 days per year from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. Therefore, we encouraged our schools to become community schools and for the facilities in them to be used for the benefit of the people who lived in those districts. That was a good opportunity again for people to use their leisure. We realised—it is certainly coming to pass now—that people were starting to receive more leisure time than ever before and they wanted to use it wisely and get the benefit of all the advantages that they could from education. We felt that it was incumbent on the local authority to start courses in those community schools.
  I have learned a lot during my lifetime in education. It has been a privilege to serve in education. One of the things that I have learned is that one is not always right. When my local authority decided to introduce comprehensive education, it did not rush into it but took a long time over it. We consulted other authorities which had had a lot of experience. We consulted teachers. We consulted universities. We consulted parents. What is more, we worked together with the political parties in our area. Therefore our reorganisation never became a political difficulty. We went step by step together.
  We decided that every secondary school would go from 11 to 18, because we did not believe that a school would be a good school without its sixth form, or as I prefer to call it a school with a top to it. We thought it right and proper that we should do that. We realised that it would be expensive, because it would be difficult to provide courses for every youngster who wanted to take the 27 options for GCE A-level in this way. Nevertheless, we tried to do it and we introduced all kinds of systems, such as making certain teachers peripatetic where there were small classes, and even in some cases moving students from one school to another for the lesser known subjects. But it worked.
  Then came the years when the falling roll started. By that time I had left the local authority. The local authority was then reorganised and the new county took over the role of the county borough. What

  183
  happened in the county borough was that the new authority decided that there had to be a tertiary college built in, because it fitted in with their plans. I strongly objected to that tertiary college, but I now acknowledge publicly that I made a mistake.
  The tertiary college became very successful indeed and we are now producing from that college young people who are more articulate and more inquisitive than any generation before them. They are people who do not want to go on to higher education in the form of colleges or universities, but they want to get more out of education. Therefore there are more young people going into technical colleges and into higher education of that type than ever before.
  That is a remarkable achievement due to the tertiary college, because at 18 they were fed up with the 11 to 18 school. They liked their life in the tertiary college which made education more enjoyable. Therefore I acknowledge that tertiary colleges are a stepping stone to a better and fuller educational life.
  I want to spend the last two moments at my disposal on the training of teachers, because that is one of the things that I feel has gone wrong during my period in education. Some of the finest teachers that we ever employed in Blackburn were the people who came out of the forces and had had two years' training. Those teachers proved to be excellent and gradually quite a number of them became head teachers. I used to think that those schools were very well-run indeed.
  There were very few problems from those schools. I think that was because those people had a wider vision of the world and greater experience than some of the teachers that we now find in the schools, though that does not mean to say that all the teachers are of the type that I shall tell your Lordships about. But I find that there are too many teachers who go from school to college, from college to university and then back into teaching, and who know so little about what is going on in the world that after a period of time they start acting like the children whom they are teaching. That presents all kinds of problems and I am sure that we ought to look more closely at this aspect.
  I hope that the Government will take a leaf out of my book and from time to time admit that they, too, make mistakes. I am glad to see that yesterday the Secretary of State made the U-turn that he did in withdrawing his circular about closing smaller schools. I hope he will do that a little more often and realise when he has made a mistake.
  7.5 p.m.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I am very glad to have a chance to speak in this important debate on education. I should like to say something about agricultural education, which is a specialist sector of post-school education. But before I do so I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on her maiden speech. As someone who made his own maiden speech at 9.15 last evening, I think that I can fairly claim to be the most recent authority on the matter.
  I should like to congratulate her most sincerely on the lucidity and clarity with which she advanced her arguments and, like all your Lordships, I am looking
  184
  forward very much indeed to hearing her speak in the future on education and on the other areas of interest which I know she has. The noble Baroness spoke as a provider of further education. I speak as a consumer through agricultural college and the night schools to which my noble friend Lord Taylor referred.
  Before I turn to agricultural education, I should like to pick up and reinforce a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at the start of this debate when he referred to education throughout life and to the importance of the mature student. I had the rare experience of going to Oxford at the age of 40—a mere stripling compared to the 96 year-old Canadian lady referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—to read for a second degree without having a first degree. This was through a research fellowship that was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture. Sadly, I believe that such fellowships are no longer available.
  But I have to say that a two-year mid-career sabbatical is of immense value. I would argue that mature students are highly motivated and add considerably to the life of the educational establishments which they attend. The White Paper emphasises the need to increase the access of mature students and we welcome this. I was interested to see a statistic that nearly 40 per cent. of entrants to full-time degree courses without the normal minimum qualifications went on to gain first-class or upper-second degrees.
  Turning to agricultural education, this is a specialist sector of further education. To use an agricultural analogy, it is almost in a ring fence. There is an excellent relationship between the agricultural education sector and the agricultural industry—both the farmers and the ancillary industries. There really is a sense of partnership.
  I should first like to make the plea that this sense of partnership must not be lost in the reorganisation which is envisaged in the White Paper. There is indeed a need for expansion in agricultural education and for new disciplines in rural land use, in diversification in the countryside and in forestry. There is another and wider role. I repeat a statistic which I gave last evening in the agricultural debate. It has been estimated that world food supplies must eventually be trebled if the world is to be properly fed and there must be expansion in the order of 75 per cent. by the year 2000. In that whole area there is an important role for all our universities and colleges as regards research, development and training.
  I shall deal first with the university departments of agriculture. I was interested to read figures which were given by the conference of agricultural professors indicating the number of graduates who in 1985 found jobs at the end of their degree courses. The figures showed that 93 per cent. of the graduates in agriculture, 91 per cent. of the graduates in agricultural science, and 97 per cent. of the graduates in agricultural economics found jobs. Despite that considerable success story I must report to your Lordships—and I am sure that you know this—that morale is very, very low. There is a constant battle for funds. I was told by one professor that he reckoned he spent up to 10 per cent. of his time in the last two years just defending his department. Every year he was asked to give up

  185
  subscriptions to learned journals and there was rarely the chance to take on new ones.
  There are three direct grant colleges in the agricultural sector and there are many county colleges with strong local links. The three direct grant colleges—namely, Seale-Hayne, Harper Adams and Shuttleworth—are listed in Annex E of the White Paper to be transferred to the new PFC. There is one county college, at Writtle in Essex (and I must declare an interest because it is the college which I attended) which is listed in Annex D as having a choice whether to go to the PCFC or to stay with the local authority. The question that I should like to ask the noble Baroness concerns how the choice is to be implemented. Is it to be a choice for the local authority or for the institution alone? The White Paper does not make clear how that is to be done.
  Another point which concerns me is that the four colleges will represent a small sector within the PCFC and I fear that there is perhaps a danger of their being swamped. I wonder whether there is a case for an industry sub-committee structure in the PCFC to ensure that the interests of various industries are represented. Obviously agriculture would be a natural candidate for such an arrangement. Direct grant colleges offer some non-advanced level courses, and I should like to know how they will be organised and funded under the new structure.
  The county colleges, which used to be called farm institutes, are extremely important at county level. Their local links are very strong and they provide a large number of part-time courses and have links with the YTS. I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that eight of those colleges already offer HND courses—advanced-level work. How are they to be organised and funded under the new organisation?
  Turning to more general points, the White Paper refers to the need to attract private funding to support research and development. Again, I am not entirely clear how that is to be done in the agricultural sector. There are not that many farming businesses which are large enough to support the direction of funds. I should be very concerned if the multinationals become very involved in this area because, for example, a chemical and fertiliser company might not exactly encourage work on crops which need less nitrogen.
  The development of new courses is extremely important. I understand that the NAB has kept a very tight rein on this matter. For example, a county college is to start an HND course in September this year which it applied for in November 1983, which was four years ago. Another example is a county college which devised a new HND course in landscape contract management with widespread support from industry, the local authority, the DES and others but was told that such a course would be incompatible with the number of places approved for the county, which was Surrey. The only way in which the course could be mounted was if there were a college in the county that was prepared to give up some further education places to provide places for the new course. Industry wanted the course and jobs were available at the end of it. What will be the organisation for the development of new courses under the new arrangements?
  186
  As regards the transfer of assets, the White Paper says that there will be no compensation to the LEAs for transfer of physical assets, and I understand the reasons for that. However, the agricultural colleges have substantial assets; namely, farmland, working capital and houses which technically are council houses. I should like to know how they will be transferred.
  I have raised a number of specific points which I hope will be answered at the end of the debate. I should like to conclude by repeating that the agricultural education sector has a first-class relationship with the agricultural industry in its widest sense and it is vitally important that that relationship is maintained, and indeed improved, in the new arrangements which are now proposed.
  7.16 p.m.
  Lord Beloff: My Lords, you will not expect me to follow the interesting account that we have been given about agricultural education. I can only sympathise with my noble friend on the Front Bench at having to get up in an hour's time to deal with yet a new area of expertise. I do not propose to burden her with any questions.
  I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for introducing such an interesting debate. It has supplemented the discussions that we had on the Croham report and it has taken us to some broader issues such as those illuminated in the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I reveal to the House in her absence that I gave her some advice about being a maiden speaker. I said that she could not go wrong it she talked about Birkbeck—like apple pie and motherhood, everyone would be in favour of it. However, she has done more than that.
  We are faced with a particularly difficult set of issues which it is tempting to put down either, as many noble Lords have done, to lack of funding—for example, if the Government were more generous these problems would be solved—or to institutional deficiencies in the ways in which we spend or allocate the money that is available. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, pointed out—not for the first time in your Lordships' House—we have, at least in the higher education sector an extremely elaborate and expensive system by comparison with other countries and it is difficult without grave upsets to adapt that to a quite different set of demands. What worries me from time to time is the feeling that one reason why we do not adequately fund higher education and further education—or, if one prefers, post-school education in general—is that it is an area which at the moment is not as close to the heart of the British people as it was a generation or two ago. I should say that the great drive towards expansion out of a very limited area of higher education—three universities for the whole country—took place in Victorian times. There are many things that we now look to with admiration: night schools, to which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, referred; Birkbeck; the whole apparatus of university extension; and the Workers' Educational Association.

  187
  All these represented not a government saying, "It would be good for you to have more education. We should defeat our competitors. We should have a more integrated society". They came out of a drive from below. Unless that is rekindled, I do not think that any government, whatever their complexion, are likely to put in the money those of us in this House—noble Lords who have given their lives largely to this area—would regard as acceptable.
  It is difficult again because we do not know whether the comparisons that are so frequently made, especially with our European competitors, are valid. They are usually made in terms of the numbers of a particular age group with access to higher or further education. I have not seen them made with regard to the total expenditure per head of population in those countries. I suspect that providing for more people more cheaply may mean that the pressure there, though differently directed, is not all that different from this country.
  After all, whatever noble Lords may say about maldistribution, it remains a fact that the average income per head in this country, as in all Western industrial countries, has increased substantially over the past few decades. People now have motor cars, television sets and videos—all the apparatus of modern life. They are all widely distributed. People may say that they are not yet widely enough distributed, but they are widely distributed, so people are prepared to spend. Are they in fact prepared to spend, either through national taxation, local taxation or direct expenditure, upon the higher or further education of their families? There is something here which needs to be looked at.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I know that it is not the tradition to interrupt in this House. I was listening to him with some attention. Would he say that the continuing demand for courses at the Open University, for example, which was not only high at the beginning, but has continued throughout its life, would have been anticipated? Would he say that a knowledge of what is available is a significant factor in assessing future demand, and that the expectation that the thrust will always come from the bottom is not always true?
  Lord Beloff: My Lords, no, I would not suggest that it is always true. The example of the Open University is a good one. Clearly, until we had it, we could not measure the demand. The noble Lord will be as aware as I am that the demand did not in fact come altogether from the quarters whence it was first thought it would come. It has in fact recruited a student body which is rather different socially from what was envisaged in the literature of the early period.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords—
  Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the noble Lord wish to interrupt again?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is true that in terms of the
  188
  social occupation of the students it is not what was expected. If we look at the social background of the students and the occupations of their parents, the Open University has heavily penetrated those from poorer backgrounds and the more manual occupations as well, of course, as vastly increasing the numbers of women degree students.
  Lord Beloff: My Lords, that is of course the case. As the noble Lord has raised the question of the Open University, I shall refer to one point that he made in his speech which I think is rather important when we are discussing wider access. I yield to no one in my detestation of the "A" level criterion for university admission. It is not a good predictor. But there is something other than prediction in relation to previous studies at a school or pre-higher education level, and that is the degree to which one has something upon which to build.
  The noble Lord, who is so interested in the Open University, will remember that originally it was said that it would take people of promise and allow them to read any of the courses on offer. It was discovered—I am pretty certain of my memory here, but I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Perry, is not with us today—that with mathematics that just was not possible. One could not start a university-designed course in mathematics, not necessarily because one did not have "A" level mathematics but because one had had no preliminary mathematical training. There are problems if we widen access, as I am sure we should.
  With regard to what so many noble Lords, and most recently the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, have dwelt upon, I can say only say what I said to this House previously—and I shall repeat myself—that there is no solution to the universities' problem if they are dependent for their primary income upon annual grants from the Exchequer. The only thing which gives them, and can give them, confidence and enable them to plan is to have an endowment. They must have some source of income on which to build which is independent of the fluctuations in government finance.
  That is, after all, the lesson of the great universities in the United States. It is a lesson which I think has come home to people here in the light of the experiences we have had, because it is not possible to run 45 universities through a central funding system and not to make errors of judgment and even errors of financial management. It is appalling that the University of Hull, which is a good university, should be in the position which has been described to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. It is appalling that the University College of Cardiff should be what in any other institution we should describe as a state of bankruptcy. That is not a good mark for the system that we have.
  I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, said in a public speech a little while ago that he thought that the Treasury should buy out Cambridge and should give it the capital equivalent of its annual grant and let it decide how to spend it. Cambridge would be expensive, but there may be universities which would be happy to be the object of such an experiment. There does not seem to me to be any way to solve the

  189
  problem however we improve the organisation of the UGC, perhaps by putting on it more businessmen and fewer academics. There is something important about institutions being able to look after their own future. It is important from the point of view of morale, and the damage to university morale has been stressed by one speaker after another.
  I do not want to end on that melancholy, prophetic note. I should like to make one more cheerful point. The Sunday Telegraph published on two successive Sundays two articles by its industrial correspondent about Cambridge, England and Cambridge, Massachusetts—the University of Harvard. Cambridge was depicted, as I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Adrian depicted it today, as sorely tried and with low morale. Harvard was shown as a glowing campus with well-paid academics constantly taking the plane to Washington, where their advice was being taken and heeded—perhaps not in respect of Nicaragua altogether, but generally speaking.
  This set me thinking about Harvard and Cambridge. I cannot speak for their contributions to medicine, engineering or the natural sciences but in the areas about which I know a little professionally I would say that the University of Cambridge has nothing to be ashamed of in its contributions to scholarship compared even with Harvard over the past two decades.
  The proof of that is that we speak about the brain drain—I have referred to this in previous debates—and the way in which our scholars are attracted across the Atlantic by higher salaries and greater facilities. What interests me is that, with the whole of the population of the United States to appeal to, universities in the United States still come to the British market to buy these characters. That seems to be a point of optimism.
  7.31p.m.
  Lord Ardwick: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not follow him down his extremely individual path. He taught me one thing—at least, he re-taught me social history. I always thought that as far as the WEA was concerned it was Tawney who came to Rochdale rather than Rochdale sending for Tawney. I may be wrong and no doubt the noble Lord can tell me afterwards if I am.
  My first duty is to congratulate my noble friend Lady Blackstone on her maiden speech, which was fully in accord with the high expectations that we had of it. As I listened to her my mind went back to the fact that when she was in her cradle enjoying her first sips of Lord Woolton's orange juice I became an occasional student at Birkbeck, which was then very near to Fleet Street. I was 32 years of age and I learnt a great deal in the two years I was there. I did not have the stamina of my noble friend Lady Jeger, who took a good degree there while working full time in the Civil Service.
  My subject today is a little remote from the main theme yet it is appropriate. I am concerned about university libraries in general and the University of London library at Senate House in particular. The university library is one of the important implements
  190
  of its students and the mature scholars engaged in research. It is cramped by a lack of funds at a time when books grow dearer day by day and students find their grants, and university teachers their salaries, failing to keep pace with the cost of lving.
  The University Grants Committee got out its pruning knife in the 1950s—not without justification. I was taking a holiday from journalism and working for the Nuffield Foundation and I was put in charge of an inquiry—a kind of Beeching inquiry—on behalf of the UGC into the use of university libraries. Faced with the foundation of a number of new universities the UGC wanted to know whether there was need in the new universities for the pretty lavish provision that had been made for the redbrick universities.
  At that time the research libraries throughout the world were doubling in extent every 16 years. In most universities a professor could order any book and it was almost impossble for anyone to say no. It was only too easy to add to a library, but was very difficult to subtract from one. It required a whole faculty to consent to the discarding of a book and to its relegation to what was known in the trade as a place of secondary access. In any case, to discatalogue a book cost even more than to catalogue it. My report pointed out that universities in adjacent cities could share their collections for senior members of the universities, though not of course the limited libraries they needed for undergraduates.
  Those were the innocent days of university libraries. There was not a computer in sight and not even a copying machine. Scientific studies on the use of libraries and library co-operation were in their infancy and largely confined to America. Many librarians regarded their libraries as absolute sovereign territory. But that was long ago and today university libraries recognise that they must co-operate with others in the region and that they must be complementary rather than competitive.
  As regards London University, from the inquiries I have made it seems to me that it is well down the road of rationalisation. It has reduced its staffing level by 18 per cent. during the past seven years. It has done so in spite of an increasing workload through a greater demand on its services. The recommendations on regular staff appraisal and cost-effectiveness in the Jarratt Report are being carried out. However, how far can universities go? The inflation rate for books and periodicals is well ahead of the general rate of inflation and has been so for many years. Academic libraries feel that they are harder hit than some other departments.
  The University of London library has a special role. It is a federal university and has an important responsibility to the college libraries which it supports for undergraduate purposes and which it complements for research purposes. The colleges are obliged to reduce their library provision and the student grant gets relatively smaller as textbooks get relatively more expensive. Therefore, the role of the central university library becomes more and more important. It is the only library in the university available to all staff and students and it underpins the unique London external degree scheme. It is used by scholars from all parts of England and, indeed, from all parts of the world.

  191
  However, the future of this distinguished library is grim. The intention of the UGC is to reduce the grant for what it defines as the central activities. It intends to reduce the grant by 1990 to 50 per cent. of what it has been—that is, in three years' time. I believe that that presents a wicked threat. The existence of the University of London library in anything like its present form is threatened. All we can do is pray that the body which replaces the UGC sees the light and that the new government who we expect soon to have will be more sympathetic than the present Government have been to learning, culture and scholarship.
  7.38 p.m.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, it gives me particular pleasure as the last of the Back-Bench speakers to congratulate my noble friend Lady Blackstone on her excellent maiden speech. She and I were colleagues at the London School of Economics some years ago. We went our separate ways. I went on to found the economics department at Queen Mary College and my noble friend took a more circuitous route, ending up as Master of Birkbeck. Perhaps more significantly, like so many good academics, our paths converge again and we now appear together in your Lordships' House.
  I begin by speaking a little about higher education and particularly about its economic aspects. It seems to me that the White Paper and the Green Paper that preceded it have bought what one might call the standard economics package; that is, that higher education is and can be made productive in the sense of making our economy richer than would otherwise be the case. Indeed, they buy that package in one of its cruder forms; namely, that increasing the science and engineering ratio within that package is even more productive.
  The Green Paper states:
  "The Government believe it is vital for our higher education to contribute more effectively to the improvement of the economy".
  The White Paper refers to meeting the needs of the economy. It also refers to taking a broad view of the nation's requirements for highly qualified manpower.
  I am in the higher education business. I am also in the economics business. I therefore do not wish to undervalue that point of view and ruin my own product. However, I hope that the officials advising the Minister have told her that after 25 years of research, no matter how plausible these hypotheses are, we seem to have found it impossible to substantiate them empirically. I should like to believe that the hypotheses are true but I am not sure that one can accept that position with as much confidence as we find in the White Paper.
  As another of my former colleagues, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, the connection between higher education, economy and society is a rather subtle one. I hope that the Secretary of State can be persuaded not to blunder into this area in the rather crude fashion that he appears to wish to do in the rest of the education system.
  Let me now turn to the productivity of higher education institutions. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, that one should view some of
  192
  the calculations from economists, including myself, with scepticism and suspicion. However, that is the way that productivity is typically measured in the economy. It is the way that the productivity of industry is measured. It is not uninteresting therefore to know that in both the universities and polytechnics, productivity, if measured conventionally, has risen very drastically indeed, despite the criticisms that one might make of such measurement. If one then follows the tenets of classical microeconomics, if a sector is shown to be relatively more productive—both through time and in terms of international comparisons—then the comparative advantage that is thus demonstrated ought to lead to a far more rapid expansion of that sector compared with the rest of the system.
  I find it puzzling that on the one hand the White Paper acknowledges the productivity of higher education institutions but it does not follow through the logic of what has been said. I would go further. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told us that in his view the future of our country lies in the area of the provision of services. If there is one area where we have demonstrated how efficient we are at providing services it is that of higher education. Far from that being in any way held back it ought to be encouraged forward at a much more rapid rate. In higher education we ought to be much freer to earn overseas income than we are at present. Although I appreciate that there may be a notion that we ought to be operating a cartel and therefore cannot be entirely free to set our own fees, on the whole I believe that our educational institutions ought to be free to set their own fees and to take account of marginal rather than average costs.
  In a system of this kind it also makes good sense not merely to respond to what one might call the more optimistic of the projections in terms of demand for places, but I believe that we ought to go back to the days when we were actively encouraging people to pursue education at all levels and certainly at the higher levels. I note in the White Paper certain cryptic remarks about student grants. I do not believe that the demand for places can be regarded as independent of other assistance to students. I hope that we may have a debate on that subject. As one or two of my noble friends are aware, I regret to say that I have rather idiosyncratic views on student finance, but I shall save those for another occasion.
  I have one rather acerbic remark to make on universities. Given the advance in productivity in higher education I think that the Jarratt experiment was exactly the wrong way round. What we require is for British manufacturing and other industry to come to higher education to see how well we are doing so that they can learn lessons from us, rather than telling us to learn lessons from industry—which on the whole is not that successful in world terms.
  I turn to the issue of the polytechnics and the proposals there. I agree with what is in the White Paper and what was said again by my noble friend Lord Glenamara. We spend too much of our time denigrating education in this country. It is a great mistake to do so. However, if we have one achievement that stands out it is that of the polytechnics. That was arrived at by the efforts of the local authorities and by the enormous efforts of the CNAA. Perhaps I ought

  193
  to record an interest. I was a member of the CNAA and the first chairman of its economics committee. That body did a tremendous job, as did the local education authorities, but, quite rightly, the time has now come for the polytechnics to go their own way. They can now stand on their own feet.
  The White Paper is a little blurred on this issue. It seems to me that the time has come for most polytechnics to become independent of the CNAA or to move in that direction. The White Paper goes almost as far as the Lindop Committee suggests and then stops. I should like to hear from the Minister whether she believes that no polytechnic is yet ready to stand separate from the CNAA; I certainly believe that they are.
  I shall not use my remaining few moments to ride the higher education/university hobby-horse or to say how excellent a place Queen Mary College is and how we too need vastly more resources, as we do. I should like to turn to non-advanced further education. The consequence of the LEAs moving out of the polytechnic sphere is to give them much greater significance and a chance to achieve new successes in the non-advanced FE area. My noble friend Lord McIntosh has emphasised the scale of the non-advanced FE field. That is entirely right; it is enormously important. Indeed, in some ways one might regard the emphasis in this debate on higher education as somewhat misplaced compared with the enormous importance of non-advanced further education. I would also emphasise its diversity.
  If I may refer again to classical microeconomics, if it is diversity and innovation that one wants and responsiveness to consumer demands, then for the most part a decentralised system is the best way to achieve that. That again serves to emphasise why the local education authorities at this time are the relevant bodies to do precisely this kind of work.
  I hope that as the system advances we do not lose sight of its diversity. I hope that we do not interpret the non-advanced FE system as simply a place where one prepares yet again for A-level and that it will be judged in only one way: by how many of these people are saved for higher education. Sometimes what the system achieves is of a remedial character; sometimes it stimulates an interest in education for the first time. Certainly one hopes that it tempts adults back into education. All those aspects are enormously important. I have to emphasise—one may not like it but it is important—that courses in non-advanced further education will still provide the students at all levels and ages with some kind of credential. I know that it is horrible to have to say that one must have a piece of paper to show what one has achieved, but that is the kind of world in which we live.
  In that connection I am having great difficulty keeping up with the many new bodies that are being introduced, but the one that strikes me as being of enormous significance is something called the National Council for Vocational Training, which I hope will have a connection with non-advanced FE. I hope it will have a role in establishing the credentials of people who work in that area.
  I have one last point on that matter before I come to my final points. Anybody looking at this field, and
  194
  several noble Lords have mentioned this, cannot but be aware of the enormous anomalies we have right across this area in student support and in fees. I might add to that the way that the social security system works in this area. We ought to be able to clarify this and have some kind of consistent system so that decisions will not be taken to go on a particular course or to stay on at a particular institution on an irrational basis.
  My last two comments before I sit down are, first, to revert back to the polytechnics. The polytechnics were diverse institutions. They have made great progress. I wish to see them stand on their own feet, but I hope that in doing that they do not follow the worst examples of the universities. I hope they do not give up their non-advanced work and I certainly hope they do not say that the only way they can have a status is to become completely full-time. That would be a terrible mistake.
  The second remark I should like to make is raised in a very important way in the White Paper. We are seeing in the secondary schools a broadening of the secondary curriculum. It is vital that the universities—which have a powerful influence here, although they always say that they are not guilty when it comes to A-levels—do not sabotage the broadening and improvement of the curriculum by demanding still very narrow criteria for entry.
  I am not certain, as I am still a comparatively new boy, whether I may congratulate my noble friend Lady Blackstone twice in the same speech, but one reason I found her speech particularly significant was that it had an uplifting quality about it which derived from the fact that it was actually about education. Ultimately whatever one says about economics, economy and resources the purpose of a debate such as this is to emphasise the value of education overall and to reiterate the belief, which some cynics say does not apply today but which I think does, that education is a very good thing for everyone.
  7.53 p.m.
  Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for introducing this debate, even though we have not all followed the lead that he gave us by changing the title to "post-school". I am afraid that I shall not be as helpful to him as I ought to be. I want briefly to try first to appraise the Government's approach to higher education as outlined in the White Paper and then to touch on some specific concerns.
  Despite the genuflections in several parts of the paper to the advancement of learning, the Robbins principle and, by implication, to the discovery of truth referred to by my noble friend Lady Seear, it is clear to me that what we are being offered is an exercise in manpower planning on a very ambitious scale. This, dovetailed with the emerging plans for the schools if implemented as proposed, would give us a centralised education system with the overriding object of satisfying the needs of the economy. The accent is therefore very much on manpower planning rather than on higher education, and this is confirmed by paragraphs 2.10 to 2.13 of the White Paper, by the

  195
  dual system of control which is proposed and to which I shall refer.
  On the manpower planning side there is a serious question. For a party which does not believe in big government we are looking at a very dirigiste policy. I see from the DES paper on Changes in Structure and National Planning for Polytechnics and Colleges, a subsidiary paper to the White Paper, that it is planned to have 11 industrialists, which is by far the largest single named constituency on the polytechnic boards of 20 to 25 members. That is fine. It enhances the industrial commitment to the institutions but one has to remember that industrialists have not always been notably good at giving clear signals to the education system of what they want out of it. We need to be a little careful there.
  I turn to some more specific areas of concern. On student numbers there is obviously a sense in which the White Paper represents a considerable advance on the much criticised Green Paper in that it adopts the Projection Q of demand for higher education places, which is much more likely to reflect the real pressure on those places than the Projection P which generally speaking assumes a constant demand from a shrinking number of qualified young people of the relevant age group. Now the Government recognise in paragraph 2.12 that:
  "There is no reason to suppose that employers' requirements for graduates and diplomates will fall in parallel with the one-third fall in the size of the 18–19 year old age group by 1996".
  That is a welcome recognition. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, also called it a deathbed repentance. But even so we are looking at a net decrease from 726, 000 in 1990 to 691, 000 by 1996—years which were referred to by my noble friend Lady Seear, years which will clearly be crucial years during which the CBI has stated a likely growth of demand from industry at 4 per cent. per annum, which would indicate a figure much nearer 850, 000 by 1995. The Government envisage a heady 20 per cent. of school-leavers with two or more A-levels knocking on the door of higher education and they are flexing themselves to meet that demand by planning for an age participation rate in the region of 18 per cent. rather than the dismal 14 to 15 per cent. planned under Projection P.
  Our view is that the age participation rate of traditional entry students should be increased to 20 per cent. and that there should be an increase in the total number of students of 30 per cent. by 1995. That is what we should be setting our sights on for, as my noble friend said, the future is for a highly educated country. This means that we have to aim for a quantum leap.
  On access I should have said a number of things, but time does not permit. The Government recognise the pressing need to widen access from mature nontraditional entrants who had missed out the first time round. This is recognised in paragraph 2.20, and that is welcome too though nothing is said about the financial stimulus to that end. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, pointed out, part-time students in higher education will still have to pay their own fees even if they have never had a crack at higher education at an earlier stage in their lives.
  196
  Here I should like to slip in my congratulations to the noble Baroness. It is in order to congratulate her just once, not twice, on a very impressive maiden speech. The noble Baroness and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood will both be glad to know of the Alliance commitment that part-time higher education should be free to those undertaking first qualifications. All this funding will come by way of fees to give maximum incentives to institutions to initiate part-time courses. Both noble Baronesses will agree that we are on the side of the angels in that sphere.
  When I came to continuing education in the White Paper I smiled a wry smile. The White Paper says solemnly at paragraph 2.26:
  "The importance of adult continuing education is now widely—albeit belatedly—accepted".
  "Belatedly" is the word, but to whom does it apply if not the Government? I can barely remember the date of the Russell Report. It is so far back in the mists of time—was it 10 or 15 years ago? The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, will probably remember. No action followed other than disbandment of that small but useful quango the Advisory Council on Adult and Continuing Education, presumably as a mark of commitment to the whole of that idea. Well, my Lords, better a late conversion than a continuation in error, I suppose, but we are being told very little about the resources.
  On the question of quality, efficiency and funds, our attention is directed in paragraph 3.3 of the White Paper to a fall in unit costs in the past seven years by 5 per cent. in the universities, 15 per cent. in the polytechnics and local authority colleges and 5 per cent. in the central institutions in Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred also to the dramatic improvement in productivity in the higher education field. Then we come to the Government's central funding message in paragraph 3.4 in which they say that they are,
  "committed to achieving further gains in value for money that will be needed particularly if access to higher education is to be widened in the future".
  The whole of the expansion, so far as I can see, is posited on further gains in productivity and efficiency.
  I am all for exercises such as Jarratt and indeed the NAB's management board report, which I hope will not just be put on the shelf because that body is due to go into demise. There is no way according to the principal of the University of London, that the higher projection envisaged in paragraph 2.13 of the White Paper can be delivered without loss of quality on a declining funding basis, but that is what is proposed. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to an increase of perhaps £3 million in the coming year. The university refers to a declining amount of £126 million between 1986–87 and 1989–1990. I think that probably covers the whole of both the further and higher education fields and that accounts for the discrepancy between the figures of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and mine.
  However, the fact remains that this is the kind of flat funding or declining funding that is proposed while on the White Paper's own evidence student numbers are expected to grow from 693, 000 in 1985 to 726, 000 in 1990. Can the noble Baroness explain to me how that growth is to be achieved on that declining or flat budget?

  197
  The noble Lord, Lord Blake, mentioned funding. One of the key recommendations of both the Jarratt and Croham reports was for a stable planning horizon. The Croham proposal was for triennial funding which is to coincide with the period now covered by the annual expenditure White Paper, subject of course to the inflation rate not rising above 5 per cent. But even this modest amount of stability is turned down. The Government say:
  "It will be undesirable to insulate university management from the need to plan for changing circumstances".
  They propose a rolling programme rather than a fixed triennial funding. This seems to me to be a recipe for a further period of uncertainty and short-termism. I wonder whether the Government would like to reconsider that recommendation which came from two distinguished committees.
  I come now briefly to the mechanisms proposed in the White Paper. These are, for the universities, the Universities Funding Council to replace the UGC, and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council to replace the NAB—what I think the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, called the dual system. Both operate through contracts rather than grants; that is to say, the institutions on both sides of the binary line would be obliged to enter into a contract with their appropriate funding body to provide certain services. It is not quite clear what those services are meant to be.
  On the university side, this immediately raises important questions. To date, contracting has been largely confined to measurable things such as courses designed for special purposes and research contracts. There has been no general purpose contract, and how on earth do you measure the advancement of learning or the enhancement of civilisation? Do you add 20 per cent. for that, or 50 per cent., or do you add zero if you think such things are unimportant? Can the noble Baroness tell us how the Government see this contract working in the university context? I think the noble Lord, Lord Blake, called this a belated bright idea. Perhaps she can cast further light on it.
  It also appears from paragraph 4.41 of the White Paper, if I have not misunderstood it, that the UFC will have power to require that funding is or is not spent for a particular purpose. Bearing in mind that the Secretary of State is to have reserve powers to issue directions to the council, how far does that take us down the road of government direction of university disciplines and subjects? I do not mean only the kind of rationalisation which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, about whether a faculty would be of a viable size. The question has another type of importance because it could have sinister implications for the political control of higher education, a point referred to by my noble friend who I think also used the word "sinister". The Government are anxious to weaken political control in other areas, quite rightly I believe. Are they living up to their own precepts here? I should certainly welcome the noble Baroness's comments on that.
  The changes proposed for the polytechnics are more far reaching than those for the universities because they are due to move to a new type of corporate status. This is to be welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, welcomed it. The Committee of Directors of
  198
  Polytechnics favours direct funding from central government. Although there is an alternative model which might be called the ILEA model I assume that the Government will stick to their version. If they do there are quite serious grounds for alarm over the possible erosion of polytechnic local links—and here I declare an interest as a member of the independent committee on this topic under the chairmanship of Sir Alexander Pilkington, a matter which I have already brought to the attention of the noble Baroness. On that occasion she was good enough to assure me that our report would be studied—and I hope responded to—when it comes out.
  I have a specific point which I told the noble Baroness I would raise with her. It concerns Goldsmiths' College. I declare an interest here too as a member of the delegacy of that college. I see from Annex E that Goldsmiths' is listed under other grant-aided colleges as due to come within the ambit of the PCFC, but there is an asterisked footnote with the words:
  "unless London University accepts Goldsmiths' as a school of the university".
  I hope the noble Baroness will be able to tell me that nothing will be done to inhibit and everything possible will be done to encourage the current negotiations between the college and the university, which if successful would give the university a valuable extension south of the river.
  In conclusion, there is no doubt in my mind that the Government's proposals bring us much nearer to a national, centrally directed, higher education service aimed at strategic manpower planning under central control which will be supported at the lower level by a more centrally directed school system. Some people may argue that this is the only way to confront the modern world, but it carries considerable dangers in that it opens the system to central control by Whitehall and it could become a potent instrument in the hands of an extremist government of whatever complexion. There is also the concern that it is not easy to get manpower planning objectives right in a fast moving world even if you believe that that is the be all and end all of higher education, which we do not.
  The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, said—and I noted his words—that universities will cease to be universities if they simply do what the Government tell them, and independent and creative minds will go elsewhere. Those are wise words to which we need to pay attention. If the Government are by any chance reelected and a Bill is introduced along these lines it will be the duty of this House—and we shall certainly participate—to give it prolonged and searching scrutiny.
  8.9 p.m.
  Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Blackstone on an impressive maiden speech. I congratulate her too on her new appointment and offer her our best wishes on the difficult task that she has ahead. I hope that we shall hear her in the House frequently.

  199
  During the 1983 general election a leading political figure in this country said of the universities:
  "The period of contraction is now nearing the end. The universities can look forward to a thoroughly healthy future".
  For those who may not recall that speech, let me tell noble Lords that that was the parliamentary candidate for Finchley speaking on 9th June 1983. I think that all Members of the House will accept that she was a person better placed than any other to guarantee the promises that she was making at that time. What followed was a nightmare for many people in universities. The two years up to 1983 paled into insignificance against the harsh attack that followed the election of Mrs. Thatcher's second government.
  Expenditure today is 11 per cent. less than it was in 1979. Student numbers have fallen from 250, 000 to 241, 000. Cuts have fallen unevenly and unfairly on the technological universities. Salford was cut by as much as 28 per cent., Bradford by 19 per cent. and Aston by 18 per cent. Academic posts have fallen by 4, 500 and non-academic posts by nearly 3, 000.
  The Comptroller and Auditor General has condemned the government policy for
  "the damage, disorder and diseconomy inflicted on the universities".
  The 12, 000 to 15, 000 young people who qualified to enter our universities have been unable to do so. A much smaller proportion of the relevant age group has qualifications at first degree level than in the United States, where it is 22 per cent., and Japan where it is 24 per cent. The number of science, technology and engineering graduates has been falling since 1983. Polytechnics too have been cut. The expenditure on polytechnics and colleges has been reduced by one-fifth in the years since 1981. Annual investment on each student in the polytechnics has been reduced by 15 per cent.
  Happily, the Government have been forced to rethink their attitude to higher education, as we have seen in the White Paper, but their response is still far from adequate. Despite the impression that Mr. Baker gives that he is fighting for excellence and chastising the less good, few realise that every university has lost money in recent years as part of government policy.
  The proposal in the White Paper to increase student numbers is not to be accompanied by extra funding for those places. Instead they are to be funded out of greater productivity. In this context The Times Educational Supplement of 12th April said that these are:
  "weasel-words that mean lower standards and serious diseconomy as well as genuine productivity gains".
  The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has given expression to major reservations to the White Paper. It shares the view of the Council for Industry and Higher Education that
  "raising the proportion of 18 year olds entering higher education from the present 14.2 per cent. to 18.5 per cent. is too unambitious".
  Information from employers suggests that there will be a demand for between 2 per cent. and 5 per cent. more graduates each year. The government plan will
  200
  produce about 8 per cent. overall by the end of the century. The highest of four recent Government statistical projections now suggest that the student population at the end of the century could be little more than 4 per cent. higher than it is today. In the event that industry should grow at no more than 2 per cent. per annum—we want it to grow much faster than that—the student population would have to grow eight times faster than its present supply of qualified manpower.
  It is not only the universities and the polytechnics that have been disabled. The Social and Economic Research Council recently reported that 59 per cent. of its highest rated projects which had been funded five years ago are not being funded today. They will be squeezed even more because the Government have so far failed to provide extra cash to maintain the level of projects now that increases for all academics have been agreed. Report after report of the Advisory Body for Research Councils says that in some universities the well-founded laboratory no longer exists.
  Labour agrees with the Council for Industry and Higher Education—and I congratulate the group of industrialists on an excellent report, with which we agree—which said
  "the United Kingdom prosperity, vitality and international standing depend on its becoming a more highly educated nation which recognises skilled brain power and applied ingenuity as its distinctive assets … The officially projected 4 per cent. increase in student numbers by the year 2000 is at odds with the United Kingdom's ambitions for a new growth".
  Labour will set up not two councils but one higher education council to focus on higher education as a whole and provide similar funding for similar work. It will also establish a Ministry of Science and Technology to oversee the whole business of research and development.
  It will provide the security of funding which higher education so badly needs, and extra reserves to widen access and to make it possible to admit a greater proportion of 18 year-olds to enter into higher education, at least a 20 per cent. participation by 1995 and a 25 per cent. participation by the end of the century.
  It will allow for more second chance opportunities and a wider range of qualifications—a question raised by a number of Members. It will increase continued education and provide money for research. It will extend the opportunities for older students by designating courses for award purposes; for example, national diplomas and certificates, professional courses and access courses for those preparing for entry to higher education.
  If we are to survive as an advanced nation, we have to move towards providing all our citizens with opportunities for education and training throughout their lives. Access to education at 18 has been confined to a small minority, but it does not make economic or social sense to confine resources in this way. As has been said all adults can and should benefit by education throughout their lives.
  In America and Germany more than eight out of 10 young people aged 16 to 18 are still being educated or trained, yet in Britain industrial apprenticeships have gone down by two-thirds since 1979. Sixteen out of the 28 industrial training boards have been abolished. It

  201
  may cost a lot of money to invest seriously in education, but the price of not doing so will be ruinous to our standing as an industrial nation.
  The partnership in education has been broken. Labour rejects Tory centralism because it is less accountable and less efficient. In place of this centralism, Labour would propose a new partnership between central and local government to widen educational opportunities, revise educational standards, ensure proper resourcing of education and increase parental involvement.
  At the heart of the new approach would be a new Education Act which will re-define objectives and functions to meet modern needs and aspirations and, like the 1944 Act, provide a new basis for consensus. As part of its commitment to education and training for all, Labour will establish an adult Skillplan. An incoming government would undertake early discussions with both sides of industry to give statutory backing to paid educational leave, and Labour will seek to develop a new educational entitlement.
  My noble friend Lord Peston made the point that it is important for people to have pieces of paper to collect in some kind of portfolio achievement which they can keep for the rest of their lives.
  The entitlement would be phased in over a number of years. In the first instance Labour would give priority to the unemployed and to adults in further and higher education. We would establish a foundation programme. In the first two years Labour will establish 75, 000 places on this foundation programme for young people to assess the needs of 16- to 17-year olds. It would also establish an extended training and education programme for 18- to 19-year olds who currently graduate from YTS schemes.
  It has been said more than once this evening that proper education maintenance allowances will encourage more 16-year olds. Student financial support is the key to progress in all these fields. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, made the point effectively. Education must be seen as an investment. As the National Council for Industry and Higher Education say:
  "an investment on which part of the return is measured in competitiveness, efficiency and confidence in new ideas."
  Within two years of coming into office Labour will aim to achieve the following targets as part of its strategy. It will provide a statutory training framework and have it in place, and all large establishments will have set up joint workplace training teams and prepare their workplace training plans. It will establish a national training fund and this will be fully operational, and training levels in manufacturing industry should by that time have doubled.
  It would introduce paid educational leave for workers throughout industry. The National Council for Courses and Assessment—which will be a new body—and the Education and Training Inspectorate and the new Research and Intelligence Institute on Education and Training will also have been established. The 75, 000 16-year olds already mentioned will enter the first year of the foundation programme, and the 75, 000 18- and 19-year olds whom I have also mentioned will enter an extended
  202
  training scheme of continuing education, training and work experience.
  Education maintenance allowances will encourage thousands more 16-year olds to remain in full-time study. A further 75, 000 unemployed adults will enter adult traineeship leading to recognised qualifications over a period from six months to three years. A hundred thousand unemployed adults will enter project-based training places linked to agreed training plans. Public service traineeships will be available for the unemployed, offering them both a skill guarantee and priority for public sector jobs.
  The job-training scheme will be replaced by a scheme providing quality training and a reasonable training allowance. Unemployed people will be given unrestricted access to education and training courses suitable to their needs.
  When the economic miracle happens in this country, as I believe it will, the thing that will hamper it will be the loss of skills over the past 10 years. We must not allow that to happen.
  8.23 p.m.
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, just slightly adapting the opening words of the recent White Paper, Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge, I should like to start by making quite clear the Government's conviction that:
  "education has a crucial role to play in helping the nation meet the economic and social challenges of the final decade of this century and beyond".
  I think it is fair to say that this thought has underpinned all the speeches we have heard in this afternoon's broad-ranging debate which has, if I may say so, maintained the high standards and perception of your Lordships' consideration of education matters. In thanking all noble Lords for their contributions, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to the many which have been so justifiably passed to her.
  Post-school education provides us with a very broad canvas, as the speeches have proved. In the time available I fear that I shall not be able to do justice to all the varied and interesting points and suggestions that have been made. These are, however, all on the record, which I shall study closely—and perhaps in particular the revelations made by the noble Lord, Lord Irving—and will be drawn to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
  We have been dealing with an almost bewildering range of provision in terms of level of work, length and type of course, and type of institution. At one end of the range are short courses of evening classes in liberal adult education. At the other there is full-time postgraduate study and research at universities and specialist institutions to the highest international level. In between there is provision of many non-vocational and vocational courses at both non-advanced and advanced levels.
  I emphasise this range deliberately both in response to the point expressly made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in opening the debate and because it does not seem to me that it was always borne in mind during the debate. Most speakers dwelt upon higher

  203
  education and in particular the universities. Far less attention was paid to non-advanced further education, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, remarked, despite the fact that there are now over 1.7 million students on non-advanced courses in England. These students will form a crucial part of the skilled workforce of the future, and the importance of the sector should not be forgotten.
  All sectors of post-school education are important, and I want to make it quite clear that the Government do not value one element any more highly than another. Nor do they value one element any less. I would endorse the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, about the value of adult education, which is sometimes seen as something of a Cinderella. What matters generally is that each course is well designed and efficiently provided in order to give proper benefit to those taking it and, through them, to the nation as a whole.
  In referring to all this as a broad canvas, I must also say that it is a very expensive one. In the current year the expenditure on post-school education throughout the United Kingdom is planned to exceed £5.2 billion, and since the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and indeed others, alleged under-funding I should add that this £5.2 billion is planned to rise in cash terms to more than £5.5 billion by 1989–90. In real terms this means that the Government are maintaining their spending on post-school education at about its present level. This is just about the same level in real terms as in 1979, and not in fact less as the noble Lord, Lord Irving, suggested. We believe that these resources are now being used much more efficiently.
  I am always wary of international comparisons of higher education participation rates, mainly for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Beloff. But, since the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised the subject, I have to say that in terms of proportion of relevant age groups gaining degrees and diplomas, on the best like-for-like comparison available, Britain is on a par with achievements in France and ahead of the rest of the European Community, though a little behind the achievements of Japan and the United States.
  Time will clearly not permit me to deal with every initiative the Government have taken, but I should like to give your Lordships some illustrative examples, particularly as some of these touch on areas not covered by contributors to the debate. We have, for example, introduced the Certificate of Pre-Vocational Education. This is available both in non-advanced further education and in schools. It filled a longstanding gap for those 16 year-olds—especially those with modest qualifications—who were not yet set on a career path and who wanted to stay on in full-time education for another year if they could find something worth doing. Introduced in 1985, there are now some 35, 000 students on this scheme.
  Then there is the Youth Training Scheme. There are now around a third of a million trainees on YTS programmes. Some 65 per cent. of schemes include college-based education and training. A priority for the two-year YTS is that it should provide participants with the opportunity to gain recognised qualifications,
  204
  or credits towards qualifications. This is a major new area of work for colleges, requiring close co-operation with employers and managing agents so as to provide a positive solution to the twin problems of youth unemployment and an under-skilled workforce.
  There has also been the introduction of the MSC's work-related non-advanced further education development schemes. The planning that these have brought about is not only a good discipline but also helps to gear local provision more closely to local needs, particularly for trained manpower. I think we can see a highly productive partnership emerging between local education authorities, colleges and the MSC. It is that kind of co-operation which has been called for by many of your Lordships during the course of this debate.
  Another important initiative is the programme known as PICKUP (Professional, Industrial and Commercial Updating). Further and higher education has an important role to play in keeping industry and commerce competitive by providing training to meet the updating needs of firms. The PICKUP programme is encouraging the growth of such training by colleges and universities and has ensured that the volume of updating training is now growing by more than 10 per cent. per year. In some institutions, growth has been in the region of 30 to 40 per cent. The PICKUP programme aims to achieve a five-fold increase over the coming years and to ensure that PICKUP work becomes one of the mainstream activities for all institutions.
  Moving with PICKUP into higher education, in spite of some suggestions made this afternoon, opportunities for young people to enter universities, polytechnics and colleges of higher education have never been better. There are more students in higher education now than ever before. Gains in efficiency have secured better value for money and have allowed institutions to provide 160, 000 more places than they provided seven years ago while maintaining the quality and high standards of which the nation is rightly proud.
  My noble friend Lord Elton referred to the action which the Government have taken to improve initial teacher training courses and to relieve teacher shortages in particular subjects—with some success on the basis of the latest figures which he quoted. We have also introduced a new specific grants scheme to ensure much better targeted in-service training. I can assure my noble friend that my right honourable friend's criteria for initial teacher training emphasises that they should all contain substantial teaching practice and pay due attention to class management and control, and that in no case should qualified teacher status be awarded to a student whose classroom work is unsatisfactory.
  The Government welcome and have done much to promote the major growth in recent years between universities and industry. Between 1982 and 1985 universities' direct earnings from industry rose from £23 million to £48 million, much of which was in the field of research. Earnings from industry, however, amount to only 2 per cent. of total university income and we would wish to encourage the further development of collaborative links. Not only do these

  205
  links bring financial benefits to the universities, they have to do with establishing greater mutual understanding of each other's needs and of the ways in which each operates. That can only be for the good. In this context, I commend to your Lordships the excellent report Towards Partnership, which was published recently by the Council for Industry and Higher Education and to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred.
  We can be justly proud of the high quality of academic research in our institutions of higher education and of the outstanding record of our scientists. The Government are committed to maintaining and enhancing the strength and quality of the science base. Since 1979, the science budget has been increased by 14 per cent. in real terms. However, because of the increasing costs of undertaking world-class research, there is a greater need for selectivity in the funding of research. We welcome the moves made in this direction by the UGC and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, and we would wish to see this process taken further. This meets one of the suggestions put forward by my noble friend Lord Blake.
  I hope that it has been helpful to the House to illustrate what has already been achieved. However, there is always room for improvement. One of these areas in non-advanced further education where we are looking for progress and which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and others is in rationalising the structure of professional qualifications. The present structure is often described as a jungle. It will never be wholly straightforward because of the need for a range of options. But it does not have to be as confusing as it is now. The National Council for Vocational Qualifications was set up in September 1986 to classify existing vocational qualifications into a progressive series of levels and it will aim to ensure that all such qualifications require a combination of vocational education and relevant training with particular emphasis on the application of skills and knowledge.
  As far as higher education is concerned, the Government's plans are set out in the White Paper. I am glad to observe that this continues to enjoy a generally warm welcome from your Lordships.
  The Government's commitment is to the widening of access to higher education and to increasing the efficiency, quality and accountability of universities, polytechnics and colleges. There are three main strands in their proposals. The first concerns student numbers and access to higher education, to which there have been several references during our debate. I stress first that there are more students in higher education than ever before. Overall numbers have increased by 160, 000 in the past seven years; nearly half the increase has been in part-time numbers. There is a higher proportion of women students. Mature student numbers have risen by 25 per cent. The Government's policy is that there should be further increases. As the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, noted, we are working on the basis of projection Q; that means 50, 000 more students by 1990 and one in five of our young people participating by the end of the century compared with one in five now.
  206
  Much emphasis has been put on broadening the base of higher education entry. We want to encourage more students with the non-traditional academic background referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, gave an interesting example of what can be achieved. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, I look forward to the day when there is an equal proportion of men and women in the system. However, I must emphasise that already since 1979 we have moved from 40 per cent. to 44 per cent. We want further increases in mature student numbers-and we want to see more part-time students. We welcome the contribution made by many institutions to the needs of these students. My right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's review of student support is looking particularly at the question of support for part-time students of all types.
  As regards the specific question of Birkbeck College, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and others noted, has been raised before in your Lordships' House, I hope that the outcome of various current initiatives will enable the relevant authorities—the UGC, the University of London and the college itself—to reach fair decisions about its long-term organisation, role and funding. In the meantime, I hope that noble Lords are clear that the UGC allocation is to London University as a whole, which has received a proportionately greater share of the increased funds available for 1987–88. The university decides on the distribution to its constituent colleges.
  Finally on this subject, I stress the Government's view that there is no evidence that wider access should be at the expense of quality. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and other noble Lords, that successfully increasing access requires a collective effort on the part of all involved.
  The second strand to the Government's White Paper proposals is building on the success of the polytechnic and college sector, which has grown enormously in recent years and done excellent work. Legislation will be introduced to reward these mature institutions by a greater degree of independence. Polytechnics and other mainly higher education colleges in England will be removed from local authority control, thereby increasing their entrepreneurial spirit and facilitating greater links with industry and commerce. I believe it was my noble friend Lord Blake who particularly welcomed this recognition of polytechnics as national institutions. Funding will be provided through a new polytechnics and colleges funding council, and also to be brought under these new arrangements will be the valuable provision made by the voluntary and grant-aided colleges for the training of teachers and other degree work.
  Thirdly, the White Paper accepted the broad thrust of the recommendations of the Croham Report to replace the University Grants Committee with the smaller yet more effective universities funding council. That will include a strong element of people from outside the academic world.
  My noble friends Lord Blake and Lord Butterworth, together with the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, I believe, referred particularly to paragraph 4.40 of the White

  207
  Paper. I believe it was my noble friend Lord Butterworth who noted that it was unexceptionable as it stood. To help allay their fears, let me say that of course there will be provision for the UFC to advise the Government, although the decisions on levels of public funding must be for the Government alone.
  Perhaps I may also answer the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, concerning Goldsmiths' College by confirming that the proposals in the White Paper create no obstacles to the current discussions about Goldsmiths' College becoming a fully-fledged school of London University. Depending on the outcome of those discussions, Goldsmiths' will be funded via either the new UFC or the PCFC:
  The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, asked the Government to reconsider their decision on triennial funding. While I accept that there are arguments both ways for the reasons set out in paragraph 4.42 of the White Paper, the balance seems clearly to come down in favour of the rolling triennium that we have adopted.
  The detail of the proposals of the two new funding councils is further explored in consultative papers to be issued by the Department of Education and Science, in connection with which your Lordships' comments today will be welcomed. One of these consultative papers has already been issued covering the polytechnics and colleges. Two more, on the UFC and on the contracts, are in the pipeline. I believe these papers will help to answer many of the questions raised by your Lordships in the course of this debate.
  Concerning particularly the nature of contracts, let me say that the Government fully recognise that the sharper planning and accountability requirements that would be set up by the new contract-based arrangements must accommodate and respect the essential nature and purpose of our higher education institutions. The consultative document on the PCFC, which was published at the end of last month, will help to answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I will arrange for a copy to be sent to him. In particular it makes clear that it will be for the maintaining local education authority to decide whether the Writtle Agricultural College shall come under the PCFC arrangements.
  At the outset the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, argued that we should forge a new structure for the organisation of post-school education. I would argue that there is a general coherence in the Government's policies which overcomes the apparent fragmentation, and it may be that as things develop we shall find further ways of reducing that apparent fragmentation.
  I have not had time to deal with all the specific points that have been raised. Perhaps I should refer particularly to the points raised by my noble friends Lady Faithfull and Lord Butterworth on social work and training and medical and dental education respectively. Nor indeed have I been able to deal with the points put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, on university libraries. I am sure there are other points too, but, as I said at the outset, I shall study the record and follow up as appropriate.
  In conclusion, I feel that I should end on an optimistic note. Thanks to the hard work and
  208
  increasing co-operation of all those involved, there is much that is good in our post-school education. We aim to make it even better. The Government are confident that institutions will tackle the challenges they face vigorously and successfully. A wider section of the population can therefore expect to benefit from improved post-school education, to their own and the nation's advantage.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether she can very kindly clear up one point. In her reference to the projections P and Q I think she told us that the participation rate at the end of the century would be one in five. I rather think she said that the base from which the advance would be made was also one in five. I think in fact it is one in seven but I should be grateful if she would kindly confirm that for the record.
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. That is indeed the case.
  Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she really not tell us anything more about the nature of contract? After all, she has been pressed on this point from all round the House and it is of the greatest possible importance. She has really said nothing about it at all.
  Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I referred to the fact that the consultative document on contracts was in the pipeline. I think I can reassure the noble Baroness by saying that it is likely to be published within the very near future. As I said, that should meet the queries that have been raised.
  8.47 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have taken part in too many late night debates not to be well aware that nobody is more unpopular than the mover of a Motion of this sort who actually speaks at length at the end of the debate. All that I am required to do—which I do with a great deal of pleasure—is to thank all speakers who have taken part in the debate and to express my regret that so few of the excellent speeches have been on subjects other than higher education and in particular on the universities.
  I should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend for her first-class contribution to the debate. I know that she will be encouraged by the response she has had to speak on many other occasions. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for responding to many of the points which were implicit in the Motion but not taken up in the debate in a conscientious and clear way.
  I repeat my conviction that out policy for post-school education should he that of Napoleon's Grande Armee, that every foot soldier should have a field marshal's baton in his knapsack. We are a long way from that. There are many more things in the organisation of our educational institutions, as well as in government policy and in social policy, to be tackled before we achieve that objective. But with that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Bill
  8.49 p.m.
  Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  I hope to be able to explain that, although this is a short Bill, its brevity belies its real significance, since it aims to put members of the armed forces on a par with their fellow citizens in peacetime by allowing them or their dependants the right in future of access to the courts to sue for legal fault in cases of death, personal injury or illness attributable to their service. It seeks to do this by repealing Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947.
  I believe that the Bill is largely uncontroversial and has received a wide measure of support both in another place and in the country at large. Therefore I am glad to be given the opportunity to introduce it into your Lordships' House, since it seeks to remedy a discrimination which has become more and more evident over the years between member of the armed forces and their fellow citizens in civil life in seeking damages in cases of injury or death arising from the negligence of others. I trust that your Lordships will be able to give a fair wind to what I believe is a very commendable and popular measure and one which deserves our full and early support.
  Section 10 of the 1947 Crown Proceedings Act was originally enacted because members of the armed forces, by the very nature of their profession, were called upon to perform hazardous tasks which can go beyond anything likely to be encountered in normal civil employment. I quote the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, the then Attorney-General, during the Second Reading of the Crown Proceedings Bill in another place in July 1947:
  "it is necessary in the course of service training, in order to secure the efficiency of the Forces, to exercise them in the use of live ammunition, in flying in close formation and, in the Navy, in battle conditions with, perhaps, destroyers dashing about with lights out, and so on. These operations are highly dangerous and. if done by private citizens, would no doubt be extremely blameworthy".
  Parliament then accepted that it would not be right for service personnel, even in peacetime when it is often essential to push training to the limits of realism, and with risks which are similar to those encountered in actual operations, to be able to bring civil actions for negligence against each other. It was considered in the atmosphere of 1947 that to do so would run counter to the fundamental requirement for mutual trust, confidence and loyalty essential for an effective fighting force.
  Forty years have now passed. The general climate of public opinion in the whole field of civil and human rights has changed considerably since the legislation was enacted. There is less willingness in society to accept that the special circumstances of life in the armed forces justify depriving the servicemen or the servicewomen of the rights and benefits enjoyed by their fellow citizens, particularly in peacetime.
  I believe that this change of opinion goes in the right direction and that we should heed the message which society is sending us. Section 10 of the 1947 Crown Proceedings Act is now outdated and puts at a disadvantage a section of society in peacetime in a way
  210
  which does not apply to those of us who do not wear the serviceman's uniform.
  Section 10 is not a complete ban on legal action by servicemen, but in very broad terms it provides an absolute defence for the Crown, and for other servicemen, against actions alleging negligence brought by servicemen, or their next of kin, who are injured or killed in circumstances attributable to their service. Servicemen are, however, eligible for a no-fault system of payments under which they receive a special gratuity and pension when they leave the service. From the serviceman's point of view this means that at present he loses the prospect of seeking, through litigation, a lump sum award from a court, but instead, if he is entitled to an invalidity pension, he does not have to prove negligence, and the pension is payable irrespective of the presence of negligence, even if the negligence is his own. Furthermore, the pension is tax free; it is adjusted each year for inflation, and can be further increased if there is a deterioration in the serviceman's condition.
  Let us not forget that Section 10 was enacted four decades ago, and much of what was valid then is not so today. If I may refer once again to the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, during the Second Reading in another place of the original Bill in July 1947, he acknowledged that if a soldier who had been injured on duty remained in the service he would receive proper medical treatment and care, and if a soldier was invalided out of the service, or if he died, then he or his dependants would have pension rights. He then went on to say:
  "the capital value of the pension rights, in terms of money is, in general—I am not saying it is so in every case, because one cannot be certain in every case what damages will be awarded—as valuable as the probable damages which may be recoverable in an action at law if such an action lay".
  That is no longer the case. In recent years the tendency has been for courts to award steadily higher damages, and these have now risen to a level which can be considerably greater than the benefits which members of the armed forces might be eligible to receive. Furthermore, many civilians in similar circumstances can also obtain largely comparable benefits, but those civilians have the added advantage of being able to pursue in court a claim for civil damages against a wrongdoer. This is the anomaly which the Bill seeks to correct.
  The Bill seeks to repeal, from the date of its enactment, Section.10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, while retaining the power to reactivate the section in the event of actual or impending hostilities or at a time of great national emergency. I believe that there is general agreement that when servicemen are in battle they should not be able to sue one another for negligence; and so this provision to reactivate Section 10 in such circumstances, embodied in Clause 2 of the Bill, is clearly sensible.
  Clause 1 of the Bill states that the provisions of Section 10 will continue to have effect in relation to those wrongful acts or omissions giving rise to injury which were comitted before the date of enactment. In other words, the repeal of Section 10 will not be retrospective. There are several very good reasons for this. The first and perhaps most obvious one is because of the commonly-held principle that new legislation is

  211
  for the future and not for the past; it is prospective, not retrospective.
  Secondly, if repeal were to be made retrospective, then logically the Government would have to consider any claim arising since the enactment of the original legislation in 1947, as there is no logical cut-off point in time since then beyond which claims could not be accepted. Consider the injustices which would result if some cases could be brought to the attention of those responsible and argued coherently because witnesses and papers were still available and memories were still intact but many others could not.
  Thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, it would surely be wrong and unfair to impose retrospective legal liability upon a serviceman for his past actions, even though the individual may not in practice be financially at risk, because it would be the Ministry of Defence that would generally be sued, and in any event the department would stand behind him. Irrespective of whether the Crown as the employer has or accepts liability for the cost of settling claims or damages awarded against a serviceman by a court, and whether or not the individual was sued personally, it would still be necessary to turn back the legal clock because in most cases the liability of the department must depend first upon proof of the fault of the individual serviceman. That may be a point of law, but it is also a very important point of principle which argues strongly against making the repeal of Section 10 retrospective.
  I am aware that this issue of retrospection has generated much interest both in another place and also outside Parliament. I understand the very deep sincerity felt by those who believe that it is unjust to exclude from the provisions of this new Bill those who have been injured, or who have been tragically killed, as a result of incidents in the past and who will not therefore benefit from the repeal of Section 10. But I find compelling the arguments for not legislating retrospectively. I believe that we must avoid at all costs creating more injustices, more disappointment and more bitterness. As I have already mentioned, there is a system of automatic payments of disability and pension benefits for those who have been injured in the past and for the bereaved dependants of those tragically killed which ensures that they are not left without any form of financial assistance.
  Turning to the remaining clauses of the Bill, these are largely technical clauses dealing with consequential adaptations of existing enactments, with the financial and public service manpower implications and with interpretation and extent.
  In conclusion, I suggest that the time has now arrived when we should remove what has become an anomaly from the statute book and provide servicemen and servicewomen with the right of access to the courts in cases of death or personal injury sustained during the course of their employment, which is something that their fellow citizens have long enjoyed. I therefore commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a second—(Lord Gisborough.)
  9 p.m.
  Lord Meston: My Lords, I am sure that we should all like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, for the introduction of this important Bill and his careful explanation of it. Shortly after the Falklands war a friend of mine who served as a doctor in the Army Medical Services described to me the circumstances of three soldiers who were lying in adjacent beds in the hospital in Woolwich. One had been on duty in an open vehicle travelling along a road in Germany. An unlit French tank came in the opposite direction with its barrel pointing to the side into the roadway rather than straight ahead. The barrel caught the British soldier whose neck was broken and who was rendered tetraplegic. That soldier would receive a disability pension and what I think is still called the war pension but would have no lump sum.
  The second soldier had been seriously wounded in the Falklands. He would receive a lump sum out of the funds subscribed at the time by the very great generosity of the public but he would have no clear idea of how the sum was calculated. The soldier in the third bed had been wounded in Northern Ireland. As I understand it, he would have received payment under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. So, there were three soldiers who all had injuries and impairments that were attributable to military service, each of whom would be receiving different sums on different bases from different funds.
  It is trite, but I think quite fair, to say that a serviceman has no choice about the precise circumstances in which he is injured. Those disparities unfortunately will not be removed by this Bill. But if there had been a fourth soldier in a fourth bed who had had the wrong leg amputated by the carelessness of my friend—who, I hasten to say, is a very careful doctor—as the law stands he would have no redress at all. Meanwhile, if next door in a civilian hospital there had been people who had been injured in road or industrial accidents, they would be able to claim a full range of damages for their injuries and their financial losses. Those civilians might be policemen, prison officers or firemen who had been injured in the course of their duties. In short, the case for the repeal of Section 10 is obvious.
  I should like to congratulate those responsible for its promotion. It is a valuable piece of reform and entitled to all-party support. If one looks back to the debates that took place on the 1947 Act before it became law, as the noble Lord has just done, it was then considered almost unthinkable that servicemen should have a right of action for negligence. It was also argued, as the noble Lord told us, that they would receive compensation ex gratia or pensions roughly equivalent to common law damages. Since then, as he has told us, the measure of damages recoverable at law has become not only more sophisticated but substantially more generous. In itself that must be another good reason for equating the position of the serviceman with his civilian counterpart.
  We are all aware of the pressure that has been imposed to make this Bill retroactive. The noble Lord has dealt with the arguments. To me there seem to be at least two problems. First, as he told your Lordships, Parliament is naturally reluctant to make legislation retroactive, particularly in this kind of case, if it would

  213
  impose a liability for acts and omissions committed up to 40 years ago. Secondly, one suspects that there is a practical problem in that to amend the Bill at this stage in this Parliament would be to lose it altogether.
  However, the existing victims of negligence and worse have a strong moral claim. In some respects it is even stronger if Section 10 is to go. The honourable Member in another place who promoted this Bill suggested the establishment of a fund to compensate past victims of negligence and worse than negligence. As I say, that should now be seriously considered. Those who are exposed to risk in working for the state have a strong claim to be compensated by the state for injury.
  Finally, one cannot overlook the fact that, as the Explanatory Memorandum states, there will be financial and public service manpower effects from the Bill. I suspect that it will impose a considerable extra burden on the Treasury Solicitor's department. At this stage it is entirely appropriate to say that all government departments are very well served by the Treasury Solicitor's department. The skilful and careful way in which that department deals with claims is an object lesson to many lawyers in private practice.
  Unless and until we have in this country a system of no fault liability, as has been said, compensation for personal injuries is and will be a lottery. If it does nothing else, this Bill allows the servicemen and servicewomen of this country an equal place in that lottery.
  9.6 p.m.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am sorry for not having put down my name to speak in the debate. I had no intention originally of speaking but there is one small point on which I am not entirely clear and perhaps when my noble friend answers at the end of the debate he can clarify it for me.
  It is absolutely essential that our forces are properly trained. Should there be an accident, are servicemen responsible for training others likely to be personally liable or will the services pay the claims? If they are to be personally liable, they will need to be properly insured and a proper scheme will need to be brought out. If they are going to be personally liable they may be frightened to make the training realistic and we could end up with poorly trained services.
  9.8 p.m.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I shall begin by saying how very much I appreciate the manner in which the Bill has been presented to your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. We are very indebted to the Government for their recently announced decision to promote something along the lines of this Bill and to amend Section 10 of the 1947 Act. We are also entitled to place on record our appreciation to the honourable Member for Davyhulme, Mr. Winston Churchill. When one follows these matters one appreciates the care and sympathy that he displayed in another place. He certainly deserves our congratulations.
  I also remind the House that I am no stranger to this issue. In your Lordships' House on Monday, 19th
  214
  May, I attempted in the Committee stage of the Armed Forces Bill to introduce exactly that matter about which we are talking tonight. I appreciated at the time, on advice from the Table, that perhaps it was not strictly in order to do so, but the generosity of your Lordships' House on that day allowed a debate to take place. It was in that debate that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said in Hansard, at col. 14 on 19th May, that a review was taking place, the outcome of which we are debating tonight.
  We are trying to redress grievances. There can he no greater grievance than that of any person who believes that as a class of person he is being treated differently from another class of person. One of the arguments that has been put forward has still not been answered; that is, that there are classes of public servants, such as firemen and policemen, who have the right to sue in court, despite the way in which their terms of pay and conditions allow them to receive compensation. The Bill seeks to make sure that the serviceman who has been injured and the relatives of a serviceman who may have been tragically killed will, if they are 'not satisfied, have recourse to the courts in order to get their grievance put right. That is a proper principle.
  The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, quite properly drew our attention to the words of a former Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, who said in 1947:
  "It is necessary in the course of service training, in order to secure the efficiency of the forces, to exercise them in the use of live ammunition.".
  It is a strange coincidence, but on 6th May 1944—that is, one month before D-Day—I took part in a live ammunition exercise in preparation for D-Day. A terrible accident happened in which two of my colleagues were killed and I finished up on the side of Llanberis at the foot of Snowdon with my guts in my hands. I had been shot through the back with a Bren gun. That was a terrible accident and it certainly took me out of the major action on D-Day. That accident in peacetime would have merited anyone, let alone myself, considering that he had a grievance. Yet, without the amendment to the Bill, that grievance could not be pursued. At least the Bill, as it is at present constituted, will provide a serviceman who, in the light of the need to be adequately trained and properly aware of the dangers of battle has a terrible accident in training, with the right to sue.
  Of course he will not sue another serviceman. I do not accept that difficulties arise of a serviceman suing another serviceman. He does not sue the Crown. but the Crown pays. One cannot sue the Crown in the court because the courts are the Crown courts. However, as has been said in another place and in your Lordships' House, the Ministry of Defence stands behind any serviceman who may be the person who has to be sued for negligence. When the compensation is allocated, it is not the individual who pays; it is the Crown. That was said in precise terms by my right honourable friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, Mr. Jack Ashley.
  What I find unacceptable is that the whole raison d'etre of what we are talking about relates not to the future but to the terrible tragedies of the past. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, asked: where does one draw the line? It is difficult. The line was drawn

  215
  precisely in an amendment moved by my honourable friend Jack Ashley in another place at the date when the 1947 Crown Proceedings Act came into being. I know that there will always be problems about having the right to prove a case, papers not being available, witnesses who cannot be found and people who have died. But if the House is looking for a better solution than starting on 8th December 1986, the solution was provided in that amendment.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Meston, whose speech I appreciated, I do not see any easy outcome. It is not black and white. But I have the memory of what I have just told the House was my own experience, and I certainly think that the Minister and his friends are entitled to reflect very seriously indeed before they say—and I hope they do not say it tonight, because we have not yet reached the Committee stage of the Bill—that they are not prepared even now to amend the Bill.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, pointed out, things have moved on in the last 40 years. Who would have foreseen the easements in Crown immunity which are coming about? Crown immunity has been removed from hospital kitchens. I see the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, in his place. He had a great deal to say about that. Such matters were more or less unable to be debated and were unheard of. We now have the question of Crown immunity in the case of our prisons. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will be much better equipped by his previous incarnation than any of us to know about the state of the interior of our prisons. So we are now in a good situation where matters are being eased.
  I may be asked: can you not be satisfied with what has been offered? I can be satisfied, but I should like to get a little more. Having met the Section 10 group, their terrible cases are etched on my mind and I ask the Minister and his advisers to think hard even now. I believe that they will benefit the House and a great many of those outside if they give us some assurance.
  I do not have a great deal more to say. There is no dispute that many good things are being done. The Bill should receive a speedy passage, but it can be improved. If I am asked about the cost and about retrospection, I would say that this Government do not hesitate to legislate retrospectively on issues from which they believe they will profit. There are Bills of a local government nature going through the House at this moment which take retrospective action. Do not raise the principle of retrospection. It happens very rarely. It does not happen easily or lightly, but it can be done. I believe that it should be done for the tragic individuals and their families who have suffered not by their own negligence but by the oversight of members of the armed forces. I give the Bill a very warm welcome, but I say to the House that the opportunity will be presented to it to make it a better Bill than it is at the moment.
  9.18 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Gisborough on the very clear way he has introduced this Bill and to thank him
  216
  for sponsoring in your Lordships' House such a worthy measure which was piloted so ably in another place. Let me confirm immediately that the Government support the Bill wholeheartedly and hope that it might secure a very swift passage into law.
  The whole question of the way in which Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 has operated broadly to prevent actions alleging negligence being brought by servicemen or their next of kin, who are injured or killed in circumstances attributable to their service, has been the subject of intense interest and debate inside Parliament and outside for a considerable time. The Government are conscious of the strength of feelings expressed—and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has given personal experience to illuminate this—by those who have believed that the law should be changed. That is why we set up in October 1983 an inter-departmental working group to review the operation and effects of Section 10. That review was a major task. It was necessary to approach the problem most carefully and objectively so as to ensure a proper examination of the complex legal and administrative issues involved and then analyse the options which were identified.
  As my noble friend Lord Trefgarne told your Lordships when we debated the Armed Forces Bill a year ago, the Government were anxious that we should not be rushed into the wrong solutions by calls to speed up this very comprehensive inquiry. That is why it took a little time to arrive at a reasoned and balanced conclusion. That conclusion was announced on 8th December last year by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. He confirmed the Government's decision to repeal Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. I am glad to say that the general response to that decision has been overwhelmingly favourable.
  This Bill, which was introduced to give effect to the Government's proposals, has received a wide measure of all-party support in another place. It will also be welcomed, I am quite sure, by those members of our armed forces who will in future benefit from its provisions, because as my noble friend so rightly said, the Bill seeks to provide servicemen and servicewomen with the same right of access to the courts to sue for damages for death or personal injury suffered in the course of their employment in peacetime as their fellow citizens have long enjoyed.
  Having heard Lord Meston's remarks I think that those of us who have served in the armed forces will be able to produce further examples similar to those which he gave. He suggested that it may be possible to set up a fund. I am not convinced that that would be the right way to proceed. Claims would have to be considered on an ex gratia basis, if that course were to be adopted. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence explained in December last year why legislation to repeal Section 10 could not be retrospective, and I shall return to that point later. There would also be serious practical difficulties attached to the introduction of an ex-gratia scheme for past cases. In the circumstances in which Section 10 applies, servicemen have never been able to sue the Crown for personal injury, although before the 1947

  217
  Act they could sue each other. There would therefore be no logical cut-off point for considering claims and wherever a line was drawn there would always be some cases which fell on the wrong side. Furthermore, some past cases would be impossible to assess because the necessary documentation, evidence and witnesses would no longer be available.
  That is why I think that the proper way to proceed is through modification and amendment to the existing system of benefits, and we shall ensure that that is done. As the noble Lord quoted the example of a service doctor perhaps amputating the wrong leg, I can say that where a serviceman believes that he has suffered injury as a result of negligence by another serviceman in the execution of his duties, he is now able to pursue a civil claim for damages. As regards the question of whether a serviceman is able to sue a service doctor for medical negligence, the answer is yes. Moreover, what I have just said in relation to the question of the serviceman now being able to sue senior officers also applies because in most cases the doctor would be the senior officer, so the two are tied together.
  My noble friend Lord Swinfen was concerned that a soldier may be personally liable. Generally speaking, the case would be brought against the Ministry of Defence. A serviceman would not be financially at risk because if he was sued the Ministry of Defence would stand behind him. I think that provides the assurance which my noble friend was seeking.
  My noble friend Lord Gisborough referred in his opening speech to the issue of retrospection of the Bill's provisions, and explained why the repeal of Section 10 cannot be made retrospective. That is the point which of course was taken up in large part by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I have little to add to what my noble friend said on this matter as he explained the arguments against retrospection cogently and persuasively.
  While I have listened, with considerable sympathy, to the noble Lord who has argued that we should legislate somehow to turn back the legal clock, to use my noble friend's words, and extend the provisions of the Bill to those, or their next of kin, who have been sadly injured or disabled, or even tragically killed, as a result of accidents in the past, I have to say that this just is not possible. As my noble friend Lord Gisborough has pointed out, it would be both wrong and unfair to impose the burden of legal liability retrospectively upon the shoulders of a serviceman for acts he may have committed in the past, irrespective of whether the Government as his employer stand behind him and pay the cost of any damages awarded against him. But to make this sort of legislation retrospective would, I suggest, create many new examples of unfairness and injustice, since the Ministry of Defence and ultimately the courts would be unable to assess properly where liability might lie, and the right level of damages to award, in those old cases where the necessary evidence is no longer available, and where peoples' memories of events have faded.
  But there is already a satisfactory system in being to ensure that those unfortunate ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen who have been injured in the past, and
  218
  the dependants of those killed, are not left without any financial assistance; and my noble friend has mentioned the benefits which are payable on a no-fault basis to those who are eligible. I would suggest that these benefits payable under the armed forces pension scheme, taken in conjunction with the provisions available under the war pensions scheme of the Department of Health and Social Security, are fair and adequate; and this system of benefits will continue, so providing financial assistance where it is needed. That is why, while understanding the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, there are enormous practical difficulties to doing what he suggests.
  It is perhaps also worthwhile reminding the House that, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence confirmed in his announcement on 8th December last year, special arrangements are being made with regard to claims resulting from accidents which occur between the date of the announcement last December and the date of enactment of this new legislation. Assuming they meet the necessary criteria, such claims for compensation, which would be accepted but for the continued operation of Section 10, are now being considered by the Ministry of Defence and dealt with on an ex gratia basis, although settlement of claims will be deferred until after enactment of the Bill. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who referred to the Treasury Solicitor and to the Ministry of Defence claims department.
  In conclusion, my Lords, I believe that the change in the law which this Bill seeks to introduce should be welcomed as a remedy to a situation which keeps the members of our armed forces at a disadvantage when compared with their fellow citizens. The review of the operation and effects of Section 10, which I mentioned earlier, pointed out certain anomalies which the Government recognised had to be tackled, and our conclusion is that the repeal of Section 10 is the only really satisfactory way to remove those anomalies. The measures sought by the Bill introduced by my noble friend will be warmly welcomed by the armed forces, and have already won the support of those in another place. I wish the Bill a safe and speedy passage onto the statute book.
  9.29 p.m.
  Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the Bill's sponsor, as he has been thanked by many others, the Member for Davyhulme Mr. Winston Churchill, who gained a wide measure of support in another place for this Bill which he initiated. He effectively argued against many seductive suggestions for retrospection. I am grateful to the Government for their offer of ex-gratia payments back to December of last year. The Bill has been steered through unamended. I hope that it will be possible for it to be on the statute book in this Parliament.
  I should like also to congratulate members of STAG—the Section 10 Abolition Group—who successfully campaigned for a long time for this measure. Their persistent pressure on the Government

  219
  eventually, like water dripping on stone, had its effect and the Government agreed to this Bill. It is sad that so many of those STAG members who worked so hard will not be able to benefit from it.
  220
  I thank the Minister for his support and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
  On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  Broadcasting: EC Quota Proposal
  9.30 p.m.
  Viscount Torrington Viscount Torrington rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in accordance with the recommendation of the 4th Report of the European Communities Committee (HL 67) they will oppose the inclusion in the draft EC directive on broadcasting (6739/86 COR 1) of quotas for television broadcasting time to be reserved for EC productions and for independent productions.
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am conscious that the hour is late, and in introducing this short debate I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible. I am encouraged in that endeavour in that I see on the list of speakers a number of fairly senior members of the television industry.
  The Question is of course something of a Trojan horse since it serves to introduce to the House the report of the EC Committee on European broadcasting. Your Lordships may recall that last year the House debated a previous report entitled Television Without Frontiers. The starting point of that report was a Green Paper produced by the EC Commission which set out to examine the entire structure of television broadcasting in Europe and proceeded to arrive, by a process of navel contemplation, at the conclusion that legislative action was needed in five main areas to harmonise national regulations and to allow the free cross-frontier flow of television broadcasting within the member states. The five areas were: common advertising standards, the maximum content of advertising within a programming hour, the subject of copyright, the right of reply and the protection of minors.
  Your Lordships may recall that the committee came. to the conclusion that Community competence in the broadcasting field, and the need for Community action therein, was far from clearly demonstrated. In fact, the committee stated in paragraph 39 of its earlier report:
  "While there are aspects … to which the Treaty provisions clearly apply, there are other areas, for example, the composition of programmes, where the arguments against the application of the Treaty seem to the committee to be much stronger".
  That quotation brings me rather neatly to the essential difference between the recommendations of the Commission's Green Paper and the proposed directive.
  The quotation to which I have referred could be translated into rather less parliamentary language by saying, "No EC interference in editorial freedom". To be fair to the Commission, the Green Paper contained no real attempt to suggest such interference, but the draft directive cannot escape that charge. To be exact, it introduces a totally new concept; namely, two types of quotas. The first requires broadcasters to use a certain minimum amount of works of Community origin and the second requires them to utilise a minimum quantity of works by independent producers within the Community. I do not for a moment suggest that these concepts are universally unwelcome, but they pose a number of problems and raise some serious points of principle.
  The Commission's avowed aim is to remove restrictions which either have hindered or may in the future hinder the cross-frontier flow of television broadcasting; in other words, to take action in the name of liberalisation. It therefore seems somewhat regrettable that what is intended to be a piece of liberalising legislation should contain some fairly restrictive components. The other side of the coin is that a minimum quantity of EC-origin material means a maximum quantity of non-EC material; and a minimum amount of independent material means a maximum amount of non-independent material—whatever that may be. It creates a problem in itself because the BBC would probably describe itself as the world's largest independent producer.
  Of course the dirigistes in Europe will shout, "Great, wunderbar, d'accord; of course we must ration American soap to the masses so that our own industry will not perish under a blanket of transatlantic suds". However, such protectionism is getting perilously close to editorial interference. As the committee's report implies in its conclusions, the aim may be laudable but a rigid framework could well be undesirable. It would apparently apply to all channels, even if under the same management, which in this country would perhaps require a fundamental rethinking of the relative roles of the two independent channels and indeed the two BBC channels.
  In practice, the BBC uses some 85 per cent. of material defined to be of Community origin in its programming—far higher than the proposed quotas. The cynics might suggest that if the BBC did not have a self-imposed quota somebody would impose it on it. But this is all part of the principle of self-regulation and indeed self-discipline.
  Where discipline might prove to be more lax is among the new commercial satellite channels aiming for market share by any means possible. It is here that the committee felt that the general provisions of the EC's draft directive might have more relevance than being applied primarily to national broadcasting channels such as the BBC and IBA.
  There are several other changes of emphasis between the Green Paper and the draft directive on which the committee has commented in its report. I shall not detain your Lordships by going through the entire catalogue in turn. Those noble Lords who are interested in the subject will have read the report and the Government will no doubt have taken some note of its conclusions.
  I shall therefore mention only one further aspect. The Commission has widened the scope of the directive to include sound broadcasting, which, except for a little man-made interference in the East, has so far as I know been crossing international frontiers in Europe for something like 80 years without any problems. I submit that no EC directive, or the absence of one, will alter the position very much. Is it therefore worth the legislative time to mess about in that area?
  However, the Commission tries to come up with a new definition of broadcasting which tries to cover all

  223
  transmissions ultimately intended for public consumption. I have a certain amount of sympathy with this aim, but the proposed definition conflicts with the accepted international telecommunications union definition. Low power satellites, for example, transmit primarily to cable companies. Accordingly what they transmit is at present defined as a telecommunication although what is actually "telecommunicated" is a broadcast by any other name. Clearly this is something of a nonsense and an area which in due course will have to be sorted out.
  I finally return to the question of quotas. It is clearly desirable that we should have, as we do now in Britain, a strong television broadcasting sector catering to all tastes and shades of opinion and not dependent merely on ratings, which tend to require the lowest common denominator to produce the highest ratings. I recently heard a friend remarking—I have not watched this programme—that the French serial "Chateauvallon" was, in his words, jolly good in the original French but ludicrous in its dubbed version.
  It is Europe's misfortune, at least in the broadcasting arena, that we are blessed with a diversity of languages which makes the mass marketing of audio-visual material more difficult on this continent than on the continent to the west of us. Both the linguistic and cultural diversity will long mean that production costs in relation to market size in Europe will be higher than in the United States, although we in Britain may have a small edge in having a common language with the United States. However, let us resist the urge for protectionism if we can, at least until it is proved that there is a need for it.
  9.39 p.m.
  Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Torrington for introducing this Unstarred Question and giving us the chance to make brief observations on the draft directive. I am happy on this occasion to be able to congratulate the Government. So often one finds that on a subject about which one is deeply concerned one is not supporting the Government of which I am a BackBencher. However, on this occasion they are doing very well in dealing with the problem of the draft directive and the quotas.
  First, I must declare an interest, as I should when talking about anything connected with television. I am chairman of Anglia Television in the East of England.
  The Minister, David Mellor, made it clear in a debate in the other place on 20th January that the Government are opposed to quotas being reserved for EC productions and for independent productions. He spoke very strongly, and provided he lives up to his robust professions of intent the Government should certainly be congratulated on the soundness of their arguments and their stance. He rightly talked (at col. 842 of the Official Report) about the dangers of the Commission:
  "bringing to bear on sensitive issues like broadcasting the same skills used in the manufacture of pork sausages".
  224
  For the Minister to clarify the issues so lucidly is certainly encouraging in view of the pre-eminence in the world of British television. He also made it clear (at col. 843) that whereas the Community may have competence to deal with:
  "matters that pertain to economic and industrial aspects, [such competence] does not relate to the broader aspects of cultural and other matters in broadcasting".
  So far so good. That is fine and the Government are absolutely right to fight for these principles and to defend British standards. Although I admit the Minister in another place seemed somewhat less than confident of the outcome over the directive, we must applaud his endeavours and the fact that the Government have declared themselves against quotas in principle.
  That being the case and the principle being vital in the national interest, one must trust that the Government will not weaken their position by continuing to talk and think about quotas for independent productions at home. That would simply pull the rug from under the British negotiating position in Brussels and make any Minister who seeks to oppose quotas there look extremely foolish and even two-faced.
  In view of the robust position taken on quotas in Europe one must conclude that the Government's stance will be consistent and equally robust at home, otherwise the Minister may have given away the position in Europe almost before he starts. It would be wrong to argue that these two situations are different or that the second—that is to say, the quota question at home—is not a vital part of this debate. One cannot say that pork sausages are not pork sausages simply because you are standing in a different place.
  The Minister in the debate on 20th January made the following observations, if I may quote them because they are extremely relevant to the debate that my noble friend has introduced. David Mellor said:
  "There is certainly no case for fixed quotas imposed on everyone from Brussels".
  Secondly;
  "we cannot agree to quotas being established directly by officials, for example, in the Commission who believe that this is just an extension of the regulations on the contents of some agricultural product".
  And finally he said:
  "We are back in the sausage meat regime that I have already regretted".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/1/87; cols. 846–848.]
  This sound position, articulated with such clarity, would surely fall apart in Brussels if the Government tried to face in the opposite direction at home. Officials are the same sort of people where programme origination is concerned whether they are in Brussels or in Whitehall. We must assume that the Government will not be two-faced therefore and will not continue to talk about quotas at home in the same breath as opposing them in Europe. If unfortunately they did they would be implying that Ministers and Whitehall officials know better what the audience and the nation want and expect than the BBC, the IBA, the ITV companies or Channel 4.
  The Government therefore will be in a weak position on quotas when arguing the case in Brussels unless they are consistent and honest with principles. If they lose this vital argument in Brussels it would or

  225
  could be through lack of plausibility and credibility. Other countries will not accept that our Ministers believe what they say, especially when at one point the Home Office was pressing for a 25 per cent. quota at home for independents but resisting a 5 per cent. quota in Europe. The situation was grotesque. How can one possibly reconcile these two positions?
  Of course the Government need not worry about the problem or their position on independent producers. Having swallowed the very successful independents' lobby hook, line and sinker, and having made up their mind on the independents issue before comprehending all the implications—in other words, the Home Office at that stage seemed to be asking "how?", long before it ever asked "why?"—the broadcasting services do not intend to embarrass the Government and prefer to massage their neck, sticking out though it may be.
  Provided the freedom of broadcasting and scheduling is maintained in the interests of merit and for the benefit of the national audience, and not for,
  "some daft and rigid quota system".
  as it was described in a debate in another place, the independents will have a reasonable proportion of air time, provided their productions are good enough for the public. Will my noble friend please confirm that the Government are not saying that the public will have a quota of programmes imposed on them whether they like it or not and whatever the merit or quality of the productions? That is the danger of the quota. Will he be clear please on this vital point, because this is hardly the moment to be telling the electorate that Ministers or officials in Whitehall will in future be deciding what people should view and where the programmes should come from?
  There is often the danger that the long-term implications of direct government interference in something like programme scheduling is not fully comprehended. That was certainly the case, or it seemed to me to be so, when the Home Office was arguing for quotas. In order to appreciate the implications one has only to picture a change of government, with thereafter perhaps an extreme Right-wing or an extreme Left-wing regime, and recognise what could be done by manipulation of the quota system. There would be a straightforward opportunity provided on a plate for every form of political skulduggery in the exposure of material—and not only in exposure of material but also in its suppression. There is a clear threat to the traditional independence from political control and I cannot believe that this Government would want to risk that. But that is the real threat in any quota system.
  The independents can be satisfied, if they have merit, by being afforded across the services a fair proportion of air time. That is the appropriate phrase —"a fair proportion". That is surely reasonable and a statesmanlike position by the broadcasting services. Independents have suddenly, post-Peacock, emerged as crusading knights in shining armour, whereas in fact they are perfectly responsible and genuine people. Many independents and many independent companies are simply producers who have not fought for and won a television franchise.
  Finally, will the Minister please tell us, if he can, what the Government will do if, regrettably, they fail
  226
  to prevail upon the Commission over this draft directive and, for example, are outvoted on the quota question? Although the debate has been going on for months there has been no indication of what will happen in that unfortunate event.
  I should like once again to thank my noble friend Lord Torrington and also to congratulate the Government on their strong stance on quotas in Europe. I merely implore them not to make their position more difficult, if not ridiculous, by blatant and unprincipled inconsistency at home.
  9.48 p.m.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, with your permission and approval, I intend to make the shortest speech of this debate. I begin by declaring an interest of a direct association with the trade union ACTT, which I think the House will appreciate has something valuable to say in a debate of this kind.
  I do not wish to go down the road of the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, whose position I respect and whose views I listened to with great attention. I believe that he painted a grotesque picture of consequences. The quota—the 86 per cent.—is the bedrock of the agreement on television with the IBA and the BBC. If what we are to argue about is deregulation or regulation, that would be a sad situation. What we are interested in is surely to assist the Government better to understand that some vital interests are at stake. One can take the view that there are other people —those who make money and who have goods to sell—whose interests are of prime concern.
  At the conclusion of this short speech, I come to some of the consequences of the Government taking insufficient care to ensure that our home product is protected. There may be those in the House and outside who say there should be no protection. I remember when we debated the Cable Bill, as some other noble Lords present may remember. I remember when we debated the Films Bill, as some other noble Lords present may remember. The whole House was very concerned on those occasions. There were deep divisions and debate about protecting the quality and standard of what the whole world knows is the product —yes, of members of the ACTT, but of many others too, British craftsmen with British skills. It is no exaggeration to say that it is cheaper to import foreign products than to make one's own, not least in this respect.
  Reference—one might say that it was a smear—has been made to the fear of being faced with the heavy use of American produce, particularly by satellite. We know the size of the American market. It is not an improper fear for trade union workers to say, "What about us?". They are not wholly protected. They say not that there should be massive quotas but that the Government should take on board that, unless they fight for some protection, there will be a dilemma.
  The Minister's noble friend argues that the Government should stick to their guns. I understand the reference. This Government—and the next government, whether of the Minister's persuasion or of mine—will be able fully to protect what is precious, an industry, technicians and craftsmen with skills of which we are all proud. We must have an adequate

  227
  regulatory structure and framework with a strong minimum EC quota and content. I am not prepared to leave it to what noble Lords may say is the will or whim of the market place. Let us judge by experience.
  The Minister and his colleagues are going to another place to argue the case. I hope that they will look after the interests of Britain and of British workmen and the high achievements of the British film-making industry over the years.
  I remind the House of a Question that I asked last week about the potential sale of the film library of Thorn-EMI, Movietone, involving Cannon. Twelve months ago, when this was a current issue, we advised the Minister to take care what happened to this element of our cultural heritage, the library. The Minister said that all such matters would be taken into account. We find now that an American interest is on the verge of buying, if it has not already bought, the library. How will it be used? How will it be abused? If it is taken away from British control the only considerations will be commerce or money, to the detriment of British interests.
  I hope that the Minister will not be galvanised into taking the advice from those in the House who say that there is a stark choice between regulation and deregulation. I am prepared to leave the Government the advice that they are given from many sources, that the best interests of the British people, British industry and British craftsmen must be somewhere between the two.
  Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, forgive me if I respond by saying that I said nothing against independent producers or their productions getting on to the services? I am simply against quotas being fixed by government. I think it should be left to bodies like the BBC and the IBA to settle.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful. If the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, is saying that he is in favour of quotas provided they are not fixed by the Government, that is a major change. I thought that the noble Lord was saying that he was against quotas, but if there is a mechanism which will fix quotas not by civil servants or by the Minister but by some other means, that to me is a major achievement.
  Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, the offending word is "quotas". Arrangements can be made by the services.
  9.56 p.m.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, at this late hour I shall not keep your Lordships very long. There are one or two things that must be said about the report of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, a name which rings a chord in my memory and for which I am grateful. I am also grateful for the labours that they undertook, and that the noble Viscount has taken this opportunity this evening to give us a further opportunity to discuss the report.
  There are a variety of points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, and by the noble Lord,
  228
  Lord Graham of Edmonton, which will come up in the course of what I have to say. I can only say at this stage that I read the report with great care and interest. I share the general view of the BBC and the IBA, and the evidence they gave under cross-examination, that the proposals by the European Community are, in general, undesirable, and I suspect will prove to be—and I shall come to this later—ineffective.
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, that in particular the introduction of radio in the second of their reports was a somewhat gratuitous intervention, if I may put it in that way. There was no place in the previous paper on broadcasting across frontiers for radio. Radio is a different medium from television. It has a long and splendid history of broadcasting across frontiers. What indeed were the BBC's external services invented for? I may add, where would the world be had it not been for the BBC's external services? That reference seems to me to be a gratuitous and unnecessary irrelevancy in their report.
  Then there is the matter of quotas, which the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, emphasised—and rightly emphasised. In response to the report, the IBA and the BBC sang the same tune in what I think used to be called close harmony. It was a cosy tune. They did not like quotas, although they both operate quotas. The figure in the report is 14 per cent. There is no question that there are quotas; but they are what are called informal quotas. Informal quotas are somehow more ethically respectable than formal quotas. That is a nice point and one that one could discuss with doctors of divinity.
  Quotas were an interference with editorial freedom. Maybe, my Lords. They were not frightened by the 60 per cent. quota because they produced 86 per cent., or 85 per cent. of home-produced wares. Quotas would produce some problems in scheduling. They would not be insuperable problems, but there would be some problems. They might require legislation in the case of the BBC on the question of its promotion trailers. Why exclude news, sport, events and game shows? Why indeed, my Lords. I have no conceivable idea why this exclusion should have been included.
  I must admit, having read all this material from the BBC and the IBA (for whom I have great affection and respect), that I felt that it was shadow boxing. After all, the European Community directive is aimed against the United States television industry. That is what it is talking about. The small countries, Norway, Austria, and so on, are frightened (and I do not blame them) of being overwhelmed by products from the United States which are in effect dumped by the United States in European markets. I should like to take this up with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I am sorry that the report did not pay more attention to what is dumping. The United States produce "Miami Vice", "Dallas", "Dynasty" or whatever it may be. The overheads are written off in the United States and any sale elsewhere is net profit. In effect we are faced with not so much cultural imperialism as simple dumping. That is something to which I think we ought to pay attention and to which we have a right to pay attention, as we have in dumping in any other area.
  It must be accepted that the EC directive is a measure of protection designed to encourage the European TV industry. I admit that I regard this as an

  229
  area where we should tread extremely carefully. Characteristically, and I think rightly, the BBC said that TV was a cultural rather than an economic activity. That is a very rare view to maintain, but at present—and God knows what it will be in the future! —it happens still to be true of it. However, if economic protectionism is dangerous, I believe that cultural protectionism is even more dangerous. I believe that the free flow of ideas, the free flow of programmes, the free flow of plays, drama and films across frontiers is something that we should protect, in a different sense of that word, with the utmost care. In this respect, quotas are in effect a kind of censorship. That is something we should watch carefully before we introduce it by the back door.
  Is it not possibly the case that the EC directive has been overtaken by events? I do not pretend to be an expert in this matter and I think that in what I am about to say I am asking questions rather than giving replies. In reading the evidence in the Select Committee's report, it seemed to me that the crux of the matter was reached in the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, given on 13th November. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, is familiar with DBS—I believe that Anglia Television is part of BSB and is one of the consortia which has the BSB contract. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said that on DBS there is a real problem. The IBA were then advertising a DBS contract. The noble Lord went on to say:
  "That will be an entirely private sector operation, unlike those in France, Germany and most other countries".
  I ask the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, whether he will address himself to this question: am I right in thinking that unlike France, Germany and elsewhere our Government will have no control, or very little, over what BSB broadcasts? That is a rather essential question in connection with this debate. I add that BSB, like most of the applicants, according to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, will have an almost all film channel. The noble Lord, Lord Kearton —who I regret is not present tonight—then put his finger on the crucial question, He said:
  "if programmes do not exist to fill the DBS, except imports from the US, is it a prime necessity that we should have DBS?"
  This put the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, in some difficulty—I have told him that I was going to speak about this. He said, and I quote from page 17, paragraph 34:
  "It is not.…primarily a, decision for the IBA, it is a decision which has been taken by the Government, supported by Parliament. Having taken it, it would be better to make a success of it rather than a failure. This will be the third time the United Kingdom has sought to get into the DBS arena. There is going to be an added dimension of broadcasting in the decades which are ahead. Given the decision to do it we had better make sure it succeeds."
  That means the all-film channel in effect will be 80 per cent. American films, many of them presumably supplied by Fox, which is Sky, which is Mr. Rupert Murdoch—and so we go round and round. There is another DBS in France and another DBS in Germany. I think, although I may be wrong, that there is also one in Ireland.
  All these will have to fill their programmes and all of them will probably turn to the same kind of sources. What therefore will be the control of the EC directive on DBS programming? It seems to me that the EC
  230
  directive is a kind of Maginot Line which has already been outflanked by a Schlieffen plan of modern tehnology.
  I comprehend the response of the British broadcasting authorities, the IBA and the BBC. I agree with the Question of the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, but I would ask: is it relevant, given that DBS represents broadcasting across frontiers which is absolutely beyond the control of the European Community?
  10.8 p.m.
  Viscount Chilston: My Lords, the first of these two new proposals to impose a minimum quota for European programming should, on the face of it, benefit Europe and arguably Britain in particular; while the second, to impose a minimum quota for independently-produced programmes, should be of huge financial benefit to the rapidly growing numbers of independent production houses in Europe and in this case particularly in Britain. At this stage I should declare an interest. Apart from being British and a committed European I am, as it happens, an independent producer—or perhaps, as my noble friend Lord Buxton suggested, a crusading knight in shining armour.
  A 30 per cent. content of European material in our television programming is very much a minimum requirement and even when it is doubled to the proposed 60 per cent. in three years' time it will be substantially less than the 86 per cent. currently broadcast by the ITV companies. In the case of the BBC, as my noble friend Lord Torrington pointed out, 85 per cent. of their material is European but it is not just European: it is British and nearly all of it is produced almost entirely in-house by the corporation.
  If we accept that the current mix of United Kingdom broadcasting is about right, do we then suggest that the EC should impose an even higher quota, or do we simply regard it as yet another piece of unnecessary European legislation and ignore it? If we were simply to regard it as superfluous legislation having no effect on British broadcasting, we should not be altogether correct. British law would need amending and an Act would need to be passed through Parliament which would erode that special, politically-independent status of British broadcasters, and no immediate positive effect would be achieved.
  However, it should be considered that while existing national broadcasters in Europe generally provide a healthy ration of home-grown product, the new breed of DBS broadcasters are likely to rely upon a very much higher proportion of cheap American imports. It was, I think, the concern of the French and the Italians in particular that prompted the late inclusion of these two quota clauses after the Green Paper had been issued.
  I must agree with my noble friend Lord Torrington that if there is any possible way of establishing these criteria they must be the right criteria to guarantee the minimum amounts of European input into broadcasting. Much as I detest legislation when it replaces effective voluntary agreements like this, no one has yet suggested a viable alternative that might well be workable in the wider context of Europe.

  231
  As it stands, the directive excludes from those which are to be subject to quota certain categories of programme such as sport, news and—I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord BonhamCarter—very surprisingly, games shows. Why games shows?
  Specialist channels transmitting solid news or continuous sport would automatically be excluded, but what about non-stop music channels or a channel transmitting an exclusive diet of feature films? Some form of relief would have to be found, and presumably could be found, to limit any organisation broadcasting an exclusive diet of one thing or another. Presumably complicated exceptions could be made.
  To wait until the new broadcasters pose a threat to the established networks responsible for broadcasting seems to beg the question whether the problem is not easier to prevent rather than to cure. European legislation now will inevitably cause minor irritations to existing broadcasters, maybe some particular heavier irritations, but in five or 10 years' time when the child has been fed with the sweets how are we to get it back on to a balanced diet? At that stage any attempt to regulate by law or even by voluntary agreement the content of broadcasting could prove extremely difficult.
  This and the other quota which calls for a minimum content of independently produced programmes have both been widely criticised for being inappropriate in an instrument primarily designed to promote cross-frontier broadcasting in Europe. Is it really inappropriate to remove barriers and yet establish minimum criteria for broadcasting in one piece of legislation?
  Professor Peacock's report suggested that a figure of 40 per cent. of the BBC's output should be provided by the independents with 10 years. In turn, the independent producers' associations have been campaigning for a more realistic figure of around 25 per cent. Both the BBC and the IBA companies are critical of quotas. Numerical quotas are too inflexible, they claim, and tamper with the broadcasters' freedom. Any sudden or significant increase in independent production, they argue, could cause redundancies in the broadcasting industry.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, pointed out, the draft directive called for a figure of 5 per cent. growing to 10 per cent. in three years. That is hardly enough to tamper seriously with a broadcaster's freedom, and, certainly when the BBC already admits to a current figure of one and a bit per cent., it is not enough to qualify as a sudden or even a significant increase.
  Britain, boosted by Channel 4's appetite for independent productions, had the most sophisticated independent production facilities in Europe, to say nothing of the talent that supports and uses it. Any increase in independent production in Europe will draw upon that expertise. English is the most widely spoken language in Europe. Programmes made by European independents for home consumption will have to rely on overseas sales to supplement their production budgets. Sixty per cent. of the world's audiences are in the United States, so I would suggest that no country is better placed than Britain to provide
  232
  the production and post-production facilities for a mass of high quality European broadcast material for the American market in English at a competitive price. But perhaps by then the United States will have introduced quotas of its own to limit the dumping of European programming.
  10.15 p.m.
  Baroness Birk: My Lords, like the other speakers in this short debate I too am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, for giving us a stab at this subject tonight. I found it rather ironic that the moment it was announced that the debate would he televised, the covers were immediately put on the cameras, though I think that it was the lateness of the hour rather than any particular prejudice that led to that.
  Personally I am very concerned about the directive itself. It seems to me regrettable that the directive has over-reached its stated goals of enhancing the free circulation of television programmes within the European Community and that the good points that it has—and there are some dealing with harmonisation of rules for advertising—have been swamped by a premature and unsophisticated attempt to solve wide-ranging problems of copyright, into which there is no time to go at the moment, as well as to protect European broadcasters from overreliance on buying programmes from the United States.
  Ideally the articles on independent production, European quotas and copyright should have been uncoupled from those on advertising and dealt with in separate directives. Although all these issues are concerned with television and to a certain extent are interconnected, each one requires detailed working out and extensive consultation. When they are made part of a package, they engender confusion rather than clarity. Amid the details of whether to adopt statutory or voluntary copyright, or whether to ban all tobacco advertising or just advertisements for cigarettes, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that the directive points to the need for some radical thinking concerning the regulation of cross-frontier broadcasting. That has been pointed out by nearly all speakers tonight, including my noble friends Lord Graham and Lord Bonham-Carter.
  A directive that is solely concerned with European quotas and separated from quotas for independent production might have alerted us to some crucial problems in broadcasting that national governments as well as the European Parliament will have to face. As it is, the debate on the directive has ranged over too many issues to focus on the question of international regulation. However, as other noble Lords have pointed out, we have quotas at the moment whether we call them informal or voluntary quotas. If we are looking to the future—and quite frankly it is certainly the legislature's policy and obligation to do so—at some point over the next 10 years we shall have to consider whether statutory quotas are essential if the countries of Europe are to preserve their television heritage.
  So it is doubly sad that the directive lacks coherence in addressing these problems. It is a measure of that confusion that game shows, news and sports

  233
  programmes are excluded from the quotas on the grounds that those categories of programmes require little or no creative work, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, pointed out.
  If the authors of the directive had consulted broadcasters, they would have discovered the difficulties and challenges produced by good sports and news coverage. If they had discussed it with British broadcasters they would have seen the enormous pride that broadcasters take in portraying sport as part of our national heritage. Coverage of the Derby, the FA cup final or Wimbledon by American networks does not and cannot convey the tradition of those events or their place in British life. It is a tribute to British broadcasting that it does that, and it would be quite wrong to suggest that such programmes are not creative. Without going into the matter deeply, there is similarly a world of difference between the presentation of news on "News at Ten", for example, and the American cable news channel.
  There may be a case to be made out for exempting news from quotas concerned with the production of drama and light entertainment, but the criteria that are adopted in the directive are unnecessarily contentious and would result in an endless debate on definitions of creativity. Furthermore, if the aim of quotas is to ensure a predominantly European presence in the schedules of all television channels, the more exemptions that there are the fewer European programmes will be needed.
  Furthermore, it has been pointed out tonight that the quota is not sufficiently flexible to deal with specialist television channels. There are simply not enough British produced feature films to fill a 60 per cent. quota on the new British DBS film channel. Besides, many films ostensibly produced in Britain are made with American money, by American producers and with the American market in mind. They have as much to do with British culture as the Ayatollah Khomeini.
  Although it is easy to criticise the directive, it has the merit of bringing to our attention an extremely important issue: namely, the regulation of new television channels. One of the great fears of everyone involved with broadcasting is the downturn in standards associated with deregulation. That was one of the main themes in the debate on the Peacock Committee report.
  Until now we have been able to rely on the professional pride of British broadcasters to prevent an overreliance on cheap United States imports. When that professional pride has not been enough, we have been able to rely on the BBC Board of Governors and the members of the IBA to protect the public interest. However, in his evidence to the committee, the chairman of IBA, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, argued that its objection to the draft directive was based on the,
  "principle that these matters which the national bureaucracy has never aspired to administer should be administered by the European bureaucracy".
  He went on to say:
  "it would be wiser to leave it to public broadcasters".
  234
  In its evidence to the committee the BBC claimed that:
  "a fundamental principle is at stake … Under the directive the BBC, for the first time in 63 years, would be ordered by statutory provision to allocate its resources according to externally imposed criteria".
  The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we will be able to rely on the British system of self-regulation if, for example, this Government are returned and decide that the ITV franchises are sold off to the highest bidder, Channel 4 is privatised and independent producers are guaranteed 25 per cent. of air time.
  If that happens it will be compounded by the growth of satellite broadcasting, as has been pointed out. In 1988 the Luxembourg satellite Astra will be beaming down over a dozen television stations which will he receivable on 60 centimetre dishes. By 1990 we are led to believe that British DBS will come on stream, adding four new channels. On top of that the French, the German and possibly the Irish DBS operations should be up and running.
  In those circumstances a new breed of TV entrepreneur will have a profound influence on the nature of broadcasting. They will control channels beamed from other countries, they will be outside the control of the IBA and as profits rather than public service is highly likely to be the prime motivation they will not really worry where the programmes come from.
  This intensification of competition must affect the present balance. In the difficult days ahead the IBA and the BBC might be glad of a quota system which ensures that anything which is uplinked from an EC country has to take a substantial proportion of its programmes from Europe. Here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that a great deal of the evidence which was presented to the committee and which was fascinating to read gave one the awful feeling that those people were still living in the past and were not looking towards an entirely new future situation.
  In my view quotas should be regarded as a failsafe mechanism if the British system starts to melt down. Ideally the IBA and the BBC should continue to insist on 80 to 90 per cent. home production. But if that cannot be held there should be a line below which the proportion of home production in the schedules will not fall.
  However, the trouble with quotas is that they are not quality control mechanisms. Indeed, in Canada where they have had Canadian content quotas for many years broadcasters have made cheap and highly uninteresting programmes to fill the quotas. So Canadian broadcasting has become associated with low production values and was seen as second-rate when compared to the United States. It may well be that statutory quotas will not work, but they should not be rejected simply because they have not been used in the past.
  Ken Collins, the European Member of Parliament and the British rapporteur at the European Parliament on the directive, put the issue clearly when he told the European Sub-Committee B that the problem is whether to legislate now and run the risk that perhaps the dust would settle in a pattern not anticipated, or

  235
  whether to wait until the dust had settled and then legislate. As he rightly pointed out, by the time we come round to legislating, ownership of the broadcasting companies might have passed into hands which are not readily controllable.
  In this country we have been fortunate that our broadcasting has been committed to high standards and we have had the financial and cultural resources to maintain those standards. Some of our European neighbours have been less fortunate. Perhaps then measures should be adopted which will help other members of the EC to achieve higher broadcasting standards. Quotas may well not be the answer. However, the issue of American penetration of European television and the maintenance of quality programmes will have to be dealt with at a European level.
  As the Peacock Committee's report shows—and although the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, said that the debate has been going on for months and months, the debate, in fact, has really only just begun—we still have a long way to go and a lot of talking has to be done. All I would say in conclusion is that we have to look to the future and not live in the past.
  10.26 p.m.
  Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, we have had this evening another most interesting debate on the many sided question of how the new transfrontier television services in Europe should be regulated. I should like, first of all, to thank my noble friend Lord Torrington for initiating this debate and for providing us once again—along with the other members of his committee—with another excellent and comprehensive report on the EC draft directive on broadcasting, which is in every respect a useful supplement to the committee's earlier report on the Green Paper Television Without Frontiers. That report was, I know, widely read in Europe and had a significant influence on the debate which led to the production of the draft directive. I feel sure that this late report will have a similar influence.
  Our position on the draft directive has been set out very fully in the past, not least in the debate in your Lordships' House in March last year and in the evidence we submitted to the Select Committee in the course of its current review. In brief, we very much share the objectives of the European Commission in seeking to facilitate transfrontier broadcasting by getting rid of any unnecessary obstacles that may result from a lack of harmonisation between countries' broadcasting regulations.
  We do not rule out the need for some pan-European regulatory structure. That would give us the assurance that incoming services receivable in the United Kingdom would meet certain fundamental standards, particularly as concerns questions of taste and decency and the like. It would also confer a benefit on our satellite programme providers who, both in the past and today, have led the development of the European market in such services. I know they would welcome a common agreement on a set of rules that would give their services the assurance of entry into other European countries, without regulatory or other obstacles being placed in their path.
  236
  But we do not want European agreement on a common set of rules to be overcomplex, legalistic and inflexible. We are looking for regulation in Europe with a rather lighter touch than some of the proposals that the Commission has put forward in the draft directive and the Green Paper has threatened to bring forward at a later date. We still maintain our view that a case has not been made out for Community legislation.
  We agree with the Select Committee in doubting whether the Community is the right forum within which to reach a lasting European agreement on these matters. In our view, the concentration in the Commission's proposals on economic objectives presented in a narrow and legalistic manner does not give sufficient weight to the wider cultural considerations that attach to broadcasting policy. By contrast, the Council of Europe has much wider experience of dealing with social and cultural issues and has a good track record in the field of international broadcasting regulation. Just as important, it covers a much wider grouping of countries. For these reasons, your Lordships will know that the Government believe that a Council of Europe convention would be a more appropriate vehicle for dealing with these matters, and are playing a full part in the drafting of such a convention that is proceeding in Strasbourg at the present time.
  On the detail of the draft directive, your Lordships will know that we do not accept the approach the Commission has followed in relation to copyright. We have serious doubts about the proposals for a system of statutory licensing and we continue to seek to maintain the existing system of voluntary agreements freely negotiated.
  The proposals on advertising are, in principle, less difficult, as the Select Committee has itself pointed out. A lot of work has been done to bring these proposals more into line with the system that we operate in this country under the IBA Code; and accordingly the match with our own regulations is much better than it was before. There still remains the question, however, whether some broadly acceptable proposals of this kind would form the basis for future regulation or whether they would merely be the springboard for the development of further regulations, perhaps extending, as the Commission has hinted, into the regulation of programmes themselves.
  That brings me to the specific set of issues that my noble friend has chosen for the subject of today's debate: the proposals to set fixed quotas from Brussels for the amount of European Community material and independently produced programmes that should appear in television services throughout Europe. In this, as in some other aspects of the Commission's proposals, we are not opposed either to the objective or to the principle, but to the inflexible manner with which the principles are to be implemented.
  Let us take first of all the question of independent production. In the past, where we have legislated in this area, as in the case of Channel 4, we have relied upon a general formulation. The Broadcasting Act of 1981 refers to a substantial proportion of programmes to be supplied from outside the ITV system. Last November, my right honourable friend, the Home

  237
  Secretary, set out a general target for independent production on the broadcast channels of 25 per cent., and your Lordships will know that discussions on the best manner of implementing that target are now going forward with the broadcasters and the independent producers.
  The fundamental issue here, however, is that these matters are purely domestic ones for decision in each Community country. They do not have anything to do with obstacles to transfrontier broadcasting, and the appropriate policy can only reasonably be decided in the light of the prevailing circumstances in the television industry, which differ markedly from country to country. We are against fixed quotas set in Brussels which assume that these issues can be treated in the UK in the same way as in Italy, Portugal or Germany.
  I cannot accept the assertion of my noble friend Lord Buxton that the Government are speaking with two tongues on this subject. As regards quotas on independent production, it is important to recognise that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has not set precise quotas in the domestic field; he has set a broad target towards which the broadcasters have agreed to work over a period of years. The two concepts are not the same. Our approach on this issue is far more flexible than that followed by the Commission in its draft directive.
  Similar considerations apply to the question of European Community programming. We recognise that there should be a special place for European programmes in our television schedules. Here again, in the Broadcasting Act we have operated for many years a general formula which talks of proper proportions of domestic and other EC material, leaving it to the IBA to decide what the appropriate percentage might be. For 30 years, the proportion has been fixed at roughly 86 per cent., and the BBC has followed suit with a voluntary undertaking.
  During the passage of the Cable and Broadcasting Act in 1984, your Lordships will recall that we in this House rejected the setting of fixed percentages in this area for cable programme services, but that the Act applies the same general formula of proper proportions. The proportions of course vary from one programme channel to another, according to the kind of programmes they contain; but we agreed in 1984 that it was inevitable that in the early days of their services, the new programme providers could not possibly live up to the high percentages that were current on the broadcast channels. Nevertheless, the figures published by the cable authority in its recent annual report show clearly that the record in this respect is already better than many had expected.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked me about regulating the DBS service. The planned DBS service will be regulated by the IBA. The provisions in the Broadcasting Act concerning proper proportions of European programming will apply, and it will be for the IBA to decide what the proportion will be.
  We believe that a general formula rather than a fixed percentage will be the way forward for international
  238
  instruments in this field, leaving it to the individual broadcasting authorities to interpret in the light of their particular circumstances. In this way, the independence of the broadcasters will be maintained, and there will be no danger that programme schedules are distorted purely to meet the quota rather than to provide quality programmes that the viewer wishes to watch. On that issue therefore the Government are, as ever, in firm agreement with the Select Committee's views. A formula referring to reasonable proportions of European programmes was adopted by the Council of Europe last year in its recommendations on audiovisual production. It seems likely that a similar formula will be included in the proposed draft convention.
  While the process of drafting the convention goes on, we shall of course continue to play our full part in Brussels in the continuing discussions on the draft directive. I should say to my noble friend Lord Buxton that it is far too early to talk about the failure of our attempts to resist the draft directive. The majority of countries in the Community see many of the objections that we see.
  We shall study very closely the detail of this second report from the Select Committee and the useful contributions that have been made in the debate today, both of which will serve to inform those further deliberations in Brussels. In closing, I should like to repeat my thanks to my noble friend for the contribution he and his committee have made to this important debate in Europe and express my satisfaction that on most of the issues concerned the views of the committee and the Government are as one.

  Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee without amendment, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
  Channel Tunnel Bill
  Reported from the Select Committee with amendments.

  Chevening Estate Bill [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before eleven o'clock.

  House of Lords
  The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
  Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

  European Air Fares
  Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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, arising from their answer to her Starred Question on 2nd April (col. 693), legal action has now been taken with the adoption of reasoned decisions against the three airlines concerned or whether, alternatively, all EC airlines have now brought their inter-airline agreements into line with the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I understand that the three airlines concerned—Alitalia, Olympic Airways and Lufthansa—have entered into direct discussions with the Commission, in the same way as the other airlines involved in the Article 89 proceedings, and have undertaken to bring their commercial agreements into line with the Treaty of Rome. As a result, the Commission has not for the moment proceeded with formal legal action.
  Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while I am glad that the Commission has made some progress, may I ask this question? Does this mean that we shall have to wait until all these agreements have been deemed compatible with the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome before any further step forward can be taken?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords. Modification of airline agreements will clearly be a useful step forward towards more genuine competition but will not remove the unnecessary regulatory restrictions imposed by some governments. It therefore remains essential for consumers that we should, if possible, reach agreement at the Council of Ministers on a satisfactory package of liberalising measures. We hope this will be possible in June, regardless of the state of play of the Commission's direct action with the airlines.
  Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful comment, but can he deal with one further point? Is it correct that all the airlines had agreed to set up a tribunal to settle disputes on air fares but that this would fall unless agreement on a general package is arrived at by 9th June? Further to that, if there is a general election on llth June, would that mean that our responsible Minister would be unable to add his signature to any agreement reached
  240
  and that we should thereby lose the advantage of any progress made?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on the first point raised by the noble Baroness, the tribunal on which agreement has been reached in principle would be established by the governments and not by the airlines. It cannot become effective within the Community unless formal agreement on the package as a whole can be reached. Without wishing to speculate on the date of the general election, should there be an election my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will then decide who should represent the United Kingdom. In any event, we shall make every effort to secure agreement in June.
  Noble Lords will be aware that liberalisation is long overdue and there is nothing unusual about senior officials representing Ministers at tile Council if necessary. In fact, it is rare for every Minister to be present.
  Lord Bethell: My Lords, does not my noble friend the Minister agree that whereas it is true that 10 European airlines have, under pressure from the Commission and under threat of legal action under Article 89, agreed to bring their practices into line with European law, it follows that all or most of them are still in breach of that law? As a result, the European passenger is suffering by paying higher air fares than necessary. Will the Government therefore consider taking powers under Article 88 to regulate this matter and to see that the competition articles are enforced? If not, will the Government at least make a commitment to do so should there not be agreement in the June Council?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend has a Bill along those lines which is currently before the House. If the Council reaches a satisfactory agreement by 30th June—the deadline set by the Commission—then unilateral action by member states will no longer be legally possible. If no agreement is reached, the Government already have the necessary powers in Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act to establish Article 88 machinery and have already undertaken to do so if necessary.
  Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, further to the constitutional question raised by the noble Baroness opposite, is it not a fact that though dissolution creates a parliamentary vacuum it does not create an executive vacuum?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is right.

  Regional Airports: International Flights
  3.10 p.m.
  Lord Gainford: 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. international destinations are now served from regional airports in Britain compared with 1979.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there are some 150 international routes serving some 60 destinations from regional airports in the United Kingdom. Only about 40 destinations were served in 1979. I greatly welcome this major increase in travel opportunities for the public.
  Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that encouraging informaton. In view of that, is there any possibility of encouraging airlines which are used by the tourist package tours to use more of these regional airports and thus relieve some of the London airports—Gatwick, for example—of the heavy traffic?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government are already committed to ensuring that the regional airports can develop in order to meet local demand. We do not place any regulatory obstacles in the way of tour operators who see a demand for charter flights to and from regional airports. Indeed, there are already a large number of such flights direct from regional airports.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, while the information given by the Minister on the number of destinations is most encouraging, he does not appear to have replied to the Question put by his noble friend Lord Gainsford. The Government say they wish to encourage the use of regional airports, but that appears to be an attitude of hope. What positive policy are the Government following in order to encourage the use of regional airports for charter flights and to enter into discussions not only with airport operators but also with the airlines?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is our policy to encourage development by improving capital expenditure and by improvement to local authority airports where they are financially justified. Large allocations have already been made. Some £222 million has been made available since 1979. Several important developments have taken place; for instance, the new terminal at Birmingham, the runway extension at Leeds-Bradford and work at Newcastle, which is due to be completed this month. I believe that we are encouraging the use of regional airports.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not also a fact that the Civil Aviation Authority has pursued a route licensing policy that encourages the use of those airports for a wide variety of routes? Are not its effects reflected in the figures which my noble friend has recently given?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is right. For example, if one takes Manchester Airport, 25 new routes, including seven intercontinental ones, have been introduced since 1979. I could give many examples. Birmingham is serving nine new destinations.
  Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, as the Minister mentioned Birmingham, is he aware that many people in and around Birmingham feel that if the airport could be granted gateway status it would greatly help the development of international flights
  242
  there? Does he feel that his honourable friend Mr. Spicer might be able to look at that matter again?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the noble Baroness's remarks about Birmingham to the attention of my honourable friend Mr. Spicer. Of course, Manchester is a gateway airport in the North. I admit that Birmingham is in the Midlands, but I shall certainly draw her remarks to my honourable friend's attention.

  VAT: Listed Buildings
  Lord Moyne: 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 why exemption from VAT is denied to repairs of listed historic houses while it is granted to alterations to such houses.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the repair or maintenance of buildings, listed or otherwise, has always been liable to VAT at the standard rate. On 1st June 1984 alteration work, previously liable at the zero rate, became standard-rated, but zero-rating was retained for approved alterations to listed buildings and scheduled monuments so as not to worsen their position in relation to VAT. This concession was widely welcomed by those concerned with the preservation of our national heritage.
  Lord Moyne: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply, I have to declare an interest, in that I live in an old, listed house. The buckets are not at the moment under the roof and therefore my interest is not immediate. Is my noble friend aware that, owing to the VAT anomaly, owners have a tendency to make alterations instead of repairs? Will he consider introducing a flat rate for both categories so as to produce approximately the same amount of revenue? Would the EC accept such an arrangement, which might well be imitated to advantage in Europe? Finally, does not a stitch in time save nine?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend's last question is yes. He asked me a number of other questions. With regard to relief on alterations and whether it may be an incentive to make undesirable changes, we do not believe that is so. Relief is available only for approved alterations. Planning authorities can always refuse listed building consent for work that would affect the character of a listed building or destroy important features.
  Baroness Birk: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in its most recent report the House of Commons Environment Committee unanimously recommended that the owners of listed buildings should be relieved of the burden of 15 per cent. VAT on repairs and maintenance by allowing them to recover it through the taxation system? I repeat that it was the committee's unanimous recommendation.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government are of course considering all the Select Committee's recommendations and will publish their observations as soon as possible.
  Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the Minister aware that not only the House of Commons committee but all the voluntary organisations and statutory bodies in the country concerned with this matter have been unanimous in their condemnation of the anomaly? Is the Minister further aware that if there is anything else that they condemn it is the extremely poor argument produced by the Government to justify the system since it was introduced?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should point out that, while presumably everyone who has to pay VAT on anything would like zero-rating, we believe that zero-rating would be indiscriminate. We give grants where help is most needed. In England this year such help for historic buildings from central government will amount to over £22 million. Local authorities also make grants from their resources, but I do not have that figure.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while declaring an interest a great deal smaller than that of my noble friend Lord Moyne, may I ask my noble friend the Minister how he justifies in logic exempting alterations and charging on repairs? Surely if the object is to preserve such buildings, repairs are, if anything, the more important?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the repair or maintenance of buildings, listed or otherwise, has always been liable to VAT at the standard rate. My noble friend will no doubt be aware that the Government accept that they have no authority under the EC sixth directive to introduce any new zero rate or to restore one which has been given up.
  Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's reference to buildings, whether listed or unlisted, will he inform the House what the Government propose to do if the present case, No. 816 of 1985, currently before the European Court results in the Government being ordered to levy a 15 per cent. VAT duty on all new houses, thus increasing the average price of a house by some £4, 500? Will he confirm that the only reason why Her Majesty's Government have not thought fit to disclose their pleadings in this case is that they would really like to have the tax levied?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Question refers to "listed historic houses" and I shall restrict my answers to that.
  Lord Grimond: My Lords, is it not apparent that this is quite contrary to common sense? As has been said, to levy tax on repairs, which are much more important than alterations, is nonsense. If the EC is the stumbling block, can the Minister say what representations have been made? The House should not accept that because this has always been the position it should continue. The whole country must see that such a levy is nonsense.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have said that there are ways of giving grants other than exempting from VAT. That is what we seek to do.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will my noble friend tell us, in view of the grant of £22 million towards repair of historic buildings, how much has been raised through VAT on repairs to such buildings? Are the two sums by any chance about the same? That seems to be very dotty.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have a figure for VAT charged on repairs to listed historic houses. I understand that there is no definition as such of a listed historic house.
  A noble Lord: My Lords, how do you levy VAT on it?
  Lord Kennet: My Lords, is this an announcement of new government policy; namely, to abolish the List of listed buildings? For the last 40 years there has been a list of buildings of architectural and historic interest commonly known as the List. Houses on it are listed houses. When the Government say that there is no definition of a listed house, is this an announcement that the List is to be abolished?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, no.

  Drinking Water: EC Directive
  3.22 p.m.
  Baroness David: 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, since the European Commission is expected to institute proceedings against them under Article 169 of the Treaty of Rome, they intend to conform to the standards of the drinking water directive 80/778/EEC.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, no water from a public water supply is a danger to health. However, a small percentage does fail one or more of the very stringent parameters in the directive. These are either covered by derogations or are being brought up to standard as quickly as possible.
  Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and note what he says about derogations. Do Her Majesty's Government accept that the words "maximum admissible concentration" in the Council of the European Community's directive relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption mean "maximum"? Is the Government's current policy of interpreting "maximum admissible concentration" as a three-month rolling average thus a breach of the directive?
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, breaches of the directive can be settled in the ultimate instance only by the European Court. As to the current position regarding the court, I accept that one, and only one, legal proceeding has been started by the Commission in respect of water in Tower Hamlets.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Anglian Water Authority is already having to import pure water in order to dilute the water it extracts because of the presence of an excessive amount of nitrates? Does he not think that he has given a rather complacent Answer about the quality of the water being produced for us to drink? Can he say what further action he proposes to take to ensure that the presence of excessive nitrates is guarded against in the future?
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the general comment that I made at the beginning of my Answer— that no water from a public water supply is a danger to health—includes nitrates as well as any other of the masses of parameters within the directive. However, we are considering the recommendations for action, contained in the report of the nitrate coordination group, together with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. An integrated approach is needed, with contributions from both the agriculture and the water industries.
  Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the Minister say more about the slightly disturbing reference to the water in Tower Hamlets where some of us have family members?
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, again, I must reiterate the point that there is no risk to public health. A programme of improvements on nitrites is already well advanced and an application has been made to the Commission under Article 20. We hope to resolve this matter shortly with the Commission.
  Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister inform us where and when the meeting with the civil servants of the Department of the Environment and civil servants from other member states to discuss the Commission's proposals to deal with nitrate pollution is to take place?
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is a detailed and specific question that I shall have to answer in writing. I assure the noble Baroness that I shall certainly do that.

  Business
  3.25 p.m.
  Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that subject to the progress of business the House will adjourn for the Spring Bank Holiday Recess on Thursday, 21st May and return on Monday, 1st June. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday, 21st May.
  Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for that information. In view of
  246
  the current political climate, has the noble Lord considered bringing forward the start of the Recess to Friday, 15th May?
  Noble Lords: Answer!
  Lord Denham: My Lords, no.

  Channel Tunnel Bill
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  The purpose of this Motion is to refer certain amendments made by the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill to the Examiners for them to check compliance with the Standing Orders. The amendments give effect to a new route into the Cheriton terminal which has been agreed between the promoters of the Bill and the local authorities. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be referred to the Examiners in respect of Amendments Nos. 21, 24–28, 31, 42–51, 53–60 and 87 of the amendments made by the Select Committee (H.L. 136).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

  Agricultural Training Board Bill
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
  Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Register of Sasines (Scotland) Bill
  Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
  Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Morton of Shuna.)
  Lord Elton: My Lords, will Standing Orders permit the noble Lord an opportunity to tell the rest of the House what "sasines" are?
  Noble Lords: We know!
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill
  3.30 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 [Liability of carriers for passengers without proper documents]:
  Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 6, leave out ("by ship or aircraft").
  The noble Lord said: I have been advised on the amendments that I have put down by the General Council of British Shipping. It is the shipping interest—in particular the interest of the roll-on roll-off ferries—to which I shall speak. Amendment No. 1 is a paving amendment. It is one of several consequential on the subsequent amendment, Amendment No. 8. The others are Amendments Nos. 2, 5 and 13. I shall be speaking to all those amendments.
  The object of this amendment is in no way to spoil, let alone wreck, the Bill, the principle of which is thoroughly accepted. I agree entirely that there should be no real extra difficulty for the airlines, which are the main routes that perhaps need to be controlled. They have the machinery which can fairly satisfactorily deal with the implications of this Bill. However, on ships and in particular on roll-on roll-off ferries with large numbers of people coming on board at ports it will impose an extra burden which my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook appreciated in his opening remarks at Second Reading.
  The object of this amendment is really to share the load. Amendment No. 8 seeks to include the operators of passenger coaches. I ask the Committee to imagine the situation. When a roll-on roll-off ferry is embarking its passengers the people in coaches will be motored on board in a composite package of people who can adequately be controlled by the agent of the operator; to wit, the driver of the coach. It is simple for him at some stage of the journey, probably even before he reaches the ship, to do the minor checking that is necessary. It was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook that only 20 per cent. of the passengers are expected to be in the category covered by the Bill and the driver needs to check over and do the work that the Bill calls for. That will relieve the load on the shipping company, which will then have to deal only with the ordinary passengers.
  This series of amendments attempts to modify the Bill slightly to allow that sort of shared load to take effect. I agree fully that the wording of my amendments may not be satisfactory. I also agree that it may be necessary, as I thought afterwards, to define "carrier". In his speech my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook repeatedly referred to carriers, and that
  248
  may be an understood phrase which does not have to be specifically defined.
  It is not my intention to press these amendments, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister will feel that the principle of what I am trying to put across in these amendments is one that he can readily accept; and perhaps he may even agree to come forward with modifications to these amendments himself at the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose this series of grouped amendments. The crux of this series appears to be the deeming provisions in Amendment No. 8. As my noble friend has explained, these amendments provide in effect that when a passenger coach is transported by ship, say a roll-on roll-off ferry, the operator of the coach shall be deemed to be the carrier. I agree with my noble friend that the drafting raises problems because of the exclusion of the words "ship or aircraft" by the amendment and the substitution of the word "carrier" in Amendment No. 2. This may need looking at, but I am not concerned with the drafting.
  This qualification on the liability of a carrier by ship under Clause 1 surely is not broadly acceptable. The identifiable agents of abuse have been the ship and the aircraft, and the carriers who transport by sea surely cannot disclaim responsibility for compliance with Clause 1, because that is what it comes to, by shifting the whole burden to the operator of the coach transported by them. As the Bill stands, it is the owners or the agents of the ship or aircraft who are liable for contravention of Clause 1, not the coach operator. So it should remain.
  The fact that passengers come on board the ship in a coach instead of in motor cars or on foot, if one looks at the matter objectively, in no way inhibits a routine check of documents such as is envisaged to ensure compliance with Clause 1(1)(a) and (b), subject to the safeguards of Clause 2(1), (2) and (4).
  This series of amendments to Clause 1 constitutes a substantial departure from the broad intendment of the Bill. As to Amendment No. 13, to Clause 2, I think this stands or falls with Amendment No. 8 and is designed to accommodate the deeming provisions under that amendment as regards the coach operator. The crux of this series is the deeming provisions of Amendment No. 8. The question is whether it is right that in the circumstances the carrier by ship should be permitted to shift the burden. In principle I cannot see that that is right or reasonable.
  Lord Denning: I hope the Committee will not accept this amendment. It seems to me that the shipowner can be identified. He has a ship and people coming on to it, but where will the operator of a coach start from? Will he start from India or from some other country? When he reaches a port, such as Calais, how are we to know whether he has done his job, who he is and whether he can be reached so that he can be made to pay his 1, 000 or whatever it may be, if he has not properly investigated his passengers? The only person upon whom the responsibility can be put is the shipowner who is transporting not only the passengers on his ship but the passengers on the coach. I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendments.
  Lord McNair: These amendments have the general support of the main agencies caring for refugees whose interests I shall chiefly be defending in my interventions at this Committee stage. Therefore they have our support. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has correctly identified the quite impossible problems which will be caused for the operators of ferries crossing either the Channel or the North or Irish seas. I should perhaps add that I would be more devious than I should wish to be if I did not admit that I also like these amendments because they tend to show what an appallingly hurried, muddled and ill-considered Bill this is. But those are by no means my only reasons for supporting them.
  Lord Teviot: Like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I am afraid I cannot support my noble friend Lord Mottistone in his amendment. Unlike my noble friend Lord Campbell, I cannot deal with the legal difficulties in the wording but I can merely describe the impracticability of my noble friend's amendment and the situation in the bus industry as it is now.
  There are three basic categories of people travelling to and from this country by bus. One is the operation that takes day trippers shopping to the Continent. I cannot see any problem there as the driver who is acting as the operator's agent only brings back the passengers whom he takes out. It is the same for the next category, which is the coach driver who is returning people who have been on a tour of a few days or more, or even a fortnight. Those categories account for the great bulk of people travelling here by coach. The third category is slightly different: that is, the international express where there are a great number of routes stretching throughout the Continent and people can buy a ticket on a route or receive tickets purchased for them by someone in this country.
  These groups are operated by Continental travel and a consortium of many other companies, and they are very responsible. In their conditions of travel issued to agents they state the following:
  "Please ensure before booking that passengers have the correct documentation to travel in the various countries they may pass through or visit to avoid cancellation charges. Advise passengers that it is their responsibility to have in their possession a valid passport, together with such visas as may be necessary".
  In order to comply with my noble friend's Amendment No. 8 a driver would have to check any passenger's travel documents on the point of boarding. He could not just pick up somebody in the middle of nowhere and bring him all the way to Calais and then say, "Now I want your passport. You haven't got it; go away". He would have to do it at this point, which could be a capital city, a metropolis or a bus stop in the high street of a small town. Even if it were reasonable for an English national driver to deal with this, I doubt whether he would be expected to know all the visa requirements. It would be totally unreasonable to expect a Spanish, Italian, Greek, Yugoslav or even a Polish driver—there are international express routes even to Poland—to be aware of such requirements. On that point the amendment is impracticable.
  Again, I have made inquiries to see whether there is a problem now and to find out how many people who seek asylum travel to this country by bus or coach. I
  250
  am told on very good authority that it is rare. I then questioned my contact about where he got his information and how he would know if this happened. He said he would know because the coach would be somewhat delayed. Occasionally at Dover a coach is delayed. No specific reason is given because the driver cannot drive off from the port without his complement of passengers unless advised by the authorities. A person may have sought asylum and not been granted it or had it withheld, or he may have been stopped on a customs matter. Such occasions are extremely rare. I even inquired about people coming from the Republic of Ireland and was told that it was even rarer from there. In fact, my contact could not recall a single instance.
  Some EC countries do not inspect people's passports before they leave their ports to come to this country. I do not blame only France and Belgium. I am told that it is quite possible to travel from Spain or Italy and not be asked to show documents until one arrives here. I am told that it is slightly more difficult when coming from Greece. It is possible, although one might be checked and one probably would not risk it. This is not so much a problem. I am sorry that I have painted a different picture but I am afraid that my noble friend's amendment is not practicable.
  3.45 p.m.
  The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend asked me to give serious and careful consideration to these amendments. Indeed, it would have been wrong for me not to do so considering that not so long ago I had a much greater involvement with the shipping world than I do at the moment; and so I took particular interest in amendments which might affect the lives of ferry operators.
  This group of amendments would create confusion and uncertainty in the operation of the Bill and they would put a 'wholly new and unreasonable obligation on coach companies. Nor do I think they are workable. There are a number of reasons for this. First, I do not see how in all cases the immigration officer could identify who was a coach passenger and who arrived by other means. As my noble friend said, most will be in the coach, but I have to say to him that there will be those who will not be in the coach. What is to stop someone from leaving his coach group during the ferry crossing and arriving as a foot passenger? How would liability be established in that instance? The scope for confusion and dispute would be legion.
  Secondly, it would be unreasonable to expect coach companies throughout the world to have an understanding of their obligations under this legislation, a point raised by my noble friend Lord Teviot. They simply cannot be expected to find out about the proposed obligations which as far as we know do not apply to coach companies in any other country in the world. If they were to do so, they could no doubt easily arrange to transfer responsibility back to the ferry company by arranging for their passengers to travel as foot passengers and pick up another coach on the other side of the Channel. That hardly seems to be fair to the ferry companies.
  Thirdly, it would in practice be very difficult to identify who was the operator of a passenger coach, the

  251
  point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. There may well be no representative of the company in the United Kingdom who can be held responsible for paying the charge. The owner of a coach could have chartered it to a club or organisation. He could not reasonably be expected to be responsible for checking the documents of whoever may be travelling on it when it reaches the United Kingdom.
  I agree again with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and with my noble friend Lord Teviot, and I have to say to my noble friend that it is just too woolly to say that the point of liability should be where the passenger is—I quote from Amendment No. 5—
  "setting out on passage to"
  the United Kingdom. Is that to be when he leaves his front door? If it is when he leaves the coach station in Turkey, I am afraid too much can happen between there and the Channel port for there to be any certainty about the documents the coach operator may have seen when the passenger started his journey.
  On the legal point, I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that it is unreasonable to extend this Bill to a whole new category of operators who are not in any way covered by the Immigration Act 1971. That Act clearly establishes the liability of carriers by ship or aircraft, and this Bill builds on that. It would be breaking wholly new and uncertain ground to include coach companies and I do not believe it can be justified. I am sorry to have given my noble friend such a disappointing reply, but I find the arguments against his amendment quite conclusive.
  Lord Somers: Has the noble Earl considered the fact that when and if the Channel Tunnel is completed, people will be able to come by train? If he does not like the noble Lord's amendments, could he not include "by any other method" or words of that kind in the Bill?
  The Earl of Caithness: There is a provision for the Bill to be included within the Channel Tunnel Bill. I believe that when we look at the amendments before us there are considerable difficulties in regard to their inclusion in the Bill.
  Lord Mottistone: I am sorry that I did not have more support from other parts of the Committee. I rather felt that in leaping immediately to his feet my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway had not actually listened to what I had been saying and went ahead with what he intended to say anyhow.
  I see the difficulties emphasised by my noble friend the Minister, but, on the other hand, the principle of what I am trying to achieve would be a better way of sharing this responsibility. I know that my noble friend does not want to share it, particularly with people whose operators are based outside this country. The best I can do at the moment is to read with care what everybody has said, see if I can contrive something for Report stage which will meet the points made and try to achieve what I want to achieve. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
  Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 1, line 16, at end insert—
  ("() Any owner or agent who has paid the prescribed amount shall have the sum refunded if the passenger is subsequently granted refugee status under the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees and 1967 Protocol.").
  The noble Lord said: At the very outset of the debate on the amendments which I hope to move and where I am supported also by members of the Alliance and by those on the Cross-Benches, may I make completely clear the position of my own party in regard to this Bill? During the Second Reading debate in another place the Minister of State said, at col. 779 of the Official Report:
  "We owe it to genuine refugees to ensure, that while their interests are secured, those who try to abuse the system do not get away with it."
  That is where we stand in regard to all the amendments with which my party is associated. We are here to secure the interests of genuine refugees. We are not here to defend those who quite wrongly abuse the system and who are not genuine refugees.
  I want to make that position abundantly clear because of what was published by the political editor of the Independent newspaper on 4th May. I told the noble Earl the Minister, as he would expect me to do, that I intended to quote what that article says under the following heading:
  "Conservatives will attack opposition parties over risk of 'flood' of refugees. Immigration row to be key Tory platform".
  I read from the beginning of the article:
  "The Tories are planning to use a race gambit against Labour and the Alliance, with an election campaign claim that their opposition to the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill risks 'flooding' the country with refugees.
  Conservative election planning has reached such a pitch that senior ministers are making detailed dispositions for legislation which has not passed through Parliament.
  Party managers are paying particular attention to the Carriers' Bill, brought forward in response to the arrival of Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka. The Bill proposes fines for airlines and other carriers of up to 1, 000 for each passenger brought into the country without proper passports or entry permits and papers.
  Labour—the main Tory target—has opposed the legislation and will refuse to reach any deal under which the Bill, now in the Lords, might be accelerated through to the Statute Book.
  If, as the politicians predict, the election is called for 11 June, Mrs. Thatcher would make her announcement next Monday and Parliament would have a week in which to tidy up remaining legislation. Without Opposition agreement, there is no possibility of finalising the Carriers' Bill. Senior ministers have said privately that they are prepared to use that pretext to attack Labour and the Alliance.".
  I finish the quotation there.
  I merely ask the noble Earl the Minister, when he replies to this amendment, to dissociate himself and his colleagues completely from this article. I recognise at once that he and his colleagues cannot be responsible for what people write in newspapers and what political editors publish. However, when such an article appears, and it is seen by the public, I am sure that the Government will welcome the opportunity of saying that no such smear will take place during the election campaign, and that the allegations made here in regard to the tactics of senior Ministers of the Government will be disclaimed.
  I finish on this note in regard to the introduction to what I have to say on this particular amendment. I believe that your Lordships in all parts of the

  253
  Committee would regard tactics of that kind as sordid, and would regard—as I believe would most decent, thinking people—any conceivable vote obtained by those tactics as being dishonourably obtained.
  I now turn to the amendment. An amendment was sought in the other place to exonerate the carrier from all liability concerning someone who entered these shores with defective papers and was found to be a refugee, and a genuine one. The answer that was given by the Government—and it was an understandable one—was that if one did not impose the liability until the whole case had been examined, the carrier would not know where he stood for a considerable period of time, and it would be administratively most untidy to try to exact a penalty at a later stage.
  We have recognised in this amendment the validity of an argument of that kind. Therefore what we have said is that the penalty may well have to be exacted in a certain case within the principles of this Bill, which principles have now to be accepted in view of the fact that the Second Reading has taken place. What therefore we are saying is this. The penalty having been exacted, if it be found that the refugee has had to present defective papers and the fine has been imposed and paid, and subsequently the Home Office itself finds that that person is a genuine refugee within the meaning of the definition of the convention and, therefore is accepted as such, the carrier will have his penalty repaid.
  I cannot think, if I may say so without exaggerating my case, of a more genuine amendment to a Bill which seeks, as the Minister said in another place, to secure the rights of the genuine refugee. Nor can I think of a more genuine amendment in the interests of carriers who find that they have carried a genuine refugee, that they thought they were carrying such a genuine refugee even though his papers were defective, and that thought has been confirmed by the finding of the Government thereafter. I beg to move an amendment which I hope will have the support of all Members of the Committee in whatever places they sit.
  Lord McNair: In rising to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, perhaps I may first associate myself and my noble friends with his opening remarks. I think I made clear at Second Reading my loathing for the racketeers who exploit human misery and who should be the true target of this Bill. I yield to no one in my loathing of such people. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, it is the genuine refugee we are seeking to defend. When I read that article in the Independent my own feeling was that it was just too silly to take seriously.
  No Bill—not this Bill or any other conceivable Bill—will ever totally prevent people arriving in this country with defective documents. It is bound to happen. Such people may claim refugee status. Some such claims will fail. So be it. But surely nobody can assert that there will never be an occasion on which some poor devil will somehow manage to get here in spite of his dodgy papers, will claim convention refugee status, and will then be found after the most exhaustive investigation to be entitled to that claim.
  What ought to happen if the fine has already been levied, if the poll tax has been exacted? This
  254
  amendment, with almost unimaginable moderation, suggests that the fine should be repaid. This amendment, with one possible exception which comes later, is the minimum concession that the Government should make in order to render this Bill unobjectionable in every quarter of the Committee. I find it impossible to understand how any person with a grain of justice in his heart can possibly oppose the amendment.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Denning: I associate myself with all that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about the newspaper. I am not sure that your Lordships should accept this amendment. It must be remembered that the policy of this statute is to put an end to people flooding into England, maybe supported by racketeers, without documents—or with forged documents—and then claiming that they are refugees. In a sense it may be a legitimate claim but it has no legal basis because they are entering without documents or with forged documents. Therefore there is a breach of the Immigration Act. They are guilty, prima facie, of entering the country without leave. The racketeers who encourage them are aiding and abetting them and in a sense, so are the carriers.
  Now there is a demand for the sum of £ 1, 000 to be paid. That is a very effective sanction but it must be remembered that the words in the Bill are:
  "be liable to pay to the Secretary of State on demand the sum of £1, 000".
  Is it not a case where the Secretary of State should consider the matter and in his discretion should not make the demand? Therefore they would not have to pay or the demand would be relaxed. In other words, claims for a refund should not be left to the law. It should be left to the Secretary of State to say, "In this particular case, I do not think it would be fair to charge you £1, 000 so I shall not demand it". I think that this matter should be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State and should not be made a legal point. I do not support the amendment.
  The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the arguments behind this amendment and others to come. Unfortunately, I was not able to be present at the debate on Second Reading, so I had to refer to Hansard, as doubtless did some other noble Lords. I was struck by certain points that arose during the debate and which I think are relevant to the questions that we are now discussing.
  In the speech introducing the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, pointed out that the Bill:
  "is emphatically not aimed at reducing the Government's commitment to the United Nations Convention on Refugees. Our commitment remains as firm as ever".—[Official Report, 6/4/87; col. 857].
  The noble Lord also pointed out that the needs of genuine refugees will continue to be protected; that discretion will be used reasonably and with good judgment. It seems to me that this particular amendment, together with others which follow, are designed to make sure that the Bill will not be unduly hard on the genuine refugee.

  255
  The Minister must accept that in many circles in this country there is widespread concern about this Bill, and I believe that that concern should be listened to with great care. In his speech on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, used striking words when he said, at col. 870 of Hansard:
  "we are entering into a game of pass the parcel with people's lives".
  This amendment appears to be especially concerned with the rights of carriers and how the carriers will regard the legislation which is to be passed and their own future commitments. I think that it also deals with the rights of genuine refugees. I support this amendment and others which follow because I believe that there is a grave danger that a long, honourable and humane tradition which this country has had in the past is about to be transgressed.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I rise to oppose this amendment because I have some rough notes in my hand. I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord McNair, and the right reverend Prelate will not be so uncharitable as to suggest that, because I oppose the amendment, I have not listened to what they have had to say; or that on any occasion I do not listen to what any noble Lords have to say. Indeed, I have often changed my views on account of it.
  My opposition is the other side of the argument. It is based on what I hope is a reasonable reputation of the suggestion made by the right reverend Prelate that underlies the principle of the argument in support of the amendment: that the Bill works hardship on the genuine refugee. Any person who in good faith seeks entry into the United Kingdom, either for the purpose of seeking asylum under this amendment or for any other purpose under Amendment No. 4, must have some means of establishing his identity. He must have some document establishing nationality or citizenship under Clause 1(1)(a) and, if appropriate, a valid visa.
  By reason of Clause 1(2) the prescribed amount is not payable if such a document is produced to the owners or agents, or any employee, unless the falsity of the document is reasonably apparent. The regime therefore proposed under Clause 1 is, on the face of it, reasonable. It is not only reasonable; it is requisite to curb the abuse which, on common consensus of all noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading, was a serious abuse and one that had to be curbed.
  Why should any subsequent ground of asylum or exceptional leave to remain under Amendment No. 4, no doubt on humanitarian or compassionate grounds applicable to the personal circumstances of the passenger, carried by the carrier in contravention of Clause 1, entitle the carrier who breached the law to claim a refund? The logic is not understood.
  Furthermore, as regards the question of whether it is an unreasonable hardship for the carrier, the exercise of the discretion of the Secretary of State, subsequent to breach of statute by the carrier, is for the benefit of the passenger—the person seeking asylum—and not for the benefit of the carrier. It is not at all desirable that that subsequent exercise of compassionate discretion should give rise to some automatic refund from the Consolidated Fund; because that is where it comes from
  256
  As regards Amendment No. 3, the word used is "subsequently". Is that the subsequent granting of refugee status at any time, in any country? It is so indefinite. As regards Amendment No. 4, the words used are "if the passenger". If it is requisite, the passenger will simply not have had the valid entry visa. I should have thought that it was quite the other way: that broadly it is contrary to humanitarian considerations that there should be any association between a payment of money and the exercise of an administrative discretion.
  The Bill as it stands is fair and reasonable, and there is no logical basis for a refund to a carrier who has breached the statute merely because the Secretary of State, as an act of compassion, or maybe on humanitarian grounds, grants refugee status or the right to enter. I oppose the amendment for those reasons. That is the other side of the argument.
  Lord Chitnis: I support the amendment. My support for it was increased when, yesterday, by chance and on a wholly different matter, I met an old friend of mine, Mr. Donald Woods. I can perhaps retell his tale with which some of your Lordships may be familiar.
  Mr. Woods, a white English-speaking South African citizen, was the editor of the Daily Despatch, a South African newspaper. As a result of things he printed, he was made subject to a banning order by the South African Government—effectively, house arrest. Indeed, during that time, an attempt was made to murder one of his children.
  Mr. Woods decided he might be better off out of South Africa than in it. Disguised as a Catholic priest and carrying a fake Irish passport he managed to evade the control associated with house arrest and was flown by British Caledonian to London. He applied for refugee status which was given to him. After a number of years he applied for British citizenship which was granted. He is now a happy and useful member of society here.
  The only reason I tell this tale is that there are people in a situation similar to that of Donald Woods in South Africa at present. It is perfectly possible to envisage that they, too, might have to leave that country disguised as priests and carrying fake passports. They may find their way to Britain where they are discovered to be genuine refugees. Any reasonable person would, I believe, admit that Britain is probably the most suitable country in which they should find refuge.
  I think that even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, would agree that Mr. Woods blends well into the English countryside. If so and if there are other genuine refugees whom we want and ought to have in this country, I fail to see why, at the end of the process, British Caledonian should be £1, 000 the lighter. I hope that the noble Earl can deal with this kind of case.
  The Australian Act was used by the Minister as an example which the Government have tried to follow. In Australia, carriers are exempt from payment if they bring in people who are subsequently referred to the refugee determination procedure irrespective of the result of that procedure. If that is not possible here, then, surely, the fine should be refunded where the person is seen to be a genuine refugee.
  Lord Walston: I have the greatest respect, as, I am sure, all members of the Committee have, for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I have great respect also for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. But I cannot follow their arguments. Both seem to base their case on the fact that if this amendment were adopted it would encourage a flood of refugees of one kind or another into this country. The amendment does nothing of the sort. It seems to me a very simple amendment based on natural justice. If we can bring somebody into this country, possibly in the case which the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, has mentioned, or any other cases less dramatic than that, when there is reason to believe that he or she is a refugee or that the documents are in order whereas they are subsequently found to be forgeries, then the carriers are liable. If it is decided by the immigration officer that the documents are forgeries or that the person involved is not a refugee, the carriers are liable to a fine of £1, 000.
  We are not suggesting that they should not pay that. They should pay it; but if it is subsequently shown on appeal to the appropriate tribunals that the person in question is a refugee and is rightfully admitted into this country, surely it cannot be considered just, fair or equitable that the carrier should still have to pay the fine. He has paid it already, but he must have the right to reclaim it because it has been levied on him before the circumstances have been fully established.
  It could be said that the fine should not be paid until all the paraphernalia of appeals for refugee status have been gone through. That is one way of doing it. But it can take a long time, so possibly this amendment is rather harsh on the carrier in that it says he should pay the fine immediately. However, all it does is to say that if subsequently it is found that that person is entitled to refugee status then the £1, 000 which has been extracted from the carrier shall be returned to him. I canot for the life of me see how the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, or the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, can say that that is an encouragement to bring in floods of would-be refugees and illegal immigrants. Surely it is simply a way of ensuring that natural justice prevails in this country.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Mottistone: The noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, told us that interesting story about Mr. Woods, which I now remember. If Mr. Woods were to do now what he did then, he would not be subject to this Bill. I think the noble Lord said that he was dressed up as an Irish priest and used a false Irish passport. So far as concerns the ordinary person, in the case of a shipping line—I know in the case it was an aeroplane but I am concerned with the shipping line—when the carrier looks at the false Irish passport he will not know that it is false. Therefore he, or his company, would not be subject to this Bill under those circumstances.
  Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, whether his contribution to this debate is that we should encourage people to dress up as Catholic priests and come over with really well-forged passports and that that is the way to come into this country. Is that his argument?
  Lord Mottistone: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is far too serious about that. I was merely interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, much of which dealt with the case. It seems to me that the case he quoted would not be relevant to this Bill.
  Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Some of my best friends are lawyers but I can assure Members of the Committee that they should never trust lawyers on questions of this kind. There is only one issue of the faintest interest with which anybody in this Committee ought to be concerned. That is, that if a genuine refugee comes to this country we shall stand by our word and look after him. I think everybody wants that, our lawyer friends want it, but they are unable to distinguish fact from fiction. That is one of their great difficulties.
  There is only one point which needs to be established, and it is something which we must wait for. It is to see whether or not the alleged refugee is genuine. That may take time. When it is decided that he is genuine, then we can treat everybody as if he always had been genuine. Anybody but a lawyer can see that this is the only fair thing to do. The position seems so crystal clear that it should not take further argument. We want to receive genuine refugees here; we want to exclude non-genuine refugees. We bring in a law by which the carrier must make a superficial examination. If he does that badly, he pays £1, 000 until we find that his estimate was right. Please support this amendment.
  Lord Monson: In order to help those members of the Committee who find the arguments advanced by both sides equally compelling, when the noble Earl comes to reply, can he say whether the words "on demand" (in line 15, page 1 of the Bill) have the meaning which my noble and learned friend Lord Denning attributed to them? In other words, does the Bill, as drafted, permit the Secretary of State discretion as to whether or not to impose the £1, 000 penalty?
  The Earl of Caithness: Before dealing with the amendment, perhaps I may take up two points. The first is the article in the paper which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was kind enough to warn me that he would mention. He knows better than I that even if you tell the press the truth sometimes it does not get printed; sometimes it is taken out of context; and sometimes when you do not tell them anything they may invent a story in order to keep a good headline in front of the Government.
  The public has never disguised the priority it attaches to a firm as well as a fair immigration control, and we have consistently shown ourselves ready to take action as may be necessary to achieve such control. This Bill, which is being fully discussed at Committee stage is one part of that policy. I am not going to speculate on what may happen in the future or indeed what may happen in an election campaign. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that we must protect the genuine refugee, as has been our great tradition in the past. We do not wish to disturb that, and my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook made that point on Second Reading when unfortunately I was not able to be here. Certainly I echo that today.

  259
  The second point I should like to raise is that when the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said "Never trust a lawyer" presumably he was also referring to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who supported his arguments. While I understand the thinking behind this amendment, I believe it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and nature of this Bill and the reality of the position of most refugees today who come to this country. It quite wrongly assumes that there is a necessary and inevitable connection between people granted refugee status and their arrival in this country without the proper documentation. This, sadly, is a common misapprehension.
  This Bill is intended to ensure that people coming to this country fulfil the basic documentary requirements which Parliament has approved. It is not intended to change those requirements or to introduce exemptions in particular cases. These requirements are that passengers should have a valid passport or some other document satisfactorily establishing identity and nationality or citizenship (for example, a travel document) and, for the nationals of those countries specified in the immigration rules, a valid visa. Parliament has rightly accepted that these requirements should not be waived for those who wish to come here to seek asylum.
  We cannot therefore accept the implication of this amendment that asylum seekers who subsequently are granted refugee status here should be encouraged or assisted to come to this country without the necessary documents. It is simply not the case that the great majority of refugees need to do so. The vast majority of those granted refugee status are already properly in this country. Much has been made in recent weeks of the situation of people who have arrived at United Kingdom ports without documents who are subsequently granted refugee status. This was taken up by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, Lord McNair, Lord Chitnis and Lord Walston, and also by the right reverend Prelate. We have made a check of applications granted from the ports last year to see if the facts bear out the concerns expressed. They do not. There were 27 such applications granted in 1986. Of those 15 did not have the right documents when they arrived here, but every single one of those people had come to the United Kingdom from a third country; not one of those 15 had come directly from the country from which they sought refuge. It would have been entirely open to them, therefore, to make proper and orderly arrangements for their future from that third country, either in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
  It is just not true, therefore, that genuine refugees need to flee to the United Kingdom directly from their home country without documentation. I cannot therefore recommend that the Committee supports an amendment which could encourage carriers in making that false assumption. There is no necessary link between passengers arriving without documents (which is the purpose of this Bill) and the grant of refugee status, which is an entirely separate matter.
  Nor do I think this amendment is fair on the carriers. It is right that carriers should be held responsible for making sure that a passenger they carry
  260
  has the documents which they know are required of people coming to this country. It is wrong that they should be encouraged, with the prospects of refunds, to try to form a judgment on whether a passenger without documents, who seeks passage on the grounds that he is an asylum seeker, is or is not a genuine refugee under the terms of the United Nations Convention. In such cases such a decision requires the most careful, delicate and well-informed judgments which no carrier can be expected to make. In practice what would happen is that either the carrier would ignore the saving since he could not hope to make the necessary judgment at the check-in counter—in which case this amendment is a dead letter—or he would accept all asylum seekers, whatever their circumstances, thus putting us right back where we started.
  We are therefore dealing with only a very small number of people who are granted refugee status, having applied at the ports. It is by no means certain that on the merits a carrier should have carried even these passengers from their safe third country to this country without the proper documents. A judgment would need to be made on these cases and it is not something that can be dealt with by an amendment of this sort. It is far better dealt with by the sensible use of the Home Secretary's discretion. Here I would confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that the wording of the Bill provides discretion to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. He has already told the carriers that he will exercise that discretion in some of the cases that have already come to our ports. It is that very discretion that would take care of the exceptional circumstance raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis.
  There may be a few very exceptional cases where someone had to flee their home country under the sort of circumstances envisaged in the 1951 convention; where they were in imminent and self-evident danger of their life; where they had no reasonable means of getting the required documents; where the United Kingdom was in the circumstances the only or clearly the most appropriate destination; and where the carrier could not reasonably make any checks with the United Kingdom authorities. Such circumstances are of course very rare, but the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, mentioned one of them. If they were to happen, and a carrier were to make a compassionate response and accept the person for travel to the United Kingdom, I can assure the Committee that we would be ready to consider not making a charge on the carrier; and the Bill provides for that.
  We are dealing therefore with a very small number of cases where we are right to give no blanket guarantees and where we must consider all the circumstances to see if, whatever the final decision about a person's refugee status, we can accept that the carrier was right to take the passenger. This amendment is not required to deal with such unusual cases; they are much better dealt with by the use of the Home Secretary's discretion not to make a charge. This amendment would only risk carriers and their passengers being wrongly- and unnecessarily encouraged to think that there was some necessary and accepted link between the genuine refugee and the absence of documentation. That is not the case, and I

  261
  invite the Committee to agree with me that it would be wrong to accept this amendment.
  Lord Walston: Before the noble Earl sits down, when the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, referred to the case to which the noble Earl has himself referred, he said that if the carrier had been prepared to take a risk in a good cause the Secretary of State in all likelihood would look on it with leniency. May I ask the noble Earl personally and as the Minister responsible whether, if British Caledonian had not been prepared to take that risk and Mr. Donald Woods had been left behind in the country from which he was trying to escape, the noble Earl would feel happy about that?
  The Earl of Caithness: I do not think, on the hypothetical question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that the amendment would have any bearing on the matter. In my view, the amendment would not affect the decision of the carrier. I think the amendment would affect the decision of the carrier in encouraging people to come to this country without the relevant documentation and I am sure the noble Lord would agree with me that that is not what we want to encourage.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Mishcon: I am perfectly sure that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, would agree with me that there are exceptions which prove the rule; and when he generalised in regard to lawyers in this Chamber he was looking with some degree of affection, I hope, at the exception which proved the rule.
  I turn immediately to the Minister, who answered this debate with his usual courtesy and clarity. I have interpreted his answer to my request, which arose out of the article in the Independent of 4th May by the political editor, that the Government wish to dissociate themselves from any slur contained in the article and that it is not the thought of any senior Ministers of his Government to cast any such slur in any election. I know perfectly well that he will pass on my observations and any of his own to the proper quarters. I leave the matter there.
  In the course of this debate we have heard reference made by the Minister and other Members of the Committee to the fact that the vast majority of refugees wising to come to these shores would not genuinely be without papers; such refugees would be very few. I echo the words of the right reverend Prelate about the great tradition that this country has always had in these matters and it is on behalf of those very few that I plead this afternoon with the Committee.
  With the greatest respect that I and all Members of this Chamber always give to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, perhaps I may say to him how fortunate he is, and indeed we all are, to have been born in this country and to be its citizens and how fortunate it is for him to be a judge of such repute in this country. He cannot possibly imagine, as I can, the situation of refugees fleeing from persecution who find it impossible to obtain adequate papers. It is on behalf of those people that this amendment is moved.
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, when he says, with the sturdy eloquence that
  262
  he uses in speaking in favour of the Government, as he so often does, that he is arguing the other side of the coin and that in his view this measure is completely unnecessary because we are rewarding the carrier whereas the person who ought to have our sympathy is the refugee.
  In safeguarding the refugee perhaps he will imagine the case of a genuine refugee who for very good reason does not have adequate papers and who pleads with the carrier to save him. The carrier replies that he has been told that according to the Act which Parliament in its wisdom has passed there can be no exception made even though he is a genuine refugee. The carrier says, "I shall have to pay out £1, 000 for you and for every single refugee. I can rely on the discretion of the Home Office if you prove to be a genuine refugee but I do not know if I shall receive it. There is nothing in the Act to say that even if you are a genuine case I shall get back the money.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, speaks of the discretion of the Home Secretary and asks whether we do not have enough faith in the Home Secretaries of this country. I have abundant faith in them. However, it would be fiction (would it not?) if I were to imagine that the Home Secretary of whatever party would consider with the greatest of care the papers leading to a £1, 000 fine on carriers. They will be on his table. He will look at them and ask questions such as, "Has this matter been investigated? Is this man a genuine refugee? Are we going to have an administrative Act whatever government may be in power?"; and he will say, "The papers are out of order. We have to discourage this sort of thing". Then some official, perfectly properly in the course of his duty, will say, "There is a £1, 000 fine to be paid".
  How will the carrier even know whether refugee status has been granted so that he can ask for the discretion of the Secretary of State in order to get back his £1, 000? How is he to know that? He cannot be expected to be waiting on the refugee's doorstep to find out whether it is true. He will not even know where the refugee goes to. The only person who will know will be the Home Secretary, and under this provision, where genuine refugee status has been proved, the Home Secretary is put under an obligation to return the £1, 000.
  One may go through all sorts of tortuous arguments in order to try to prove the point. Usually what we have is a gut reaction, if I may use that expression, as to whether or not justice is being done. If the Committee will not think me rude in saying it, I believe that the gut reaction of every Member of this Chamber ought to be to pass this amendment, which will give justice to the true and genuine refugee and to the decent carrier who tries to help him where that is proved justifiable. I ask for the Committee's support for this amendment.
  4.35 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 126.

  DIVISION NO. 1

  CONTENTS

  Airedale, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Amherst, E

  John-Mackie, L.

  Ardwick, L

  Kilbracken, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Kilmarnock, L.

  Aylestone, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Birk, B.

  Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

  Blease, L.

  Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

  Bonham-Carter, L.

  Longford, E.

  Boston of Faversham, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Bottomley, L.

  McNair, L. [Teller.]

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Manchester, Bp.

  Bruce of Donington

  Mayhew, L.

  Buckmaster, V.

  Meston, L.

  Burton of Coventry, B.

  Mishcon, L.

  Caradon. L.

  Molloy, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Morris, L.

  Carter, L.

  Morton of Shuna, L.

  Chitnis, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Oram, L.

  David, B.

  Pitt of Hampstead, L.

  Davies, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Diamond, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

  Rathcreedan, L.

  Elwyn-Jones. L.

  Reilly, L.

  Ewart-Biggs, B.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Robson of Kiddington, B.

  Falkland, V.

  Rochester, L.

  Fisher of Rednal, B.

  Ross of Marnock, L.

  Flowers, L.

  Sainsbury, L.

  Foot, L.

  Seear, B.

  Gallacher, L.

  Serota, B.

  Galpern, L.

  Simon, V.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Somers, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Stallard, L.

  Grey, E.

  Stedman, B.

  Hampton, L.

  Stewart of Fulham, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Hatch of Lusby, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Hirshfield, L.

  Tonypandy, V.

  Hooson, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Underhill, L.

  Hunt, L.

  Wallace of Coslany, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Walston, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L.

  Wells-Pestell, L.

  Jacques, L.

  Willis, L.

  Jeger. B.

  Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Abinger, L.

  Cox, B.

  Alport, L.

  Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Davidson, V. [Teller.]

  Auckland, L.

  De Freyne, L.

  Bauer, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Beaverbrook, L.

  Denning, L.

  Beloff, L.

  Duncan-Sandys, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Bessborough, E.

  Ebbisham, L.

  Blyth, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Elibank, L.

  Braye, B.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Broxbourne, L.

  Elton, L.

  Bruce-Gardyne, L.

  Erroll of Hale, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Faithfull, B.

  Butterworth, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Caithness, E.

  Ferrier, L.

  Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Gainford, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Glanusk, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Goold, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Cowley, E.

  Gridley, L.

  264

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

  Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

  Harlech, L.

  Portland, D.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Quinton, L.

  Hesketh, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Holderness, L.

  Reigate, L.

  Hood, V.

  Renwick, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Rugby, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Kimball, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Kitchener, E.

  Sempill, Ly.

  Lane-Fox, B.

  Shannon, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Layton, L.

  Slim, V.

  Long, V.

  Strange, B.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Strathspey, L.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Sudeley, L.

  Manchester, D.

  Swinfen, L.

  Marley, L.

  Terrington, L.

  Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Trafford, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Tranmire, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Molson, L.

  Tryon, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Vickers, B.

  Munster, E.

  Westbury, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Whitelaw, V.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  Newall, L.

  Wise, L.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Wolfson, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Wynford, L.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Pender, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  4.44 p.m.
  [Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
  Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 1, line 21, at end insert—
  ("() No liability shall be incurred under subsection (1) above in respect of any person whom the owners or agents are obliged to carry as a result of an order from a foreign Government.").
  The noble Lord said: The amendment is intended to cover such a case as noble Lords will be familiar with; namely, where a deportation order is made and, this being a genuine government order, the carrier is required to convey the person who is subject to that deportation order. His papers may not be in order. Can it possibly be suggested that it is proper that the carrier should be fined the sum of £1, 000?
  It is no good—I say this with the deepest respect to the Committee—saying that this is one of the cases where the Secretary of State will exercise his discretion. It is surely not for us, when passing an Act of Parliament with some precision, to rely upon a discretion which can be exercised in any number of ways and which one knows perfectly well will be exercised in most cases through an official, as I have said before. It must be obvious that, where a carrier is conveying under an order from a foreign government to carry, it must be an exemption properly in the Act.
  Lord Mottistone: It may be helpful to the Committee, to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to my noble friend the Minister if I say that I suspect that

  265
  my Amendment No. 10 is very similar to this amendment. Perhaps I may speak to it under this heading to save time. The principle is as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has described it. However, I suggest with great humility that my wording is a little wider and may therefore cover rather greater ground than his does, and would encompass his, if the Committee were so disposed to like it.
  There must be moments when the carrier is put in this kind of impossible position, and it would not be appropriate for him to be charged. Surely it is not entirely right to include it within the discretion of the Secretary of State. I therefore hope that my noble friend the Minister may find that one or other of the amendments is one to which he could give great favour.
  Lord Mishcon: I should always be happy to have the noble Lord associated with any amendment of mine. It is a strange experience, which I enjoy when it happens.
  I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider this—and I am not making an argument by way of a reduction to an absurdity. If his wording prevailed, would it not be correct that were someone, for example, to be pushed on board ship, he would not be carried voluntarily? The carrier would be carrying him without proper papers, even though he might not be responsible for pushing him on the ship. Because according to this amendment such a person would not be carried voluntarily, there would be no liability on the carrier. The wording in my amendment seems to be more precise.
  The Lord Bishop of Manchester: There seems to be one good reason why the Government should accept the amendment or why the Minister should give it careful consideration. There are surely cases under present regulations where the British Government themselves require the co-operation of carriers where people are being deported against their will. In such a case surely we would not welcome the kind of legislation from a foreign government that put penalties on the carrier for doing precisely that.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: It would be convenient not to deal with the amendments together as they raise rather divergent principles. It would be confusing to try to deal with Amendments Nos. 6 and 10 at the same time, although to some degree they overlap in one sense. That sense is the matter of international comity, which in this regard means that a government of one sovereign state is not obliged to recognise the order of another sovereign state save as bound by convention or treaty to which both states are parties. I touched on this at Second Reading.
  In the absence of acceptance of the principle on a reciprocal basis by some further protocol to the convention on refugees by the signatory states, we could very soon, at the behest or order of a foreign government, become the dumping depot of deportees; and deportees not only from the signatory states, who are all member states of the Council of Europe, which is pretty wide, but states anywhere in the world. Speaking only to Amendment No. 6 at this stage, I respectfully suggest that this proviso or "savings
  266
  clause" is wholly unacceptable. It is wholly unacceptable that we should be bound in that way by the order of some foreign power. We have never, at any time, accepted, notwithstanding international conventions and protocols, any such erosion of sovereignty. The amendment assumes contravention by the carrier of Clause 1.
  Surely, if the carrier breaches Clause 1, he should be liable to pay the prescribed penalty subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State. For those reasons I oppose that amendment. There are other reasons why I wish to oppose Amendment No. 10.
  Lord Denning: I should like to say a few words. What foreign government are we considering here? It may be a highly civilised one or it might be General Amin in East Africa. Is a shipping or airline company entitled to obey General Amin and carry someone to this country? No, I do not accept that. Let it be on a discretionary basis.
  Lord Hylton: I may be able to help the noble and learned Lord. As I understand it, Amendment No. 6 raises the question of those countries which have not ratified the UN convention on the status of refugees. They include Malaysia and Bangladesh. For that reason, I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at the amendment.
  The Earl of Caithness: The amendment before us offers a general exception when the right course is to exercise discretion in the light of the circumstances of each case. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon suggested that I might reply to him in such terms. While I can assure the Committee that the Government will exercise discretion sensibly when the carrier, through no fault of his own, really has no option but to comply with the orders of a foreign government, there may well be circumstances where it would be right to consider the carrier's liability. For example, the carrier might have been compelled to carry someone to this country because he had carried him without documents in the first place either from here or from another country.
  He might have been directed to effect removal here only because he had not complied with other directions—for example, to take the passenger to another country. It is for that reason that the amendment lacks precision. I venture to suggest that it is quite unusual to find an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that lacks precison. This one, however, lacks his usual clarity.
  It would be possible for an unscrupulous carrier to argue that he had been compelled to carry someone when that was not really so. Given the many different systems of immigration control operating throughout the world, it would be quite impossible for the immigration service to check out such claims. I am sure the Committee will agree that one can envisage circumstances in which arrangements could be made between such unscrupulous operators and dishonest officials overseas in which it would be represented that the carrier had no alternative but to carry the passenger.
  Should that come within the ambit of the amendment? It illustrates how widely the amendment

  267
  is drafted. Therefore, it is not an amendment that I can recommend the Committee to accept. But that is not to say that discretion could not, or would not be exercised in appropriate cases. I can only confirm what I said on the previous amendment; namely that such discretion has already been exercised. There will be, and already have been, cases in which the carrier can show that without any fault on his part he was compelled to carry someone, for example, as a deportee from another country. In such cases discretion has been, and will continue to be, exercised. I hope that that solves the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and that he will be able to agree with me that discretion is the right way forward.
  Lord Mishcon: It is very difficult to answer a charming speech of that kind with anything other than charm. However, I am not so capable in that respect as the noble Earl. I wish that I could catch his charm, from across the Front Benches.
  I feel that I owe it to the Committee to answer a few of the arguments that have been advanced. I shall do so very briefly. As I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, warned us when he spoke on a previous amendment that one should not confuse the case of the carrier and the person conveyed. However with great respect, I rather felt that in his contribution on this amendment, that was exactly what he was doing.
  No one is saying, as regards this amendment, that a person who is carried in that way and who arrives on these shores shall be admitted to these shores. We are not saying that at all. Indeed that is the answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. We are not saying that a host of deportees arriving here should be allowed in because they are deportees under the order of General Amin—not a lamented memory—or anybody else.
  If there is an order—I concede that maybe the words "valid order" should be inserted—from a foreign government, what is the carrier to do? If it looks like a perfectly genuine order, should he still be liable for the penalty? The only answer seems to be the old one that the Secretary of State, in his all-pervading wisdom, mercy, righteousness and so on, will obviously not levy a penalty in that case. Parliament is not doing its duty by giving such a wide answer.
  As the noble Earl was courteous enough to point out the imprecision of the amendment in many respects, I shall study what he has said to see whether I should bring the matter forward on Report. Alternatively, I may be so convinced by what he has said that there will be no necessity to do so. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 1, line 21, at end insert—
  ("() No liability shall be incurred under subsection (1) above where a carrier has reason to assume that to refuse to carry would thereby place the intended passenger in grave or immediate danger.").
  The noble Lord said: This is the amendment to which I referred obliquely when we were discussing Amendment No. 3. Like Amendment No. 3, it is the
  268
  sort of utterly minimal concession that the Government could make in order to render the Bill less objectionable in its incidental effects while keeping its intended purposes intact.
  We failed to persuade the Committee to approve Amendment No. 3; so we shall try again with this one. I must ask Members of the Committee in Hamlet's words to,
  "look here upon this picture and on that"
  and to keep in mind the stark contrast between the kind of life we are lucky enough to be able to live in this country and the lethally turbulent conditions in which all too many people cling to life in some less fortunate places. That applies to places where a Pinochet, a Pol Pot or an Idi Amin may come to power at any moment and face their opponents with an immediate and simple choice: escape or die.
  I understand that we may shortly be enjoying a general election in this happy land. Some of us will get very excited. Blood pressures will rise and adrenalin will flow. If someone or other is unlucky enough to get in the way of a well-aimed tomato we shall see banner headlines in the tabloids.
  It would take a little more than that to wake up a news editor in, for example, Beirut where tomatoes are for eating and where Kalashnikov rifles are about as easy to get one's hands on as are ball-point pens in this country. I do not wish to labour the point. I merely wish to remind the Committee that those situations of grave and immediate danger have arisen in the past, exist at this moment and that, in unforeseeable places and at quite unpredictable times, they are all too certain to occur again in the future. It is with such circumstances that this amendment is concerned.
  When one of these crises suddenly occurs, what is our attitude to be? There may be panic and there will be deadly fear. Some noble Lords may have seen the fear of death in someone else's eyes. It is not a sight that you forget. If a girl somewhere on a check-in desk at an airport is so moved by that sight that she sells a ticket to someone who has been quite unable to obtain a passport and manages to reach this country, what should we do?
  The Home Office by, I think, not giving itself enough time to think has put itself in the ridiculous position of saying that our response to the arrival of that wretched person should be to ask to see his papers and, finding them defective, to fine the carrier who brought him here £1, 000. I know that the Home Secretary does not have to impose the fine, and I am sure I am right in assuming that no conceivable Home Secretary would impose the fine. But how is that girl on the check-in desk at God knows where to know that? She may be supporting a large family by working for the airline. She may not dare to risk her job by disobeying the order she will have received from her employers: "No passport, no ticket". She may send the man away to his death.
  This amendment seeks to build into the rules a very small safety valve for these occasions of appalling danger, and with this minimal change in the Bill my imagined check-in girl will, with luck, have had a telephone call from her employer saying, "The no-passport, no-ticket rule is suspended during the present emergency". She will sell the threatened

  269
  passenger a ticket, and a life which would otherwise have been casually, meaninglessly, rubbed out will be saved I beg to move.
  5 p.m.
  Viscount Tonypandy: I rise to speak in support of the amendment that has been proposed. I wish to bring to the attention of the Committee an experience that I had when I was responsible as Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Home Office for dealing with questions of immigration. At a time when there was a great deal of immigration into our country—I am talking of 1964—very little came to the Ministers, compared with the number of cases that were dealt with by officials. But we are, I believe, in grave danger of imposing on a carrier a sense of dreadful responsibility if he knows that a person is in grave danger.
  I recall in my time in office my private secretary coming in to me when I was in the room of the Home Secretary, the late Lord Stow-Hill, to tell me that a man who had been sent back that day had cut his throat in the aeroplane. Apart from the horror of fearing that it was somebody whom I had rejected—I soon found out that it was not—and the horror of the tragedy for the man concerned, I thought of the poor immigration officer who, having looked at the papers and not being satisfied, said, "No, back you go." If we know that people are in danger, are we to say "No, you may not bring them"?
  We are proud of the heritage of this land and the whole world looks on us as a country where true refugees can look to a land of liberty, a land where, above all, we have prided ourselves through the years that our shores will protect from tyranny people who are seeking to escape.
  Amendment No. 7 is to my mind an improvement on Amendment No. 3, which I supported in the Lobby. But I hope and pray that Her Majesty's Government will realise that they are touching a tender nerve with the British people on this matter. People who have a great sense of of responsibility and who are accustomed to public service fear this effort to make sure that we are protected from too much immigration—which I think is the wish of our people. I believe that they want to be protected against great crowds coming in again, because we cannot absorb them. But our people have a sense of decency and their instinct tells them that, when we know that people are in danger, it is not in line with our tradition to slam the door in their faces and behave as though we do not care.
  Viscount Buckmaster: I also strongly support this amendment and I want to deal particularly with Ugandans. Various noble Lords have mentioned Idi Amin as though he was still in power, so let me remind the Committee that he was overthrown in 1980. I know of several Ugandans now living in Britain who were suffering severe persecution in the Amin reign. This was in the mid-1970s when I was working in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office after a spell in Uganda.
  Those people were suffering in an appalling way. I shall not go into details, but those noble Lords who
  270
  have had experience of countries like that where such persecution is rife can appreciate the mental and physical torment that they were in. They were, in the words of the amendment, "in grave or immediate danger" and I would add the words "of their lives". I want to mention particularly that those were ordinary decent, upright, law-abiding citizens. But unfortunately they happened to belong to tribes opposed to Amin.
  In four cases with which I was personally associated, they had managed to get to Britain on a Ugandan Airways flight without proper travel documents. Ultimately, after protracted intervention on my part, they were granted exceptional leave to remain and two of them were finally granted asylum. Of those four, two have now established themselves in businesses in the United Kingdom and one is working for the British Refugee Council.
  The point I want to make is that had those people remained in Uganda, I have no doubt that they would have been either killed, as many of their close relations were, or imprisoned in such ghastly conditions that death would probably be preferable to such a fate. So I feel, as my noble friend Lord Tonypandy said, that we must draw on our reputation as a humanitarian country. We must give all the consideration we can to such cases, even though we have not been familiar with the backgrounds. I very much hope that the Minister will give due consideration to my remarks.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have been greatly moved by the speeches that have been made. Like all Members of the Committee, I wish to extend the traditional hospitality of our shores to those who may be in grave danger. However, on a realistic plane, how can that be done? How can we accommodate all those unfortunate people who may be in grave danger in all parts of the world? Is it really suggested that the amendment as it stands can be operative from a practical point of view? Presumably, in some cases—perhaps in all cases—it will be the carrier who has to assume a grave and immediate danger from what he is told by a passenger. I assume that the carrier would then have to consider that there is no other place in the world where the intending passenger will be safe.
  It is with the utmost regret that I speak as I do. I should wish to accommodate in this country everybody who is in grave danger. But I do not regard this as a minimal concession; I think it is a most important concession. The amendment, if carried, will drive the proverbial coach and four through the intendment of the Bill.
  Lord Hylton: I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, does the Committee a service by suggesting that all the refugees of the world are going to come to this country. Past records and statistics show clearly that a very small minority of refugees have done so. It is also relevant to the amendment that the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture is one of the numerous organisations that are highly concerned about the Bill.
  Our doctors and experts on rehabilitation have established a considerable expertise in the very difficult field of victims of torture. In the post-war period, we

  271
  have seen torture exercised on quite a large scale, even in Europe (in such countries as Greece), in countries which wish to become members of the EC (such as Turkey), and in the psychiatric hospitals of Russia. Those are the kinds of cases to which the amendment will apply. I hope that the Government will be able to look at it more sympathetically than they did previous amendments.
  Lord Denning: I can well appreciate the telling cases which my noble friend Lord Tonypandy and others have mentioned. However, those are individual cases, and this amendment goes much further. It goes so far that it opens the way to abuse. The words,
  "carrier has reason to assume"
  mean that a receptionist in a far country who checks in the passenger must assume that a refusal to carry the passenger will place the intended passenger in grave or immediate danger. What evidence will the receptionist have of the grave or immediate danger except the word of the passenger? It is too big a responsibility for the receptionist to judge grave and immediate danger. Surely the sensible thing is to allow the passenger to go on and then to fine the aircraft company within discretion. I should have thought that, however well intentioned, the amendment goes too far.
  The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I should like to support this amendment as strongly as I can. I was moved by the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord McNair. It set the arguments before us very powerfully. I must confess that I do not understand the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. He says, "How can we accommodate all the unfortunate people from other parts of the world?" I thought that the object of the Bill, as explained by the Minister and others, was not to keep out genuine refugees and those who are in grave or immediate danger. Am I wrong on that point?
  I should like an assurance from the Minister as to the purpose of the Bill. If we are concerned, on the one hand, with the potential numbers of those who might be considered to be in grave or immediate danger, or if we are concerned, on the other hand, with abuse, those matters put a different complexion on the Bill. I thought that the Bill was designed to correct abuse but not to keep out genuine refugees. In that case I think it has been admitted on all sides of the Committee that we will be going against a long, honourable and humane tradition in this country.
  As to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, about opening the way to abuse, there is always the possibility of abuse in all legislation. We are always dealing with problems of abuse; I have no doubt that that will continue to be so in the future whatever the form in which the Bill finally goes through. However, the great point is where one puts the emphasis. Is the emphasis simply on guarding against abuse, or is it also on allowing for those who are in grave or immediate danger to be protected in some way in this country?
  I know that this is not the place for anecdotal evidence on this grave matter. However, Uganda was mentioned, and I could not help remembering that some years ago I spent a study leave in East Africa. It
  272
  was at the height of the Amin régime. I was staying at a small college in Nairobi. The only other occupants were refugees from Uganda. I was standing next to a young man making a cup of tea one afternoon. He had reasonable English and in passing conversation with him I asked about his family. I elicited the information that every single one of them had been killed; he was the only one who had escaped.
  It is people such as those that one has in mind when one thinks of grave or immediate danger. I found very puzzling the words of the Minister when he gave the numbers of persons who had been granted asylum in this country and said that they had all come from a safe third country and not from countries where such problems are taking place. That indicated to me how very difficult it is for anybody from those countries to get directly to Britain in any case. Do we wish to shut those possible loopholes to people who are in danger of their lives?
  I found the argument of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, entirely convincing as to what the effect might be on airline operators in other countries who come across circumstances of that kind. I should not wish to be a party this afternoon to anything which closed a vital loophole to people who are in grave or immediate danger.
  Lord Monson: I should like to support the amendment. In doing so, may I reply to a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Denning. As regards the Vietnamese boat people, they would be adrift on the ocean. There would be no question of anyone checking them in at a desk. If the captain of a British ship is hesitant about picking them up in consequence of the Bill, as seems likely, what will happen to them? If they head back to Communist Vietnam, it is all too likely that they will be thrown into a concentration camp or worse. On the other hand, if they sail on, they will probably, as is statistically true, be drowned in a typhoon, eaten by sharks or robbed, raped and murdered by pirates.
  Of all the amendments on the Marshalled List today I think this is the most essential. I hope that even noble Lords who support the Bill in general—as I do and as I am sure most of the British public do—will agree to this small but important modification. I say that not least because it is the one amendment which I believe has majority support among members of the public.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: I do not want to intervene at any length but I am prompted to do so by the words spoken by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, in regard to the tradition of this country in welcoming refugees and providing asylum. I briefly remind the Minister that in the last century there was a famous diplomatic incident when a bomb was thrown at Napoleon III. It was found that it had "Made in Birmingham" on it. It was believed to have been thrown by a follower of Mazzini. A grave diplomatic incident arose. Lord Palmerston, who was not easily frightened, decided to introduce legislation which limited to a very slight degree the right of asylum in this country. His government fell on that principle. It was replaced by the government of Lord Derby, and that, for the time being, was the end of that.

  273
  We have a tradition of which we should be extremely proud. I do not want to add to the eloquent words of my noble friend Lord McNair and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, or to the telling point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about the boat people, but I remind noble Lords opposite, who should not need to be reminded, of the traditions of this country which their party always claimed to preserve.
  The Earl of Caithness: Like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and many others, I too was moved by the speeches which have been made, and particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, in moving the amendment. However, I believe that we must look at this matter with a very close eye. This amendment would create a wholly unreasonable expectation on the carrier—an expectation which is ultimately untestable. Indeed, it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who said that carriers cannot be expected to make careful judgments on whether an individual passenger is or is not in grave or immediate danger. I have to agree with the noble and learned Lord.
  It would be quite unreasonable to ask people at the check-in desk to try to do that. Further, how could that judgment be tested? It would mean that carriers would have to accept any passenger who claimed to be in danger simply to cover themselves. The carrier would simply have to say that he thought it was a reasonable assumption in order to relieve himself of any liability, and that would be very difficult to test after the event.
  The nub of the problem is that we have become confused by what is meant by the term "grave and immediate danger". Those are the words which make this amendment so much wider in scope than Amendment No. 3, which the Committee has already rejected. Grave and immediate danger is not the criterion for refugee status which some Members of the Committee have indicated that it means. It is worth while reminding ourselves of the 1951 United Nations Convention, which states:
  "A refugee is a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."
  The words "grave and immediate danger" and the cases that some Members of the Committee have given this afternoon are so much wider than that definition. Indeed, some of the cases mentioned this afternoon might have fallen within that definition; but that is something we have already decided in Committee. For this amendment to be accepted the words "grave and immediate danger" take the whole ambit of what we are considering much wider than the United Nations Convention on Refugees. It affects everyone who thinks they might be in grave danger or at risk. One can think of a number of countries—
  The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I cannot follow his argument. A well-founded fear of persecution would include "grave or immediate danger". I would regard that as being wider than "grave or immediate danger". Perhaps the noble Earl can explain how these two are
  274
  related, because "grave or immediate danger" is certainly comprehended in the words he quoted from the United Nations Convention on Refugees.
  The Earl of Caithness: This is where I beg to differ with the right reverend Prelate, if I may be permitted to do so. The words "grave and immediate danger" are not the criteria for refugee status that I read out. Although one has deep sadness and regret that many countries are involved in civil wars or, in some instances, have been invaded by opposing forces, people in such countries might consider themselves to be in grave or immediate danger; for example, in Afghanistan, certain areas of the Far East or, indeed, in Beirut. They do not necessarily constitute being potential refugees within the definition of the United Nations Convention. That is the important point that I believe has become confused this afternoon.
  Lord McNair: I do not think I used the word "refugee" in my speech. I am speaking about people who are in grave or immediate danger.
  The Earl of Caithness: What I am saying is that that is much wider than the United Nations Convention. We have already decided on that. The amendment is wider and I cannot recommend the Committee to accept it. It would create an expectation that carriers could make judgments or assumptions that they are clearly not in a position to make. Furthermore, that decision having been made it would be extremely hard for it to be properly tested. Consequently this amendment gives enormous scope for abuse and I am sure that is something the Committee do not want.
  Lord Monson: The noble Earl has not answered the point I made about the Vietnamese boat people. If the master of a vessel comes across a boat with 40 refugees in it who are still alive, is he to risk a fine of £40, 000 or is he to sail on? I suspect he would probably do the latter.
  The Earl of Caithness: In such a case there is the law of the sea and there is also the discretion of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary which is built into the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the Vietnamese boat people, and the Government can be justifiably proud of their record in that respect. Indeed, I hope that in the not too distant future there will be another announcement which will please the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Therefore I do not believe that the amendment affects the position outlined by the noble Lord. As I said, the amendment widens the scope for abuse.
  Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I must take up the Minister on that. It is a question of the meaning of words. There is no ill-intention involved. To say that someone is in immediate danger is a narrower provision than to say that he is in danger of persecution if he goes home. It is a narrower definition. Many refugees who, if they went home, would be in danger are not in danger now. Therefore to my mind the argument put forward by the noble Earl is entirely wrong.
  The Earl of Caithness: I regret to say that to my mind the argument is entirely right. I disagree with the noble Lord. This is where we must both agree, as non-lawyers, that we need a lawyer to be present.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Mishcon: He appears! A great many speeches have been made on this amendment, of which if I may humbly say this as an ordinary Member of this Chamber, I shall always be proud when I remember this Bill. If I may say so it was the House of Parliament at its best, because it was realistically expressing our people's great traditions. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, that our people feel that enough is enough with regard to immigration. I do not know that that is a happy situation for any civilised country to put up with, remembering the old wish of Ernest Bevin: that he would live to see the day when passports were unnecessary and people could go where they wanted. We all know that that is a Utopia still far removed from our vision.
  Our people in saying, "Enough is enough" will never turn their backs on those who are in genuine fear of their lives and of danger. The noble Earl said that we had to keep a close eye on this amendment. I know that he will forgive my saying that he appears to have kept a closed eye on this amendment, because he has not seen the wood for the trees.
  To advance on behalf of the Government an answer to this plea on behalf of those who are in immediate and real danger of their lives, "Oh well, that is a very much wider concept", as has already been pointed out, "than 'the genuine fear of persecution' ", is to turn logic and words on their heads.
  I can walk abroad and say that I am in fear of persecution. Many people have a persecution complex. They feel that they do not obtain positions that they should because of persecution. They think that they do not receive rewards that they should because of persecution. There is no doubt that when someone is convinced, as the carrier will have to be, that there is a genuine fear of danger to life or immediate danger, that imposes a much narrower concept than the definition at which we have been looking in the convention. I was surprised that the noble Earl quoted it, because I thought that it was something that he would leave out of his argument upon the basis that we have to admit many refugees, who are not genuinely in immediate fear of danger or death, by virtue of the fact that we are bound by the convention, which has a much wider definition than the proposal we are considering.
  I hope that we shall be realistic about this. When such words are used, everyone knows that in most cases it will not be an individual case; it will arise because officials of the carrier company are well aware that a dangerous crisis has arisen with regard to a section of people. If we do not pass this amendment, there may be an official, very likely a junior official, who is convinced of the truth of the case of those who are banging at the door—one can well imagine it at a ticket office—and begging to be allowed in in order that they and their families may be saved. Some of them may push their families in front of them and say, "Don't take me, but take my children". That official will have to take the responsibility if this amendment
  276
  is not carried. He will not be able to get hold of the chairman or the managing director of the company. He will have to say, "Am I going to get the sack if I admit these 20 people? I do not have £20, 000. My company will be landed with a £20, 000 penalty. I do not have the money. I would willingly give it if I had it. Will my company sack me? They will point out that this was not an exception in a Bill when it went through the English Parliament—the British Parliament." I looked at the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, who was angry with me for a moment, but ultimately I said "the British Parliament".
  Unless we pass this amendment, that would be a responsibility that could not be taken on by an official. The door will be barred. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, then came back once more with the illogicality, with which he is not usually associated, of mixing up carrier and passenger.
  The Bill does not say that everyone carried whom the carrier believes to be in fear of grave or immediate danger shall be admitted by the United Kingdom. It merely prevents a carrier being fined if he carries such a person in that genuine belief.
  I have an idea that this is an amendment that appeals to the mind, and rather more particularly to the heart, of everyone in the Committee. I am sure that it is with that feeling of conscience that we shall face the Division.
  The Earl of Caithness: May I—
  Lord Mishcon: If the noble Earl is stopping me to say that there is no need for a Division, I am delighted to give way.
  The Earl of Caithness: No. I do not go that far. The noble Lord would not expect me to withdraw what I firmly believe and what I have said to him. Does he agree that the case he advanced, of a sudden crisis blowing up and people coming to the airport, is a matter on which the Government, rather than the carrier, should take the initiative and say, "Yes, we agree that there is a crisis: we will use the discretion that is provided for the Home Secretary"? The onus is on the Government, not on the carrier.
  Lord Mishcon: I wish crises took place in the world in a way which gave the ambassador to the country concerned (on the basis that we had an ambassador there, and had not withdrawn him because of what was happening in that country) time to communicate with the Foreign Office; that the Foreign Office had time to communicate with the Home Office; that the Home Office had time to communicate with all the carriers in that country and that those carriers had time to communicate with their junior officials and say, "We have heard from the United Kingdom Government. You can now let these people go". Crises do not occur in that way. I wish to Heaven that they did!
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he accept that by this amendment, whether it be right or wrong, he is extending the convention commitments of Her Majesty's Government beyond that convention? Does he

  277
  appreciate that my noble friend the Minister was totally right when he said that, under our international obligations through that convention, which are accepted reciprocally by the other signatory states, it is for the Secretary of State and not for the carrier to exercise his discretion? What the noble Lord is doing by this amendment is pre-empting the whole situation. Although there is a sound humanitarian background and a good case has been made, does he accept that as a matter of reality he is vastly extending Her Majesty's Government's obligations under public international law?
  Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord is, most unusually, mentally confused. If it be as a result of my having talked to your Lordships for too long, I humbly apologise to him. His mental confusion is in the following direction: first, as the noble Lord, Lord McNair, said in a clear intervention, he was not necessarily talking about refugees as described in the convention; he was talking about people who stand in grave or immediate danger, as mentioned in the amendment.
  Secondly, the confusion which the noble Lord insists upon injecting into this place (I do not think that the Committee will accept it) is that he is talking about the duty of countries which have signed the convention to admit people as refugees. That is not this Bill. If this Bill dealt with refugees, the Committee would have many amendments before it which I believe the Committee would want to have before it. They are not before it because the Bill does not deal with the admission of refugees; it deals with the penalties upon carriers. That is the complete answer to the noble Lord. I hope he will accept it as such.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I accept that as no answer at all. It misses the whole point.
  Lord Mishcon: If I have missed the point, in spite of the fact that I may be imposing upon the patience of the Committee as the noble Lord will do, I invite him kindly to make the point that I have not answered.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: It is precisely the same point in the same form that was made already. In the circumstances of the debate, the noble Lord has not appreciated it.
  Lord Mishcon: Those vague words are not worthy of the noble Lord.
  5.40 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 117.

  DIVISION NO. 2

  CONTENTS

  Airedale, L

  Birk, B.

  Amherst, E.

  Bonham-Carter, L.

  Ardwick, L.

  Bottomley, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Broadbridge, L.

  Aylestone, L

  Brockway, L.

  Banks, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  278

  Buckmaster, V.

  Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

  Burton of Coventry, B.

  Lockwood, B.

  Caradon, L.

  McNair, L. [Teller.]

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Manchester, Bp.

  Carter, L.

  Mayhew, L.

  Chitnis, L.

  Meston, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  David, B.

  Molloy, L.

  Davies, L.

  Monson, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Morton of Shuna, L.

  Diamond, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

  Oram, L.

  Ewart-Biggs, B.

  Peston, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Pitt of Hampstead, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Foot, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Galpern, L.

  Rea, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller. ]

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Robson of Kiddington, B.

  Greenway, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Grey, E.

  Ross of Marnock, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Seear, B.

  Hanworth, V.

  Silkin of Dulwich, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Simon, V.

  Hatch of Lusby, L.

  Stedman, B.

  Hooson, L.

  Stewart of Fulham, L.

  Houghton of Sowerby, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Tonypandy, V.

  Hunt, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Underhill, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L.

  Wallace of Coslany, L.

  Jacques, L.

  Walson, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Wells-Pestell, L.

  John-Mackie, L.

  Willis, L.

  Kilbracken, L.

  Winterbottom, L.

  Kilmarnock, L.

  Ypres, E.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Abinger, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Alport, L.

  Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Gainford, L.

  Bauer, L.

  Glanusk, L.

  Beaverbrook, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Beloff, L.

  Goold, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Gridley, L.

  Blyth, L.

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Harlech, L.

  Broxbourne, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Bruce-Gardyne, L.

  Hesketh, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Holderness, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Hood, V.

  Caithness, E.

  Hooper, B.

  Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Lane-Fox, B.

  Cathcart, E.

  Layton, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Long, V.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Cowley, E.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Cox, B.

  Marley, L.

  Davidson, V. [Teller. ]

  Marsh, L.

  De L'Isle, V.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Denham, L. [Teller. ]

  Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

  Denning, L.

  Dilhorne, V.

  Merrivale, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Mersey, V.

  Ebbisham, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Elibank, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Munster, E.

  Elton, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Erroll of Hale, L.

  Newall, L.

  Faithfull, B.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Ferrier, L.

  Pender, L.

  279

  Plummer of St Marylebone, L

  Sudeley, L

  Swinfen, L.

  Portland, D.

  Terrington, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Reigate, L

  Teynham, L.

  Renwick, L.

  Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

  Rugby, L.

  Trafford, L.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Tranmire, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Trumpington, B.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Sandford, L.

  Vickers, B.

  Sempill, Ly.

  Whitelaw, V.

  Shannon, E.

  Windlesham, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Wise, L.

  Strange, B.

  Wyatt of Weeford, L.

  Strathcarron, L

  Wynford, L.

  Strathspey, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  5.48 p.m.
  [Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
  Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 1, line 24, at end insert—
  ("() No liability shall be incurred under subsection (1) in respect of any person not carried voluntarily.").
  The noble Lord said: I attempted to expedite the work of the Committee by moving Amendment No. 10 with Amendment No. 6. However, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, did not like it; and the Minister did not reply. I shall therefore very briefly present the amendment to the Committee again.
  The function of Amendment No. 10 is to deal with the point raised in Amendment No. 6. However, it also covers the situation which might arise when there are stowaways or people smuggled on board ferries without the knowledge of the carrier in the backs of cars or lorries. It does not seem reasonable that there should be an automatic liability on the carrier that he may be fined for carrying such people when he has had absolutely no control over their entry into his ship or aircraft. Therefore this amendment, simple as it is, is worthy of inclusion in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose this amendment because if a carrier has a person on board not carried voluntarily in the sense that he is a stowaway who has paid no fare, I do not understand why his presence should not be discovered on arrival in the United Kingdom by the ship or by aircraft before he disembarks by the very type of routine check of tickets issued which any passenger has to produce before he is allowed to leave the ship or aircraft or indeed to leave the office accommodation of the carrier in the United Kingdom. I do not understand why there should be no obligation upon the carrier to carry out the form of routine checks which should be done with the safeguards to ensure compliance with Clause 1.
  But there is an injustice. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether this can be considered, although I oppose the amendment as such. The injustice is that if the carrier has used all reasonable diligence (and can satisfy the Secretary of State that he has done so) to conduct that sort of check as is envisaged to ensure compliance with Clause 1, and the wily stowaway has evaded the checks and has evaded detection then (speaking personally only for myself) it seems that the
  280
  carrier ought to be excused and there ought to be no liability. But that is not what this amendment proposes. That is one thing. But it is quite another to suggest, as the amendment proposes, that because a person is not carried voluntarily, the carrier should be able to land him without liability in the UK under Clause 1.
  We have touched upon the deportee situation before to some degree. Is a deportee a person not carried voluntarily? It is thought not, except where the carrier is subject to an order from a foreign court where the carrier, for example, in some of the Iron Curtain countries is a state carrier which is obliged to follow the orders it is given. This has been raised in another amendment which the Committee has already considered.
  Where the carrier is subject to an order from a foreign government—again, because such a person is not carried voluntarily—there is, nonetheless, no reason why he should be landed in the United Kingdom without liability under Clause 1—having regard to the matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I had a somewhat inconclusive discussion a moment ago that save by convention or treaty the government of one sovereign state is not, according to the comity of nations, obliged to recognise the order of another foreign state.
  The amendment was first circulated by the General Council of British Shipping on 3rd March 1987. If accepted by the Committee, it would permit stowaways and deportees to be landed in the United Kingdom by carriers. It would or could in effect work much mischief. Therefore I respectfully suggest that it is not acceptable.
  Lord Denning: Is not the short answer to this amendment that the Minister can deal with it at his discretion and would remit any fine?
  The Earl of Caithness: As my noble friend who moved this amendment has said we have already discussed a somewhat similar amendment to remove responsibility from carriers who were obliged to carry a passenger as a result of the order of a foreign government and some of the arguments are the same. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, added one of his own when we discussed it earlier when he said he did not like Amendment No. 10. It would be unsatisfactory to leave such a saving in this legislation. It would not be right for a carrier to be able to claim that he was required to carry a passenger when it might be very difficult indeed to substantiate such a claim. How would it be possible to know after the event the basis of the requirement, who issued the instruction, whether it had or could have been challenged, or what the alternatives were? It would be a recipe for dissension and dispute as it would require a very difficult subjective judgment to be made; namely, was the carriage voluntary? It appears to be enough under the terms of the amendment for the carrier to do no more than state that the passenger was not carried voluntarily for responsibility to be removed. Indeed, it might be enough for the carrier to argue that if he had known the true status of the passenger he would not have carried him so that the carriage was indeed not voluntary. A blanket provision like this creates too

  281
  dangerous a loophole since it can take no account of individual circumstances.
  Nor do I think that we should be accepting that the carrier can do nothing to deter stowaways. Certainly it would be very hard always to distinguish at the immigration desk the difference between a passenger who may have destroyed his ticket and a stowaway, particularly when ferry companies find it difficult to produce passenger lists.
  These are matters which need to be considered in the light of the particular circumstances of the case. There may of course be circumstances when a carrier is obliged to carry a passenger by another government's authorised agencies and we accept that the carrier had no reasonable option but to comply. There may also be circumstances where it would be unreasonable to charge a carrier for a stowaway because, for example, we are satisfied the carrier had done everything reasonable to ensure he only brought in people authorised to use his service. If so, I assure the Committee, particularly my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway who raised this matter, that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would use the discretion available and would consider not imposing a charge. This is a matter, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, so succinctly put it, where discretion rather than legislation is the best course because the circumstances are central to the decision.
  While I cannot recommend these amendments, I assure the Committee that the Government fully recognise the concerns of the shipping companies. We have had a number of meetings with their representatives to go through the detail with them. My right honourable friend the Minister of State has seen them and senior members of the immigration service have had a number of meetings with them and offered written advice and guidance. Such guidance is readily available to the airline companies and we are ready to use discretion sensibly when it would be clearly right not to charge a carrier and to take careful account of any representations they may make.
  At this stage I divert from the amendment to pay tribute to the immigration service. Whether or not one agrees with the principles of the Bill, the immigration service has gone out of its way to be as helpful and co-operative to the carriers, to give them as much advice by means of video recordings, letters and other methods to make sure that when the Bill becomes an Act, as I hope it will shortly, it will operate as smoothly as possible. I believe the whole Committee would like to join me in paying tribute and giving thanks to the immigration service for the job that it has undertaken recently.
  In the circumstances I have described and with the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I fear that I cannot recommend acceptance of the amendment. I know that it will be a disappointment to my noble friend, but I really cannot accept it.
  Lord Mottistone: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving such a full reply on this amendment and for covering all the ground and the points raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, whose support on a particular point I much
  282
  appreciated even if he disagreed with practically everything else.
  It is reassuring to hear not only that the Secretary of State will use his discretion in appropriate cases such as stowaways and presumably people who are smuggled in the backs of cars but also that the immigration service is now taking such trouble to help the carriers. It is probably fairly easy for the airlines in the broad sense but it will be an enormous load for the ro-ro ferries which unfortunately will have to adjust to this. However, having said that, my noble friend's answer is satisfactory and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 1, line 26, at end insert—
  ("() The Secretary of State shall by Order in Council establish an appeal tribunal to which carriers found liable to a penalty under this Act may appeal.").
  The noble Lord said: On so many occasions this afternoon mention has been made by the Minister and others—
  certainly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has mentioned it—that one has to leave to the discretion of the Secretary of State whether or not a penalty is to be exacted. Instances have been given where it is thought that the Secretary of State would exercise his discretion in a proper manner.
  When we have considered the question of a penalty being imposed we have always taken the view that there should be a right for the person against whom the penalty is charged to appeal. When I put down this amendment, I wondered what would be the appropriate place to address such an appeal. I flirted with the idea, which I believe was raised in another place, of a county court being the appropriate place. It seemed to me that once one puts a civil court in charge of an appeal of this kind the limitations would normally be that the Secretary of State had not exercised his discretion in a proper manner or that he had not gone through the proper procedural steps. Judges do not like—and there is a whole line of precedents in regard to this—to substitute themselves for the user of the discretion vested in Parliament so far as concerns a Minister.
  I therefore moved away from the idea of the civil court and putting the judge as a substitute for the Minister to exercise his discretion and I felt that there ought to be a tribunal. Then I said to myself that it is not very sensible to set up a special tribunal to deal with a few appeals—one hopes there would have to be only a few appeals—that might take place in the course of a year. So my final decision was this, and I hope the Committee will think it to be a sensible and reasonable one: there ought to be a right of appeal.
  The Government most likely have thought about this and may well decide to put forward, if there is to be an appeal, an appropriate tribunal, an appropriate couple of people whoever they may be who would have independent minds on this matter. I thought that the sensible thing to do would be to put down this amendment at Committee stage as a probing amendment, leaving the Minister of State to reply by telling us why he thought, if that was his view—I hope

  283
  it is not—there should not be any appeal at all; or constructively to tell us that if there is to be an appeal then a certain body may be an appropriate one in which this appeal right should be invested.
  Before I sit down I should like from these Benches to join in the tribute the Minister paid to the immigration service. Many—indeed most—of the officials of the immigration service are kindly and courteous. I know that the Minister will agree with me that the minority against whom from time to time complaints are made are very much a minority. One wants to see that minority become smaller still as the years go by.
  If this Bill finds its place in the statute book—and the Minister will have a chance to deal with this point, if not at this stage then at another stage if such a stage is reached—I hope that the Secretary of State himself will see that, in regard to all the matters that have been mentioned where sympathetic consideration has been given by the Government because they see that there can be hard cases, guidelines will be given to the immigration service so that when officials have to come to a decision with regard to a carrier or indeed make a recommendation, this will be done upon lines that at least would meet with the approval of the Committee, having regard to the various matters we have raised this afternoon.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who puts this forward as a probing amendment, perhaps I may briefly suggest to him that no appeal to a tribunal is necessary, and for this simple reason. Here you have the Secretary of State. It is true that he must exercise his discretion but it is also true that he must exercise it in accordance with the principles and the basic concept of natural justice. If he does not do that then the Divisional Court will set aside the exercise of the discretion.
  This amendment reflects, I think, an amendment proposed by the General Council of Shipping on 23rd March 1987. At that time it was suggested that it would be an appeal to a court. It is now proposed that there should be an appeal to a tribunal. With the greatest respect, is it not very much to be doubted whether an appeal is necessary?
  Lord Walston: I should like briefly to support this amendment and to express my hope that the noble Earl will at least say that he will consider it sympathetically and carefully.
  We all know that the Secretary of State has discretion. We also know that the present Secretary of State is a man of the highest integrity and intelligence, as his predecessors have been and as undoubtedly his successors will be. But we also know as realists that in a minor matter of this kind—and in a great department of state like the Home Office this is a minor matter—when we say it is the Secretary of State who has the discretion it is not the Secretary of State who studies the papers, who looks at the passport to see if a reasonable man might have detected it as a forgery. It is not even a permanent secretary, a deputy secretary or probably not even an assistant secretary. It is done on the word of the immigration officer, the officer on the spot. I have no personal experience but I am sure that the noble Earl and my noble friend Lord
  284
  Mishcon are right in paying tribute to the efficiency and integrity of immigration officers. However, they are not necessarily the wisest or the most balanced people to decide matters of this kind.
  I believe that the Home Secretary has said that an aggrieved carrier would always have the right of appeal to the courts. I am sure that that is correct. But for a carrier to appeal is cumbersome and time-consuming, even to a court of a fairly low level. The chances are that in many instances a carrier who thinks he has been aggrieved and wrongfully fined his £1, 000 will say, "Well, it is gone now. It is not worth going to the expense, possibly losing, possibly winning; it takes a long time", and so on.
  A tribunal seems a much better way. It is simpler; it is more informal; it is less costly. It enables the carrier who feels aggrieved to know that he is not being fined simply on the say-so of some relatively junior official, to which the imprimatur of the Minister of State or Secretary of State is then attached but that there is an entirely independent and unbiased tribunal to which he can go. I hope that the noble Earl will at least say that he feels there is something worth considering here.
  Lord Denning: I hope that this amendment will not be accepted. Although, in most cases that are justiciable, I would be in favour of an appeal, this is a special jurisdiction. This has been emphasised by the number of times today that we have said that it is at the discretion of the Minister whether to enforce the fine or not.
  All these matters are discretionary in so far as they deal with immigration. I should like to recite part of a judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, only this year in an asylum case. The noble and learned Lord said:
  "Applications for leave to enter and remain do not in general raise justiciable issues. Decisions under the Act are administrative and discretionary rather than judicial and imperative. Such decisions may involve the immigration authorities in pursuing inquiries abroad, on consulting official and unofficial organisations and in making value judgments".
  That is just the case that we are considering—whether to enforce the £1, 000, or, discretionarily, to disallow it.
  It may involve inquiries abroad from our consular officers and the like whether it should be enforced or remitted. It is really not a justiciable issue which should go before any appellate tribunal, whether it is the county court or any other tribunal.
  The reserve power of judicial review in the High Court is available in case of unfairness, procedural irregularity or otherwise unlawful action. There is that reserve power. It is hardly every brought into play but it is there.
  Apart from that—I think it has been mentioned before—there is the reference on occasion to the United Kingdom Immigration Advisory Service. That may do away with the necessity for any appeal at all. On the whole I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment and that the matter be dealt with in the manner I have suggested.
  Lord Walston: Surely the appeal would not relate to whether an immigrant should be allowed in or not, or whether he is a refugee or not. The appeal would relate

  285
  simply to whether the carrier was reasonable or not in thinking that the passenger had a valid document. with great respect, I should have thought that that was a justiciable matter, and certainly one that a tribunal could decide upon rather than having a fiat from the bureaucracy at a fairly low level.
  6.15 p.m.
  The Earl of Caithness: May I first be permitted to answer one point of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and confirm to him that guidelines will be issued to the immigration service. I am grateful for his kind words, and I shall make sure that they are passed on to the immigration service who equally will be very grateful for his support.
  This amendment would in effect remove an important element of the Secretary of State's discretion from where it rightly resides with him to another body. It would allow an appeal tribunal to substitute its own judgment on the use of the Secretary of State's discretion for that of the Home Secretary. The amendment is unnecessary if its purpose is to ensure that questions of fact arising under the Bill may be determined by an independent body. This is because if liability is identified and the Secretary of State decides to make a charge, the carrier can decide not to pay because he believes that no liability arose under the legislation: for example, the passenger in question was a British Citizen, or the falsity of a document was not reasonably apparent.
  If the Secretary of State still wishes to recover the debt he would have to take action through the county court, who would be able to decide whether or not a liability existed under the legislation. The carrier therefore has an opportunity to make a case to the court if he considers he is not, in fact, liable to a charge. Although the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said that this is cumbersome and time-consuming for the carrier, so, too, is it cumbersome—on the noble Lord's basis—and time-consuming for the Secretary of State is he wishes to go there. But, surely, the county court is the right place to go.
  The amendment is also unacceptable since, as drafted, and perhaps as intended, it would substitute a tribunal's judgment on matters of discretion for that of the Secretary of State. We believe that it would be quite wrong for a tribunal to try to replace its own judgments for those of the Home Secretary on whether discretion should be exercised in any particular case notwithstanding that a clear liability existed.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, took the Committee through his thought process of where was the appropriate place for such an appeal. Surely the right place to challenge the Home Secretary on the exercise not only of his judgment but of his compassion is, if thought necessary, this House.
  Lord Mishcon: I am wondering upon which side of the House the noble Earl will be answering such a question in the future. I would assure him that this Front Bench is a very comfortable one, and he would occupy any position on it with distinction and grace.
  I turn immediately to the noble Earl's answer and to the other contributions made in the debate. I tried to make it clear—I hoped that I had done so—that many
  286
  instances have been raised this afternoon in various amendments where a carrier might feel aggrieved. He light feel aggrieved because of the grave circumstances in which the passenger approached him. He might feel aggrieved because his official, while being as efficient as one would reasonably expect, genuinely thought that documents that were shown to him were in order. He might feel aggrieved at the penalty being exacted because the situation of the person concerned made him feel that he was a genuine refugee. That may turn out to be wrong, or, indeed, it may turn out to be right. But still, as the Bill now stands, the Secretary of State in his discretion might exact the penalty.
  We are thinking not only of one passenger. It could be a group of passengers, and so the penalties might be heavy although the facts were the same. There might be a group of 20 passengers with penalties exacted of £20, 000. In Parliament we are in the habit, as I understand it, where any administrative act occurs and penalties are exacted, of being able to appeal against them.
  I am answered by the statement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that the courts have the power of a judicial review. I tried—I apologise if I did not make this clear—to say that the answer to that, as the noble and learned Lord so rightly said, was that on an application for judicial review one has to show, by and large, that the discretion has been wrongly exercised or that the Secretary of State did not go through the motions that he should have done. I am trying to cover the point where one would not be able to show to the satisfaction of the court that the discretion was wrongly exercised so that nobody could reasonably come to that decision.
  In most cases the Secretary of State would have gone through the right motions. I merely tried to find a place where a perfectly respectable carrier, facing what may be a heavy penalty—it may be 20 passengers; £20, 000—wants to say that the Secretary of State has in this case unjustly imposed a penalty. He will not be able to obtain that remedy from the High Court on a judicial review for the reasons that I have just stated. All he asks to be able to do is to go to some independent body. If it says, "No, you are wrong; on the facts we feel that the decision was right", he must pay a penalty.
  In his reply the Minister also said that if the carrier thinks it is unjust he can say that he will not pay and leave it for the Secretary of State to sue him. It is my reading—and if I am wrong I apologise to the Committee and stand to be corrected—that the Secretary of State under the provisions of this Bill will say that he has exercised his discretion and that under Clause 1 or 2 of this Bill, whichever it may be, he is entitled to exercise his right to impose a penalty; and he will sue, as a civil debt, for the sum of £ 1, 000. I do not think that a defendant would be heard in the court, if the Secretary of State sues in that way, as he will, to say, "Please, judge, I want you to try this case again. I now rely upon your discretion and not that of the Secretary of State".
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: With respect, I think that the noble Lord has it slightly wrong. The carrier can simply not pay. Leaving aside the question of

  287
  discretion as to whether the prescribed sum is imposed, the carrier can say to the court, "Look at Clause 1(2); look at Clause 1(4); by virtue of those, look at the evidence. The Secretary of State should not have imposed anything at all". Therefore there is a safeguard, quite apart from the exercise of the discretion of the Secretary of State. The sum would, by judicial interpretation of the statute, be rendered irrecoverable.
  Lord Mishcon: I am grateful to the noble Lord, who obviously intended to assist both me and the Committee by his observations. I respectfully differ where it is purely a case of discretion—I notice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is nodding his head and I take that to be a mark of approval of my submission. I think that it would be a matter of the carrier being unable to question whether the Secretary of State had exercised his discretion in the way that the carrier thought he ought. If the Secretary of State had exercised that discretion in an honest way (if I may put it in that way) there would be no answer to a county court or High Court action for the penalty. Again, I am encouraged by the fact that the noble and learned Lord has nodded his head. It is something that I used to look for in the Court of Appeal but found all too infrequently when I was the appellant.
  Obviously there are matters which must be considered in the light of what the noble Earl has said. I am hoping that between now and Report stage he will give further consideration to the points that have been made. If he does that, we might be able to agree upon a sensible tribunal. I must reconsider this matter and in those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
  Lord Airedale: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, is it not a curiosity of this Bill that the penalty is so absolutely rigid? It must be £1, 000 or such other sum as the Secretary of State states by statutory instrument. He is not allowed to say that there are some mitigating circumstances and that he will not exact £1, 000 but will make it £500. I am surprised at the absolute rigidity of the penalty in this Bill.
  Lord Mishcon: I have a doubt in my mind as to whether it would not be within the power of the Secretary of State, where in an Act of Parliament he has a penalty of £1, 000, to say that he will not exact the whole amount but will ask for only £500. I think that if he has the power to exact a penalty of £1, 000 it would be perfectly proper for him to exact a lesser sum. However, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out something which deserves consideration between now and Report stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Short title, interpretation, extent and commencement]:
  Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 2, line 11, leave out ("4th March 1987") and insert ("the passing of this Act").
  The noble Lord said: This is another probing amendment. One does not like Bills becoming effective before they have been through Parliament. However, one knows that that happens; for example, when the tax on alcohol and petrol was increased. I tabled this amendment in order to enable me to ask the noble Earl how many carriers, if any, have since 4th March been informed that they will be fined when the Bill becomes law? On how many such occasions has he exercised his descretion and refrained my doing so?
  I should have given the noble Earl notice of this question and I shall fully understand if he does not have the answer on the spot. It will be quite sufficient if he prefers to write to me.
  The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for moving this amendment. Unfortunately I could not find the paper but I now have it to hand. The date in question is 5th March and not 4th March. Since then there have been over 600 notifications. If the Bill receives Royal Assent we shall follow up the notifications with request for payment. However, it will then be open to carrying companies, as it is now, to make representations that the charges should not be levied in individual cases.
  Once again, I can assure the Committee that each case will be carefully considered in the light of such representations. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that in 100 other cases we have decided that, in all the circumstances, it would not be sensible to make a charge. In most of those cases, covering letters have not yet been sent. I believe that that shows how careful the Home Secretary is to exercise the discretion and that he has already done so.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Mishcon: I add a protest, which is a common one in your Lordships' House, against any retrospective legislation. I ask the Minister to consider between now and Report stage not only whether the notifications should be followed up by exacting a penalty, but whether, in view of the discussions that have taken place both in another place and in your Lordships' House, it would not be just to say before this legislation reaches the Statute Book—if it ever does—that it will take effect as from the Royal Assent and certainly not from the date which is anticipated: namely, 4th March 1987?
  We do not like retrospective legislation. In spite of any announcements which may be made at the time, such an announcement has to be made in vague circumstances where one does not know how the legislation will eventually turn out. Again, I invite the noble Earl to consider this point between now and the next stage of the Bill. I assume that I have the right to say that we shall study what has been said in the meantime and we ask leave to withdraw this amendment.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: For the sake of the record, perhaps I may say merely that the Bill as it stands appears to me to be wholly appropriate. There is every justification in this case for the retroactive

  289
  effect since the carriers have been put on notice at all material times. I cannot understand the merit of giving carriers acting in contravention of Clause 1 a free ride for any period of time, however short.
  The matter is covered where appropriate by the exercise of the discretion of the Secretary of State, as we have heard. Therefore I would respectfully suggest that the Bill as drafted and the way in which the system has been operated are entirely satisfactory.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
  Lord Walston Lord Walston moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
  ("(5) This Act shall cease to have effect on 4th March 1988 unless the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument extends the effect of this Act for a period which shall not exceed 12 months.")
  (6) No instrument shall be made under subsection (5) above unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
  The noble Lord said: The principle of this Bill has of course been accepted both by another place and by this Committee, but I think all noble Lords and most people in this country regard it as a regrettable necessity. It is a necessity according to the Secretary of State and government spokesmen, because of the exceptional circumstances which arose fairly recently and which necessitated some speedy legislation. I do not quarrel with that at all. It would not be right for me to do so at this stage at any rate.
  I think most of us have expressed the hope that those circumstances will not by any means be permanent, that they will soon or in due course disappear and that therefore the provisions of this Bill will no longer be necessary. When that will be, none of us can tell, but again we all agree that we look forward to the day when we can return to our traditional role of having if not an open door at least a door whichis not firmly closed or as firmly closed as has been made necessary by this temporary situation.
  For that reason, I suggest that rather than having this Bill in an absolutely permanent form which would have to be repealed eventually when times improve, it would be far better for it to run, as this amendment suggests, so that it shall cease to have effect on 4th March 1988, with full discretion to the Secretary of State:
  "unless the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument extends the effect of this Act for a period which shall not exceed 12 months."
  So it will always be open to the Secretary of State to come back to both Houses of Parliament to say, "The situation has not got any better; we still need the provisions of this Bill." Without any doubt, both Houses will listen to him and will accede to his request. But when the time comes, which we all hope will be soon, when this is no longer necessary the simplest thing in the world would be for the Secretary of State not to come back to the Chamber and to another place. The Bill would then automatically lapse.
  I hope therefore that at least the principle of this amendment will meet with the approval of the noble Earl. We have not had much success with him so far, but now that we are reaching the end of the Committee stage I have hopes that in spite of his expression he
  290
  may say there is something here which is worth considering.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: Unfortunately it is the very principle of the amendment which causes me to wish to oppose it, because this adopts the precedent from emergency legislation for ordinary legislation so as to treat this Bill, when it becomes an Act, as a temporary measure unless renewed. This pre-empts the traditional process by which any Act may be placed upon or removed from the statute book by the will of Parliament. I cannot see any justification for the departure from that basic principle.
  Lord Hylton: Is it not the case that there is some degree or there was thought to be some degree of emergency because several hundred people managed to reach these shores from Ethiopia and Sri Lanka between December and February?
  Baroness Seear: If there is no emergency, what justification is there for retrospective legislation?
  The Earl of Caithness: The amendment as drafted would limit the life of the Bill to a maximum of two years, the second of which would be subject to further parliamentary approval. I cannot accept that this would be right or sensible. The Bill is neither novel nor experimental. There is no point at all in leaving carrying companies and indeed passengers in a state of uncertainty about Parliament's intentions next year.
  The Bill is intended to form a permanent part of our immigration control, just like our carriers' existing liabilities for detention and removal costs. We are not unique in the world; there are other countries which have already got this legislation in place. At the end of last month my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had a very useful meeting in Europe when considerable interest was shown in what we were doing. It is likely that the same lines as ours will be followed if possible. So I see this very much as a longterm rather than a short-term measure.
  Secondly, the Bill raises no issues of fundamental personal liberties or rights which would justify its being subject to parliamentary scrutiny after 12 months. The Bill is simply designed to help ensure that the requirements of the immigration rules, which Parliament has approved, are met. It does so by deterring carriers from bringing to our shores people who do not meet these requirements. There is nothing to be gained by looking at the whole matter again in a year's time.
  I do not think it would be right, therefore, to put this Bill on a one-year basis, renewable for one further year only. I do not believe it contains anything that requires the continual parliamentary scrutiny and short life which this amendment proposes.
  Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether the Committee remembers having read, if noble Lords read it, the speech with which the Secretary of State introduced this Bill at Second Reading in another place. I intend to read only the first two sentences of his speech which appears at col. 705 of the Official Report for 16th March 1987:
  "The immediate spur to this proposal has been the arrival of over 800 people claiming asylum in the three months up to the end of

  291
  February. So this is not a Bill about Tamils alone, or about Sri Lanka alone. It goes wider than that. Its aim is to make sure that our immigration control remains effective in the face of rapidly changing international pressures.".
  That presupposes not only that there is an immediate spur but that international pressures change. They change obviously in various ways. This amendment asks merely that year by year the question of how international pressures make such an enactment necessary should come before Parliament and that Parliament would decide whether or not this should be renewed.
  Again, that is something which I should have hoped the Secretary of State would consider favourably, especially after the moving speech of my noble friend Lord Walston. Possibly we ought to hope that after reconsideration of the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, made and the interventions which. have occurred since, he would have second thoughts. It is on that optimistic hope that I ask for leave to withdraw the amendment.
  The Earl of Caithness: Before the noble Lord does that—I apologise for delaying the Committee—there is one point on which we should be clear. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that it gives us the opportunity to review this legislation year by year. It gives us the opportunity to review this legislation once, and extends it for a further 12 months.
  Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble Earl because I think he has suggested a most sensible amendment that might be put down at Report stage. I am grateful to him for it and I in no way interpret his words as being a commitment to accept such an amendment. But as it so wisely came from his mouth I know that at least it will have his wise consideration.
  I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

  Landlord and Tenant (No. 2) Bill
  Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

  Pilotage Bill [H.L.]
  6.42 p.m.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Pilotage Bill [H.L.]

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    [References are to Bill 103: Revised as first printed for the Commons.]
    1 Page 2, line 3, leave out "or 1986" and insert "1986 or 1987".
    Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their
    292
    Amendment No. 1. This amendment updates the definition of an active pilotage district by providing for pilotage returns for 1987 as well as 1984, 1985 and 1986 to be taken into account. I beg to move.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    2 Clause 3, page 4, line 15, after "period", insert "which are not renewable".
    Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. This amendment makes it clear that it is only provisional pilots, whose licences are issued for a limited period and are not renewable, who are excluded from the priority provisions. I beg to move.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    3 Clause 3, page 4, line 36, leave out "any alteration in or".
    4 Page 4, line 38, at end insert "; but the authorisation of a person who provides his services as a pilot under a contract for services may not be revoked by an authority by virtue of paragraph (c) above unless it gave him notice before the appointed day that the number of persons it proposed to authorise exceeded the number required to be authorised and it proposed to revoke his authorisation after allowing him a reasonable period from the appointed day to seek authorisation by another competent harbour authority.
    Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 en bloc.
    The Bill as drafted provided that one of the grounds on which a CHA may suspend or revoke the authorisation of a pilot was that there were too many pilots in the port. Amendment No. 4 limits that power to cases where the pilots are employed by the CHA; in other cases, including those where pilots are self-employed, the CHA will not be able to remove authorisations on these grounds, this amendment is intended to make self-employment a more attractive possibility for the pilots than it would otherwise be, since it will give them greater security that they will be able to continue working as pilots even if trade in the port falls away. Notwithstanding the amendment, I am satisfied that CHAs will have a number of ways of ensuring that costs are kept under control, principally through their power to set the original number of authorisations, to set pilotage charges, and through the terms of the contracts of agreements that will govern the provision of pilotage services by agents or self-employed pilots. They will also of course have the power to change the arrangements in the port from an agency arrangement to direct employment.
    Amendment No. 3 makes it clear that it is the termination of a contract, not merely its alteration, that provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a licence under Clause 3(5), I beg to move.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    5 Clause 3, page 4, line 40, after "(a)", insert "or (b)".
    6 Page 4, line 43, at end insert—
    "() Where a competent harbour authority suspends or revokes an authorisation of any person by virtue of paragraph (c) or (d) of subsection (5) above, it shall give him notice in writing—

    (a) stating that the suspension or revocation was by virtue of that paragraph; and

    (b) specifying the duration of the authorisation in question and any previous authorisations granted to that person by the authority.".

    Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 en bloc.
    These amendments fulfil commitments which I gave on Third Reading. I agreed to consider a suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the provision in Clause 3(6) requiring a CHA to give a pilot notice in advance, if his authorisation was to be suspended on grounds of incompetence or misconduct, should be extended also to cover cases where a pilot no longer met the CHA's qualifications for a pilot. There is some affinity between these two types of case, and Amendment No. 5 extends the notice provision accordingly.
    I also accepted in principle an amendment from my noble friend Lord Swinfen, requiring a CHA to give a pilot a document which he could effectively use as a reference, if it had been found necessary to suspend or revoke his authorisation on grounds unconnected with his competence, conduct or qualifications. Amendment No. 6 fulfils that commitment. I beg to move.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
    Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for carrying out the undertaking that he gave at an earlier stage. Would he confirm that Amendment No. 5 not only provides for written notice but also, as I read it, for the opportunity for representations to be made? This seems rather an important point and when I read the amendment I thought that was the case.
    Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity of thanking my noble friend for ensuring that the amendment with regard to certificates for pilots was brought forward in another place. It would have been quite wrong and unfair if, as well as losing their livelihood, the pilots had lost their qualifications through no fault of their own.
    Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that yes it gives him a reasonable opportunity of making representations.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    7 Clause 4, page 5, line 24, after "above", insert "who is not already employed by it under such a contract".
    8 Page 5, line 28, leave out "this subsection shall not apply" and insert "it need not do so".
    9 Page 5, line 30, leave out "this subsection shall not apply" and insert "it need not do so".
    Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 en bloc.
    Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 help to clarify the provisions associated with the right that pilots will have to insist on an offer of direct employment from the relevant CHA. They make it clear that, where pilots have released a CHA from the obligation to offer employment, the CHA will have the full range of options to choose from, including self-employment, direct employment or agency arrangements which might involve either. Amendment No. 7 makes it clear that where pilots are already directly employed by the harbour authority in its role as pilotage authority, as in the Orkneys and Shetlands, the authority is not obliged to make a fresh offer of employment or to upset existing arrangements. I beg to move.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    10 Clause 5, page 6, line 20, leave out second "the" and insert "an".
    11 Page 6, line 26, leave out from first "or to "by" in 27 and insert "three members, one, the Chairman, appointed by the Secretary of State, one".
    12 Page 6, line 29, after "and", insert "one by".
    13 Page 6, line 42, at end insert—
    "(4A) The references to contracts in subsection (1) above do not include contracts of employment entered into before the appointed day for provision of services as a pilot before that day.".
    Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 13 en bloc. At the same time I should like to speak to Amendment No. 44.
    My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport accepted an amendment tabled by his honourable friend the Member for Crosby in Committee in another place. Amendment No. 11, together with the Government Amendment No. 12, makes it clear that the bodies representing the ports and pilots are each to appoint one member of the arbitration panel and that the member appointed by the Secretary of State will be its chairman. Amendment No. 10 is a technical amendment to make it clear that the chairman and/or members of the arbitration panel may be different in different cases of dispute. Amendments Nos. 13 and 44 exclude from the temporary arbitration procedure those cases where pilots are already employed under established arrangements and where there is no need for special arbitration arrangements to apply. I beg to move.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    14 Clause 7, page 7, line 37, after "apply", insert "to ships of less than 20 metres in length or".
    15 Page 7, line 41, leave out "vessels" and insert "ships".
    Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 en bloc. An amendment along these lines was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, during the passage of the Bill through this House and was supported by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. At that time I could not accept it but on further reconsideration we have been able to find it acceptable. I beg to move.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
    Lord Greenway: My Lords, I want to express my thanks to the Minister. I am sure that all yachtsmen will welcome what the Government have seen fit to undertake.
    Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps I may also add my thanks.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    16 Clause 8, page 8, line 34, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
    "(3) If the Secretary of State is satisfied, on application by a competent harbour authority, that it is appropriate to do so by reason of the unusual hazards involved in shipping movements within its harbour, he may direct that during such period (not exceeding three years) as he may specify, notwithstanding that the authority is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) above, it may refuse to grant pilotage exemption certificates under that subsection.".
    Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16. Under Clause 8(3), a CHA may be relieved of the normal obligation to issue pilotage exemption certificates if it can persuade the Secretary of State that there are unusual hazards in the harbour which warrant this. The Secretary of State would expect to issue directions under this subsection only rarely. This amendment makes it clear that, where the Secretary of State issues such a direction, the CHA will still be able to issue certificates if it is satisfied under the criteria in Clause 8(1) as to the master's capability, but it will not be obliged to do so. I beg to move.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    17 Clause 10, page 9, line 31, at end insert "or the ship does not arrive or depart at the notified time".
    Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. This is a minor change to enable a CHA to make penalty charges not only when a shipowner fails to notify an estimated time of arrival or departure, if that is required by a harbour authority, but also when he fails to keep to it. I beg to move.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    18 Clause 12, page 11, line 12, after "authority", insert—
    "(cc) there is any person who carries on harbour operations in a harbour (within the meaning of the Harbours Act 1964) which is not the harbour of a competent harbour authority and access to which is customarily available through the harbour of a competent harbour authority; or".
    19 Page 11, line 19, after "(c)", insert ", (cc)".
    20 Clause 13, page 11, line 49, after "(c)", insert ", (cc)".
    21 Page 12, line 1, leave out "in question" and insert "of the competent harbour authority".
    Lord Brabazon of Tara: 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 to 21 en bloc. These amendments deal with a gap in the Bill which was brought to our attention. Under the Bill as drafted, harbour operators who operate outside the harbour of a competent harbour authority but whose access is through such a harbour, are not covered by the provisions in Clauses 12 and 13 under which the Secretary of State may call for information on such operations from the harbour authorities concerned and may resolve any disputes between the operator and the CHA. These amendments cover this situation. I beg to move.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
    Lord Swinfen: My Lords, it is absolutely essential that the Ministry ensures that proper estuarial arrangements are made. I am sure that my noble friend will do so. As a brief example, I understand that a Russian ship the "Stevin 5701" is bringing up the Thames and into the Medway for dumping cargo from the wreck of the "Mont Louis", which is being salvaged following collision with the "Olau Britannia". The cargo is, I understand, a mixture of arsenic and cyanide. If proper arrangements between different competent harbour authorities within the same estuary are not made and there is an accident, there could be serious environmental damage and indeed a danger to people. I am sure that my noble friend can assure the House that proper arrangements will be made in all the various estuarial positions around the country.
    Lord Underhill: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has made a good case. I am certain that the Minister will take it into consideration when he replies. The amendment adds a further category to the joint arrangements. I regret that there is still no provision to ensure that information will be sought from all the authorities—as we wanted when

    297
    the Bill was before your Lordships—rather than just one or two, as the Minister might require.
    Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this was a subject that we debated at some length during consideration of the Bill in this House. At that time I made the matter quite clear—I think it was at Report stage—when I said that,
    "the Secretary of State recognises the importance of ensuring that suitable arrangements are made in the major estuaries and that he will accordingly require information under this clause of the CHAs in, for example, the present London District and in the Mersey, the Humber and the Severn Estuaries".—[Official Report, 12/2/87; col. 847.]
    I hope that gives some assurance to the noble Lords.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    22 Clause 24, page 18, line 8, leave out "the relevant" and insert "any".
    23 Page 18, line 9, after "authority", insert "which in the opinion of the Pilotage Commission have been used, have accrued or, as the case may be, have been incurred exclusively in connection with its pilotage functions".
    24 Page 18, line 13, leave out from "vesting" to "in" in line 14.
    25 Page 18, line 16, leave out from "itself' to end of line 18 and insert "of any property rights and liabilities of the pilotage authority which, in the opinion of the Commission, have been used, have accrued or, as the case may be, have been incurred exclusively in connection with the authority's pilotage functions;
    (b) may make similar provisions as to any such property rights and liabilities which, in the opinion of the Commission have been used, have accrued or, as the case may be, have been incurred substantially but not exclusively in connection with those functions; and"
    26 Page 18, line 22, leave out "relates to service" and insert "calculated by reference to remuneration paid and service given".
    27 Page 18, line 23, at end insert "or guaranteed".
    28 Page 18, line 23, at end insert—
    "() Proposals submitted under subsection (2) above may include such supplementary and incidental provision in connection with the matters there mentioned as the Pilotage Commission considers appropriate."
    29 Page 18, line 28, leave out "abolished" and insert "pilotage".
    30 Page 18, line 37, leave out subsections (7) and (8).
    31 Page 18, line 45, at end insert—
    "() Nothing in this section shall require a scheme to make provision for the vesting in a competent harbour authority of any property, rights or liabilities already vested in it in its capacity as a pilotage authority.
    () The Pilotage Commission may require any pilotage authority to furnish it within such time and in such form as the Commission may specify with such information as it considers necessary for the purpose of formulating the proposals to be submitted by it under this section; and any member of the Commission or person appointed by it for the purpose may inspect any books, documents or other records in the possession of the authority relating to any matter in respect of which information is required to be furnished under this subsection.".
    32 Clause 25, page 19, line 37, at beginning insert "(a)".
    33 Page 19, line 41, leave out from beginning to "all" in line 42 insert "; and (b) without prejudice to paragraph (a) above—
    34 Page 19, line 45, leave out "(b)" and insert "(ii)".
    35 Page 19, line 49, leave out "Subsections (4) and (5) above are" and insert "Subsection (4) above is".
    36 Page 20, line 32, leave out "(5)" and insert "(4)(b)".
    37 Page 20, line 35, leave out "(5)" and insert "(4)(b)".
    Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22 to 37 en bloc. Only four of these amendments are of substance. Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 relate to the obligation which, under a scheme under Clause 24, can be placed on CHAs in respect of pension liabilities of the former pilotage authorities. They make it clear that the liability can relate only to the proportion of a pension which arose and accrued at the appointed day and that, instead of funding the pensions, a CHA may be allowed to guarantee their payment.
    Amendments Nos. 28 and 31 give the Pilotage Commission powers to obtain information needed for the preparation of the transfer schemes, allow it to put forward supplementary proposals in submitting its schemes and provide that schemes need not be drawn up where a CHA is already responsible for pilotage. The remaining amendments in this group are all drafting amendments. I beg to move.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
    Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining these amendments. Frankly, when I looked at the record of the other place I found that no debate had taken place. There was not even an explanation from the Minister. The various amendments were moved, and that was an end of the matter. I am grateful that the Minister has given us that explanation.
    Incidentally, I notice that comments have been made upon the detailed attention that your Lordships have given to this Bill on a number of occasions in this House. Now that the Minister has explained the position, my advisers are satisfied and we accept the amendment.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    38 Clause 28, page 21, line 40, after second "to", insert "or for the benefit of".
    39 Page 21, line 44, at end insert "but were not then employed under a contract of employment by the pilotage authority for that district or any committee appointed by the authority under section 9(1)(e) of the Pilotage Act 1983".
    40 Page 21, line 45, leave out "made with" and insert "offered to"
    41 Page 22, line 13, leave out "made with" and insert "offered to"
    Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 38 to 41 en bloc. These amendments make it clear that pilots who are already employed, as for example by the Shetland and Orkney Islands councils, will not be eligible for the pilots' compensation scheme. Nor will any other pilot be eligible unless he is surplus to the CHAs requirements. The amendments also provide that the compensation payments may be made in ways which will allow the pilots to secure full benefit from them. I beg to move.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    42 In the Schedules, page 26, line 8, at end insert "and any order made under section 1(3) or (4) of this Act by virtue of the said section 13"
    43 Page 26, line 9, at end insert "and the area which shall be taken to be its harbour shall be determined accordingly".
    Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 42 and 43. I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 45. These are technical or drafting amendments. I beg to move.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    44 Page 26, line 22, after "(4)", insert "(4A)".
    45 Page 26, line 22, leave out "that section" and insert "section 5 of this Act".
    Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. They are consequential. I beg to move.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners Bill
  6.58 p.m.
  Report received.
  Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 1:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause
  ("Other investigations: clinical judgment.

  —(1) The Health Service Commissioners may investigate any matters within the scope of their authority which in their opinion require investigation.

  (2) The Health Service Commissioners are hereby empowered to investigate complaints relating to or arising out of the exercise of the clinical judgment of a medical practitioner.

  (3) Paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 13 to the 1977 Act is hereby revoked.").

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to restate my regret that I was unable to be present during the earlier stages of the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. This amendment deals with the extension of the powers of the Health Service Commissioner. As your Lordships will know at present the Health Service Commissioner has no power to investigate complaints against clinical judgments nor against the general practitioner or the family practitioner committees.
  In 1983, which is the latest year for which I have exact figures, 19, 800 written complaints were received by health authorities. It seems a very small number of complaints out of 64 million in-patients and 53 million out-patients, but there were 19, 800 written complaints
  300
  and of those about 1, 000 failed to be satisfied through the normal National Health Service internal complaint procedure. One thousand of these complaints were forwarded to the Health Service Commissioner. Out of those 1, 000 complaints, 67 per cent. had to be rejected because they fell outside his jurisdiction. The majority—about 50 per cent. of the 1, 000 complaints—fell outside his jurisdiction because they were concerned with clinical judgment and the rest—about 17 per cent. of the 1, 000—because they related to family doctors, dentists, pharmacists or FPCs.
  The Royal Commission of 1979 recommended the extension of the powers of the Health Service Commissioner to deal with questions of clinical judgment backed up by professional advisers. As a result of the recommendation by the Royal Commission, the procedure now known as the second opionion was instituted. This consists of two consultants in the relevant specialty looking at the complaint against the clinical judgment of a medical practitioner. Some people have been satisfied through this extension of the right of appeal, but a large number of complainants, in my view probably the majority, do not feel that this procedure is impartial.
  If the complainant does not accept this investigation, his only recourse is to the courts to obtain a remedy. All of us know that to go to court is a very expensive exercise. Also the length of time taken before cases come to court is unacceptable in my view. I realise that the latest regulations about disclosure of medical evidence to the complainant will help to a certain extent, but the length of time is still unacceptable.
  There are many reasons why most people would prefer to go to the Health Service Commissioner, if he were given the right to investigate. First, most of them have tremendous respect for the independence of the Health Service Commissioner and, secondly, he is responsible only through Parliament and therefore commands respect. It is also true that investigations that go to the Health Service Commissioner are dealt with much more quickly and the whole atmosphere is much less adversarial than a court of law.
  The other point which I think people have failed to grasp is that in most of the cases investigated by the Health Service Commissioner the majority of people do not want financial recompense. They genuinely want to know the truth. Their main aim is mostly to prevent the same mistake happening again. There is no reason, if what they want is financial recompense, why they should not choose the courts, but if they choose the ombudsman any proceedings in the courts would be subject to absolute privilege. I think we might even go so far as to consider allowing the ombudsman the power to grant limited compensation, particularly where the quantum could be readily ascertained.
  I believe that unless we move in this direction we are inevitably moving towards the American system with enormous increase in compensation granted in courts and its attendant impact on doctors who in their practices have to cover themselves by increasingly costly and in many cases unnecessary investigations; not only that, but the cost to the medical profession of

  301
  adequate insurance is escalating in a quite frightening manner.
  The extension of these powers to the Health Service Commissioner I firmly believe would benefit not only the majority of aggrieved citizens who abhor the prospect of litigation but also the clinicians themselves. Indeed, it might go even further and satisfy the shades of John Milton, whose famous statement in his Areopagitica of 1644, is quoted by ombudsmen the world over:
  "For this is not the liberty which we can hope, that no grievance ever should arise in the Commonwealth—that let no man in this world expect; but when complaints are freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed, then is the utmost bond of civil liberty attained that wise men look for."
  I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will look at the amendment with favour. If he cannot at this point agree to it, I hope that he will assure me and other Members of your Lordships' House who feel strongly on the point that further discussions will take place on the issue with the profession and with the Health Service Commissioner. I beg to move.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, has set out clearly the situation when complaints are made in the health service—not in the family practitioner committee but in the rest of the health service. As the noble Baroness said, there is the avenue of the courts to which resort can be had by those who are complainants, the Health Service Commissioner being specifically prevented from investigating any action in respect of which the person aggrieved has or had a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law.
  The noble Baroness raised the familiar complaint that the length of time in the courts is considerable. I do not think there is anything that I can say about that. All I would say is that obviously in the serious cases Parliament has thought it right that the courts should be the avenue of redress.
  As the noble Baroness fairly said, that is, however, by no means the end of the story. The commissioner can and indeed does investigate complaints relating to medical issues. The criterion is that, if action has been taken solely in consequence of the exercise of clinical judgment, the commissioner cannot take action; and it is for the commissioner to decide whether he believes the action is solely in consequence of the exercise of clinical judgment. Where there is a question of maladministration, the Health Service Commissioner can indeed step in and take action.
  I am not entirely sure that my statistics coincide with the noble Baroness's statistics. The statistics that I have show that the commissioner not only can but does investigate complaints relating to medical issues, and that the number of complaints which were rejected on the grounds of clinical judgment have decreased over the last three years from 222 in 1983–84 to 150 in 1984–85 to 131 last year.
  Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I said that the latest figures I had were for 1983 and that out of 1, 000 complaints 453 were investigated and the rest were rejected.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness but her statistics and mine still do not coincide—hers are very much higher than mine. However, perhaps we can agree on the fact that the number of complaints which have been rejected because the Health Service Commissioner had found that they were solely in consequence of the exercise of clinical judgment have decreased over the last three years. During the same period the number of medical grievances investigated by the commissioner has increased from 61 three years ago to 101 two years ago to 111 last year.
  There is a third leg to this argument and that concerns the area where the noble Baroness understandably said that many people do not want financial recompense. What they really want is to know that the truth has been told and that if something has gone wrong it will not happen again. The noble Baroness rightly said that as regards those particular cases a procedure had been set up called the second opinions procedure, which is based on professional review to deal with complaints concerning the clinical judgment of hospital doctors and dentists.
  I believe that the procedure was set up with the help of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in 1981 and it is also supported by the Joint Consultants Committee for Hospital Doctors and Dentists.
  I was concerned when the noble Baroness said that the problem with the procedure was that it was not altogether an independent investigation. I understand why she said that, because clearly those who are investigating are professionals in this field. But I say absolutely plainly to the House that regional medical officers, who are after all responsible for managing the second opinions procedure, conducted a review of how the system was working. They reported in 1985 that they had the co-operation of the medical profession in undertaking the work and that a useful service was being provided to complainants.
  The number of complaints dealt with under the second opinion procedure has increased. The number of complaints dealt with under the procedure has increased from 32 in 1981–82, to 59 in 1983, to 69 in 1984 and to 76 in 1985. Therefore the situation is that the procedures for dealing with complaints concerning clinical judgment are comprehensive. There is the avenue of the courts and of the second opinions procedure. The Health Service Commissioner may also at his discretion decide that the situation is not one which derives solely from the exercise of clinical judgment and he can step in and exercise his powers. The number of such cases has been increasing.
  The procedures are supported by those concerned and the arrangements are monitored to ensure that the complainant's rights are safeguarded. Although I understand why the noble Baroness wished to move the amendment, it would have major significance for the procedures and any new arrangements would require extensive consultation to ensure that they could operate efficiently and be fully supported.
  In those circumstances I am afraid that I must resist the amendment that the noble Baroness has moved. I can only express the hope that having gone over the ground I have followed to a considerable extent what

  303
  the noble Baroness has said but here and there I have added some new items of information so that she may feel more assured than she was before she moved the amendment.
  Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply, I wish to put right one matter as regards which he misunderstood me. I never said that I personally did not consider that the second opinions procedure was adequately independent. I said that the average complainant or the average citizen, particularly someone who stands in a certain awe of doctors, finds it difficult when dealing with the medical profession to accept that there is not a little ganging-up of the profession against him.
  I do not believe that it happens, but the fact is that such an opinion exists in this country. I am sorry that the Minister cannot go any further in meeting my request for further discussions with the professions, because I feel that in the long run the Health Service Commissioner will have to be given that power.
  However, in view of the lateness of my intervention in the discussions on the Bill and the lateness of the hour and the business that is in front of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 2 not moved.]

  Swanage Yacht Haven Bill [H.L.]
  7.17 p.m.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  The promoters of this Private Bill have circulated to a large number of your Lordships a statement for the occasion of this Second Reading. It describes comprehensively the project and its recent history. I shall therefore concentrate on the principle features of the scheme and what appear to be the main points of concern raised by the petitioners. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading this evening in the usual way so that the promoters and the petitioners can be heard by a Select Committee in accordance with the procedure for private legislation.
  Briefly, the scheme proposed is this. A yacht haven is to be created to accompany residential housing. The residential housing is not a subject of the Bill. It is already approved and the building work on it has begun. The haven would make use of the Victorian pier which had fallen into disrepair and was closed for safety reasons. The promoters have already carried out repairs and that has enabled the pier to be reopened for the berthing of vessels and for pedestrians.
  To form with the pier the new sheltered haven, a breakwater would be built. At present there are no sheltered moorings between Poole and Weymouth. That particular need would be met as the promoters have agreed to permit temporary mooring for boats requiring emergency shelter when unexpected and sudden storms occur.
  The new haven would provide moorings for about 250 yachts, together with space for visiting craft and
  304
  the Swanage lifeboat. That would increase the opportunities for the recreation of sailing. Space has also been offered for full-time fishing boats which are normally based at Swanage. Besides providing those and other facilities, the scheme would give support to the local tourist industry.
  As regards employment, between 50 and 100 additional jobs are foreseen. They will continue after the construction phase, during which about 300 people would be employed. I understand that the tourist organisations operating in the area are in favour of the project. The recent unemployment which has occurred in Swanage certainly shows that the extra jobs are needed.
  Swanage is an attractive town and a popular seaside resort for families, some of whom have visited it over the years. It is not surprising that there should be some apprehensions about whether its character might suffer from such a scheme. There are two petitions before your Lordships' House. One is from Purbeck District Council. It,
  "supports in principle the construction of the works proposed"
  but expresses certain reservations. Among these are possible effects on the coastline. To meet this concern, special hydrographic studies by experts have been commissioned and the resulting report was made available to the council at Easter. I understand that the other local authorities concerned also support the scheme in the Bill.
  The second petition from a number of local interests raises other points in addition, including possible adverse effects on sea fishermen and sea anglers. Clearly these matters must be fully examined.
  In response to comments that the limits of jurisdiction proposed extend more widely than is strictly necessary, the promoters have already agreed to reduce them and they propose to submit amendments to that effect to the Select Committee. These revised limits of jurisdiction amount to only about 5 per cent. of Swanage Bay; that is to say, the whole bay from Peverill Point to Ballard Point. I mention this to make it clear that there is no question of a large part of the bay being included.
  It is normal for works of this kind to be undertaken by private firms; and it is not unusual for the completed facilities then to be managed by private concerns. Several ports, docks and harbours in this country are operated by private companies. Examples which are appropriate to have in mind when considering this Bill are the Brighton Marina Act, the Eastbourne Harbour Act and the very recent Port of Fosdyke Act of 1987.
  The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has tabled an Instruction to the committee. I note that the matters set out are ones which would automatically be considered by the committee—they should certainly be—such as the character of Swanage, the possible effects on the environment and the other matters. For myself, I am entirely content with the wording in that Instruction.
  In my view the committee should examine these matters anyway without any need of this guidance. My only worry is a procedural one. Turning for advice to Erskine May, pages 1047–8, I see on the latter page:

  305
  "instructions which would direct the committee to have regard to matters which would already, either under the standing orders or because the clause in question is opposed, be carefully considered by it, have been refused by the House."
  It is clear from both pages of Erskine May that the House has been careful in the past not to direct the committee or appear to prejudice its conclusions on the merits of the cases it is to hear.
  An example was on the Kent River Board Bill in 1962, when arguments against an Instruction of this kind were powerfully deployed and it was withdrawn by its mover. The matters to which attention was then to be drawn would have had to be considered by the committee in any event. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, will no doubt decide what to do after he has spoken on the content of his Instruction and heard the debate. What is clear from Erskine May is that this is the kind of instruction which, while not out of order, should in no way affect the Committee's views on the Bill whether it is passed or withdrawn.
  I have full confidence that a Committee of the House will examine all the matters raised in the petitions and the proposals of the promoters thoroughly and fairly. I believe that the proposals in the Bill should go forward to that stage. I should not be moving this Motion if I did not consider them worthy of such consideration. Further, I learn that the promoters are in a position to propose modifications or to make special arrangements to accommodate several of the matters raised in the petitions; and the committee procedure provides the means of pursuing satisfactory settlements on these.
  In the debate in your Lordships' House a year ago, which I initiated, on the British tourist industry, speakers were encouraging initiatives and investment knowing that there is here a great potential for increasing employment in our country. When initiatives are taken it is disheartening for their enterprising and energetic originators if they cannot even get off the ground because they are denied access to the appropriate system where the pros and cons can be examined and the public interest taken into account. That is a cogent reason for sending the Bill to the Committee stage.
  I commend the view of Mr. Brian Johnston, the well-known broadcaster, who for nearly 30 years has had a house at Swanage. The town we are discussing this evening is down his way! Writing in the journal Heritage Outlook in January about this project, his view was:
  "I think if it is well done it will be rather a good idea."
  The article supported further examination of the proposals. It also congratulated the promoters on the work already done to bring the Victorian pier to life again.
  I was known for my knowledge of the countryside and coastline and their wildlife, and therefore as what is called a conservationist, before I became a parliamentarian. In my experience, imaginative plans to provide new facilities can in suitable circumstances be designed and adapted to preserve the environment. I believe that this is a case of that kind. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
  7.27 p. m.
  Lord Raglan: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has, as one would expect of him, put the case for the Bill as well as it could be put. He is, I know, interested in the tourist industry and, as he said, he principally supports the Bill on that account. On that point, I am inclined to think that though its provisions may help one kind of holiday industry it will do so at the expense of another kind. I shall not bandy figures with him about employment prospects—they, of course, will come out in the Committee—but I am bound to say that I think his figures will be contended.
  Like the noble Lord, I live a long way from Swanage. I became involved in this matter because a friend living in Swanage wrote to me for support in petitioning against the Bill. I have to say that I wrote back rather discouragingly to the effect that there were always objections to such schemes and that on the face of it this did not seem such a bad one to me. However, he persisted with me and so I went to Swanage to see for myself, and my visit quite changed my mind.
  There are numerous and, I think, very proper objections to these proposals but of course this evening I shall concentrate on only a few which I think will be enough to demonstrate to your Lordships the validity of the terms of the Instruction which I shall be asking your Lordships to enforce. I may say, in view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that I put down this Instruction with what I think is the best advice, so I hope your Lordships will accept that I did not take it off the top of my head. It was given to me under professional advice in your Lordships' House.
  Under an Act of 1859 a quay was built for the transport of Purbeck stone. It was built on the waterfront of Swanage. The quay was later extended by a pier for the use of pleasure steamers and for other recreational activities. In both cases, there was provision made in the relevant Act for an area of jurisdiction, as it was called, to allow clear passage for navigating large boats. In purchasing the quay and the pier from their previous owners, the proposers of the Bill have succeeded in title to the area of jurisdiction. However, they intend to put those powers to a different use from that for which they were originally designed.
  The area of jurisdiction, altered considerably in shape and greatly enlarged, is to be used virtually as an exclusion zone for the benefit of vessels paying rent to the development company. The exclusion zone would cover almost all that area in front of Swanage which is presently fused for anchorage by private vessels. In combination with an encircling breakwater and wavescreen, the zone will force out or enable to be forced out nearly all the 60 or more fishing boat, pleasure boat and yacht anchorages for which there are no safe, suitable or convenient substitutes elsewhere in the bay. In the process, it will very considerably reduce their shore facilities.
  I have been told that eight of the 28 whole and part-time fishermen have been offered berths in the marina at a price, provided they do not get bigger boats. The others do not know where they will go. Therefore, the proposals would cause almost complete disruption and severe curtailment of established businesses and recreational interests.

  307
  I should explain that this is not some rundown dockland whose fortunes are to be revived, as may be the case in other places round the coast. These are lively interests and going concerns which would be displaced. They mean much to the people affected, nearly all of whom are local inhabitants. A large portion of the beach and shingle where fishermen now draw up their boats—a picturesque area which is much favoured as a holiday attraction, particularly for children—is to be concreted over and turned into a park for two or three hundred cars. I should have said that as a spectacle for tourists, for most people's money, cars for fishing boats will not be an attractive exchange.
  From the area of the car park, jutting out incongruously from the shore some 300 yards into the sea, almost 20 feet in height and blocking some of the best views of the bay, would be the breakwater. It is not known what effect the breakwater would have on the currents of the bay and therefore upon the disposition of the beach. The beach at Swanage is unusual in that much of its sand is scoured away during the winter and gets replaced in the spring. Therefore, the wellbeing of the beach, which is one of Swanage's splendid and popular natural advantages, depends upon not interfering with the currents that put it there. When this was pointed out to the developers, they put a clause in the Bill—Clause 24—under which the company would make good any damage caused by the effect of the breakwater on the currents. Yet the damage so caused might well be beyond the means of a small company such as this—or even of a large company—to repair.
  At a later stage and since the deposition of the Bill, the developers have at last commissioned a hydrographic survey, which, as I understand it, has just been finished. However, its conclusions must be tentative as they have been calculated to a mathematical model only. At Eastbourne, where a large marina is planned, it has been thought necessary to construct a working hydrographical model. I do not think that one can possibly do with anything less than that here; the possibilities of damage and the liability to indemnity are too large.
  A proper hydrographic survey is not the only thing which the developers have been prepared to go ahead without. I have here a coloured brochure advertising a number of residential houses to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred. They are being built overlooking the proposed yacht haven. In the brochure, they are offered for sale on the basis that each will have a berth at the yacht haven—and that before the Bill has even begun to be examined by Parliament. I think that to do such a thing is ill-considered; it is certainly misrepresentation. To my mind, it casts more serious doubt on the competence of the company. Under the Bill, it has sweeping powers to control and manage what goes on within the area of jurisdiction, including the marina. The area of jurisdiction now goes a mile or more out to sea.
  We need to remember that Swanage lies not on an open coast but in a natural bay. Its mooring area, which is in the only sheltered position in the bay, serves many interests, as I said earlier. The noble Lord,
  308
  Lord Campbell, has said that it is only a tiny proportion of the bay. But only a tiny proportion of the bay is suitable for mooring. The many interests include fishermen, boat hirers, sea anglers, divers, naturalists, holidaymakers and a host of yachtsmen who can at present moor permanently or who may wish only to call at Swanage. All those interests stand to be injuriously affected under the Bill, and surely it is not right that those interests, which are effectively public interests, should be subjugated to those of a private development company.
  If it is considered desirable or necessary to regulate the bay, I think that the proper course would be the establishment of a public harbour authority representative of all sections of the public who use the bay. That would ensure that its management is carried out in the public interest. As it is, the Bill will effectively be ousting all those legitimate local interests from what is really the only utilisable part of the bay; they will be left with no place and no say in how things are run.
  My last point concerns the general environment of the bay and the impact which such a development would have on it. Yacht havens, or marinas as they are usually known, have proved very popular with boat owners and have enabled many people to own a boat who otherwise would have had nowhere to put it. Altogether marinas have been a great help in popularising sailing as a pastime. When well situated they can be quite agreeable to look at—more so than caravan sites, of which they are roughly the maritime equivalent. More sites for marinas should and will be found if the demand is there. Of course, in nearly every case a Bill will be needed, as Parliament has jurisdiction over tidal waters. Therefore, Parliament has a planning function which it can discharge in protecting the coastline—which is fortunate, as planning authorities can either be too removed or too near the immediate site to perceive it in its wider setting.
  I take the view, which I am sure your Lordships share, that there are right and wrong places to put things. That sentiment applies to marinas. I believe that Swanage is very much the wrong place for a marina. Only a few miles round the corner to the north-east, at Poole, there are thousands of yachts with facilities for them; perhaps at Bournemouth, too. All across the Solent, at Lymington, Portsmouth and Southampton, there are many suitable places. However, south and west of Poole the coast acquires a different character. It is more peaceful and one might say it is less rackety. It is relatively undeveloped until one gets to Weymouth. I think it is worth trying to keep it like that as far as possible.
  Between Swanage and Poole there is Knowl beach in Studland Bay, which was given to the National Trust in 1982. The cliffs belonging to Knowl can be seen straight across the bay from Swanage. Round Peveril Point, just out of Swanage, the heritage coast runs west. Swanage town itself is a conservation area and, most of it anyway, matches its fortunate setting just east of the Purbeck Hills. It would be a shame to spoil it with something so out of character as this marina and the inevitable further development of the same kind which would be bound to take place if the marina is established. Unfortunately, foreshores cannot be made conservation areas; but if they could, this would certainly be one.

  309
  I hope I have said enough to convince your Lordships of my concern and that you will accept the terms of the Instruction on the Order Paper. I beg to move.
  Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should have particular regard to the effect of the Bill on the environment and on the character of Swanage and its bay, and should consider whether it is in the public interest that, as proposed by the Bill, a far more extensive area of the bay than hitherto should be placed under the jurisdiction of a private company, and enclosed, for the purpose of commercial development.—(Lord Raglan.)
  7.42 p.m.
  Lord Aberdare: My Lords, it is not for me to comment on the merits of the Bill but I express the hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading. I expect your Lordships are already bored with hearing me say once again that giving a Second Reading to a Private Bill does not necessarily imply that you approve of its purposes; but it does allow the Bill to be committed to a Select Committee, which I suggest is the appropriate place to make a full investigation of the merits of the Bill, the petitions and the Instruction.
  There are two petitions against the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made clear. They are widely drawn and a number of objections are raised in them. These matters will be closely investigated by the Select Committee if your Lordships agree to the Second Reading this evening. I also suggest that it would be wise to accept the Instruction in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. Again, I have no comments on the merits of it but I believe that, precedurally, it is an appropriate Instruction.
  The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, raised some matters that he had read in Erskine May saying, if I understood him, that instructions on matters which would in any case be considered by the committee should not be accepted by the House. Certainly that is generally true. However, the Select Committee is limited to considering matters raised in the petitions and I am not sure that in this case the matters raised in the Instruction are all raised in the petitions. However, that is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Raglan.
  My advice is that the House should accept the Second Reading and the Instruction moved by the noble Lord. The Bill will then go to a Select Committee for thorough investigation and that committee will make a special report to the House which can be considered when the Bill returns on Third Reading.
  7.44 p.m.
  Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has advised the House to accept the Second Reading of the Bill and to accept the Instruction. I am grateful to the noble Lord for both pieces of advice, which I hope and trust the House will follow. In view of that, and the detailed account given by my noble friend Lord Raglan of the problems involved in the creation of this marina, I need not say very much.
  310
  All of us have a connection with Swanage in one sense. If one chooses to leave this building by way of St. Stephen's Hall one will see a large mural painting of a naval battle in Swanage Bay which took place some 1, 000 years ago. My connection with Swanage arises from having spent my summer holidays there year after year for a great many years. One is immediately aware of what an attractive place it is for family holidays because of the exceptional safeness of the bathing. There is a peculiarity of the tide which means it never goes out very far. Therefore the risk of any juvenile or imprudent bather being swept away by the tide is almost negligible.
  We do not know for certain whether the tide will continue to behave in that manner after the creation of the breakwater and the other works set out in the Bill. It is therefore prudent for the House to give the Committee this Instruction to consider the character of Swanage and the effect that these works might have if carried out. It appears we may have a conflict between the interests of those people who would gladly use a yacht haven and the many other people whose ways of enjoying Swanage may all be put in peril. Some people may find their methods of enjoyment imperilled by what could happen to the tides.
  The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, drew attention to the plight of fishermen and the boatmen. The promoters may be able to assist some of them but it is clear from the fact that they have offered to assist only some of them that they do not feel they can meet the needs of all who now use this part of Swanage Bay, either as fishermen or as boatmen. If, as is a possibility, the construction of the works interferes with the breeding of a number of species of fish and shellfish, that will constitute another threat to the livelihood of a specific group of people in Swanage.
  The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that provision will be made for the Swanage lifeboat which lies along that shore. It will have to move to a different place from where it is now. It is not clear whether the lifeboat will have security of tenure once moved. Its position and the rent it may be asked to pay will be entirely at the discretion of the company which is to carry out this development. That is an example of what the Select Committee should very carefully study.
  It is true that the promoters have reduced the area they propose to bring under their jurisdiction. Although that area is small, set against the whole range of Swanage Bay, it comprises a large proportion of the south-west corner of the bay which is particularly protected and favoured by local boatmen, fishermen, anglers and others. Therefore there is a case for specifically underlining the important issues at stake and the amount of harm that may be done. We cannot say dogmatically that it will be done, but there is reason to fear it may be done. In view of that, it is right for the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, to move an Instruction of this kind and I earnestly hope that the House will support it.
  7.50 p.m.
  Lord Greenway: My Lords, I support the Second Reading of this Bill so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, who has covered most of the

  311
  salient points. I should like to say a few words about the environmental aspect. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, I took my family holidays when I was young in Swanage, staying at the Grosvenor Hotel which I believe has been pulled down to make way for this residential development. As I remember it, the Grosvenor Hotel was no great beauty. I humbly suggest however that although Swanage Bay is a conservation area, the fact that this development has been allowed to go ahead means that in my eyes it has already been partially spoilt.
  I should like to comment briefly on what the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, said about the marina. Much of the debate has concentrated on the south-west corner of the bay, which everyone, except perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has said is protected. But noble Lords have failed to say that Swanage Bay is not protected from easterly gales.
  When such conditions exist boats have to be taken to safer moorings in Poole harbour. The placing of a marina on this site and the building of a substantial sea wall would, in effect, create a much safer environment, especially for the passing yachtsman. I speak as a yachtsman. I consider Swanage Bay an admirable site for a marina for yachtsmen proceeding westwards from the Solent. Many other marinas in the Solent and at Poole have been mentioned, but due to the great increase in the popularity of sailing those marinas are now overcrowded.
  I do not know how many of your Lordships have recently gone into Poole in a yacht and tried to find somewhere to stand for a night. It is not always easy. Swanage would be much better suited from the yachtsman's point of view. Poole or Weymouth involve a detour off one's course if one is headed beyond Portland to the West Country. The building of this yacht haven could only be a good thing from the yachtsman's point of view.
  The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, mentioned the employment benefits that would accrue to Swanage. I agree with him. Unemployment is high in that area, particularly in the winter. When a marina is built, subsidiary interests connected with maintenance of boats during the winter invariably develop around it. This will be some help for employment.
  With regard to the eyesore of the sea wall, if my memory serves me correctly, the land around Swanage is fairly high. I do not think that many people's views would be adversely affected. The marina would not be in what I regard as the most attractive corner of the bay on the northern side.
  Much has been said about the tide. Being a relatively enclosed bay, the tide tends to sweep past it. There is not a large, lateral tidal movement around the bay, which is of course what makes it so safe for bathers, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, mentioned. The marina is not to be placed where the beach is. The beach is further around the bay to the west and north-west. I do not think that the marina would affect the beach in any way.
  The Royal Yachting Association supports the principle behind the building of the marina. But it, too, has expressed concern about the rather wide area of jurisdiction that the promoters originally wanted. I
  312
  understand that they have agreed to reduce that area and that it is no longer the problem that it was thought to be.
  The problem arose of what was to happen to the Swanage Sailing Club which has a small facility near the old pier. The promoters are to rehouse it in a building near the pier. It is to be given preferential facilities in the marina. It is also to have a new slipway built to the west of the proposed marina site. That slipway, or possibly another, would be for public use, to replace existing slipways which would be lost in the marina development area.
  There is still an area to the west of the pier forming the western arm of the marina where moorings could be put down. I believe that the promoters have said that they will not have jurisdiction over that area, so yachts would still be able to anchor for the night outside the marina.
  The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said that the promoters have already restored the pier which is now usable, having been derelict for a number of years. When we talk about the great use made of the pier by pleasure boats, it has to be put in context. Swanage pier was in its heyday about 70 or 80 years ago when a large number of paddle steamers plied up and down the coast. Today, a few smaller craft come round from Poole and Bournemouth.
  There is only one seagoing paddle steamer left in the world. It is called the "Waverley", and I am happy to say that it remains in this country. The promoters are delighted that she will use the pier later this year. We do not have pleasure craft traffic to anything like its former extent.
  The lifeboat was mentioned. I do not know any details. However, if the lifeboat has to be launched from land at present, it will probably be very much quicker to run down the pier and jump into a boat that is already afloat. I am sure that the promoters will look favourably upon the siting of a lifeboat facility at a berth in the marina.
  Finally, the promoters have so far said that they will meet most of the objections that have been raised. At the moment, those are only undertakings. It is for the Select Committee to sort out what is to happen about this matter.
  I welcome the proposal to build a marina in Swanage. It has been given fairly wide support locally, despite what we have heard this evening. It will be supported by the yachting fraternity. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  7.58 p.m.
  Lord Wynford: My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, as the introducer of the proposed Instruction to the Committee to which this Bill will presumably be committed. The noble Lord gave us a full, detailed and forceful line of argument. I know that he has visited the bay and has therefore seen it at first sight. That was quite a large undertaking because he lives a long way away. That shows me—I live nearer—that he has first-hand knowledge of the problems.
  I am not a resident of Swanage. I live on the Dorset coast, some 30 miles further west behind Chesil Beach.

  313
  From my boyhood, when I camped there at the age of 10 as a cub or scout—I cannot remember which—except for the war years, I have continued to know Swanage and its bay. It is a most beautiful and unique place. That was 60 years ago. I go back to Swanage more often now than I used to because I have a crowd of grandchildren who go to school there. The curious thing is that awfully little has changed. Swanage has survived in the most unusual way. It is a most extraordinary place that has survived the march of time to a remarkable degree.
  Swanage is a haven already. It may have to be a yacht haven—I do not know; I shall go on to that—but it is a haven of quietness for family leisure for all age groups from little children to teenagers. There is something for everyone along the seashore of Swanage Bay. It is unpretentious and it has enormous character.
  Noble Lords may well feel that yachts on the sea are as natural and unobjectionable as sand on the beach—and I certainly agree—but there is an enormous price to pay. We have to think very hard about this. That is why I think it right that this Bill should go to a Select Committee. A yacht haven—or marina, as some call it—involves close-quarter berthing at the highest possible degree of intensity. That is simply because the capital costs are so huge. If one goes to Swanage Bay and looks at what has to be done, the capital cost is so large that the haven must be occupied at a very high intensity. Closely packed in that way, there are unacceptable risks of damage with many hundreds of boats touching. They are not boats on moorings; they are closely packed together.
  These boats must therefore have very calm water. There is no question of the ordinary sea movement. There must be an enormous breakwater—a sea wall. This is shown in the developer's plans, but at the present moment the developer is aiming to berth some 250 boats within this quite small area in the southwest corner. That is written on his plan. That number will never pay as a marina. It will have to be much bigger. The developer knows that perfectly well. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who said that there are already signs of local people being asked, "What will you sell for?" or warned, "If you are running a boat chandling business you had better get out because we shall run a better one". All this is going on. I know that this is so because I have been down there and talked to the people. This is the danger.
  The professionals—an architect, a fisherman and the leader of the lifeboat team—pointed out to me that the aim of 250 boats was pretty optimistic on the scale of the site which the developer is now envisaging. Therefore I believe—and I think that noble Lords ought to watch this point—that this developer is already thinking of a much extended area behind this great sea wall. It will go half across the bay. Like a great curtain it will cut off the present sea view from Swanage at sea level. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, spoke about the lovely view from the hills behind. Swanage Bay is landlocked by these high hills of lovely countryside. However, at sea level—that is what the public are interested in—on the beach or on the road which forms a promenade behind the beach the people will be looking into this great wall, 17½ feet high above mean sea level. There is a six-feet rise and fall of tide in Swanage Bay on average.
  314
  Your Lordships are now beginning to see a rather different picture. The whole view has gone. Today the Isle of Wight—as it was the day that I was down there not a week ago—was visible across the sea with the boats going to and from Southampton Harbour; everything is going on that one can think of. But that will all be cut off. It will be cut off because the developer—in the opinion given me by the people who were showing me round—will have to develop to about 800 to 1, 000 boats to keep the marina profitable, and with some repayment on the capital. I do not believe therefore that this will be an economic proposition at its present size. I believe that it is not realistic to look at this development on that scale.
  In the future, the enjoyment of leisure, exercise, sea bathing and all the fun of Swanage of the last 60 years, as I have known it, will go. Swanage will close in that respect. It will be a mass of masts, sails and boats, but it will change completely. That is what we have to face. The old place will disappear.
  The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned the employment of labour. There will be employment, yes, but there will also be unemployment because all the people who run these boarding houses up the hills behind the town will go. We therefore get a completely different picture. In my opinion it is vandalism if it is allowed to proceed because of the powers that exist in this Bill. Unless those powers are restricted, this is what will happen.
  Surely the mass berthing of yachts should be confined to places that are already developing in that direction—such as Poole Harbour—or to places that have been overdeveloped in the past by heavy industry, such as shipbuilding. Either of those can provide underused facilities for a yacht haven or marina. These are the places where, in my opinion, the millions of pounds ought to be spent and not at Swanage. It would enable ugliness and decay to be cleared away. The seafarers would be accommodated, and there would be no loss to the landlubber.
  8.10 p.m.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, although I speak from this Dispatch Box this is a Private Bill and I therefore speak as an individual, though I suspect that I should have support from many of my colleagues in the questions that I propose to ask.
  We are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for the way in which he introduced the Bill and the full explanation that he gave. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, for the Instruction because it gives us an opportunity to introduce some matters which have not been and may not be covered by the petitioners. I am glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that we are not out of order in discussing the Instruction tonight and I hope that the Instruction will be accepted by your Lordships and will go forward if the Bill is given its Second Reading.
  It can only be helpful for the Committee in its deliberations to be made aware that Members of this House have views and that they ask for due weight to be given to the environmental aspects and to the rights and freedoms of the local community. To the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, I say that I suspect that

  315
  yachtsmen are like motorists, and that as the motorist can never have enough car parks so the yachtsmen can probably never have enough havens. Although I can see the attractions from the point of view of the yachtsman, I hope that that will not be given as an overwhelming reason for having the marina because there are other havens available though they may be a little overcrowded.
  Lord Greenway: My Lords, I did not want to stress that the facility would be just for yachtsmen, but I was trying to stress the benefit to the town of Swanage as well.
  Baroness Nicol: Yes, my Lords, I shall come to that in a moment. It would seem from the debate so far today and from the views expressed by the petitioners that a number of questions can legitimately be put to the Committee. I shall give them not necessarily in order of priority, but in the order in which they occured to me as I went through the papers. First, should further progress on the project await the results of a hydrographic survey? The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, tells us that a report has now been submitted. But we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, that this is probably a desk job and not one that is based on all the evidence which one would need to carry out a development of this importance.
  It seems that a proper hydrographic survey is essential because of the possible effects on the beach, which have been mentioned, on the breeding grounds of the many kinds of fish on which the local fishermen depend for their livelihood, and, finally—this is something which has not yet been mentioned—on the efficiency of the very important sewage outfall. I understand that the district council is very worried that the tidal changes that could be brought about by the development could affect the sewage outfall. We have not heard, if that happens, whether the bill for it would go to the developers or to the district council.
  Secondly, what effect will the development have on the lifeboat station? This has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham. If the station is to be relocated who will bear the cost? That is not clear either from the debate so far or from the Bill. What guarantees will be given against future costs? I give as an example the relocation of the lifeboat station at Poole which was carried out as part of the harbour development there and in later years the lifeboat station found it had to pay considerably increased rates. This was not considered at the time.
  Lord Raglan: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. I wish to ask her whether she knows that the lifeboat station at Poole has just been asked for a rent of 10, 000 a year—which is more than is paid for the rents for all the lifeboats right round the coast—or it will have to move out because it is apparently using that much worth of space in the marina at Poole?
  Baroness Nicol: Yes, my Lords. I think that reinforces my point very well. That is somethng which must be cleared up by the Committee in its investigations.
  316
  Thirdly, is it acceptable that a very much used Heritage Coast footpath should be diverted away from the waters' edge, which it is to be, and taken behind a new car park? That surely cannot be acceptable in any terms or in any place, especially in a conservation area.
  The fourth question is in what will be a crowded haven as we have heard, what action can be taken to guarantee protecton against pollution by the use of anti-fouling paints on yachts and of human waste if these yachts are stored, as they will be, overnight?
  The fifth question is if the livelihoods of fishermen and pleasure boat operators are to be endangered by restricted access to the facilities which they now enjoy and have enjoyed for generations will there be sufficient compensating new employment as a result of the development? The noble Lord, Lord Wynford, indicated even higher possible loss of employment in the area than I had suspected. This makes my question even more pointed. I hope the Committee will look into the effect on employment in the community as a whole, the gains and the losses, to see whether that too will justify the development.
  I know that there will be jobs during the course of the development, but they are shortlived—I should think two years at the most. The new employment which will be created—there will be some directly in the haven itself—will be small because I understand that the marina is not to include repair facilities for yachts. I think there is even a question mark over whether there will be wintering facilities for yachts, though I am open to question on that.
  My sixth question is what weight should be given to the diminished amenity for all those who now live in and visit this quiet harbour? We have heard a lot about it from the noble Lord, Lord Wynford. It is very difficult to put a price on amenity. It is very difficult to say how much it means to the people who live there and to the people who visit, but they certainly visit. Though the yacht haven is put forward as an asset in terms of increased tourism, I suspect that the loss from the spoiling of the harbour for the land-based visitors will more than outweigh the possible gain from seaborne tourism.
  Finally, the proposed powers in the Bill are very wide. I feel that if the Bill is passed in its present form there seem to be enormous powers for the new development company to change almost everything that they have asked for in the Bill. I could find no restrictions worth talking about on any aspect of the Bill as it stands. This is very worrying and the Committee should pay a great deal of attention to whether or not the powers should be restricted.
  These are the issues for the Committee. I am sure that in the way of sub-committees of this House the members will give every consideration to all aspects of the Bill. But our debate here tonight can only have been helpful because I feel that we may have added to the evidence which will be coming to the Committee.
  8.20 p.m.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords and Baronesses for taking part in this short debate; and particularly the Chairman of Committees for his advice which, he will not be surprised to know, I have heard before as so many of us have concerning the practice over Second Readings

  317
  and Select Committees in the procedure for private legislation. On the Instruction and the procedure there, I propose that we should follow his advice. I have already indicated that I accept entirely the wording of the Instruction. My only concern was about procedure because it seemed to me that the paints in it were covered in the Petitions. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, says there is doubt on that, I readily accept that we should follow his advice.
  The matters which have been raised this evening should be looked into by the Select Committee. At this point in the debate I shall touch on the main points only where there is a possibility of misunderstanding. In his speech the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, covered a wide range of matters which made clear to your Lordships the anxieties that exist especially in the area. When he was speaking at the beginning about the area of jurisdiction it sounded as if he was referring to the original area rather than the revised and reduced one. I again draw attention to the fact that proposals have already been made to reduce the area from what is proposed by the Bill.
  Lord Raglan: My Lords, as I understand it there was an original area of jurisdiction with the quay and the pier. Then when the Bill was first mooted there was an extremely large area of jurisdiction. Now the promoters have shrunk this area but it is still considerably larger than the original area of jurisdiction of 1859.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I simply wanted to be sure that the noble Lord was addressing his remarks to the recent revised area of jurisdiction.
  There are clearly differences of view on the possible effects in the area but one must bear in mind the offers that have already been made by the promoters and other agreements which can be reached in the Select Committee. I am talking about arrangements for moorings, and so on. These matters can be settled when the Select Committee is considering the Bill. It is certainly not possible to reconcile these here on the Floor of the House so I shall not pursue them now.
  The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, mentioned the breakwater and the possible effects on the currents and therefore the beach. I remind the House that I said that a hydrographic survey had been carried out and its findings were made available to the Purbeck District Council which was concerned about that. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, was critical of the residential housing which has now been started. It sounded as though he was critical of the fact that it had been started at all. I must make it clear that that is not a subject of the Bill—
  Lord Raglan: No!
  Lord Campbell of Croy: I said this in my original statement and I must say it again because so far as I know nothing at all untoward has been done. The housing received the appropriate planning permission from the authorities concerned. The noble Lord also suggested that there should be some form of advisory group of local interests when the facilities have been completed and when the promoters are carrying out the management. They have also proposed in
  318
  paragraph 11 of their circulated statement that an advisory committee of local interests should be set up. I mention that because it accords with the suggestion that the noble Lord made.
  Lord Raglan: My Lords, I do not want to keep interrupting the noble Lord, but he has several points wrong. I was not criticising the development of the houses. I was criticising the fact that they were being offered on the basis of having a berth in the marina. As for the latter point, that is not what I said.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am informed that there is no question of the promoters having made any offer like that without making it absolutely clear that it is subject to Parliament approving it. That has been made absolutely clear.
  The main points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Raglan and Lord Stewart of Fulham, are ones which should be fully examined by the Select Committee. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for raising additional points which were not covered in my opening speech, in particular the reference to the last paddle steamer, the "Waverley". I know it from the Clyde which had been its home.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, made some further points which she suggested should be considered by the Select Committee. I endorse entirely what she said, particularly one of her points about the possible effects of pollution. Your Lordships may not know that this is a matter about which I am particularly concerned. Only last week at an emergency meeting I was appointed to be chairman of the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea in succession to the late John Silkin whose sudden and tragic death caused us a great deal of distress. I had been a chairman in the past and therefore I was asked to be an acting chairman and take over very quickly. This has been part of my life in the past and so I am certainly concerned about the environment as a whole. When I say that I was drafted, I admit that I did not get much choice because I was drafted by distinguished Members of both Houses and all parties.
  I am concerned as we all are with the environment and proposals in the Bill affecting the environment must be examined carefully but I feel that solutions will be found if the Bill goes, as I think we all agree it should, to a Select Committee.
  Lord Raglan: I beg to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should have particular regard to the effect of the Bill on the environment and on the character of Swanage and its bay, and should consider whether it is in the public interest that, as proposed by the Bill, a far more extensive area of the bay than hitherto should be placed under the jurisdiction of a private company, and enclosed, for the purpose of commercial development.
  On Question, Bill read a second time and referred to the Examiners; and it was ordered that it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should have particular regard to the effect of the Bill on the environment and on the character of Swanage and its bay, and should consider whether it is in the public interest that, as proposed by

  319
  the Bill, a far more extensive area of the bay than hitherto should be placed under the jurisdiction of a private company, and enclosed, for the purpose of commercial development.

  Registered Establishments (Scotland) Bill
  8.27 p.m.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The VISCOUNT SIMON in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 [Definition of "establishments"]:
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 18, leave out ("63A") and insert ("63B").
  The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 1, I hope it will be acceptable to the Committee if I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. These six amendments are concerned with appeals against registration. They do not affect the main substance of the Bill but remedy two important omissions.
  At Second Reading I explained that Clause 3 of the Bill extends the present limited powers of local authorities to attach conditions to the registration of the establishment to which the Bill applies. That is done by means of Clause 3(2), which replaces the relevant provision in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
  It has been drawn to my attention that this subsection is defective in two significant ways. First, while it allows for appeals against conditions imposed after registration it does not allow, as was the intention, for appeals against conditions forming part of the initial registration. Secondly, Clause 3(2) does not require local authorities when they intend to make or vary conditions for registration to notify the applicant of that intention or to give him or her an opportunity to make representations and be heard. Amendment No. 5 inserts a new clause after Clause 3 of the Bill. This new clause remedies the omissions I have just described and does so by reproducing procedures similar to those contained in Section 64 of the 1968 Act. The other amendments in this group are consequential. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Dundee: I should just like to record that the Government welcome the terms of these amendments and are grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for them and for their effect, which corrects and improves the provisions on appeals in the Bill.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Voluntary registration]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Ross of Marnock: Could we have some information about Clause 2? I have been concerned about this voluntary registration. It says one queer thing. I considered putting down an amendment but thought better of it. In any case, we have another stage to come and I could put it down then if we are not satisfied. Why have we got this phrase:
  "Any grant-aided school or independent school within the meaning of section 135(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (which defines terms used in that Act) which performs functions such as are described in section 61(1) above"—
  that is as amended, of course—
  "may, but shall not be required to".
  Why do we need the words "shall not be required to"? If you say "may", then the option is there: they may or they may not. Why is it there for that purpose? It is rather strange when you start to read this and try to get to Section 61 of the original Act and then put this in. You get something like:
  "The provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply to establishments to which this section applies subject to the following—

  (a) section 61(2) and (3) shall not apply;

  (b) section 62(8) and (8A) shall not apply;

  (c) section 65 shall not apply".

  Sections 61(2) and (3) actually mean that you do not need to register. Then, "section 65 shall not apply". That is the removal of the person in charge and in control. It is not easy to follow. I am relying upon the noble Baroness to give me an explanation as to why this is here, what it means, and why it is put in this way. It is difficult to follow.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The voluntary registration applies to establishments which are registered with the education authority, and because they have partly a social work function may want to apply for registration in order to ensure that they are acceptable to local authorities for placing people in those schools, and so on. The local authorities will wish to place young people there if they are registered, but it is not made compulsory because there is no need for it to be. If they do not want to be registered, they do not have to be. They are registered in any case as schools. That is my understanding of it. My noble friend on the Front Bench may have something further to say.
  Lord Ross of Marnock: Surely they are registered not with the local authority as schools but with the Secretary of State, so that the powers in respect of inspection and so on do not rest with the education authorities but rest with the Secretary of State for the Scottish Office. Schools were the entire responsibility of the Secretary of State. For years and years since this Government came to power, and it may well be before that for all I know, they have been trying to get rid of them because the full cost fell on the Secretary of State's estimates. Certainly the local authorities had a responsibility in that they paid for every child who went there. Now that has been changed.
  I am just wondering whether the local authorities have the power of inspection in respect of the change, although it is fairly well laid down in the Act in respect of what had to be provided and what the Secretary of State demanded in respect of these establishments. I had the impression from Second Reading that the

  321
  Government were reasonably anxious that they should register. Now we have this specifically telling them that they may register, and underlining it, quite unnecessarily, with the words "but shall not be required to".
  The Earl of Dundee: Perhaps I may be able to help the noble Lord. In the first place, there are the List D schools. The position with them is that the former List D schools, which as voluntary establishments are continuing to provide child care services from 1st April 1986, were encouraged to apply for registration under Part IV of the Act. As explained to your Lordships at Second Reading, this is very much in their own interests, and I understand that they have substantially done so.
  In regard to other grant-aided or independent schools there are only a comparatively small number of residential and grant-aided schools which offer substantial child care services as well as education, but in such cases the Scottish Office will draw attention to the new provisions when they come into force and point out to the establishments concerned the desirability of their applying for registration.
  It will be explained that it is in their own interests to apply for registration since they are dependent on children being referred from the relevant local authority departments. The fact that schools are providing services such as are provided in the 1968 Act may indeed make it appear that the schools should apply for registration under the 1986 Act, but I think the provision makes it clear that such registration is purely voluntary.
  Lord Ross of Marnock: But what is the effect of subsection (4) on those affected by this clause and subsection?
  The Earl of Dundee: My understanding is that there will be no coercion whatsoever on the independent schools to register, but that they are expected to register as it is understood that it is very much in their interests to do so; and indeed substantially they have already done so.
  Lord Ross of Marnock: I think I should have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, about this. Subsection (2) says:
  "Where an application for registration of a grant-aided school or independent school is granted, the establishment shall be entered in the register kept for the purposes of section 61(2) above by the local authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State."
  Then you go to subsection (4):
  "The provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply to establishments to which this section applies subject to the following".
  Here we have another reference to Section 61(2)—let us forget what Section 61(3) says—and it says, "shall not apply". What does Section 61(2) say? They do not need to register. Here we are talking about their being registered under subsection (2). I know that it is a bit complicated but we have got this more or less at the last minute. We have been rather preoccupied—and I know that the same is true in respect of the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy—with another matter. The other matter has been carried out so hastily that we do not even have the reprint of the Bill with which we are to deal on Monday. Here we
  322
  have a Bill which was probably drafted by the same people. It is as complex again and I cannot make head or tail or it. I hope somebody can.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Will the noble Lord confirm that he is referring to subsection (2) of Clause 2?
  Lord Ross of Marnock: No, I am not. I am referring first to subsection (2) of Clause 2, and I am linking that up with what is written in subsection (4)(a) of Clause 2.
  We start at the back. Subsection (4)(a) refers to Section 61 of the 1980 Act, I presume. It reads:
  "The provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply to establishments to which this section applies subject to the following—(a) section 61(2) and (3) shall not apply;".
  However, in subsection (2) we are told:
  "Where an application for registration of a grant-aided school or independent school is granted, the establishment shall be entered in the register kept for the purposes of section 61(2)".
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The whole of Clause 2 permits the registration of these establishments under both the 1968 and 1980 Acts, as I said when I first rose, with registration under the 1968 Act being on a voluntary basis. Special provisions are included to disapply certain enforcement and other provisions of Part IV of the 1968 Act which will continue to apply to establishments which are required to be registered under the Act. There are those establishments which, because they have a part of their activity which they desire to register in order that they can become more acceptable to those who might place people in the establishment, will wish to register; but others will not. I think that that is what I said in the first instance.
  Lord Ross of Marnock: I think that it is, but it still does not make sense when one sees what is written here. I hope that somebody will clarify my mind.
  The defined term is in the 1980 Act—that is, Section 135(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980—and we do not need to worry about that because it is clear. We are dealing with independent and grant-aided schools and we know that certain schools that were under the full control of the Secretary of State are now grant-aided or independent. They will be independent. They were always governed and owned independently but they had a relationship to the Secretary of State and the local authority which was covered by the original Act. Of course Section 135 is the consolidation Act of 1980.
  I am concerned about the fact that the Bill provides that they may apply for registration under this part of the Act. It goes on to read:
  "Where an application for registration of a grant-aided school or independent school is granted, the establishment shall be entered in the register kept for the purposes of section 61(2).".
  Subsection (4)(a) reads:
  "Section 61(2) and (3) shall not apply;".
  That is the point I am making. Subsection (2) reads:
  "the establishment shall be entered in the register kept for the purposes of section 61(2)".
  Then we are told that Section 61(2) shall not apply.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I think that the establishments about which we are talking provide care in addition to education to the same children, at the same time and in the same place. Therefore if one has compulsory registration in parallel in relation to those establishments it would not work. The suggestion is that there should be informal dual registration and that that would be a considerable improvement on the present situation. That is my understanding.
  Lord Ross of Marnock: I admit that I have not had the time to go carefully through all the various Acts. However, I looked at them quickly after I had eventually discovered the Acts in the Library. One of them had been missing for a long time. I do not know who was studying it. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has been studying it. He indicates that he is not guilty. We must try to discover the identity of the person who has been anxious to obtain the Act and blind us all with science. Maybe it was the draftsmen who took it out but then thought they would do better without it.
  I eventually obtained the Act, but it still defeats me. Let us suppose that at the next stage I table an amendment leaving out subsection (4)(a). I hope that by that time someone will have a perfectly lucid explanation as to what will happen in that event. In the meantime, I shall rest my case and allow Clause 2 to stand part.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  8.45 p.m.
  Clause 3 [Registration]:
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 4:
  Page 4. leave out lines 15 to 36.
  Page 4, line 38, at end insert (", new condition").
  Page 4. line 39, leave out ("(5A) or (5D) above" ") and insert ("or (5A) above or section 63A(7) below" ").
  The noble Baroness said: I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 and I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 5:
  After Clause 3. insert the following new clause:
  ("Appeals against conditions imposed on registration or subsequently.
  .—After section 63 of the 1968 Act insert:
  63A.—

  (1) Not less than fourteen days before determining

  (a) the conditions intended to be imposed under section 62(5A) above in respect of the registration of any person in respect of an establishment; or

  (b) any new condition or variation of an existing condition intended to be imposed under section 62(5A) above,

  the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the local authority shall send by recorded delivery service to the applicant or the person registered, as the case may be, notice of their intention.

  (2) Every notice under subsection (1) above shall contain an intimation that if within fourteen days after the receipt of the notice the applicant or, as the case may be, the person registered informs the authority or the Secretary of State in writing of his desire—

  (a) to show cause, in person or by a representative, why the proposed conditions, new conditions or variation of existing conditions should not be imposed;

  324

  (b) to make representations as to what conditions, new conditions or variation of conditions should be imposed in substitution for those proposed.

  the authority or the Secretary of State shall, before carrying out their intention, afford him an opportunity so to do.

  (3) The local authority or the Secretary of State, after giving the applicant or the person registered, as the case may be, an opportunity of being heard by them, shall send a notice to him by recorded delivery service informing him of what conditions, new conditions or variation of conditions they have decided to impose.

  (4) A person aggrieved by a notice of a local authority or of the Secretary of State under subsection (3) above may appeal to an appeal tribunal established by Schedule 5 to this Act, and any such appeal shall be brought within twenty-one days of the date of that notice.

  (5) Where an appeal under subsection (4) above relates to the imposition of conditions on the initial registration of a person in respect of an establishment, the registration shall not take effect until—

  (a) the appeal has been determined; or

  (b) the time for bringing an appeal has elapsed without—

  (i)an appeal having been brought, or

  (ii)an appeal which has been intimated having been proceeded with,

  and in either of the cases mentioned in paragraph (b) above the registration shall be subject to the conditions proposed in the notice sent to the applicant under subsection (3) above.

  (6) Where an appeal under subsection (4) above relates to the proposed imposition of new conditions or of a variation of existing conditions, the new conditions or variation shall not take effect until—

  (a) the appeal has been determined; or

  (b) the time for bringing an appeal has elapsed without—

  (i) an appeal having been brought, or

  (ii) an appeal which has been intimated having been proceeded with.

  (7) On any appeal under subsection (4) above the tribunal may confirm or vary any condition, new condition or variation of a condition against which the appeal is brought.").

  The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to the amendment and I beg to move.
  Lord Ross of Marnock: Does this also relate to Clause 5?
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: It is the new clause after Clause 3.
  Lord Ross of Marnock: Very well.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 and moved them en bloc.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Jointly registrable establishments]
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 5, line 33, leave out ("63A") and insert ("63B").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 7, line 2, leave out ("1(2)") and insert ("1 A(a)").
  The noble Baroness said: With the permission of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 at the same time. When this Bill was introduced, the Government were in the process of consulting interested parties on proposals for changes in nursing home regulations. I understand that that exercise is

  325
  now complete and there is clear support among health boards for an extension of their charging powers. It therefore seems sensible to make appropriate changes by means of this Bill.
  Private hospitals and nursing homes in Scotland are regulated by the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938. That Act provides for the Secretary of State to set a fee which health boards may charge applicants for registrations under the Act. This amendment is intended to extend the power of the Secretary of State to enable fees to be set in respect not only of first registration but also for the annual continuation of registration, for applications to vary conditions and for the issue of a new certificate following a change in registration.
  The effect of these amendments will be to place private hospitals and nursing homes in Scotland in a position as regards fees broadly compatible with that already prevailing in England and Wales and also with the proposals contained in this Bill for residential homes in Scotland. Health boards will be enabled, through the fees collected, to offset more effectively the costs of registering private hospitals and nursing homes and exercising continued supervision over such establishments. I beg to move.
  Lord Ross of Marnock: I thought the noble Baroness said she was taking some other amendments with this one. I did not quite see how this fitted in with Clauses 5 and 6 in respect of nursing homes because I did not think that we were up to the point where we had even mentioned nursing homes. I do not see any reference to that, apart from subsection (2) of Clause 4, which we have not quite come to yet. I am quite willing, however, to take the point.
  We have been dealing up to now with children, because the social work Act is concerned with children. Here we are dealing with something different, and that is what surprises me. There was a reference in some of the many papers which I eventually received, but rather too late. It made fascinating reading for anyone with my knowledge of the Scottish Office, where a Bill like this is not unusual. In fact it is quite the thing to pass such a Bill at the last minute to a private Member and ask that Member to handle it, when it is the Scottish Office which has been handling it all the time. An unfortunate Minister is told at the last minute, "Oh, we've got this bit of legislation through unexpectedly: it's yours", especially when he is busy with something else. It rather amused me to see what was put out in respect of this.
  I was concerned here at the reference to private hospitals and to client groups. Am I right in thinking that the "client groups" in respect of nursing homes are not children but adults? That was my reading of it, in what time I had to spare for some of the papers which were belatedly sent to me.
  Perhaps I should say that nobody in Scotland has written about this Bill at all, nobody in local government, nobody concerned in the actual business. I do not know where it all came from. Certainly it started life and was mentioned and printed at about the end of February this year. It has made remarkable progress since then without a word being said about it,
  326
  so far as I can understand, in another place. So we really ought to be asking questions about it. That is the first point.
  The noble Baroness spoke about fees. I think we should be given some information about the likelihood of these fees because, under the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938, when anyone applied for registration they had to apply in writing and to send five shillings. That was the cost of the fee then, as I am perfectly sure the noble Baroness already knows, I think from Clause 1 of the 1938 Act. I remember we discussed this at home that year. It was the only thing we were concerned about in 1938, the fact that you could open a nursing home for five shillings, provided you met the conditions. I should like to know what the fees are now in that respect.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I appreciate that it has been difficult for the noble Lord to spend time analysing the Bill in his usual careful way, although he has done a great deal of work on it. as one can tell from his comments.
  What has happened in so far as the amendments to which we are now speaking are concerned, as I think I said earlier, is that there was a consultation going on about changes in the arrangements for nursing homes at the time when the Bill first began its course in another place. That consultation came to a conclusion and this is a convenient opportunity to extend the changing provisions to a different sort of establishment—namely, nursing homes.
  The Bill as it stands is about adults as well as children—about old people's homes, as the noble Lord will remember. The Second Reading debate was not about children only: we were talking about homes for adults and old people as well. So it is not entirely unsuitable to do this. The consultation which the Government had has come to a conclusion now and there is support for the notion that additional fees should be charged for registering these nursing homes.
  The matter is a little complicated because this amendment makes provision for inserting a new clause into the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act of 1938 and the clause enables health boards to charge fees annually for the continuation of registration in respect of applications for variation in certain registration conditions and for the issuing of new certificates following a change in any condition of registration of a private hospital or nursing home. The Secretary of State for Scotland will prescribe by regulation the level of fees to be charged and the time at which they fall due. So this is adding an extra dimension to the Bill and amending another Act.
  However, it seems not entirely inappropriate to do so. I did not mention this in the Second Reading debate, as I think I explained informally to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, because, when I received notification that this might be desirable, I myself had not had a chance to look into it and see if I was happy about it. Having done so, I am now moving these two amendments, which have this effect.
  As to the level of fees, I am not sure whether my noble friend can help us on that or on any other aspect about which I have not been able to enlighten the Committee.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Before the Minister replies, I wonder whether he can help me on the question of fees. I do not know whether they are large or small or pro rata with the five shillings charged, as my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock said, for nursing homes in 1938. I know that voluntary organisations very often operate at a deficit in supported accommodation operations. Will they be financially compensated for the new registration fees? Or, better still, will they be exempted from them? As many of them get their money from the local authority, it would seem ridiculous if they were compensated by the local authority and then handed the money over from another pocket. Perhaps that is something the Minister might find it difficult to answer tonight, but I know that some of the voluntary organisations are rather concerned about it. A lot would hinge on how much the fee was. If it was a big fee it could be quite a serious thing for a voluntary organisation.
  9 p.m.
  The Earl of Dundee: As to the level of fees and the impact that fees are likely to have, I hope I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that as currently proposed they are not too onerous: I think the level is £100. It is suggested that it should go up to £550 for the initial registration cost. The annual charge will be in the region of £15, which is estimated to be a weekly charge per person of about 28 pence, I think.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Can the Minister help over the question of whether there will be any reimbursement? A fee of £550 for a voluntary organisation in Lanark, where there is a number of such organisations, would be difficult for them to raise. I doubt whether they would even raise the one year's fee in a flag day in Lanark. How else will they be compensated? Will they be compensated for that very large initial fee? I can understand that £15 later on is manageable but £500 is a very large sum for a relatively small voluntary organisation to meet. Perhaps the Minister would take time and write to me before the next stage of the Bill.
  The Earl of Dundee: On that point, I should like to say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, about the nature of the discretion that local authorities will have in regard to the fixing of fees. The arrangements are that local authorities will have discretion to charge according to their reasonable costs, in general terms, within the maxima prescribed by the Secretary of State. That of course will allow them to charge less than the maxima either generally or in relation to particular establishments.
  Lord Ross of Marnock: This is subject to what is already laid down in, I think, Section 1 of the 1938 Act. Those who are going to apply for registration under the 1938 Act will need to comply with all the other regulations already there. I do not know whether the noble Earl is aware of this, but they have this control over the persons who are employed and the persons who run the establishments. There has to be either a qualified resident—I stress "resident"—medical practitioner or qualified nurse.
  328
  Does this mean—remembering what we have already said about Section 61 and the changes we are making there—that this is where the adults that were spoken about come in? It has been said that there probably will be adults in these nursing homes. If adults are going to be there, perhaps somebody can tell me how they are going to be covered by a piece of legislation that we have been dealing with up to now. Are these adults going to pay the collective charge or are they going to pay the personal community charge? We were told just the other night that in relation to other hospitals they were covered by that part of the Act dealing with Crown lands. These are not Crown lands, and I think a reference was made at one point that took us from non-Crown lands through to those premises which could come under I think Clause 11—the collective community charge.
  How will these people fare? We are told that there are new developments and people will be taken in there. How are they going to be dealt with under the new Bill? It is important because many of these people could be coming from long-stay hospitals where they have not paid any community charge. But under the Bill, coming half-way out into the community, they are now liable for the community charge. They did not pay anything before in the way of rates—in fact we were told just last night that people in long-stay hospitals and people in prison would be under the Secretary of State or a government department. But obviously these private nursing homes are not. What is going to happen there?
  The noble Baroness may say that she does not know. I do not know either. I usually only ask questions if I already know the answers, just to see whether Ministers know the answers or can get the information on time from the usual charge of the cavalry from here to another place and back again. It is always very interesting. From that point of view, I should like to know whether the adults who are in these nursing homes are going to pay the personal community charge, or is it going to be collective? Is it a good idea that at one time you are trying to get people out of long-stay hospitals into the community and then you penalise them when that is done? That is going to work against the whole principle of the new ideas that are being developed in respect of mental health, and of course it could be physical health as well.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord asks questions of enormous interest. But, frankly, this Bill is not about how nursing homes or other establishments are set up. The Bill relates to paying fees for registration and for varying registration. It has nothing to do with whether patients pay the community charge or whether there is a collective community charge to be paid. Personally, I should certainly not be in a position to answer that question. To do that I should have to look back at our discussions on the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill.
  We are now discussing nursing homes. This amendment concerns nursing homes; the previous amendments were concerned with other establishments. The nursing homes might be children's nursing homes or nursing homes for adults. My noble friend gave the type of level of registration fee or fee for altering registration. It is not a very large sum if

  329
  divided between all the people who are residents in the nursing home. It is a very small sum and would probably be included as part of the cost per day that is charged to them for residence. I do not think that it has very much to do with the community charge in this context, although, of course, it has for individuals.
  Lord Ross of Marnock: The noble Baroness may think that it will not be a very large amount. But, as I understand it, there will also be a continuing annual fee in respect of inspection and the like. That is something else. I am thinking about the people who own such establishments and what they have to do. If they come under Clause 11, then obviously it will be their task to collect the personal community charge. It may well be that the people with whom they are dealing are not exactly those who can easily fill up forms in respect of rebates and so on. That is something else that will be at the cost of the people concerned.
  Perhaps the noble Baroness would answer my first question. Is this where the adults that have been mentioned come in? They are mentioned in other papers that the Scottish Office sent to me about six days ago, although I have not been able to read them until today. This is where the adults and the community charge comes in.
  I do not expect an answer to this question but I am telling the noble Baroness of the problems that will arise in relation to those who register. If they do not need to register, they may decide not to register because of the complexities into which they will be running.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The various parts of the Bill mention adults and the establishments in which they are involved. We were also discussing homes for adults in an earlier part of the Bill. This amendment concerns adults or children in nursing homes.
  As regards the amount that will be added by the cost of registration, if the fees are comparable to those in England—the matter that causes the noble Lord so much concern is very similar to an arrangement that already exists in England—where the annual fee was set at £15 per place, it would add a sum of 28p to weekly maintenance costs. The level that we are talking about is not enormously high.
  The adults are in the nursing homes that will be included by this amendment and also in other establishments that are covered by other parts of the Bill. I hope that this is now clear to the noble Lord.
  Lord Ross of Marnock: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I shall not oppose her amendment but I shall think about it in connection with the future progress of the Bill.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Registration fees]:
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 8, line 2, at end insert—
  ("(3) After section 1 of the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938 insert—
  ("Registration fees.
  1A.—A Health Board may impose fees, of such amounts and at such times as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations under this Act, in respect of—

  (a) an application for registration made by any person in respect of the carrying on of a nursing home;

  (b) the annual continuation of any such registration;

  (c) an application made under section 1(3F) above by the person registered in respct of the home for a variation in any condition such as is mentioned in section 1(3D) or (3E) above which has effect in relation to the home; and

  (d) the issuing under section 1(3) above of a new certificate following any variation, made as a result of an application under section 1(3F) above, in the conditions under section 1(3D) or (3E) above subject to which the registration has been granted."

  (4) In section 1(2) of the said Act of 1938 (which relates to the registration of nursing homes) the words "and shall be accompanied by such fee as may be so prescribed" shall cease to have effect.").
  The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

  "After Abolition": Report
  9.14 p.m.
  Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what response they will make to the report After Abolition recently published by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when your Lordships' House debated the 1984 Local Government Bill on the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, great concern was expressed from all sides of the House about the impact that abolition would have on voluntary organisations. After all, much was at stake. By March 1986 over 3, 500 voluntary groups were receiving grants from the abolition authorities. Over £100 million was needed if all these groups were to continue without loss. This represented one-third of the total of local authorities' grant aid in England.
  In the debate powerful arguments were put forward by many speakers about the danger of the work of voluntary organisations not being maintained. As a result some important changes were made to the post-abolition arrangements. The Government's own funding contribution through transitional funding was quadrupled and the original ceilings envisaged for the collective funding of cross-borough or district projects by local authorities were removed. Following this, most of the 3, 500 groups affected by abolition managed to survive the first year of abolition.
  Unfortunately the impact of abolition is not yet over. For that reason it seemed important to consider

  331
  this evening the report entitled After Abolition which has been prepared by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations in conjunction with the London Voluntary Service Council. I am most grateful to noble Lords who have stayed rather late to consider this important report. It shows that, although people's worst fears were averted, the voluntary sector is still being damaged by abolition. The damage may not always have been dramatic, although in some cases it has been, but it is still occurring. I should like to give a few examples.
  The area which has been worst affected by abolition is undoubtedly Merseyside. The former county council provided over £5 million funding to 90 different voluntary organisations. Its support covered a wide range of groups concerned with social provision, employment, training, arts and recreation. Sixty-three of these projects have lost some or all of their funding. Overall funding has been reduced by £2.5 million. Ethnic minority projects, arts projects and unemployment centres have been the worst affected. Even those groups that received funding are now faced with an uncertain future. The new Liberal administration has decided to review all the projects approved last year for transitional funding, which means that these projects have been given grants only until the end of June. When one considers that June is next month, one can imagine the terrible chaos that this must have caused to these voluntary organisations, which are already working in difficult areas.
  London has also been affected overall. As many as 90 projects have lost funding. Most of these have been at local level. However, the position for cross-borough projects has also been made difficult. The confusion that beset the London boroughs grants scheme has created one of the great problems.
  As your Lordships probably realise, last year it took the boroughs three months to agree a budget. This year it was even worse. In late November 20 boroughs agreed a proposal for expenditure of £32 million, but ratification by two-thirds of the boroughs is required, which means the agreement of 22 boroughs; so in the end no agreement was reached until the middle of March. This came only after the Secretary of State indicated that he might set a limit of £28.5 million. Of course the chaos was pending as voluntary groups were waiting to hear whether they would get their grant and were faced with the prospect of having to lay off staff or close their doors on 1st April, which was the start of the new grant year.
  Even now it is clear that the budget is very low. The director of the grants unit has reported that the scheme needs more than this just to refund current commitments, pay the costs of the unit and deal with contingencies. To allow any response at all to new groups and ideas, the committee has had to agree to make savings from its community, employment and arts divisions. As a result, 10 groups were refused renewal funding when they were considered on 8th April.
  London groups in receipt of transitional funding are also beginning to experience difficulties as their boroughs are taking over an increasing proportion of their grants. I shall give a few examples of that. In
  332
  Wandsworth, the council orginally took on a number of groups with transitional funding arrangements, but it now appears to be increasingly reluctant to take on full responsibility for those groups as transitional funding from the Department of the Environment tapers away. There have already been cuts in the funding of the three law centres.
  In Tower Hamlets, which is after all another borough which faces enormous problems, the voluntary sector has just been subjected to major cuts. Indeed 60 per cent. of the borough-wide groups have been refused grants in £1 million-worth of cuts. Much of the Tower Hamlets grants budget came through transitional arrangements, and the borough has now decided that it cannot afford to carry on at the same level.
  Even in Lambeth, where there is a full commitment to funding ex-GLC groups, there are some problems. The council does not have the staff to administer the funds effectively, so that payments made quarterly are usually late or unpredictable. Voluntary organisations are having to arrange overdrafts to continue staffing and rent payments and, in all the uncertainty, they find it impossible to plan their work ahead properly.
  There is also considerable concern about the long term. There is concern about the growth and the development of the voluntary sector in the metropolitan areas and the GLC. Both the GLC and the metropolitan areas had a very good record for assisting new employment and training projects. They gave particular priority to black and ethnic minorities and women's groups. Many of those groups had previously found it most difficult to obtain support, despite the very great importance of their work. They were beginning to catch up, but that has now come to an end. So in London the largest category of new groups applying for funding from the London boroughs grant scheme came from black and ethnic minority projects.
  I must stress my next point, which I believe is the most important. Without growth and development, the pattern of voluntary sector activity will simply reflect previous years' work. Each year new needs emerge—for example, to meet drug abuse, the spread of AIDS, the increase in homelessness and the growth in the number of elderly people. Those are the very areas which require new support and new aid. That is why the voluntary sector must be kept going. If it is not growing, it will not be able to respond to the new demands put on it.
  Another important impact of abolition has been a virtual end to capital support for premises and equipment. That has taken two forms. First, none of the post-abolition arrangements make any provision for capital grants. Transitional funding is for revenue only and the collective funding schemes do not have their own capital allocations. As a result, groups have to rely on local authorities' existing capital allocations, which are already heavily over-subscribed, and cross-borough or district projects have no funding source to approach.
  Secondly, the present capital assets are in danger of being reduced because the residuary bodies are required to dispose of properties owned by the abolition authorities. Indeed in London over 120

  333
  organisations in 50 premises are now under threat of being made homeless. Finally, as I have already said, another underlying effect of abolition has been the continued uncertainty which so many organisations have to face up to all the time.
  So, from what I have said, it is clear that 14 months after abolition the difficulties being experienced by the voluntary groups could become greater. One reason is the increased burden which the post-abolition arrangements are placing upon local authorities as, year by year, central government reduce their contribution. The Department of the Environment's contribution to transitional funding has been reduced this year by £5 million. The Arts Council's funding has also been reduced by £1 million. And none of the Government's funding makes any allowance for inflation.
  What this means overall is that local authorities are likely to have to increase their contribution to post-abolition funding by as much as 25 per cent. if the same level of voluntary sector activity is to be maintained. And that is before any allowance is made for possible changes in rate support grant.
  I conclude by highlighting some of the recommendations that the report puts forward. I hope that the Minister will respond to some of them. First, the NCVO suggests that the Government adopt a much more flexible attitude towards the tapering of their contributions. It calls upon the Government to recognise the particular problems being faced by black and ethnic minority projects in obtaining funding and to increase the Commission for Racial Equality's post-abolition budget from £800, 000, as at present, to at least £2 million per annum. The suggestion is made that the Government accept that the collective funding schemes established under Section 48 of the 1985 Local Government Act are not working well in most areas and that a fresh approach is needed.
  Fourthly, the Government should correct the anomaly whereby none of the post-abolition arrangements makes any provision for capital funding. Collective funding schemes should be provided with their own capital allocation, but not at the expense of local authorities' own allocation. Fifthly—I believe that the Government have been thinking about this and that the Minister may have something to say—the residuary bodies should be instructed not to dispose of premises occupied by voluntary groups. Instead, these premises should be transferred either to the ownership of the relevant local authorities or perhaps to trusts established under Section 49 of the 1985 Local Government Act.
  Sixthly, the Government should endow trusts in each of the metropolitan areas with part of the assets of the abolition authorities in accordance with Section 49 of the Act. The last recommendation that I should like to highlight is that the Government should accept the Widdicombe Committee's recommendation to double the Section 137 discretionary spending limit from 2p to 4p in the abolition areas. Abolition has effectively halved the amount of discretionary spending by local authorities in the abolition areas, and this is having a very serious impact on economic and voluntary sector projects which often can only be funded through the Section 137 powers.
  334
  As I said, I hope that the Minister will have something to say which is of positive value in response to the NCVO report. After all, its authors describe the situation in a very constructive manner. They do not suggest that the voluntary sector in these areas is moribund. But they point to the malaise that has gripped parts of it and put forward some very sensible suggestions as to how that malaise might be put right.
  9.29 p.m.
  Lord Banks: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for asking this important Question this evening. I should like to support the general tenor of her remarks. The report by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, in conjunction with the London Voluntary Service Council, is very fair and balanced. There was widespread feeling among voluntary organisations that the Government's initial plans to replace the grants to voluntary organisations, given by the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils, were, in the words of the report, "inadequate and unworkable". There was great uncertainty and for a time many organisations were preoccupied with the question of survival to their own detriment and that of their clients. There was inevitably and rightly much lobbying by the supporters of voluntary organisations in this House and elsewhere.
  The result, as the noble Baroness has made clear, was that the Government contribution to transitional funding had been quadrupled and other improvements made. As she pointed out, £100 million had to be found and eventually most of that money was found. However, it was found from 10 separate sources instead of from one. Central government provided one-third of the amount through six sources: the Department of the Environment which contributed to transitional funding; the Arts Council; the British Film Institute; the Sports Council; the Commission for Racial Equality; and London Regional Transport. Local government provided two-thirds of the amount from four different sources: forward funding by the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan County Council; Section 48 schemes, where the boroughs in an area combined together to fund voluntary schemes across the area, such as the Richmond scheme, as I believe it is called, in London; the local authorities additional main programme, including a 25 per cent. contribution to transitional funding; and funding which came from a small number of local agencies.
  The outcome, as the noble Baroness has said, was not as bad as was originally feared. However, as she pointed out, a number of serious problems still exist. She mentioned the fact that there was no provision for capital expenditure and referred to the problems that were caused with regard to premises and to re-equipment. She also mentioned the fact that there is no adequate funding for new projects and that an unmet demand has built up. One can say that the voluntary services are at a standstill in these areas.
  The report refers to the establishment in London of a fund to be financed by the London Residuary Body selling the properties it inherited and using those funds

  335
  to meet new demands by voluntary organisations. The report also refers to the possibility of a similar development in other areas. I should like to ask the Minister whether he can give, when he comes to reply, any indication of what is happening about that suggestion in the various areas, and whether the funds are being established and will be used for that purpose.
  There is also a lack of strategical approach in each area because of the variety of sources from which funding now comes. There is no one funding body for the whole area. Then there is the question of imbalance. The fact is that while some areas have done better than before, many others seem to have suffered very seriously. London did not do too badly in that regard. However, even there I understand that 93 voluntary groups have closed. The area, to which the noble Baroness referred, which seems to have come off worst, is Merseyside which seems to have lost 47 per cent. of funding and where 63 groups appear to have closed. I again ask the Minister whether he can refer to that matter in his reply. It seems to be a most unfortunate development in an area which is already suffering in other ways.
  There is considerable concern about the question of capital provision, about the question of pent-up demand for new development and about the absence of a strategical approach. In addition to that, local government is expected to contribute £10·7 million extra in the second year to offset the tapering arrangements under the Government grants and to cover pay awards and inflation. That is a 15 per cent. increase in the contribution made by local government and is being asked for at a time of considerable local authority financial stringency. That must give cause for concern.
  Then again, £5·6 million is also required if the forward funding out of the abolished authorities is to be continued. I ask the Minister where the Government propose that should come from; that is, the continuation, if the Government wish it to continue, of the forward funding which came in the first year from the abolished authorities.
  The noble Baroness referred to the 20 recommendations which had been made by the National Council of Voluntary Organisations in its report. She mentioned and outlined some of them. I will not attempt to summarise them at this point; but I conclude by expressing the hope that the Minister will be able to say that the Government will respond in a positive way to those recommendations and thus give the very important voluntary sector, which the Government claim to support, a welcome word of reassurance.
  Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for giving us this opportunity to look at how the voluntary organisations are faring after abolition, to consider the NCVO's recommendations and to hear the Government's response. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, have between them achieved a masterly portrayal of the overall view. I shall narrow things down very much and, in comparison, I feel rather as if I am looking through a keyhole.
  336
  Last March, during the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, on the voluntary organisations and abolition, I looked in some detail at a handful of organisations which were doing a worthwhile and necessary job for disabled people. At that time two had been refused funding, two were uncertain about obtaining funding and one risked being unable to carry out necessary expansion. All said they would try to carry on whatever happened, even if it meant providing only minimal services or cutting out various aspects of their work, because they believe totally in the job they are doing.
  Today I telephoned them to ascertain how they are doing—indeed, whether they all exist—and what their prospects are. The first was the Federation of London Dial-a-Rides, which was initially refused funding. Since the funding and running of the Dial-a-Ride service has been taken over by LRT—a very satisfactory and welcome solution—FOLDAR's role has become one of developing the service, looking after customers' needs and ensuring that they know about the service.
  I am happy to say that FOLDAR appealed and has survived, and is now called the London Dial-a-Ride Users Association. It had three months of uncertainty and disruption, but fortunately it kept all its dedicated staff. It received enough money to carry on but said that it was a very traumatic period. It has not yet received funding for this year and, again, it will not know until June whether it will receive funding.
  I also spoke to one of the Dial-a-Ride services. Last year all the Dial-a-Ride services received £5 million from LRT and this year it will be £6 million. While the old vehicles which need replacing are being replaced they cannot expand the service, although membership is increasing at as rapid a rate as ever. There are now about 45, 000 members of Dial-a-Ride but only 35, 000 trips are made every month, which looks like something under one trip per month for people who rely solely on this form of mobility. Noble Lords will agree that that is not much.
  Another organisation initially refused funding is CALL—Cancer Aid and Listening Line—which eventually received the amount it required. CALL is a telephone service offering support, information and advice to those who have had cancer. There is no similar service in the area, either statutory or voluntary. It also enables people to meet and discuss problems. At present it appears as though it may not be able to expand as much as had been hoped because this year's grant is just over half of that requested; though the organisation is hopeful that more will be forthcoming shortly. Over 15, 000 new cancer patients are diagnosed annually in the Manchester area so I hope CALL will be able to expand and provide much-needed support.
  One organisation which had not heard last March whether it is to be funded is the Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People. It is an organisation run totally by disabled people to ensure that they have the necessary facilities and support to live independently and to have control over their own lives. The coalition received funding and happily has not lost any staff. But it cannot expand at all. There is no long-term funding. It is reviewed every year and so there is anxiety as to whether it will be in operation the following year.

  337
  Another organisation in the same position is Lambeth Accord. That project was started in response to the EC's wish to support schemes dealing with social and economic integration. It is supported financially by all statutory authorities concerned. When ESF funding comes to an end, the whole project could close. It is doing a useful job. For example, it provides assessment and training for disabled people. Unlike some other of the ESF-funded projects, it would be unable to become self-supporting. I hope that it will obtain sufficient funding to continue.
  Another scheme in danger last year of losing ESF funding was the Greenbank project which is based in Liverpool. It is a county-wide organisation which trains handicapped people along with some able-bodied people so that there is an element of integration, in workshops, teaching basic and higher skills. It obtained ESF funding for three years to open a consortium of six co-operatives from 1985 to 1988. Greenbank had to close its first three co-operatives, but reopened them when it received almost the full amount of grant requested from the public authorities, which was then of course matched by ESF funding.
  Because of that hiccup in continuity, and the eventual shortage in funding, Greenbank is a bit behind with opening up the next three co-operatives, but it feels that it should be able to achieve its target of being commercially viable in 1988 when ESF funding comes to an end. One compensating factor has been that Liverpool City Council and the district councils of Knowsley, Sefton and St. Helens have been supportive and have increased their links. For example, Knowsley
  338
  has asked Greenbank to do a feasibility study with a view to providing a service for its 16 to 25 year-olds in Knowsley's day centre, training them for work or providing them with work; for example, fitting hand controls to cars.
  That sounds inspiring and rosy. It is a tribute to the enthusiasm of those at Greenbank. But there were other aspects. Thirty-four youngsters were laid off when the three co-operatives were temporarily shut. Some did not return and some are not in employment. There is also the knock-on effect of uncertainty. The publicity about the co-operative closing resulted in some people gaining the impression that the workshops were also closing. To this day, some people still think that Greenbank is no more.
  I am delighted that all the organisations to which I talked have survived, but several of them said that they knew of other organisations, just as worth while, which have gone to the wall. I think that what I learnt from those organisations very much bears out what the NCVO's report says about most worthwhile projects surviving; but how real was the impact made by worry and uncertainty and how there is no scope for expansion and growth.
  I have mentioned only the lack of opportunity for existing organisations to expand. There is of course the whole question of the new organisations to be created to help solve new problems or new aspects of old problems. I look forward to hearing the Government's response. I hope that it will be positive, especially in relation to the NCVO's recommendations for a flexible attitude.
  9.43 p.m.
  Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs on asking this Unstarred Question at what seems to be an apt time, because it is just over a year since the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan councils. It is also just over a year since an excellent debate on the voluntary organisations initiated by my noble friend Lord Bottomley on 19th March last year, which has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, and in which she spoke.
  There was then only a fortnight to go before the demise of the councils, when there was acute anxiety about what was to happen, and therefore, it seemed a good moment to take stock. Now is also a good moment for this House to give itself a pat on the back, as, without its efforts and the concessions and changes achieved by the House of Lords during the passing of the abolition Bill, voluntary bodies would have been in a bad way indeed. As it is—and this has been said—most of the 3, 500 voluntary groups have survived. Indeed some, in particular in the arts, have enjoyed increased funding, but 200 projects have lost some or all of their funding. The efforts have been very varied. Tyne and Wear, West Midlands and West Yorkshire have done well; and Merseyside, as my noble friend said, has done very badly. This is very sad, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, because we know that it is an area that has acute problems.
  What should be recognised is the uncertainty and worry that the voluntary groups had to go through before knowing what the position would be, and the loss of morale among workers that that brought about. That was very clear to me yesterday when I read through the debate of 19th March 1986. However, I do not wish to spend time on what happened last year except in so far as it can teach us about how matters can be improved for the future.
  My noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs covered the present situation very well in her speech. The recommendations that come in the very thorough and excellent report, After Abolition, produced by the NCVO in conjunction with the London Voluntary Service Council give very good guidance. We hope tonight that the Government will tell us what their response will be at least to some of the 20 recommendations. They have had four months to consider them.
  In the debate of 19th March the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, repeated the assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to the House the previous year that it was not the Government's intention to damage worthwhile voluntary activity through abolition. He said:
  "I look forward to a flourishing voluntary sector in our cities for many years to come".—[0flicial Report, 19/3/86; col. 975.]
  We hope so too and, if the Minister can give us some reassurances this evening that they are willing to go along with most, if not all, the recommendations, that would be a great help and boost to morale for those very dedicated people who work in the voluntary sector.
  I do not wish to take up the time of the House in referring to all the recommendations, but I should like to pick out a few for comment. The collective funding
  340
  scheme for projects covering more than two boroughs or districts under Section 48 of the 1985 Act is not working well. The London boroughs grant scheme needs to be changed. It is difficult to get agreement to expenditure when one needs two-thirds of the boroughs concerned to be of one mind. Last year it took three months to agree a budget. This year it was not until the middle of March that a conclusion was reached. Think, my Lords, of the upset for staff when the start of the new financial year is only two weeks away and they do not know what will happen. I understand that some redundancy notices were issued. Eventually the Secretary of State used his power to fix the amount, pitching it just higher than what the Conservatives had voted for and quite a bit lower than that which Labour boroughs wanted. The system needs to be reviewed.
  Surely it would be much more sensible to let a straight majority of boroughs decide. There should be a date by which a budget must be agreed. If the present arrangement provides an unworkable system in which the Secretary of State always has to intervene, it rather negates the idea of local authorities relating to local need.
  The first recommendation deals with the transitional fund tapering. The request for this to be reviewed in the light of the unwillingness or inability of local authorities to produce their percentage of the expenditure seems very sensible, and I hope that the Government can agree to a local authority contribution being disregarded for grant penalty calculations. A sound case is made for not tapering the Arts Council grant and for increasing the Home Office's inadequate £800, 000 to £2 million in order to fund black and ethnic minority projects and to ensure that existing projects continue and new projects have a source of support.
  A general criticism of the present situation is that it is very difficult to get support for good new ideas. It is more a carry-on-if-possible situation. It is almost impossible to do any forward planning. That is neither healthy nor sensible. There seems to be no provision in any of the Government's calculations for inflation, pay awards and contingencies. The Government should review the difficulties arising from the cash-limited, inflexible funding programmes, and there should be updating to allow for inflation. That is in recommendation 6.
  Local authorities also have trouble in absorbing the time-expired schemes into main programmes, at the same time as having to contribute more to transitional funding and to arts projects. There should be a more flexible approach by the Government. If local authorities absorb these schemes, the expenditure should be disregarded from grant penalty calculations.
  The lack of capital funding which has been mentioned is to me another very important matter. It will become more important as the years go by, as existing equipment and premises need renewing or expanding and as new projects develop. One cannot assume that the successor authorities will fund voluntary sector capital projects out of their own allocations. We know how hard pressed they are already for housing and so on. The voluntary sector

  341
  has already experienced a cutback. In 1985–86 the GLC and the Mets spent approximately £20 million. In 1986–87 the only significant example of capital funding was the Section 48 scheme in Greater Manchester, which has funded two large projects totalling £185, 000 and £100, 000 respectively.
  Projects serving more than one borough or district have no prospect of obtaining capital funding. Recommendation 11 suggests that successor authorities' capital allocations are increased to reflect the need to give grants to voluntary organisations and that Section 48 schemes are provided with their own capital allocation so that the anomaly as a result of which cross-borough and cross-district projects have no access to capital grants is ended.
  What capital assets there are are in danger of being sold, because the residuary bodies are required to dispose of properties owned by abolition authorities. Recommendation 12 proposes that the Secretary of State uses his discretion to extend the property transfer order to include premises occupied by voluntary organisations so that the local authorities can receive them at no cost. I hope that that recommendation can be agreed.
  I should like also to mention the charitable trust which was to be provided. The commitment was made by Lord Elton on 20th May 1985. There was to be an endowment off 10 million raised from the sale of GLC land and properties. I understand that the City Parochial Foundation is to administer the trust. Can the Minister tell us how soon the income from this trust is to be available and whether the Government really think that an endowment of £ I 0 million is likely to be adequate? The NCVO recommends that a larger sum should be provided, as f 10 million, I understand, was intended to be the minimum level of endowment.
  The last recommendation I refer to is No. 17, which proposes that the Widdicombe Committee's recommendation to double to 4p the 2p limit under Section 137 should happen immediately in the abolition areas. We have made repeated efforts before, during and since abolition to persuade the Government that the doubling is a necessity. It would restore the financial status quo and enable local authorities to fund more voluntary organisations which cannot be dealt with under other legislation. As recently as two weeks ago at a meeting of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance the Secretary of State said that he was still considering this. Has he by now come to a decision? I hope the Minister will tell us.
  There is a lack of overall strategy for the areas covered by the GLC and the Mets which those councils could give and did give in the past. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to that. The intention was that county-wide or London-wide reviews of need would be carried out under Section 48(10) of the Act, but very little progress has been made. In London one section of the London Research Centre, currently based with the London Residuary Body, has been working on a review of need. Elsewhere no reviews appear to have been started. Therefore the fears of the voluntary sector that abolition would cause a strategic policy vacuum have unfortunately been confirmed. There is an urgent need, as the report says, for more
  342
  priority to be given to those Section 48(10) reviews and the resource implications stemming from them.
  There is still a great deal of concern about the present system. NCVO is hoping to set up a local government unit to handle local government voluntary sector interaction. This seems to me a good idea. What is the Government's reaction to this proposal, and would they be prepared to fund the NCVO for this purpose?
  9.55 p.m.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has provided an opportunity to return once more to the subject of the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. I congratulate her on her perspicacity in picking up this report of the NCVO as indeed has every other speaker in this short debate.
  Abolition issues were much debated when the Bills giving effect to this policy were before the House. How different is the situation today from those heady days the like of which must have been seen but rarely in the long and distinguished history of your Lordships' House. The GLC and the metropolitan councils have been abolished. They ceased to exist on 1st April, 1986, a point of which the noble Baroness, Lady David, reminded us. The voluntary sector and everyone else must come to terms with that fact. The voluntary sector has had to learn to work with the institutions that are now in place. That they are doing just that is one of the messages that thankfully comes out of this survey conducted by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and by the London Services Council.
  In passing, I should say that I believe the reason that the worries of the voluntary bodies were worse than they need have been was that those worries were politically exaggerated. However, before responding directly to the report, we should consider the wider effects of abolition.
  The GLC and metropolitan county councils are already almost forgotten and their abolition has led and will continue to lead to real savings. Abolition has led to successes in five main categories. In manpower savings, more than 6, 000 posts were saved immediately on abolition. The Government predicted 7, 000 posts in the long run. I am confident that this will be achieved as the residuary bodies wind down their remaining activities. This equates to long-term annual savings of some £100 million. Even in the first year, abolition has saved ratepayers some £50 million after deducting one-off staff compensation payments.
  Secondly, vast amounts of ratepayers' money locked up by the abolished councils are now being released. In the first two years, the residuary bodies expect to distribute approximately £257 million in revenue balances, £173 million in capital receipts and £753 million in capital spending power. And there will be more to come as the residuary bodies sell off additional surplus land and property.
  Thirdly, it is clear, as the residuary bodies sort out their property portfolios, that the abolished councils were hoarders of property on a grand scale. The

  343
  Government are encouraging the residuary bodies to sell as much of the surplus as they can. The residuary bodies currently estimate that by the end of 1987–88 they will have generated some £300 million of capital receipts, mainly from the sale of surplus property. The proceeds of these sales will return to the ratepayers, and under-used property, by being released to the private sector, is being brought back into full economic use.
  Fourthly, functions have been devolved successfully. The chaos and disruption predicted by some has not materialised. The boroughs and districts have absorbed their new or enhanced functions with scarcely a ripple. This has led to an increase in accountability. And if—
  Baroness David: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if I may finish the point, I can imagine that the noble Baroness is about to complain about my speech because I have not referred to the voluntary bodies once. If she will give me time to make my speech in the way that I intend to she will find that there is a direct relevance to everything I have said at the beginning.
  Baroness David: Then it is going to be good news.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, patience! This has led to an increase in accountability; and if successor authorities so choose, it can lead to leaner operation and avoidance of duplication.
  This takes me to the fifth area of success; namely, the effect on services. It is emphatically for successor authorities to grasp the opportunities presented by abolition for more efficient, cost-effective and relevant services. Some authorities have improved key services; others have chosen to emulate the waste and inefficiency which became the hallmark of the GLC in its twilight year. It is, at last, for truly local electors to decide what they want from their local council. They at least no longer face the prospect of being overruled by a remote and spendthrift county council. We must also remember that the voluntary sector as a whole has attracted very considerable support from the present Government. Several speakers tonight have recognised that.
  May I remind the House of the answer given in another place on 2nd March 1987 by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. She was asked about government support for the voluntary sector in 1985–86. This is the latest year for which data is available. Grants and payments to the voluntary sector by government departments amounted to £268 million. This represents an increase of 208 per cent. since 1979 and an increase in real terms—that is, after allowing for inflation. This is quite separate from the payments of £500 million that were made to voluntary organisations under various employment programmes run by the Manpower Services Commission. This is a record of which the Government can be proud and for which we should be given credit.
  344
  Now answering the noble Baroness's unpermitted question, it is only against the background of savings from abolition and the level of support for the voluntary sector that we can properly consider the NCVO report. I welcome that part of the report which provides a factual survey of the position of the voluntary sector, in the abolition areas in 1986–87.
  Some noble Lords may recall that before and during the abolition exercise there were those who forecast the effective collapse of the voluntary sector in London and the metropolitan councils. I must disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and I take succour from the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). It simply has not happened. The report tells us that, in the event, direct and indirect government funding and local authority funding in 1986–87 almost matched the funding in abolition areas in 1985–86 and provided adequate support for the voluntary sector—and this after a very considerable expansion of the voluntary sector, particularly in London, over the previous few years. In some areas arts funding, in fact, increased between 1985–86 and 1986–87.
  I take note of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, when he talked about the general problems of individual voluntary organisations. The funding of voluntary groups is a matter for borough and district councils or for Section 48 schemes. Local councils are in the best position to judge local needs and to decide on spending priorities in accordance with the fundamental principles of abolitions. As I have explained, the local authorities in question have had large amounts of money released to them, and it is up to them to decide how they use what I think I would describe as these windfall receipts.
  I am afraid that I can give less of a welcome to the recommendations for change made in the report. I shall explain why. My principal reason is that few of the recommendations are fully supported by argument or by evidence in the report itself. I readily accept —and the noble Baronesses and the noble Lord have pointed to some—that there have been individual hard cases. Much as I regret this, obviously I am not in a position to comment on any individual case for the simple reason that the decisions, as I pointed out, have to be made by the local authorities in whose areas the various voluntary bodies operate.
  The noble Baroness, Lady David, rather centred on recommendation 11 which asks for an increase in successor authorities' capital allocations. I must say that this would have a direct effect on the government money—and indeed the rates-raised money—of local authorities in other parts of the country. In fact, the total allocation available to successor authorities has been larger than would otherwise have been the case because no part of the total was needed for the abolished councils.
  In addition, successor authorities have benefited from a substantial enhancement in their capital resources as residuary bodies distribute capital receipts left by the abolished councils. I have already given some figures for the residuary bodies receipts. To go even beyond this level of support would draw capital allocation from elsewhere in the country.

  345
  Other recommendations in the report are based on what appears to be a misunderstanding of the position. For example, in recommendation 10 we are enjoined to adjust the assessment of spending needs for the rate support grant settlement to take account of the additional responsibilities of successor authorities. We are reminded that my noble friend Lord Elton gave an assurance in this House that that would be done, and we have fulfilled that pledge. Or again we are asked in recommendation 7 for flexibility over time expired urban programme schemes. I am happy to say that this recommendation is out of date and we already try to offer that flexibility.
  As regards the urban programme, I make the point that it was never intended as a long-term means of finance for anything, and that from the beginning it is always agreed for a certain life. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, will be reminded of discussions that we have had between ourselves on this matter in connection with law centres. I recall saying that in exceptional circumstances extra time is given to one or two of the law centres, and has in fact been given on occasion.
  We are asked several times to increase transitional aid and other central government support to take account of inflation. In some cases provision has already been made for inflation. In others, particularly transitional aid, the basis on which this support was offered was made clear when it was announced. There is no justification for changing the rules, not for reopening the issue of the allocation of transitional aid. It has always been intended as a stepping stone to the takeover by the local authorities concerned.
  Some recommendations have come forward before. The possibility is raised again of doubling the Section 137 limit for the London boroughs and the metropolitan district councils. My right honourable friend dealt with this very carefully last year. The position remains that he will make an announcement in due course.
  I am aware that problems have arisen as a result of the European Social Fund funding. As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), will appreciate, these difficulties are coincidental with, and do not spring from, the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, complained about the amount of money in the Section 48 budgets and said that there was no room for new groups. The London voluntary sector has expanded over the past several years, and at the time of abolition no one from this side of the House pretended that all the organisations that were then funded by the GLC would necessarily continue. It was acknowledged that the local authorities concerned must form their own opinions and judgments of the worth of each and every one of those organisations. It must therefore continue to be open to the Richmond Grants Committee, if it so considers, to withdraw grants to allow space for new grants.
  The report asks my right honourable friend to make use of is powers under Section 49 of the Local Government Act 1985. The House will remember that under this section the Secretary of State may by order provide for the making of grants to eligible
  346
  charities out of money received from the sale of land by residuary bodies. Eligible charities are a body of persons or a trust established for charitable purposes only, being purposes which are wholly or primarily for the benefit of the area for which the residuary body is established.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said, it was under this power earlier this year that an endowment of £10 million was provided to the trust for London, This money will provide a new long-term source of funding for the voluntary sector in London. In answer to another question from the noble Baroness, Lady David, I should say that I understand that the income from this fund will become available for distribution in about a year's time.
  The NCVO report contains recommendations that Section 49 should also be used outside London and that the £10 million should be increased. At this stage, all I can say is that my right honourable friend is considering these recommendations and will announce his conclusions in due course.
  One of the problems which has been alluded to tonight, I think by the noble Baroness, Lady EwartBiggs, is the disposal of premises occupied by voluntary organisations. The noble Baroness will know that the residuary bodies have the primary responsibility for deciding whether the properties vested in them should be transferred to local authorities because they are required in connection with inherited functions or whether they should be disposed of and the receipts redistributed to the ratepayers. My right honourable friend has no power to make an order transferring property to local authorities unless a proposal has first been made by a residuary body.
  In London of course it has proved necessary to consider the use of my tight honourable friend's power to limit the budgets for Section 48 schemes. The Secretary of State was concerned about the uncertainty that the voluntary sector in London was facing due to the reported failure of the London boroughs grant scheme to fix a budget. I do not know whether noble Lords are aware, but my right honourable friend announced yesterday that he did not propose to make an order in London. He said:
  "As a result of representations made when I met the London Boroughs Grant Committee on 24th March and others received in response to consultations, I have decided not to proceed to make an order under Section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985 to set a ceiling of £28.5 million on the budget for the committee for 1987–88.
  The grant committee has now fixed a budget of the same amount. I wish to demonstrate support for the voluntary sector in London by proposing to exercise my powers. Having considered all representations received, I have decided that it is no longer necessary to proceed further.
  I am pleased that my action has achieved its desired effect of establishing an agreed budget and of removing uncertainty over the funding of the voluntary groups."
  The noble Baroness, Lady David, suggested that this was something ongoing which had happened for years. This is of course the first time—
  Baroness David: My Lords, the second time.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is the first time that an agreement has not been reached within the Richmond Committee; and to suggest that this will be

  347
  an ongoing uncertainty is at this stage, if I may use the expression, a bit rich. The noble Lord, Lord Banks⁁
  Baroness David: My Lords, if the Minister will allow me, two-thirds of the boroughs have to agree. The same difficulty as there was this year is very likely to go on with the same uncertainty and doubt, until very near the beginning of the new financial year.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, why should that be so when last year there was not? The noble Lord, Lord Banks, complained of patchiness, and I too recognised that there are particular problems for the voluntary sector in Liverpool. They are however caused not by abolition but by local factors, a point which I suspect he and his party appreciate full well in the current context. District councils have failed to act in a co-ordinated way to provide transitional funding. No scheme has been set up under Section 48 of the Local Government Act to provide support for the Merseyside-wide voluntary sector. We in central government help through the urban programme. Liverpool itself is a partnership area; Knowsley, the Wirral, Sefton and St. Helens are programme authorities; however, the voluntary sector would do well to make its case not to me but to the local authorities on Merseyside. We must see what comes out of today's election and whether a more sympathetic line is adopted there towards the voluntary sector.
  I know that I take my title from the Liverpool area, but I must confess that it is not an area which I know well. I certainly wish the voluntary sector well in the approaches that I have suggested they make.
  To sum up, the NCVO report is good in parts and provides a useful survey of the present position of this part of the voluntary sector. It shows that the voluntary sector is for the most part doing well, but the report's recommendations could be better formulated and in some cases, as I have explained, they are ill-founded. In seeking support, the voluntary sector in London and the metropolitan areas must look to the future and not to the past. That future lies first and foremost with the boroughs and districts, which are in a better position than the GLC and the MCCs ever were to judge the needs and priorities of their areas.
  Perhaps I may make one last point. Quite clearly I have not been able to do justice, in the length of time it has taken me to deliver this speech, to the report. The Government will be publishing a proper response in due course and will take account of the points raised in the House this evening.

  British Railways (London) Bill [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with amendments, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
  House adjourned at sixteen minutes past ten o'clock.