Lords Sitting of 18 July 1994

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

Voluntary Housing Associations
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to change the role and objectives of voluntary housing associations by imposing on them a policy of right to buy.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Government have no plans for legislation to extend the right to buy.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, although I am extremely grateful for the noble Viscount's Answer, he must be aware that there are repeated press reports that the Government are actually considering that policy; but I take it from his Answer that they have no intention of doing any such thing. Is the noble Viscount aware that if the Government embark upon such a policy they will be reneging on undertakings given by successive Secretaries of State in regard to houses to let built by charitable or voluntary organisations? If that situation is tampered with in any way, the provision of new houses to let would almost certainly dry up completely.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, there are all manner of issues upon which the press will speculate. I made it clear in my Answer that there are no plans to legislate in the area. But, at the same time, the Government are indeed keen to encourage voluntary sales and they will continue to encourage housing associations to reap the benefits of such a policy.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister's clear Answer is indeed most welcome.
2
However, is he aware that 40 per cent. of housing association new finance is now raised from the private sector? Therefore, do the Government appreciate that, even apart from the threat of the right to buy, upon which the Minister has now given assurances, the other threats to housing associations—namely, the threat of lower grant rates and, therefore, rising rents and the threat of tampering with housing benefit—make the asset basis of housing associations vulnerable? Consequently, private lenders have made it clear that they are increasingly reluctant to lend to housing associations. Is the Minister aware that, if that happens, their building programme will close?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, we have no evidence to suggest that lenders are standing in the way of associations developing voluntary schemes. However, it is the case that private loans will contain covenants that require the association, if it disposes of a property that is part of the security for a loan, to replace the sold asset with a security of the same value. Many associations find it quite workable to operate sales under those terms. Where associations would have a problem is if there were to be a statutory obligation to sell, as that could leave an association unable to meet the security covenants required by lenders.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that in the case of charitable housing associations the members not only give the capital but they also provide the time and expertise? Therefore, it would be quite unreasonable to impose upon them the right to buy and so deplete their stock. Is the Minister also aware that where there has been a government grant and, thereafter, the Government wish unilaterally to change the contract that was made, they would be doing something which none of us can do? That, too, would be quite unreasonable.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the matter has twice been before your Lordships' House in proposed legislation and was rejected on both occasions. I can only remind noble Lords that my right honourable friend

3
the Secretary of State for the Environment made a categorical statement on 29th June that there were no immediate plans further to extend the right to buy.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I quite openly welcome the Minister's first statement. However, on my supplementary question, I am a little suspicions of his reply that the Government will not discourage people in the voluntary sector from selling houses if they wish to do so. Where a charitable housing association wants to sell some of its houses, can the Minister say whether it will be allowed to keep the total receipts from such sales in order to build other houses, or will the Government renege on the matter as they did on the sale of council houses when all the promises given in this and the other place were broken?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, encouraging associations means, for example, having arrangements in the bidding process for new allocations of public funding which take account of the financial contribution that associations propose to make from their sales of property to tenants. Such arrangements already operate in England.

Litigation: Conditional Fee Scheme
2.42 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the draft conditional fee order and regulations will, in their published form, adequately safeguard lay clients from paying their lawyers a disproportionate amount of any sums which may be recovered from litigation or threatened litigation under the conditional fee scheme they propose to approve.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the conditional fee scheme outlined in the draft order and regulations will provide a valuable means of access to justice for many people who might otherwise be unable to afford to proceed with their cases. There has been extensive consultation on the draft order and regulations and, in the light of the responses I have received, I believe that the safeguards provided in the order and regulations are generally sufficient and satisfactory. I do, however, remain open to specific suggestions for improving the terms of the order and regulations, although I would now like to make early progress towards bringing the scheme into effect.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, while thanking my noble and learned friend for his detailed Answer perhaps I may, before putting any further question, in two sentences refer to the context. Conditional fee agreements are a species of contingency fee which permit lawyers to take cases on a no win, no pay basis with a charge—an uplift or a mark up—on top of their normal fees in the event of success. Initially it was to be 20 per cent. It has now been put at a maximum of 100 per cent. The second point is that before the Courts
4
and Legal Services Act 1990 made such speculative agreements lawful, they were unenforceable being contrary to public policy.
My questions are these: first, does my noble and learned friend agree with the advice of his own advisory committee mat unless his regulations prohibit the uplift exceeding a set proportion, it could absorb the greater proportion or even the whole of the sums recovered thereby equalling, if not exceeding, the greater excesses of the American system which have been so often condemned? Secondly, does he not further agree with his own advisory committee that his regulations should prohibit lawyers bringing wholly unmeritorious actions in the hope that defendants will settle them to avoid the trouble and expense of going to court?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I propose to address myself to the two questions. First, I agree with the advice of the advisory committee that it is possible, under the draft regulations, for a lawyer to make an arrangement of the kind to which my noble and learned friend has referred. But the purpose of these regulations is to provide a maximum uplift, the principle behind it being that the uplift is related to the work done and not to the amount of damages. I can well see that, depending on the circumstances, it may well be right for the parties to make an arrangement to limit the uplift by reference to the amount of damages.
On the second point, obviously the system is one which is quite different from the system that prevails in the United States in mat it is related to the work done rather than to the amount of damages recovered. Secondly, in this country there exists a very different regime for costs from that which prevails in the United States because in this country the loser will be liable for costs. Therefore in the kind of action to which my noble and learned friend referred in his second question, there will be a liability of costs on the plaintiff which the lawyer will be bound to tell him about and which should be an important safeguard against the kind of difficulty to which my noble and learned friend referred in the second branch of his question.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee was anxious that a client should have the safeguard of being told in advance what his case was likely to cost him under this scheme. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could help us. Although the regulations provide that the client will be told in advance what he will have to pay if his claim is partially unsuccessful, or what he has to pay in any event, or if the agreement is terminated, the regulations as presently drafted seem to be silent on a requirement to tell him what he is likely to have to pay up if he wins, and how it is to be calculated. I ask the noble and learned Lord why that is so and whether it can be rectified in redrafting.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the intention is that the matter to which the noble Baroness referred is the central part of the agreement. The other matters that are specifically referred to are supplementary. I do, however, see that it is wise for the lawyer and client to discuss at the outset the likely proceeds from the enterprise. In view of that, having had discussions with

5
the president of the Law Society just last week, I think it may be possible to meet the point by putting in some requirement about the situation that should obtain with regard to the net amount that the client could expect to recover as a measure of success in terms of the agreement.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, quite apart from the danger to plaintiffs outlined in the original Question, what protection have meritorious defendants against unmeritorious claims brought against them in the knowledge that the plaintiffs will not be able to pay if they lose?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend knows, the law affects the lawyers concerned in those circumstances. The most important safeguard is the one to which I referred; namely, that in taking action along these lines plaintiffs who have assets will have a serious concern with regard to the risk to those assets.
I should also say that I understand that the Law Society is in the final stages of organising a form of insurance policy to protect clients against a costs order under a conditional fee agreement. That will be a valuable supplement to the conditional fee scheme. If that is implemented it will be a complete answer to the anxiety to which my noble and learned friend has just referred.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor able to assure the House that lawyers will not be able to take a disproportionate share of damages in cases which they win? Can he also give an assurance that there are speedy, accessible and effective remedies for members of the public complaining about too large a share of the success being taken by the lawyers?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the weapon that Parliament gave to me was to determine the maximum uplift that could be taken in any case. I have been persuaded by the representations that have been made to me that that maximum ought to take account of the most unlikely case that can properly be taken, which would be one in which there was something like a 50 per cent. chance of success. Obviously the client and the solicitor or other lawyer will require to agree on these matters. The Law Society proposes a draft form of agreement. I believe that that information is the best protection that a client who wishes to proceed in this way can reasonably have.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, as a non-lawyer I was among those who welcomed the provision relating to conditional fees when the 1990 Courts and Legal Services Bill was going through Parliament as a means of improving access to justice. As I recall, I suggested, without success, an amendment extending the relevant clause. Is it not disappointing that four years later we are still arguing about the implementation of the powers conferred by the 1990 Act, notwithstanding that, as I understand it, a comparable arrangement has been operative in Scotland
6
for some considerable time? Can the noble and learned Lord say a little more about when he hopes to be able to introduce the new scheme?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that many of your Lordships are persuaded that evolution rather than revolution is the way to progress when making changes to the legal system. Care has been taken to try to take account of all the various anxieties that have been expressed and in relation to how far the scheme should extend at its first implementation.
I hope that having been through the process for some time we are close to the position where I can invite this House and the other place to approve the regulations. I certainly hope to be able to do so before the end of the year, all being well.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is not the difficulty that the conditional fee scheme, even at its best, will drive litigation further into the realm of speculation? Will my noble and learned friend therefore take careful note of the cautious advice already given to him by his advisory committee?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, everyone who embarks on litigation knows that the outcome is not certain. It is important that the risks should lie with those who take them. That is one of the advantages of this particular type of proposal. I agree that it is wise to proceed cautiously. The four-year period to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred is an indication of the time that I have taken. However, it is not wise to wait too long.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my noble and learned friend suggested that there should be discussion as to the likely proceeds from the enterprise. Does he not think, on reflection, that that conjures up a rather alarming picture and that many clients would not stand much of a chance?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is important that the client and the lawyer should be aware of what: is likely to be the outcome and the range of outcomes which has to be considered. That is what I had in mind. The client is embarking on an important transaction and it is very important that the client should be informed of the range of outcomes which the lawyer thinks possible.

The Elderly: Residential and Nursing Home Costs
2.55 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have considered Age Concern's report Preserved and Protected? which makes recommendations concerning the community care reforms and people with retained rights to income support; and, if so, with what result.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, Ministers from the Departments of Social Security and Health have considered the report and have met with representatives of Age Concern. Those

7
representations will be taken into account when income support limits are reviewed as part of the general uprating exercise.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Would the noble Viscount care to comment on the report's findings about the shortfall between income support rates and care home fees in certain areas, including the London area even allowing for the Greater London allowance? Will he further comment on the recommendation that the Government should implement Section 135 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act, especially immediately to identify those areas where income support limits are clearly inadequate to meet care home fees, and to revise those income support limits accordingly?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Age Concern report accepts that limits are adequate in many areas. We are not convinced that costs vary over the country beyond the Greater London area which, as the noble Lord pointed out, has an increased rate. Of course we welcome all such representations, and they are taken into account together with all other evidence available when we review income support rates. As I said, there is no evidence at present that there are significant variations in the costs for residential care in different parts of the country. However, the Secretary of State has the power to vary the limits if necessary.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the shortfall to which my noble friend referred is often £20 a week or more? If an elderly person is in a private residential home and that person and the family cannot afford to meet the shortfall the local authority has the power to do so. If that same elderly person is in a private nursing home the local authority has no such power. There are reports of these people, the most frail of the elderly, being evicted. Will the Government tell us what they are going to do about that?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not aware and the department is not aware of any evictions. If the noble Baroness is aware of any evictions I should be grateful if she would bring them to our attention. Nor am I aware that any local authority has had to transfer residents to alternative accommodation because of evictions.
The noble Baroness is right in respect of the difference between residential care and nursing home care. However, in nursing home care those evicted would be the responsibility of the National Health Service.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can we then look forward to the Minister consulting his right honourable friend in the Department of Health to ensure that health authorities have the same power, responsibility and authority to top up nursing home fees as local authorities have in relation to private residential home fees?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I said in answer to the original Question, Ministers from the Departments of
8
Social Security and Health met representatives of Age Concern. Ministers from the two departments are in regular contact.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is the Minister really saying that it is possible for elderly people in homes to be evicted? If that is the situation, are the Government not totally ashamed and are they not prepared to take action to prevent it? Are they aware of the horrific anxiety caused to people who have that threat of eviction hanging over their heads even if it is not implemented? I beg the Government for an answer.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot accept what the noble Lord says. I should point out to him that 267,000 people in residential care and nursing home care now receive help through income support. That figure compares with only 12,000 in 1979. We spend £2.6 billion in income support for those people compared with £10 million in 1979.
Since its recent introduction, we believe that community care is working well.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, will the Government answer the question?
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Stallard: My Lords, in the Minister's original reply, he referred to the problem of the London area. Is it not a fact that this year's increases are linked to the RPI, but that the London area in general will receive no increase? The increase is linked to RPI only outside London. London receives no increase on its allowance.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, increases for nursing home limits are greater than residential care limits because the costs are greater. The sum of £10 a week was added to all nursing home limits in the recent uprating.
Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord that there is quite a substantial difference between the London limits and the limits in the remainder of the country.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Viscount appreciate that a great many charities now help with the shortfall on nursing and residential care homes? But the charities are increasingly becoming unable to meet that shortfall because they lack funds. Will the Minister please ensure that there is enough money either from social services or the National Health Service to ensure that the charities are not bled dry?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I understand that the level of fees for which local authorities are contracting tend to follow closely the limits available for people with preserved rights; that is, those who were already in residential or nursing home care on 1st April 1993.

Large Hadron Collider
3.2 p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why at the June meeting of the CERN Council approval for the large hadron collider was withheld.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the process of approval for the large hadron collider was opened at the 100th session of the CERN Council last month. However, Germany and the United Kingdom were not ready formally to approve the project pending satisfactory resolution of certain financial aspects, in particular the question of an additional special contribution from CERN's host states. The United Kingdom remains firmly committed to the project—a position reaffirmed in the council meeting. We are optimistic that a satisfactory solution can be found to the outstanding issues enabling the voting procedure to be completed by all member states in the near future.
Lord Redesdale: My Lord, I thank the Minister for her reply. Can she give any indication when she expects the approval to be given?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the approval, but we are hopeful. There are certainly signs that the host nations, France and Switzerland, are prepared to consider the possibility of making a premium contribution over and above their normal contribution. The matter of voting for increases in expenditure is sensitive. The figure of 55 per cent. is all that is required to vote an increase in expenditure. It is worth looking at the list. Only four nations together contribute 70 per cent. of the funds; and yet 10 nations contributing between them 8 per cent. of the funds could vote for an increase in expenditure. Such factors need to be resolved, but we understand that they are very close to being resolved.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what a large hadron collider is, and whether a smaller one might not do?
Baroness Blatch: Well, my Lords, the noble Lord did ask the question! It is a particle accelerator or atom smasher used to investigate the building blocks of the universe by creating conditions akin to those existing shortly after the Big Bang. The machine will bring protons into head-on collision, and at higher energy levels than ever achieved before. The impact results in the creation of fundamental particles which will bring into range study of the top quark and potentially the discovery of the Higgs boson. The top quark is a sub-atomic particle that is the last undiscovered quark of the six quarks predicted by current scientific theory. Scientists worldwide have sought experimental evidence for the top quark since the discovery of the bottom quark at Fermilab in the United States in 1977.
10
Briefly, the Higgs boson is a hypothesised particle which, if it exists, would give the mechanism by which particles acquire mass and could help to explain why the universe is made up of matter and not anti-matter.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, on behalf of the entire House, perhaps I may express our gratitude to the Minister for that splendid account of the large hadron collider which I am happy to say coincides exactly with the information that I have been given. However, does she agree with me that if the United Kingdom were to withhold funds from the large hadron collider at CERN, it would be stating publicly for the first time that as regards sub-atomic particle physics Britain is no longer in the World Cup league but is relegated to the Vauxhall Conference league in pure science? With that possibility in mind, will she tell the House what the Government are doing to ensure that British companies benefit from this large physics project, whether or not we are funding it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is an important point. If I may take the noble Lord's latter point first, we want to make absolutely certain that British companies do indeed benefit on many fronts from the breakthrough in science.
As for the commitment—or the possibility that if we do not come to an agreement it would somehow lessen that commitment—I can say absolutely that there will be resolution and that the United Kingdom will continue to be committed wholeheartedly to this project.
This project is important to the world as a whole. We believe that it is important to consider the widening of the base of those countries who contribute. We know that there is already interest from the United States, Canada and other countries—for example, India. Therefore we expect some widening of the base and widening of the contribution to this very expensive science.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is there a possibility that the quark may turn out to be a "Boojum"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am getting into very deep water. I think there is every possibility that it will turn out not to be there at all.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, while I agree with the noble Baroness about the project's importance, would it not be possible for the CERN Council to make an approach to the American authorities for some contribution towards the costs on the basis that American scientists would be able to use the facilities when they are ready?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the important factor about America is, if I remember, that America abandoned its own superconducting supercollider. That was an £11 billion project. It has strengthened the case for collaboration with the CERN project. I believe that that is the basis for our hope that they will regard becoming involved in this project as a very profitable activity.

Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
3.8 p.m.
Considered on Report.

Drug Trafficking Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (80) as first printed by the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 19, after '21' insert 'or 21AA'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 7 to 12, 14, 15, 19, 35, 36, 46, 47, 63, 65 and 127.
The main amendment in this group is Amendment No. 8. The remaining amendments are very small. Amendments Nos. 1, 10, 11 and 12 are directly and wholly consequential on Amendment No. 8. Amendment No. 127 repeals Section 24 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, which was a stopgap provision needed to deal with changes to police areas in Wales if this Bill were not to be passed. All the remaining amendments in the group are to take account of the fact that some principal councils in Wales from 1st April 1996 will be called county boroughs.
Amendment No. 8 is necessary in order to enable us, after Royal Assent, to settle outstanding questions relating to the police boundaries in Wales. As your Lordships will know, this Bill has been proceeding through Parliament in parallel with the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994. By convention, each Bill was drafted as if the other did not exist so as not to anticipate Parliament's decisions on either Bill. The Welsh Bill has received Royal Assent now. It was therefore necessary to make amendments to this Bill in order to take account of the new local government boundaries which will be created in Wales with effect from 1st April 1996.
For North Wales and Dyfed-Powys police areas this would be entirely straightforward, with only minor boundary changes. But the shape of the new boundaries in South Wales will require significant changes to the
12
boundaries of the South Wales and Gwent police areas, because the new Caerphilly district straddles the existing boundary between those two police areas.
The boundaries of the new Caerphilly district were not finally settled until a late stage during proceedings on the Local Government (Wales) Act some three weeks ago. Although we have been discussing with the two police authorities and the two police forces the options which are available for settling the boundaries, obviously those discussions could not be brought to a conclusion until the boundaries of the new local government areas were settled.
The changes which will affect the South Wales and Gwent police areas are quite large, and it is obviously right that we should give sufficient time for all concerned to consider the available options. It is important that there should be adequate discussions between all the interested parties in order to try to come to a solution which is acceptable to all sides. The powers which are provided by this amendment will require the Secretary of State, before 1st April 1996, when the Welsh local government changes take effect, to make an order settling the police boundaries in Wales.
I can confirm that, in respect of North Wales and Dyfed-Powys, the order will merely redefine the existing boundaries in terms of the new Welsh local government areas, including some small changes in the north-east of Dyfed-Powys police area. But I cannot say what will need to be done in South Wales and Gwent. The position today is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has not reached any decision on how to resolve the boundary problem which affects the South Wales and Gwent police areas. Discussions have been going on with the police authorities on the basis of the available options. There are three options, any of which could be put into effect by means of the powers which are set out in this amendment. The first is to put the whole of the new Caerphilly district into the Gwent police area, thereby making the Gwent force a little larger than it is at present. The second is to put the whole of the Caerphilly district into the South Wales police area, which would make the South Wales force a little larger and the Gwent force somewhat smaller than at present. The third option is for the two police areas to be combined.
The discussions which have already been held with those concerned mean that we have committed ourselves to a process of consultation on the basis of those three options. Although it is in no one's interest to have any prolonged uncertainty, my right honourable friend certainly will not wish to make up his own mind too quickly.
If those concerned in the area can reach agreement on a way forward, on a basis which provides a solution which my right honourable friend regards as satisfactory in policing terms, this would be an excellent outcome which we all hope will be able to be achieved. My right honourable friend would then use this new power to give effect to that agreement. We certainly want to proceed on the basis of agreement if we possibly can.
But the point which I must emphasise to the House is this. The new boundaries of Welsh local government areas will necessitate changes to the present South

13
Wales and Gwent police areas. We would have liked to amend the Bill to give effect to such changes, but we do not yet know what those change!) will be. As a result, this Bill will be passed into law with Schedule 1A in it, which defines Welsh police areas by reference to Welsh counties. Those will cease to exist and they will therefore need to be replaced in mat schedule by reference to the other new police areas. The present amendment therefore imposes a requirement—and it is a requirement—on my right honourable friend to make an order settling the new Welsh police areas and making consequential amendments to the way in which they are defined in Schedule 1A.
As I have explained, my right honourable friend would hope to use that power to give effect to a satisfactory agreement which could be reached between all the parties concerned. But we must cater for the possibility that satisfactory agreement might not be reached and, in that unhappy event, this amendment gives my right honourable friend the power, if necessary, to give effect to his decision where no satisfactory agreement is reached. Without that power to impose a solution, we could not be certain that suitable arrangements for the policing of the present South Wales and Gwent police areas could be in effect from 1st April 1996.
As I have explained, consultation is going on between all the parties concerned and we very much hope that these will reach a satisfactory conclusion for everyone. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Earl Ferrers.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining in such detail this tricky problem. I am grateful to him for giving me notice, as soon as he knew it could arise, that there was the possibility of the Government and the Minister in particular going back on their indication that there were unlikely to be any amalgamations for 10 or even 20 or 30 years. I understand his reluctance to explain in detail the problem that might have arisen in North Wales as between North Wales and Dyfed-Powys authority. It concerns the village of Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant and I am sure he would not have wished to spell that out to the House.
The situation in South Wales, as between South Wales and Gwent, is not quite as unsettled as the Minister seems to think. As I understand it—and my honourable friend Alun Michael has been taking a lead in trying to reach agreement on this—the Gwent police authority, both Islwyn and Rhymney councils and all the other councils concerned and the —Members of Parliament have agreed that the correct solution is for Rhymney to move into the big Gwent police authority area.
The only fly in the ointment, as I understand it now, is the South Wales police authority. At its meeting last week it decided first that it was against the merger proposals which were supported by its own chief constable; and then it decided only on the casting vote of the chairman that it wanted Rhymney to move into the South Wales police authority. The possibility of a
14
change in the view of the South Wales police authority still exists. What I wish to hear from the Minister in terms is that the possibility of a merger, which would be thoroughly undesirable and which is not wanted by any except about half the South Wales police authority, is the last possible resort. We would like to hear that the Government will seek, so far as it is within their power, to secure agreement to the rational solution to the problem. That is the inclusion of the whole of the new Caerphilly county borough into the Gwent police authority area.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Yes, my Lords, I agree with that. The situation is as described by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The fact is that it is only half the members of the South Wales police authority who want, despite the views of its own chief constable, to transfer the district into its police force area.
It would seem to me to be an extraordinary proposition were we to be faced later next year with any proposal basically to wipe out the existence of the Gwent police force. If that district is transferred to the area of the South Wales police authority, Gwent will cease to be a viable force, as I understand it. No doubt the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will confirm whether that is true. Virtually everybody who has looked at this situation, including the local Members of Parliament and the local district council, is of one mind. I therefore very much hope that the Government will certainly try to bring half the members of the South Wales police authority round to a sensible conclusion in this matter, and will enable Gwent under no circumstances to agree to an amalgamation of those two forces which has virtually no public support in South Wales.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I have received no representations on this matter; nor has my noble friend Lord Cledwyn. That is some indication of the degree of public anxiety about this issue, which really does not extend beyond a relatively few people. If I may express a personal opinion, I would have no hesitation at all in saying that it seems to me that the logical outcome is the one that has; been proposed; namely, Caerphilly and the borough concerned should be included in Gwent. If that were the solution I would heartily support it.
Baroness White: My Lords, as I am Lady White, of Rhymney—after the comma—I fully support what was said by my noble friend. It would be very unsatisfactory if the two police authorities were to be joined into one. It is essential to maintain a Gwent police force. I hope that that will be the result.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I support my noble friends Lord Callaghan and Lady White. I agree with what they say about the need for a strong force in the area. Although I am not familiar with the details on this matter, I know that that is the view of the people living in the area.
The noble Lord referred to the strength of the Gwent police force. I think that the House would be interested to know what is the strength of the police force and what its strength would be without an amalgamation with Caerphilly, and what the addition of Caerphilly to

15
Gwent would mean in terms of numbers. My view coincides with that of noble Lords who have spoken; namely, that the amalgamation is desirable.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the understanding way in which they have accepted this problem. I entirely agree with everything that has been said. It is highly desirable that there should be an agreement over what should take place in the future. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that his honourable friend Mr. Michael had been taking an interest in this matter. Indeed he has, and he has played a very considerable part in helping to try to bring all the parties together.
It is always difficult to get an agreement on matters of what might be called a territorial distinction such as this. But the fact is that Schedule 1 lists the names of all the police areas. When one comes to Wales, the schedule refers to Dyfed Powys being the counties of Dyfed and Powys; Gwent being the county of Gwent; North Wales being the counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd; and South Wales being the counties of Mid-Glamorgan, South Glamorgan and West Glamorgan. Those are to be the police areas. Those areas will have to be changed because of the alteration of the boundaries. Therefore there has to be an order to change them.
What the areas are to change to entirely depends on what arrangements can be arrived at. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who asked: will we do all that we can to ensure that that comes about by agreement? I can assure him that we in the Home Office are, have been, and will be continuing to do exactly that. But in the end there has to be adequate policing. In the rare event of there being no agreement, my right honourable friend would have to take a decision. I think that that is highly unlikely—I hope that it is highly unlikely. For those reasons, I hope that I can assure noble Lords that we shall do all we can to try to bring about a satisfactory solution to this matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2Clause 3, page 2, line 31, at end insert:
'Reductions in size of police authorities.
3B.—(1) This section applies to any order under subsection (2) of section 3A of this Act which varies or revokes an earlier order so as to reduce the number of a police authority's members.
(2) Before making an order to which this section applies, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) the authority,

(b) the councils which are relevant councils in relation to the authority for the purposes of Schedule 1B to this Act, and

(c) any panel (or magistrates' courts committee) which is responsible, or is represented on a joint committee which is responsible, for the appointment of members of the authority.

(3) An order to which this section applies may include provision as to the termination of the appointment of the existing members of the authority and the making of new appointments or re-appointments."'
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. Perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 61, 62 and 64.
The Bill already includes a power for the Secretary of State, by order, to increase the size of a police authority above the standard size of 17. The power includes the power to vary or to revoke such an order. We do not expect frequent changes in the size of police authorities, but it would be wrong if the size of a police authority could only be increased but could never be decreased if circumstances were to change.
Amendment No. 2 is needed in order to cater for the practical consequences of reductions in the size of a police authority. The main purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, when varying or revoking the enlargement order, the Secretary of State may make provision concerning the appointments of existing members. That might in practice be done in a variety of ways, depending on the circumstances. Where the change in size was quite small, the Secretary of State might consult the police authority and might reach agreement with it over which members' appointments were to be terminated. There might, for example, be people who would would be due to retire from the authority shortly anyway, or maybe some would volunteer to do so. In these cases the order would give effect to what the Home Secretary had agreed with the authority.
Alternatively, especially in cases where more complex changes in the structure of the authority might be required, the better course might be to terminate the appointments of all existing members so that the appointing authorities could look at the matter afresh. The amendment includes an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult before taking such action on this. There is no statutory provision for consultation before making an order to enlarge a police authority because, in practice, the initiative for enlargement is likely to come from the authorities concerned in the police area, and local discussion will therefore arise naturally.
It is much more likely that the initiative to reduce the size of a police authority would come from the Home Secretary of the day, if it appeared to him that the reasons for an earlier enlargement had changed. In practice I have no doubt that he would consult—he would not leave the police authority to learn of a reduction just be the laying of the relevant order before Parliament. But we thought that consultation on the question of reducing the size of an authority should be mandatory, and the amendment achieves that purpose.
Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 also concern police authority membership. They put right an anomaly which affects local government areas which are partly within the Metropolitan Police district. At present parts of the counties of Surrey, Essex and Hertfordshire are within the Metropolitan Police district. We have no plans to

17
change the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police district, so this will continue in its present state for the foreseeable future.
Under the Bill as originally drafted, it would theoretically have been possible for local councillors who represent those areas that are policed by the Metropolitan Police to be appointed as councillor members of the police authority for Surrey, Essex or Hertfordshire—which would, of course, be the policing authority for the other part of their area. That would obviously not make sense. Their electoral divisions would be in the Metropolitan Police district and not in the police area on which police authority they wish to sit. Their local electors would be contributing to the funding of the Metropolitan Police, not to the funding of the force on which police authority they sought to sit.
I understand that, at present, the county councils whose areas include parts of the Metropolitan Police district do not choose county councillors representing electoral divisions within that district to sit on the relevant county police authority. The amendment will put that commonsense practice on a statutory footing by ensuring that councillors who are elected for electoral divisions which are wholly within the Metropolitan Police district are disqualified for membership of a police authority for an area which is outside the Metropolitan Police district.
The amendments will also ensure that, for the purposes of determining the political balance among the councillor members of a police authority, a council or a joint committee which is making appointments should take no account of councillors who are disqualified for membership because they were elected for areas within the Metropolitan Police district. It would be absurd if political balance were to be determined by the political affiliations of people who were ineligible for appointment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, before I ask my noble friend a simple question about this group of amendments, perhaps I may ask him a more general question. I hope that it will be in order for me to do so. I feel that it may save time. Can he assure us that the Commons amendments to Parts I and II of the Bill, which deal with police affairs, have not changed in principle the amendments made by your Lordships to the Bill that was originally presented to us? They do not seem to have done so, but if my noble friend can give an assurance that that is so, I am sure that it will help in the further discussion of the Commons amendments. There are a number of amendments but they seem to be mainly consequential on what your Lordships did to the Bill. Indeed, many of them appear largely to be matters of administrative detail.
Having asked the question, perhaps I may now turn to the effects of this group of amendments. In considering the group, which includes reference to the first schedule, we find what the police areas for the future in England, except London, are to be. In this context we have to bear in mind that there is a local government commission which has already made many
18
recommendations about the future of local government in England. In doing so, it referred to various specialist tasks, such as policing, for which local authorities in England are at present responsible.
In the case of Cambridgeshire, where I happen to live, the police area is to be the county of Cambridgeshire. Perhaps I may say that I am glad about that. Although I personally hope that a number of unitary authorities will be created within Cambridgeshire, I hope also that the police authority will cover the whole area in the future as it has done up to now.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that I can satisfy my noble friend, certainly over the first part of his question. Although there are a number of amendments, they are mostly matters of detail and are, as he described it, largely of administrative detail. There is only one case in which the Commons amendment reverses; a Lord's amendment, and that concerns Amendment No. 18.
With regard to my noble friend's concern about his county of Cambridgeshire, so far as I know the position is likely to remain as it is at the moment unless or until the local government commission suggests any alterations to the boundaries.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 7, page 5, line 33, at beginning insert 'In'.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. At the same time, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 4, 21, 30, 79, 80, 88 and 118.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 give effect to the Government's decision that the rank of chief inspector should be retained. They do so by amending Section 7 of the Police Act 1964 to add the rank of chief inspector to the ranks which are already listed in that section. The rank does not appear in the existing list but is instead prescribed in police regulations. The list of ranks in Section 7 of the 1964 Act will, as a result of this amendment, no longer include the rank of deputy chief constable.
Amendments Nos. 21, 30 and 118 make similar provision for Scotland. Police ranks should be the same either side of the Border. I understand that the Scottish police associations accept that. The rank structure will now include two ranks between inspector and assistant chief constable, which is what your Lordships resolved when the Bill was before the House at Third Reading.
Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 are technical amendments. Amendment No. 88 makes a small adjustment to the arrangements proposed in the Bill for authorising chief inspectors to fulfil the duties of a superintendent in exercising certain powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. 1984. The amendment provides that, where a superintendent anticipates that he will be absent, he may give prior authorisation to a chief inspector to exercise his powers during his absence. In all other circumstances,

19
authorisation will continue to be required at the level of the Association of Chief Police Officers. The Association of Chief Police Officers has been consulted on the amendment and is content with it.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in his opening remarks the Minister said that it was a government decision to retain the rank of chief inspector. I feel that he ought to recognise that it was the decision of your Lordships' House that an extra rank should be retained. It was against the wishes of the Government. The fact that it is the rank of chief inspector which is to be retained owes much to the well informed and powerful advocacy of my noble friend Lady Hilton of Eggardon.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I would not wish the opportunity to be missed. The noble Lord is quite right; it was the decision of your Lordships' House to which I referred. The Government cogitated about that decision and wondered whether it would be as well to accept it or suggest to another place that it may like to take another view. But in their magnanimity the Government considered that your Lordships were right. That decision was the Government's decision and it was a very creditable one too.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 7, page 5, line 33, leave out from 'forces)' to end of line 42 and insert ', in subsection (1)—

(a) for the words "section 1" there shall be substituted the words "section 2",

(b) the words ", deputy chief constable" shall be omitted, and

(c) after the word "superintendent" there shall be inserted the words ",chief inspector".'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. The amendment has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. —(Earl Ferrers. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
5 After Clause 10, insert the following clause:
Appointment of officers
'After section 10 of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—
"Appointment of clerk.
10A. A police authority established under section 3 of this Act shall appoint a person to be the clerk to the authority.
Appointment of persons not employed by police authorities.
10B. Where a police authority established under section 3 of this Act is required or authorised by any Act—

(a) to appoint a person to a specified office under the authority, or

(b) to designate a person as having specified duties or responsibilities,

20

then, notwithstanding any provision of that Act to the contrary, the authority may appoint or designate either a person employed by the authority under section 10 of this Act, or a person not holding any office or employment under the authority." .'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. With the leave of the House perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 76.
The new clause would have two main effects. First, it would require each police authority to appoint a clerk. That would be in place of the obligation which the Bill previously placed on a police authority to designate one of its officers as the "head of their paid service" under Section 4 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
In the light of discussions with police authorities and in view of the concerns raised by your Lordships at an earlier stage, we looked again at the relevance of Section 4 of the 1989 Act. The duties of the head of paid service under that Act, although relevant to the future role of the police authority, are more a reflection of the responsibilities of the chief executive in a multi-service local authority. Some of the duties under Section 4 of that Act are not entirely appropriate in the police authority context where the number of staff will be very small and most management responsibilities will rest with the chief constable.
Instead, we propose that each police authority should be required to appoint a person to be its clerk. That will ensure that there is a clearly identifiable person who is responsible for the administration of the authority.
The new clause will also allow police authorities to appoint people other than their own employees as their statutory officers. Those statutory officers will be their clerk, their chief finance officer and the monitoring officer under Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Those are unlikely to be full-time posts and police authorities may well want to use the services of outsiders on a part-time basis by either buying in the services of local authority chief officers, as most police authorities do now, or contracting with the private sector to provide such services. Without the amendment, police authorities would be required to appoint their own employees to those posts. The new clause will allow police authorities to choose whatever arrangements are best suited to their purposes.
Amendment No. 76 makes technical changes to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 which are consequential upon the new clause.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right. The matter was raised in this House. This amendment provides an improvement to the Bill as originally drafted and I welcome it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
6 After Clause 11, insert the following clause:
Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations
'.After section 15 of the 1964 Act there shall be insetted—
"Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations etc.
15A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a police authority may provide advice and assistance—

(a) to an international organisation or institution, or

(b) to any other person or body which is engaged outside the United Kingdom in the carrying on of activities similar to any carried on by the authority or the chief officer of police for its area.

(2) The power conferred on a police authority by subsection (1) of this section includes a power to make arrangements under which a member of the police force maintained by the authority is engaged for a period of temporary service with a person or body within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection.
(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) of this section shall not be exercised except with the consent of the Secretary of State or in accordance with a general authorisation given by him.
(4) A consent or authorisation under subsection (3) of this section may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(5) Nothing in this section authorises a police authority to provide any financial assistance by—

(a) making a grant or loan,

(b) giving a guarantee or indemnity, or

(c) investing by acquiring share or loan capital.

(6) A police authority may make charges for advice or assistance provided by it under this section.
(7) In its application in relation to the metropolitan police this section shall apply—

(a) as if the power conferred by subsection (1) were conferred on the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (and accordingly as if the references in subsections (1) (b) and (2) to a police authority were omitted), and

(b) as if in subsection (6) the reference to a police authority were a reference to the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.

(8) The provisions of this section are without prejudice to the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 and section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980.'
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 16, 23, 29, 31, 32, 81, 84, 85, 115 to 117, 119 to 122, 124 and 125.
These amendments deal with service overseas by British police officers. Their principal effect is to permit UK police officers to serve abroad, not only with foreign governments (which is already possible under existing legislation), but also with international organisations such as the United Nations. The new provisions will allow us to accede, for example, to a recent request from the United Nations to provide a number of British police officers to serve with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 16 relate to England and Wales, and Amendments Nos. 23 and 29 apply the same provisions in Scotland. Under the present law—the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 and the Overseas Development and Cooperation Act 1980—British police officers may serve abroad with the approval of the
22
Secretary of State and their existing police authority, at the request of a foreign government, but not at the request of international organisations. The relevant legislation makes provision for the terms of service, discipline and pensions of those who are seconded abroad. Such attachments may be to assist with the investigation of specific crimes occurring within the jurisdiction of the foreign government, or more generally to advise on policing matters, or even (as recently in South Africa) in connection with the observance of civil rights at times of elections.
Because of the high regard in which the British police service is held around the world, requests are sometimes made for police officers to serve abroad, not with foreign governments but with international organisations such as the United Nations. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is in the interests of the reputation of the British police service, and this country's relations with foreign governments and international organisations, that British police officers should be available for such purposes. But the present law gives no powers for attachments to international organisations, with the result that, even if in other respects informal arrangements could be made, there would be no basis for paying the officer's pension if he were killed or injured during his period of overseas service, and there could also be problems over any disciplinary matters or his pension position on his return to the UK if his absence abroad amounted to a break in service.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is very much in the interest of the police service, and in the interests of this country's reputation among the international community, that that deficiency should be remedied.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the noble Earl referred to "foreign governments". Our help is requested by Commonwealth countries. Do they come under different legislation or are they referred to in this case as "foreign governments"?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Earl was good enough to write to me in regard to these amendments, which are clearly right. It is highly desirable that British police officers should be able to provide service to international organisations. The only point of detail about which I should like to ask is this. He referred to the various amendments to which he spoke and the position in England, Wales and Scotland. Can I take it that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is included in the provision? If not, why not?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I can say that the expression "foreign governments" refers mainly to governments of countries outside the United Kingdom where, at the moment, we are able to send policemen at the request of a foreign government provided it has the approval of the Secretary of State and the police authority. Therefore the expression refers to governments outside the United Kingdom. Commonwealth Governments have their

23
secondments made under existing law. The amendment refers to organisations such as the United Nations or any other such international organisation.
With regard to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the amendments deal with secondment "to" the Royal Ulster Constabulary but not secondment of Royal Ulster Constabulary officers abroad.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, can the noble Earl say why not? If it is desirable that police officers from other parts of the United Kingdom should provide the service, why is the RUC excluded? It has a powerful reputation and in some areas a high level of expertise. I find it odd that it is excluded.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, makes a good point. I do not know the answer at the moment, but I shall certainly look into the reasons. It may be that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is already tied up with its present duties.
Curiously, I have had a blinding flash of memory—these things happen from time to time. The Police Act of 1964 does not extend to Northern Ireland. This Bill is amending the 1964 Act. That is the technical answer, but I shall look into the substantive point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.45 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
7 Clause 12, page 7, line 27, after 'county' insert:
'( ) a county borough in Wales,'.
8 Page 7, line 34, at end insert:
'Alteration of Welsh police areas on local government reorganisation.
21AA.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order made before 1st April 1996 make such alterations to police areas in Wales as he considers necessary or expedient in connection with the reorganisation of local government in Wales taking place on that date.
(2) The alterations that may be made by an order under subsection (1) of this section include alterations that result in a reduction or an increase in the number of police areas, but not alterations that result in the division of any county or county borough between two or more police areas.
(3) The Secretary of State shall make an order under subsection (1) of this section only after he has consulted every body within the following paragraphs which is in existence when the order is made—

(a) the police authorities established under section 3 of this Act for the police areas altered by the order,

(b) the police authorities which are to be superseded by the police authorities mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection;

(c) the county councils which—

(i) are the councils of counties wholly or partly within the police areas altered by the order, and

(ii) are to cease to exist on 1st April 19% by virtue of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994;

24

(d) the councils of the counties and county boroughs established by virtue of that Act which are wholly or partly within the police areas altered by the order;

and such other persons as he considers appropriate.'
9 Page 7, line 42, after 'district' insert', county borough'.
10 Page 8, line 32, after '21' insert 'or 21AA'.
11 Page 8, line 44, after '21' insert 'or 21AA'.
12 Page 9, line 15, after '21' insert 'or 21AA'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendments Nos. 7 to 12 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 to 12 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
13 Clause 17, page 13, line 24, leave out 'procedures established by or' and insert 'proceedings'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 28, 82, 83 and 87. These are technical amendments which ensure that the Bill is consistent both internally and with other legislation.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, your Lordships will not wish to depart from these amendments because the first two each shorten the Bill by three words. It is sad that they were grouped with the other amendments which add, on balance, more than six words. But that must be viewed in light of the fact that your Lordships sent a Bill to the other place running to 92 pages and the amendments add approximately a quarter more to that mass.
Your Lordships are bound to ask why that sort of thing continues. It is not as though we can be sure that it is the end of the Bill. In the Children Act, government amendments were put down at every stage in your Lordships' House. But the Bill came back from the other place with government amendments running to more pages than the Bill contained when sent there. But that was not the end of it. It was found that further amendments were needed and there was a seven-page schedule to the Courts and Legal Services Bill which made further amendments to the Children Act.
Your Lordships will want to know why that happens. When the Renton Committee on Preparation of Legislation reported in 1975, it remarked on the verbosity of statutes—an undesirable wordiness. The statute book at that time ran to three volumes; 10 years later it ran to five volumes with fewer statutes in it. What the Renton Committee complained of had continued at an accelerated rate.
The most undesirable feature is that it frustrates the performance of your Lordships' constitutional role. Lengthy statute discussions continue into the small hours of the morning and we rely on the devotion of one or two noble Lords who are willing to come back

25
after dinner and match their stamina with the remarkable stamina of the noble Earl who has been in charge of the Bill. But it is quite wrong. It means that although they, at some self-sacrifice, manage to scrutinise the Bill, your Lordships cannot amend it because there is a government majority, largely of a payroll vote, waiting outside to shoot down any amendment. So this is perhaps an occasion to draw attention to the undesirability of the wordiness in statute.
Sir Robert Andrew, when he reported on the government legal services, recommended that the draftsman should come under the Law Officers rather than under the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has other things to do besides scrutinising the detail or even the general style of legislation. Of all Sir Robert Andrew's recommendations, that was the one that was not accepted. But sooner or later, unless some control is taken over the volume, the wordiness and the verbosity of legislation, your Lordships' constitutional role will no longer be capable of being performed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I welcome what the noble and learned Lord has just said. Your Lordships may wonder, as I was the chairman of the committee to which the noble and learned Lord referred, why I have not shown much more zeal in this matter and tried to eliminate more of the verbosity. The truth is that I used to try to do so, but if one were to do so now, with Bills becoming longer and longer and more and more verbose, one could keep the House up for many hours of the night. I do not say that I have surrendered. All I do is complain from time to time. I am glad to support the noble and learned Lord in his complaint today.
Perhaps I may touch on the specific point that he made about the responsibility for parliamentary counsel. I am sure he is quite right in saying that it is asking too much of any Prime Minister, whether legally qualified or not, to consider the contents of every Bill that comes along and that it would be far better done if responsibility for parliamentary counsel were to go to a Law Officer or the Law Officers jointly rather than remain with the Prime Minister, who quite frankly cannot be expected to do this arduous work.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, returns to the subject which is dear to his heart —trying to make statutes brief. I cannot think why he chose this amendment with which to set about the Government. This amendment removes four words and inserts one word.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I did remark on that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I noted that and that is why I was underlying the fact that this amendment reduces the number of words. If the noble and learned Lord complains about that, heaven help us when we come to Amendments Nos. 16 and 29, which are considerably longer.
Many of the changes which occur here are due to the changes which your Lordships decided to make when the Bill was first before the House. Others relate to the overseas service, which is a fairly technical matter and one to which we have just referred. I have every
26
sympathy with the noble and learned Lord. I think that short statutes are much better. Anything that is shorter is usually easier to comprehend. Therefore, I value that, but if your Lordships would be good enough not to keep altering the Government's Bills too much we would not have these consequential alterations.
The noble and learned Lord said that the Government are frustrating your Lordships' constitutional role and that there was the payroll vote waiting outside to shoot down any amendments. All I can say is that I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord has spoken to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary lately. If he has I think he may find that my right honourable friend takes a different view. The Government produced a certain Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill and your Lordships decided to alter it. I do not think that that was the combination of the payroll vote waiting outside to shoot down the amendments. The payroll vote, as the noble and learned Lord so graciously put it, was doing its best not to shoot down the amendments and to keep the Bill as it was. But your Lordships, in the peculiarly independent way which you have and irrespective of what side anyone sits on, decided to alter the Bill, Another place has considered the alterations and the result is more words, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, does not like. I can only say to the noble and learned Lord that if he had heeded my advice when the Bill first came through and had left the Bill alone he would not have so many alterations now.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
14 Clause 22, page 15, line 37, after 'district' insert ', county borough'.
15 Page 15, line 40, after 'district' insert', county borough'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords,' I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. They were spoken to with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 and 15.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
16 After Clause 23, insert the following clause:
Police officers engaged on service outside their force
'. After section 53B of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—
"Police officers engaged on service outside their force.
53C.—(1) For the purposes of this section "relevant service" means—

(a) temporary service on which a person is engaged in accordance with arrangements made under section 15A(2) of this Act.

(b) central service (as defined in section 43(5) of this Act) on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority,

(c) service the expenses of which are payable under section 1(1) of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority,

27

(d) service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the Secretary of State and the appropriate authority, or

(e) service pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority.

(2) In subsection (1) of this section "appropriate authority" has the same meaning as in section 43 of this Act.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (7) of this section, a member of a police force engaged on relevant service shall be treated as if he were not a member of that force during that service; but, except where a pension, allowance or gratuity becomes payable to him out of money provided by Parliament by virtue of regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976—

(a) he shall be entitled at the end of the period of relevant service to revert to his police force in the rank in which he was serving immediately before the period began, and

(b) he shall be treated as if he had been serving in that force during the period of relevant service for the purposes of any scale prescribed by or under regulations made under section 33 of this Act fixing his rate of pay by reference to his length of service.

(4) In the case of relevant service to which subsection (1) (c) of this section refers, the reference in subsection (3) to regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976 shall be read as including a reference to regulations made under section 1 of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945.
(5) A person may, when engaged on relevant service, be promoted in his police force as if he were serving in that force; and in any such case—

(a) the reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section to the rank in which he was serving immediately before the period of relevant service began shall be construed as a reference to the rank to which he is promoted, and

(b) for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection he shall be treated as having served in that rank from the time of his promotion.

(6) A member of a police force who—

(a) has completed a period of relevant service within paragraph (a), (b) or (e) of subsection (1) of this section, or

(b) while engaged on relevant service within paragraph (c) of that subsection, is dismissed from that service by the disciplinary authority established by regulations made under section 1 of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 or is required to resign as an alternative to dismissal, or

(c) while engaged on relevant service within paragraph (d) of that subsection, is dismissed from that service or is required to resign as an alternative to dismissal,

may be dealt with under regulations made in accordance with subsection (3) of section 33 of this Act for anything done or omitted while he was engaged on that service as if that service had been service in his police force; and section 37 of this Act shall apply accordingly.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) of this section a certificate certifying that a person has been dismissed, or required to resign as an alternative to dismissal, shall be evidence of the fact so certified, if—

(a) in a case within paragraph (b) of that subsection, it is given by the disciplinary authority referred to in that paragraph, or

(b) in a case within paragraph (c) of that subsection, it is given by or on behalf of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or such other person or authority as may be designated for the purposes of this subsection by order of the Secretary of State.'

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16. This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
17 Clause 29, page 17, line 37, after 'incurred' insert '(or to be incurred)'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. Clause 29 provides for the Secretary of State to make initial financing grants to new police authorities before they take over their full responsibilities. As previously drafted, Clause 29 allowed the Secretary of State to make initial financing grants to the new police authorities in respect of expenditure which was incurred by them. That means that the grant could not be made until after the expenditure had been incurred. We now think it would be wise to ensure that the grant could be paid, if necessary, before the expenditure had been incurred. That is particularly so in the case of grant being made for the police authority's own purposes, such as for running its early meetings, for accommodation costs, for members' allowances and expenses, and so forth. It will be necessary for the police authorities to have the money in hand before it can be spent.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
18 Clause 34, page 20, line 3, at end insert:
'( ) in section 104, subsections (1) and (2) (which prevent a police officer convicted or acquitted of a criminal offence being charged with an equivalent disciplinary offence).'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18. The amendment will restore to the Bill the opposed repeal of Section 104(1) and (2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. When your Lordships voted on this at an earlier stage of the Bill it was associated with another and very different provision— that of the legal representation of the officer at disciplinary hearings. That matter is one on which the Government have felt able to meet your Lordships' wishes, and one of the amendments which we are to

29
consider today concerns the tidying up of that provision so as to make it compatible with the rest of the Bill. But the subject of this amendment is not one on which we feel able to accommodate your Lordships' views.
The precise effect of the amendment is to repeal those parts of Section 104 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which have the effect of preventing police disciplinary action being taken in any case where the officer has been acquitted by a criminal court of an offence which is in substance the same as the disciplinary offence. In doing so, it complies with one of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. The argument has been offered in the past that to deal with the officer for breaches of police discipline once he has been acquitted for the actions in question was to try him twice for the same offence. We take a different view. A police disciplinary hearing is not—and never has been—a court of law, and the issues before a police disciplinary hearing are quite different from those before a court of law. Whatever the officer did or did not do may not have been a criminal offence—and the court will have decided that—but that does not necessarily mean that he or she behaved in a way which was fitting for a police officer. An acquittal in a court of law may be made on technical grounds but the officer's actions may well have been shown in court to have been quite unfitting for a police officer.
This part of Section 104 has never been an easy provision to administer. It is often difficult to determine whether the substance of a disciplinary offence is the same as the substance of the crime and certainly the two issues are likely to involve quite different requirements for the mental element. For instance, a criminal charge under the Theft Act would require proof of an intention to deprive the owner of his property permanently. A disciplinary charge relating to the care of property would not. To take a more common example, the common law offence of assault is defined as any act
"by which a person intentionally—or recklessly—causes another to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence",
but the equivalent disciplinary charge of "abuse of authority" arising out of an assault focuses not on the officer's mental state but on whether he used "an oppressive manner" and "unnecessary force".
These problems will be greater in the future when the matters to be decided by police senior officers will be very different. In future police managers will, in discipline cases no longer be seeking to consider a series of particular changes, which could be regarded as equivalent to particular criminal charges, but they will be looking at the whole pattern of events and whether the officer lived up to proper police standards throughout.
This would not work properly if police managers had to exclude from their consideration that group of the officer's actions which had come under the scrutiny of the court when they decided to acquit him. As I have said, acquittal of a particular criminal accusation cannot be held to carry the inevitable implication that the officer behaved in all respects as befits a police officer.
My right honourable friend's conclusion therefore, as he said in another place, has been that failure to repeal these provisions would be detrimental to the more
30
relaxed and speedy handling of police misconduct which he wishes to introduce. That is the reason why I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18.—(Earl Ferrers.)
4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that, on reflection, the Government amendment is wise.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may just add that, just as we have the right to ask the Government and another place to think again, we do not ask them to think again and again. We should be grateful to my noble friend for the very full explanation which he has given of the amendment and of the Government's decision which underlies it. Speaking for myself, I suggest, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has just done, that we should now accept the position as presented to us.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has; just said, but I should like some information. I have been told that there has been substantial tension within the negotiations which have been taking place between the: police staff associations and the Home Office on these matters. I do not know what is the current state of these —call them "discussions" or "negotiations". It would be helpful for us to be told what the current state of progress is on these discussions. Is there substantial difficulty in reaching common ground? It would be helpful if we were given that information.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for explaining the reasons so clearly in presenting the amendment to us, I feel extremely disappointed that the arguments which we put forward in this House have not been accepted. However, I note that those with more experience than I feel that we should accept the Government's interpretation as it stands and I go along with that. I should just like to record that we are doing wrong and that it will be seen to be wrong.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mountgarret is perfectly entitled to his view. When the Bill was before this House he expressed that view, as did other noble Lords. We considered very carefully what your Lordships had to say about this matter and what the position was for the reasons which I have given. I believe that they are valid reasons. We are trying to ensure that police officers conduct themselves in a way which is suitable and correct. If consideration of part of their behaviour is going to be removed simply because it has come under the scrutiny of the court and the officer has been acquitted, that means we do not get correct consideration of the officer's behaviour as a police officer. I understand my noble friend's regret over that matter but I hope that in due course he will see that this is the correct course to take.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked about the position as regards the staff associations. There have been considerable negotiations and discussions with the staff. The Police Federation and the Superintendents'

31
Association currently find themselves unable to discuss the procedures further. I hope that they will soon feel able to return to these discussions so that we can go ahead together in trying to put together arrangements which will be satisfactory for the long term benefit of the police as well as the police officers.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
19 Clause 37, page 21, line 11, leave out from 'that' to 'is' in line 14 and insert 'no county or county borough'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
20 After Clause 41, insert the following clause:
Applications of certain provisions to police authorities established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964
'.—(1) Any relevant legislative provision which, immediately before the passing of this Act, applied to police authorities constituted in accordance with section 2 of the Police Act 1964 shall, except where the context otherwise requires, apply in the same way to police authorities established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964 (as substituted by section 2 of this Act).
(2) Subsection (1) above is subject to any provision to the contrary made by or under this Act.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a provision is a "relevant legislative provision" if it is a provision (other than a provision which applies only to specified police authorities) of an instrument which—

(a) was made before the passing of this Act under a public general Act, and

(b) is of a legislative character.'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 51 to 59 at the same time. These are largely technical amendments. The proposed new clause after Clause 41 concerns secondary legislation which currently applies to police authorities. The purpose of Amendment No. 51 is to allow certain additional provisions of the Bill to come into force immediately on Royal Assent.
Amendments Nos. 52 to 55 are necessary for transitional purposes. Amendment No. 56 substitutes a new form of words for Clause 86(6) (b) of the Bill. The amendment will permit sharing to be achieved.
Amendment No. 57 makes a small addition to allow a commencement order to include provision about the fees charged, or expenses incurred, by a person who is appointed to arbitrate in a dispute about the transfer of assets. Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 make identical provision to Amendments Nos. 56 and 57, only in relation to the magistrates' courts parts of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not want to make a fuss about it. I believe that this clause is quite unnecessary. What it proposes would be done anyway by the courts in interpreting the statutes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
21 Clause 43, page 22, line 22, leave out from '(i)' to end of line 28 and insert:
'the words ", deputy chief constable" and ", chief superintendent and" shall be omitted,
(ii) after the word "superintendent" there shall be inserted the words ", chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable."; and'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
22 Clause 45, page 23, line 39, leave out from 'force' to end of line 41.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33, 72, 73, 75 and 123.
These amendments will help to ensure that management responsibilities can be sensibly devolved from the police authority to the chief constable, and by the chief constable to police officers and other staff under his command. Amendment No. 72 is an addition to Schedule 4 to the Bill, which amends Section 107 of the Local Government Act 1972. Amendment No. 75 relates to the statutory responsibilities of the chief finance officer of the police authority. Amendments Nos. 22 and 33 make provision in Scotland comparable to that which is made in England and Wales. Amendments Nos. 73 and 123 are consequential amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
23 After Clause 45, insert the following clause:
Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations etc., Scotland
'. After section 12 of the 1967 Act there shall be inserted—
"Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations etc.
12A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a police authority may provide advice and assistance—

(a) to an international organisation or institution, or

(b) to any other person or body which is engaged outside the United Kingdom in the carrying on of activities similar to any carried on by the authority or the chief constable of a force maintained by it.

(2) The power conferred on a police authority by subsection (1) of this section includes a power to make arrangements under which a constable of the force maintained for the area of the authority is engaged for a period of temporary service with a person or body within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection.
(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) of this section shall not be exercised except with the consent of the Secretary of State or in accordance with a general authorisation given by him.
(4) A consent or authorisation under subsection (3) above may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(5) Nothing in this section authorises a police authority to provide any financial assistance by—

(a) making a grant or loan,

(b) giving a guarantee or indemnity, or

(c) investing by acquiring share or loan capital.

(6) A police authority may make charges for advice and assistance provided by it under this section.
(7) The provisions of this section are without prejudice to the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 and section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-Operation Act 1980.".'
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
24 Clause 46, page 24, line 8, after 'December' insert 'last preceding'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24. This is a purely technical amendment to clarify that the period for submission of a chief constable's annual report shall be four months after the end of the year concerned and not one year and four months as Clause 46, as drafted, would provide at present.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
25 Clause 49, page 25, line 30, after 'authority' insert 'or joint police committee'.
26 Page 25, line 35, after 'authority' insert 'a joint police committee'.
27 Page 25, line 38, after 'authority' insert 'or joint police committee'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25 to 27. Clause 49 provides powers of direction by the Secretary of State for Scotland to instruct Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary to inspect a police force if it is suspected that in is not being run efficiently.
Where a police area consists of more than one local authority region, the force is maintained in Scotland by a joint police committee. These amendments ensure that a power of direction applies equally to such a committee as it would to a police authority.
Moved, the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25 to 27.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
28 Clause 50, page 25, line 44, leave out 'procedures established by or' and insert 'proceedings'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 13.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
29 After Clause 54, insert the following clause:
Constables engaged on service outside their force
'. After section 38 of the 1967 Act there shall be inserted—
"Constables engaged on service outside their force.
38A.—(1) For the purposes of this section "relevant service" means—

(a) temporary service on which a person is engaged in accordance with arrangements made under section 12A(2) of this Act,

(b) central service (as defined by section 38(5) of this Act) on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority,

(c) service the expenses of which are payable under section 1(1) of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority,

(d) service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the Secretary of State and the appropriate authority, or

(e) service pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority.

(2) In subsection (1) of this section "appropriate authority" has the same meaning as in section 38 of this Act.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (7) of this section, a constable of a police force engaged on relevant service shall be treated as if he were not a constable of that force during that service; but except where a pension, allowance or gratuity becomes payable to him out of money provided by Parliament by virtue of regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976—

(a) he shall be entitled at the end of the period of relevant service to revert to his police force in the rank in which he was serving immediately before the period began, and

(b) he shall be treated as if he had been serving in that force during the period of relevant service for the purposes of any scale prescribed by or under regulations made under section 26 of this Act fixing his rate of pay by reference to his length of service.

(4) In the case of relevant service to which subsection (1) (c) of this section refers, the reference in subsection (3) of this section to regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976 shall be read as including a reference to regulations made under section 1 of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945.
(5) A person may, when engaged on relevant service, be promoted in his police force as if he were serving in that force; and in any such case—

(a) the reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section to the rank in which he was serving immediately before the period of relevant service began shall be construed as a reference to the rank to which he is promoted, and

(b) for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection he shall be treated as having served in that rank from the time of his promotion.

(6) A constable who—

(a) has completed a period of relevant service within paragraph (a), (b) or (e) of subsection (1) of this section,

(b) while engaged on relevant service within paragraph (c) of that subsection, is dismissed from that service by the disciplinary authority established by regulations under section 1 of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 or is required to resign as an alternative to dismissal, or

(c) while engaged on relevant service within paragraph (d) of that subsection, is dismissed from that service or required to resign as an alternative to dismissal,

may be dealt with under regulations made in accordance with subsection (2A) of section 26 of this Act for anything done or omitted while he was engaged on that service as if that service had been service in his police force; and section 30 of this Act shall apply accordingly.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) of this section a certificate certifying that a person has been dismissed, or required to resign as an alternative to dismissal, shall be evidence of the fact so certified, if—

(a) in a case within paragraph (b) of that subsection, it is given by the disciplinary authority referred to in that paragraph, or

(b) in a case within paragraph (c) of that subsection it is given by or on behalf of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or such person or authority as may be designated for the purposes of this subsection by order of the Secretary of State.'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
30 Clause 57, page 29, line 14, leave out from 'In' to 'for' in line 17 and insert 'section 7(3) (assignment of lower rank)'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
31 Clause 57, page 29, line 19, at end insert:
'(3A) In section 24 (effect of amalgamation scheme on constables engaged in service other than with their own force)—
36

(a) in subsection (1) for the words from "either" to "transferred force" there shall be substituted the words "a person is engaged in relevant service within the meaning of section 38A of this Act";

(b) in subsection (2) for the word "overseas" in each of the three places where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "relevant"; and

(c) in subsection (3), the words from "and the expression" onwards shall be omitted.'.

32 Page 29, line 31, leave out from '(a)' to '; and' in line 34 and insert 'in subsection (3A), for the words "subsection (1) above" there shall be substituted the words "section 38A(3)of this Act".'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 en bloc. These amendments were considered with Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
33 After Clause 57, insert the following clause:
Delegations of functions of Scottish police authority
'. In section 63 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (arrangements as to police authority functions etc.), after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) The officers who may discharge functions of a police authority in pursuance of arrangements under section 56(1) or (2) of this Act shall include the chief constable of the police force.
(2B) Where, pursuant to arrangements made by virtue of subsection (2A) above, a chief constable may discharge functions of a police authority, he may himself arrange for the discharge of any of the functions in question by a constable of the police force or by a person who is employed by the authority but is not under their direction and control.".'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 22.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
34 Clause 62, page 32, line 43, at end insert:
'( ) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (3) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34.
This amendment makes orders made by the Lord Chancellor under the powers in Clause 62—the powers to amalgamate magistrates' courts committees—subject to the negative resolution procedure. The procedure applies whether the order has been initiated by the Lord Chancellor or by the magistrates' courts committees concerned. I consider it right, and part of the Lord Chancellor's accountability, that Parliament should have opportunity to scrutinise any proposals for the alteration of the boundaries of one or more magistrates' courts

37
committee areas, whether they have been initiated by the Lord Chancellor or by the magistrates' courts committees concerned.
Your Lordships will remember that I was anxious, while preserving the power, to offer any safeguards that were available. This appears a good additional safeguard to add to those that were in the Bill when it passed through your Lordships' House. I commend the amendment to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that further safeguard against a situation that may well arise. I welcome the amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
35 Clause 62, page 33, line 14, at end insert:
'(bb) a county borough council,'.
36 Page 33, line 21, at end insert:
'( ) Until 1st April 1996, the definition of "unitary authority" in subsection (10) above shall have effect with the omission of paragraph (bb).'
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 en bloc. These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
37 Clause 73, page 40, line 29, leave out 'that committee' and insert 'the magistrates' courts committee for the inner London area'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37. In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 48, 107 to 110, 113 and 131. These are drafting amendments consequent upon amendments made at earlier stages.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
38 Clause 73, page 40, line 37, after 'requires' insert 'in accordance with section 34B of that Act as a justices' clerk'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38. In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 to 45, 103, 106, 111, 112, 114 and 128 to 130. All of these amendments relate to the inner London magistrates' courts service and have been discussed with its representatives.
Amendments Nos. 39 to 42 are technical amendments which improve on the drafting of a government amendment, which was introduced in this House during the Third Reading, without changing the policy. That
38
matter was raised primarily by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, at a fairly late stage in the proceedings in your Lordships' House. We were able to give effect to some of the concerns while the Bill was still in this House.
Amendments Nos. 38 and 106 address special procedural features in the inner London area. Justices' clerks for the youth courts and family proceeding courts in inner London are not to be appointed to a petty sessional division within the inner London area, but to the inner London area and the City of London. This amendment makes provision for the present arrangements to continue to operate, consistent with the other provisions of the Bill relating to justices' clerks.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 establish a convenient and manageable system of selection for lay magistrate members of the division of work committee of the inner London magistrates' courts committee area.
One of the effects of the Bill is to bring the arrangements for the funding of the inner London magistrates' courts service into line with the arrangements in place elsewhere in England and Wales, by severing its links with the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police. This has implications for the pension arrangements of staff employed in the inner London service. The effect of Amendments Nos. 45, 103, 112 and 114 is to allow for the present arrangements to continue until such time as the best pension arrangements can be made. This includes ensuring that the pension expectations of staff will be fulfilled.
Amendments Nos. 111 and 128 to 130 are technical amendments consequential upon disengaging the Receiver.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.15 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
39 Clause 73, page 40, leave out lines 39 to 43.
40 Page 40, line 44, leave out 'by subsection (6) below or'.
41 Page 40, line 45, leave out '(3) or (4)' and insert 'or (3)'.
42 Page 41, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert:
'(6) The abolition by virtue of subsection (1) above of the statutory offices of senior deputy chief clerk and deputy chief clerk shall not affect the continuation of the contract of service of any person who holds either of those offices immediately before the commencement of that subsection.
(6A) A person who is employed under a contract of service to which subsection (6) above applies shall not he dismissed from his employment'.
43 Clause 74, page 41, line 18, leave out from 'justices' to second 'the' in line 19 and insert 'appointed by the chairmen of the petty sessional divisions of'.
44 Page 41, line 23, at end insert:
'(1A) The lay justices eligible for appointment under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above include any of the chairmen referred to in that paragraph.
(1B) The members of the committee shall hold office for a period of twelve months, but shall be eligible for re-appointment.'.
45 After Clause 74, insert the following clause:
Pensions etc. of justices' chief executive, justices' clerks and staff in inner London area
'—(1) Schedule [Continuing functions of Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District in relation to pensions etc. of court staff] (which re-enacts certain provisions relating to the functions of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District with respect to pensions etc. of court staff) shall have effect.
(2) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision with respect to pensions, allowances or gratuities payable to or in respect of inner London court staff, or any class of inner London court staff.
(3) An order under subsection (2) above may—

(a) itself make provision with respect to the pensions, allowances or gratuities which, subject to the fulfilment of such requirements and conditions as may be prescribed by the order, are to be or may be paid to or in respect of inner London court staff, or any class of inner London court staff, or

(b) provide that the civil service provisions are to have effect, with such modifications as may be prescribed by the order, in relation to the payment by such persons as may be so prescribed, out of such funds as may be so prescribed, of pensions, allowances and gratuities to or in respect of inner London court staff, or any class of inner London court staff.

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (2) and (3) above, an order under subsection (2)—

(a) may include all or any of the provisions referred to in paragraphs 1 to 11 of Schedule 3 to the Superannuation Act 1972, and

(b) may make different provision as respects different classes of persons and different circumstances.

(5) Paragraphs 1 to 11 of Schedule 3 to the Superannuation Act 1972 shall have effect, in their application for the purposes of this section, as if references to regulations were references to an order under this section and references to the Secretary of State were references to the Lord Chancellor.
(6) Subsections (3) and (4) of section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (which relate to increases under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971) shall have effect in relation to an order under subsection (2) above as they have effect in relation to regulations under that section.
(7) The Lord Chancellor may by order repeal or amend any of the relevant enactments, whether or not he makes provision under subsection (2) above.
(8) An order under subsection (2) or (7) above may make such consequential, transitional, incidental or supplemental provision (including provision amending or repealing any provision of this Act, the 1979 Act or any other enactment) as the Lord Chancellor thinks necessary or expedient.
(9) Before making an order under subsection (2) or (7) above the Lord Chancellor shall consult—

(a) the inner London magistrates' courts committee,

(b) such local authorities as appear to him to be concerned,

(c) the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, and

(d) such representatives of other persons likely to be affected by the proposed order as appear to him to be appropriate.

(10) An order under subsection (2) or (7) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(11) In this section—
"the civil service provisions" has the meaning given by section 15(1) of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967,
40
"inner London court staff' means the justices' chief executive employed by the inner London magistrates' courts committee, any justices' clerk for the inner London area and staff of the inner London magistrates' courts committee,
"the inner London magistrates' courts committee" means the magistrates' courts committee for an area consisting of or including the inner London area or, if there is no such committee, every magistrates' courts committee for any area which consists of or includes any part of the inner London area, and
"the relevant enactments" means—

(a) Schedule [Continuing functions of Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District in relation to pensions etc. of court staff] to this Act, and

(b) section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 (superannuation of metropolitan civil staffs) so far as it relates to the persons mentioned in subsection (1) (a) (ii) of that section.'

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 39 to 45 en bloc. I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 38.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 39 to 45 en bloc.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
46 Clause 75, page 43, line 50, at end insert:
'(bb) a county borough council,'.
47 Page 44, line 2, at end insert:
'(11) Until 1st April 1996, the definition of "unitary authority" in subsection (10) above shall have effect with the omission of paragraph (bb).'
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 en bloc. These were spoken to with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
48 Clause 75, page 44, line 37, leave out 'clerk' and insert 'justices' clerk or justices' chief executive'.
49 Clause 78, page 45, line 26, leave out from 'may' to end of line 27 and insert 'consider appropriate'.
50 Page 45, line 36, at end insert:
'( ) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Magistrates' Courts Service shall make an annual report to the Lord Chancellor as to the discharge of the functions of the Inspectorate and the Lord Chancellor shall, within one month of receiving the report, lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 48 to 50 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 48 to 50 en bloc.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
51 Clause 86, page 48, leave out lines 31 to 35 and insert:
'(3) The following provisions of this Act—

(a) section 3 and Schedule 2, so far as they relate to—

(i) the power to make orders under the section inserted by section 3, or

(ii) the power to make regulations under paragraph 11 of the Schedule entitled Schedule 1C set out in Schedule 2,

(b) sections [Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations etc.] and [Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations etc. (Scotland).],

(c) sections [Police officers engaged on service outside their force] and [Constables engaged on service outside their force], subsections (3A) and (6) (a) of section 57, and paragraphs 20A to 20D of Schedule 5, so far as they relate to service in accordance with arrangements made under section 15A(2) of the Police Act 1964 or section 12A(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, and

(d) section 41, so far as it relates to paragraphs 20A to 20D of Schedule 5,

shall come into force on the passing of this Act.'
52 Page 49, line 5, after '1964' insert '("the new police authorities")'.
53 Page 49, line 6, after 'supersede' insert '("the old police authorities")'.
54 Page 49, line 6, after 'them' insert ', for the performance by the old police authorities, before the new police authorities come into existence, of functions prescribed by the order'.
55 Page 49, line 8, leave out from 'application' to end of line 9 and insert 'in relation to them of provisions of this or any other Act or of any instrument);'.
56 Page 49, line 10, leave out 'of probity' and insert 'and apportionment of property, and for the transfer, apportionment and creation or.
57 Page 49, line 15, at end insert:
'(f) as to the payment of fees charged, or expenses incurred, by any person nominated to determine any matter by virtue of paragraph (e) above.'.
58 Page 49, leave out line 18, and insert:
'(a) for the transfer and apportionment of property, and for the transfer, apportionment and creation of rights and liabilities;'.
59 Page 49, line 21, at end insert:
'(c) as to the payment of fees charged, or expenses incurred, by any person nominated to determine any matter by virtue of paragraph (b) above.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 59 en bloc. These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 20.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 59 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
60 Clause 89, page 50, leave out lines 13 to 16.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60. This amendment removes the privilege amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
61 Schedule 2, page 53, line 23, at end insert:
'(2) The members referred to in sub-paragraph (1) (a) and (b) of this paragraph do not include any member or a relevant council who is disqualified for being appointed as or being a member of the police authority under paragraph 12A of this Schedule.'.
62 Page 55, line 24, at end insert:
'12A. Without prejudice to paragraphs 11 and 12 of this Schedule, a member of a relevant council shall be disqualified for being appointed as or being a member of a police authority under paragraph 2 of this Schedule if he was elected for an electoral division or ward wholly within the metropolitan police district.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 en bloc. These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
63 Schedule 2, page 55, line 40, after 'district' insert ', county borough'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 63. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 63.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
64 Schedule 2, page 56, line 9, after 'paragraphs' insert '(and to the provisions of any order under section 3A(2) of this Act)'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
65 Schedule 2, page 57, line 31, after 'district' insert ', county borough'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 65. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 65.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
66 Schedule 3, page 61, line 4, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 66. In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 67 to 71 and 89 to 102.
The amendments deal with three main topics. First, they deal with the inclusion in police appeal tribunals for non-chief officer ranks in both England and Wales, and Scotland, of a fourth member, a retired police officer whose former rank was similar to that of the officer concerned, plus the consequential provision that the chairman of the tribunal shall, when necessary, exercise an additional casting vote.
Secondly, they deal with the inclusion of police appeal tribunals among those which are subject to the supervision of the Council on Tribunals—again, for all three countries.
Thirdly, the amendments include a number of purely technical provisions which cover the differences between Scots law and that south of the border.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 66.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to Amendment No. 89. I would like merely to express my thanks to the Minister. This is the second time within a few days when I have had occasion to express thanks in these circumstances. I believe that there is much joy in heaven.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
67 Schedule 3, page 61, line 9, leave out 'and'.
68 Page 61, line 14, at end insert 'and
(d) one shall be a retired officer of appropriate rank.'.
69 Page 61, line 22, at end insert:
'Casting vote
. Where there is an equality of voting among the members of a police appeals tribunal, the chairman shall have a second or casting vote.'.
70 Page 62, line 17, leave out 'and'.
71 Page 62, line 19, at end insert 'and
(c) "retired officer of appropriate rank" means—

(i) where the appellant was, immediately before the proceedings, of the rank of superintendent, a retired member of a police force who at the time of his retirement was of that rank, and

(ii) in any other case a retired member of a police force who at the time of his retirement was of the rank of chief inspector or below.'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 67 to 71 en bloc. These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 66. I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, for his kind remarks on a previous amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 67 to 71.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
72 Schedule 4, page 63, line 37, at end insert:
'( ) In subsection (3) for the words "for the purposes of there shall be substituted the word "by".
( ) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) Where pursuant to arrangements made by virtue of subsection (3) above—

(a) a chief officer of police, or

(b) the deputy of a chief officer of police,

may discharge functions of a police authority, he may himself arrange for the discharge of any of those functions by a member of the police force or by a person who is employed by the authority but is not under the authority's direction and control." '
73 Page 63, line 38, leave out 'subsections (3) and' and insert 'subsection'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 en bloc. The amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 22.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 72 and 73.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
74 Schedule 4, page 64, line 29, leave out from the beginning to end of line 33 and insert:
'(2) In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6A after the words "joint authority", there shall be inserted the words "or a police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964".'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 74. When the Bill was introduced, we chose December to February as the period when the annual meeting should take place, partly because that period would include the police authority's most important annual decision—setting the budget and the precept. Amendments were made subsequently which specified that the chairman is to be appointed at the annual meeting. That means that there is a risk, as the Bill stands, of the chairmanship changing part way through the budgetary process, if the annual meeting has to be between December and January. The amendment adopts the current practice of local authorities whereby the annual meeting takes place in the period March, April or May.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 74.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, since we are in congratulatory mood, perhaps I may, on behalf of my honourable friends in another place who proposed the amendment, thank the Government for accepting it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am deeply appreciative.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
75 Schedule 4, page 67, line 10, at end insert:
'. In section 114 of that Act (functions of the chief finance officer as regards reports), in subsection (2), for the words "or officer of the authority" there shall be inserted the words "of the authority, a person holding any office or employment under the authority, a member of a police force maintained by the authority,".'
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 75. It was spoken to with Amendment No. 22.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 75.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
76 Schedule 4, page 67, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert:
'. In section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (designation and reports of monitoring officer)—

(a) in subsection (1), after the words "paid service" there shall be inserted the words "(or, in the case of a police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964, the clerk to the authority)";

(b) in subsection (2), for the words "sub-committee or officer of the authority", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "or sub-committee of the authority, by any person holding any office or employment under the authority"; and

(c) in subsection (3), for the words "head of the authority's paid service" there shall be substituted the words "person who is for the time being designated as the head of the authority's paid service under section 4 above".'

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 76. The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 76.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
77 Schedule 4, page 69, line 25, after 'authority'" insert '(a)'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 77. If I may, I shall speak to Amendment No. 78 at the same time. These are minor amendments to Schedule 4 which correct a small error which was overlooked in the preparation of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 77.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
78 Schedule 4, page 69, line 27, at end insert ', and
(b) in paragraph (b) at the end there shall be added the words "or a police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964,".'
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 78. I have just spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 78.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
79 Schedule 5, page 70, leave out lines 39 and 40.
80 Page 70, line 41, after '12' insert 'of the Police Act 1964'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 79 and 80.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
81 Schedule 5, page 72, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert:
'(2) In subsection (3A), for the words "subsection (1) above" there shall be substituted the words "section 53C(3) of this Act".'
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 81. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 81.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
82 Schedule 5, page 72, line 21, after 'Act' insert 'or with subsection (2A) of section 26 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967'.
83 Page 72, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert:
'(3) In subsection (1B) for the words "the Secretary of State" there shall be substituted the words 'a police appeals tribunal".'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 en bloc. These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 13.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 82 and 83.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
84 Schedule 5, page 73, leave out lines 34 to 48.
85 Page 74, leave out lines 6 to 19 and insert:
'Pensions (Increase) Act 1971
20A. In Schedule 2 to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (list of official pensions for the purposes of that Act), in paragraph 15, for sub-paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
"(b) was engaged on service pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980, being service in respect of which section 53C of the Police Act 1964 or, as the case may be, section 38A of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 had effect; or
(ba) was engaged on temporary service in accordance with section 15A(2) of the Police Act 1964 or section 12A(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967; or".
Overseas Pensions Act 1973
20B. In section 2 of the Overseas Pensions Act 1973 (which makes provisions for superannuation schemes as respects certain overseas service), in subsection (2), for paragraph (d) there shall be substituted—
"(d) a person who is—

(i) a member of a police force engaged on relevant service within the meaning of section 53C(1) (a), (c) or (e) of the Police Act 1964 (service under section 15A of the Police Act 1964, under section 1(1) of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 or pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980), or

47

(ii) a constable of a police force engaged on relevant service within the meaning of section 38A(1) (a), (c) or (e) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (service under section 12A of that Act, section 1(1) of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 or pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980),

and who is incapacitated or dies as a result of an injury sustained or disease contracted during that service;".
Police Pensions Act 1976
20C. In section 7 of the Police Pensions Act 1976 (payment of pensions and contributions), in subsection (2), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
"(b) an officer engaged on service pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980;
(ba) a person engaged on temporary service in accordance with arrangements made under section 15A(2) of the Police Act 1964 or section 12A(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967;
(bb)a person engaged on service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, whose service is or was for the time being service in respect of which the provisions of section 53C of the Police Act 1964 or, as the case may be, section 38A of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 have or had effect;".
20D.—(1) Section 11 of that Act (interpretation) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—
"(a) service as an officer pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980;
(aa) temporary service in accordance with arrangements made under section 15A(2) of the Police Act 1964 or section 12A(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967;
(ab) service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary in respect of which the provisions of section 53C of the Police Act 1964 or, as the case may be, section 38 A of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 have effect;".
(3) In subsection (2) (b) after the words "subsection (1)" there shall be inserted "(aa), (ab),".
(4) In subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (b) after the words after the words "subsection (1) (a)," there shall be inserted "(aa), (ab),', and

(b) after the words "body in" there shall be inserted the words "or with".'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 en bloc. These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 84 and 85.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
86 Schedule 5, page 75, line 32, at end insert:
'. For section 102 of that Act (representation at disciplinary proceedings) there shall be substituted—
'Representation at disciplinary and other proceedings.
102.—(1) A police officer of the rank of superintendent or below may not be dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank by a decision taken in proceedings under regulations made in accordance with section 33(3) (a) of the Police Act 1964 unless he has been given an opportunity to elect to be legally represented at any hearing held in the course of those proceedings.
(2) Where an officer makes an election to which subsection (1) above refers, he may be represented at the hearing, at his option, either by counsel or by a solicitor.
(3) Except in a case where an officer of the rank of superintendent or below has been given an opportunity to elect to be legally represented and has so elected, he may be represented at the hearing only by another member of a police force.
(4) Regulations under section 33 of the Police Act 1964 shall specify—

(a) a procedure for notifying an officer of the effect of subsections (1) to (3) above,

(b) when he is to be notified of the effect of those subsections, and

(c) when he is to give notice whether he wishes to be legally represented at the hearing.

(5) If an officer—

(a) fails without reasonable cause to give notice in accordance with the regulations that he wishes to be legally represented; or

(b) gives notice in accordance with the regulations that he does not wish to be legally represented,

he may be dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank without his being legally represented.
(6) If an officer has given notice in accordance with the regulations that he wishes to be legally represented, the case against him may be presented by counsel or a solicitor whether or not he is actually so represented.".'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 86. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 126. The amendments deal with Section 102 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which accords to police officers the right to be legally represented when any disciplinary action is taken against them which could result in their dismissal, a requirement to resign or a reduction in rank.
As your Lordships will be aware, the Government had proposed originally the repeal of Section 102 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The proposed repeal was removed from the Bill by your Lordships and the Government now accept that a measure of this type should be included in statute law. Section 102 as it stood, however, would not have permitted the introduction of the new disciplinary procedures. Its wording included a reference to specific charges. Nor would it have accorded legal representation to officers at risk of being dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank on grounds other than discipline. The redrafted Section 102, whose inclusion in the Bill is suggested by this amendment, corrects those faults while otherwise differing little from the current version, and I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 86.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sorry to have to say that I think a mistake has been made in the amendment. If your Lordships look at subsection (2) of the new Section 102, you will see that it says:
"Where an officer makes an election to which subsection (1) above refers"—
that is, an election to be legally represented—
"he may be represented at the hearing, at his option, either by counsel or by a solicitor".
The question that I must put to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who is head of the judiciary to which both branches of the legal profession are answerable, is: bearing in mind that it is not normal for counsel to appear, even in proceedings of this kind, unless instructed by a solicitor, why is it that the subsection appears to enact that a police officer cannot be represented both by a solicitor and counsel?
Of course if I have mistaken the effect of the wording, all will be well; in other words, if the subsection means by counsel or by a solicitor or by both we should have nothing to worry about. But that is not what it says. This is the one point which, it seems to me, should be taken back to another place to be resolved. I shall go on talking for a little so that the matter can perhaps be resolved in your Lordships' House.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that it is still the rule and the practice, except on rare occasions, that counsel not only expect to be instructed by a solicitor but ought to be instructed by a solicitor. Many counsel, especially leading counsel and busy juniors, are too busy to draw up instructions themselves and obtain them from the lay client. They rely upon a solicitor, and sometimes a solicitor's clerk, to enable the instructions to be properly prepared. They are sometimes instructions which involve the obtaining of statements from witnesses and sometimes even affidavits. Therefore it is important, so that there is no confusion, and so that justice may be done and police officers may be properly represented, that it be made clear that counsel may be instructed by a solicitor.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I do not know whether in order to test it I may put an idea into my noble and learned friend's mind. I have already told my noble friend Lord Renton privately that he is right to raise this matter, but might not the answer to his question be that the subsection deals with representation at the hearing, and at the hearing the client is not represented by counsel and solicitors; he is represented by counsel instructed by a solicitor. If that is right, then the clause as drafted by another place is correct.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thought that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham made a. peculiarly helpful intervention. The whole purpose is not to alter the current practice but to provide for the way in which people are to be represented at a hearing. Representation will be either by a counsel or a solicitor. As my noble and learned friend said, if a counsel represents the
50
person he will represent him only after having been instructed by a solicitor. I assure my noble friend Lord Renton that there is nothing sinister in the issue and that the current practice will continue. I hope that he will be satisfied with that assurance.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham for his excellent suggestion. I also thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers for accepting it, no doubt having obtained the advice of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor while I was talking.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is a little unusual, but at the invitation of my noble friend Lord Ferrers I intervene to say that I agree entirely with the interpretation of the phrase that was given by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. In the event of counsel and solicitors appearing, counsel will represent the client instructed by the solicitor. If no counsel appears the solicitor himself or herself will be the representative.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 87. It was spoken to with Amendment No. 13.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure the House will not object if the Minister seeks to shortcut the proceedings by moving Amendments Nos. 87 to 102 en bloc and after Amendment No. 105 moving the remaining amendments en bloc.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall do anything that I can to expedite the proceedings without bouncing your Lordships into passing something that your Lordships might wonder about. Perhaps I may take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and suggest that we take Amendments Nos. 87 to 102 en bloc.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
87 Schedule 5, page 76, line 4, leave out 'established by or'.
88 Page 76, line 12, leave out from '(1)' to end of line 17 and insert 'for the words "he has been" onwards there shall be substituted—

"(a) he has been authorised by an officer holding a rank above the rank of superintendent to exercise the power or, as toe case may be, to give his authority for its exercise, or

(b) he is acting during the absence of an officer holding the rank of superintendent who has authorised him, for the duration of that absence, to exercise the power or, as the case may be, to give his authority for its exercise.".'.

89 Page 76, line 42, at end insert:
'Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992
In section 7 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (which restricts Ministers' powers to remove members of tribunals listed in Schedule 1 to that Act), in subsection (2) (tribunals to which that section does not apply)—

(a) after "36(a)," there shall be inserted "36A,", and

(b) for the words "or 56(a)" there shall be substituted the words", 56(a) or 57A".

.—(1) Schedule 1 to that Act (tribunals under general supervision of Council on Tribunals) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In Part I (tribunals under the direct supervision of the Council), after paragraph 36 there shall be inserted—

"Police

36A. An appeals tribunal constituted in accordance with Schedule 5 to the Police Act 1964 (c. 48)."

(3) In Part II (tribunals under the supervision of the Scottish Committee of the Council), after paragraph 57 there shall be inserted—

"Police

57A. An appeals tribunal constituted in accordance with Schedule 3 to the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 77)." '

90 Schedule 6, page 77, line 18, leave out 'member of a police force' and insert 'constable'.
91 Page 77, line 19, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.
92 Page 77, line 23, leave out 'and'.
93 Page 77, line 27, at end insert '; and
(d) one shall be a retired constable of appropriate rank.'.
94 Page 77, line 35, at end insert:
'Casting vote
. Where there is an equality of voting among the members of a police appeals tribunal, the chairman shall have a second or casting vote.'.
95 Page 77, line 42, leave out 'member of a police force' and insert 'constable'.
96 Page 77, line 42, leave out 'counsel' and insert 'an advocate'.
97 Page 77, line 43, leave out 'an officer of a police force or of the police authority' and insert 'a constable of the force maintained by, or an officer of, the relevant police authority'.
98 Page 77, line 44, leave out 'counsel' and insert 'an advocate'.
99 Page 78, line 31, leave out 'member of a police force' and insert 'constable'.
100 Page 78, line 32, leave out 'and'.
101 Page 78, line 34, leave out 'member' and insert 'constable'.
102 Page 78, line 35, at end insert '; and
(c) "retired constable of appropriate rank" means—

(i) where the appellant was, immediately before the proceedings, of the rank of superintendent, a retired constable who at the time of his retirement was of that rank, and

(ii) in any other case a retired constable who at the time of his retirement was of the rank of chief inspector or below.".'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 87 to 102.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 87 to 102.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
103 After Schedule 6, insert the following Schedule—
'Continuing Functions of Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District in Relation to Pensions etc. of Court Staff
1. In this Schedule—
"court staff' has the same meaning as in section 59 of the 1979 Act,
"the inner London magistrates' courts committee" has the same meaning as in section [Pensions etc. of justices' chief executive, justices' clerks and staff in inner London area] of this Act,
"the Receiver" means the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, and
52
"responsible authority" has the same meaning as in section 55 of the 1979 Act.
(2) The Receiver shall pay out of the metropolitan police fund any superannuation benefits payable in respect of justices' clerks and other officers employed by the committee of magistrates or the inner London magistrates' courts committee under any enactment or instrument applied to those clerks or other officers by regulations having effect in accordance with section 15(9) of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967, other than benefits payable by the London Residuary Body, and any superannuation contributions and other payments for which the inner London magistrates' courts committee may be liable as their employer under any such enactment or instrument.
(3) Nothing in paragraph 2 above shall require the Receiver to incur any expenditure or make any payment which would cause the net cost to him in any year of the matters mentioned in paragraph 4 below to exceed the amount which, in relation to that year, is for the time being determined by the Lord Chancellor under paragraph 5(b) below.
(4) The Lord Chancellor may out of money provided by Parliament pay to the Receiver grants towards the net cost to the Receiver in any year—

(a) of the Receiver's functions under paragraph 2 above, and

(b) of the Receiver's functions corresponding to those of responsible authorities under regulations made, or having effect as if made, under section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972 with respect to court staff.

5.The amount of any grant under paragraph 4 above towards the net cost to the Receiver in any year of the matters mentioned in that paragraph shall not exceed 80 per cent of whichever of the following is the less, namely—

(a) that net cost, and

(b) the amount which, in relation to that year, is for the time being determined for the purposes of this paragraph by the Lord Chancellor.

6. In subsections (5), (6) and (7) of section 59 of the 1979 Act (grants by Lord Chancellor to responsible authorities)—

(a) references to that section include references to this Schedule, and

(b) references to the matters mentioned in subsection (1) of that section include references to the matters mentioned in paragraph 4 above.'

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 103. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 38. However, in view of the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is now in his place, perhaps I may repeat that it is an elaboration of what we inserted in answer to his representations at a late stage while the Bill was in your Lordships' House. I hope that all the noble Earl's anxieties have been met.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 103.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
104 Schedule 7, page 79, leave out lines 14 to 19 and insert:
'2.—(1) Section 17 (chairman and deputy chairmen of justices) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after the words "for the area" there shall be inserted the words "; and any contested election for the purposes of this section shall be held".
(3) In subsection (2), for the words "subsection (3)" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (2A) and (3)".
(4) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—

53
"(2A) Subsection (2) above shall not confer on any chairman or deputy chairman of the justices the right to preside in court if, under rules made under the next following section, he is ineligible to preside in court.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 104.
Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 are the result of work carried out by a working party of representatives from the relevant bodies within the magistrates' courts service, which was set up last July to consider the chairmanship of benches. The representative training bodies have also been consulted.
Presiding over a court of lay justices advised by a clerk is a very specialised skill. This group of amendments permits the Lord Chancellor to ensure that every court chairman is suitably qualified and experienced while still leaving the discretion as to who is to preside over a court with the local magistrates of each bench. It also allows the Lord Chancellor to simplify the procedure whereby benches elect their chairmen and deputy chairmen. Currently, either all of the justices of the bench must be candidates for election or all of the justices must contribute to a shortlist of candidates. The amended power will permit the introduction of a nomination procedure whereby any justice may be nominated for office. A secret ballot will take place if there is a contested election.
I may have been a little summary in my references to Amendments Nos. 49 and 50. Amendment No. 49 eliminates the need for Treasury consent to the number of inspectors to the magistrates' court inspectorate and Amendment No. 50 requires that the chief inspector's report should be laid before Parliament.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 104.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
105 Schedule 7, page 79, leave out lines 21 to 26 and insert:
'(a) in paragraph (b), after the words "petty sessions area" there shall be inserted the words "(including any procedure for nominating candidates at any such election)",
(b) for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted—
"(c) as to courses of instruction to be completed by justices before they may preside in court;
(d) as to the approval of justices, by committees of justices constituted in accordance with the rules, before they may preside in court, as to the justices who may be so approved and as to the courts to which the approval relates; and
(e) as to circumstances in which a justice may preside in court even though requirements imposed by virtue of paragraph (c) or (d) above are not satisfied in relation to him.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105. I have already spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
106 Schedule 7, page 81, line 15, at end insert:
'14A. After section 34A of the 1979 Act there shall be inserted—
"Justices' clerks for youth courts and family proceedings courts
Appointment of justices' clerks for youth courts and family proceedings courts.
34B.—(1) The inner London magistrates' courts committee shall appoint one or more justices' clerks for the youth courts and family proceedings courts for the metropolitan area.
(2) Subsections (2) to (4), (5) (b), (6) and (7) of section 25 of this Act have effect in relation to any justices' clerk appointed under subsection (1) above as they have effect in relation to a justices' clerk for a petty sessions area, but with the substitution for any reference to the magistrates for a petty sessions area of a reference to the justices of the peace who are members of the youth court panel for the metropolitan area or (as the case may be) of a family panel for that area, other than any such justice whose name is for the time being entered on the supplemental list.
(3) In this section—
"the inner London magistrates' courts committee" means the magistrates' courts committee for an area consisting of or including the whole of the inner London area or, if there is no such committee, all the magistrates courts' committees for areas which consist of or include any part of the inner London area acting jointly; and
"the metropolitan area" means the inner London area and the City of London.".'.
107 Page 82, line 25, leave out from first 'a' to 'means' in line 26 and insert 'commission area'.
108 Page 82, line 26, leave out from second The' to 'other' in line 27 and insert 'commission area'.
109 Page 82, line 30, leave out 'county or of a London'.
110 Page 82, line 32, leave out 'county or'.
111 Page 82, line 43, at end insert:
'London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939
. In section 151 of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 (Crown exemptions), in subsection (1) (bb) the words from "the magistrates' courts" to "City of London)" shall be omitted and for the words "that area" in the second place where they occur there shall be substituted the words "the inner London area within the meaning of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979".'.
112 Page 82, line 43, at end insert:
'Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967
. In section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 (superannuation of metropolitan civil staffs), in subsection (1) (a) (ii), for the words from "or other officer" to "that area" there shall be substituted the words ", as a justices' chief executive for that area or as staff of the magistrates' courts committee for that area".
Pensions (Increase) Act 1971
. In Schedule 2 to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (list of official pensions for the purposes of that Act), in paragraph 47, at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be added the words—
"or as staff of such a committee; or
(c) service as a justices' chief executive."

55
. In Schedule 6 to that Act (employments relevant to section 13(2) of that Act), in paragraph (d) after the words "for that area" there shall be inserted the words "or by any magistrates' courts committee whose area includes all or part of that area".'
113 Page 84, line 17, after 'a' insert 'justices' chief executive or'.
114 Page 84, line 17, at end insert:
'Local Government Finance Act 1992
. In section 46 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (special items for purposes of section 45), in subsection (2) (d) for the words from "the magistrates' courts" to "that area" there shall be substituted the words "the probation service in the inner London area or the functions referred to in paragraph 4 of Schedule [Continuing functions of Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District in relation to pensions etc. of court staff] to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994".'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 106 to 114. I have already spoken to these amendments. Following the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I invite your Lordships to agree to the amendments en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 106 to 114.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
115 Schedule 8, page 84, line 37, at end insert:
'9 & 10 Geo. 6 c. 17. The Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945. Section 2(1), (1A) and (2).Section 3(1) and (2).'
116 Page 85, line 40, column 3, at end insert:
'Section 43(1) to (3). In section 43(5) the words "and "police regulations" " onwards.'
117 Page 85, line 52, column 3, at end insert:
'In Schedule 9, the entry relating to the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945.'
118 Page 86, line 7, after 'superintendent' insert 'and'
119 Page 86, line 19, column 3, at end insert:
'In section 24(3) the words from "and the expression" onwards.'.
120 Page 86, line 26, column 3, at end insert:
'Section 38(1) to (3). In section 38(5), the words from ""police regulations"" onwards.'
121 Page 86, line 35, column 3, at end insert:
'In Schedule 4, the entry relating to the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945.'
122 Page 86, column 3, leave out lines 43 to 47 and insert:
'Section 2.'
123 Page 87, line 2, column 3, at beginning insert 'Section 101(9) (c).'
124 Page 87, line 9, at end insert:
'1976 c. 35. The Police Pensions Act 1976. In Schedule 2, paragraph 1, in paragraph 5 the words "43(1) and" and in paragraph 6 the words from "1948" to "in both".'
125 Page 87, column 3, leave out line 13 and insert:
'Section 11.'
126 Page 88, line 7, column 3, leave out', 102'.
127 Page 90, line 17, at end insert:
'1994 c. 19. The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994. Section 24.'
128 Page 90, line 26, column 3, leave out 'and 4' and insert', 4, 7 and 11'.
129 Page 90, line 27, at end insert:
'2 & 3 Geo. 6 c. xcvii. The London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939. In section 151(1) (bb) the words from "the magistrates' courts" to "City of London)".'.
130 Page 90, line 30, at end insert:
'7 & 8 Eliz. 2 c. 45. The Metropolitan Magistrates' Courts Act 1959. In section 3(1) the words "and the metropolitan magistrates' courts".
In section 4(2) the words "of the metropolitan magistrates' courts".'.
131 Page 91, line 58, column 3, leave out 'Section' and insert 'Sections 164(3) and'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 115 to 131. In view of the desire of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for the expedition of the proceedings, I suggest that we take the remaining amendments en bloc. They happen to scoop up two which would normally fall to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I am sure that he will not mind if they are moved en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 115 to 131.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Bill [H.L.]
4.35 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill 89 as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1Clause 5, page 4, line 15, after 'institution' insert '—

(i) made by either of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools, or

(ii)".

1A The Lord Beloff to move that this House do disagree to Commons amendment 1 but propose the following amendments in lieu-
IB Page 4, line 15, after 'institution' insert'—

(i) made, subject to sub-paragraph (c) below, by either of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools, or

(ii)".

1C Page 4, line 17, at end insert:
("(c) in relation to any particular institution, to the readiness of the institution by agreement to allow Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools—

(i) entry to the premises of the institution at all reasonable times;

57

(ii) access to records and other documents kept by the institution which reasonably relate to the discharge of the functions of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools.")

Lord Beloff: My Lords, it is often said that princes know no gratitude. Perhaps that might be extended to Prime Ministers. We in your Lordships' House received an Education Bill which we found distasteful in many respects. We passed a number of amendments which we thought improved the Bill to a great extent. For those improvements one would have expected Her Majesty's Government to be overflowing with gratitude. They sent us a bad Bill and we sent them a good one. In fact, I had visions not merely of telegrams of congratulation from the Prime Minister but that he would depute the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, to bring bottles of Krug champagne for all those who had done this valiant work. Nothing of the kind!
The Bill went to the Commons and after proceedings in Committee, which I can hardly recommend to your Lordships as an intellectual affair of the highest order, a number of amendments were inserted. Largely, they had the effect of reversing the improvements that your Lordships had made. I can only assume that this being an Education Bill I may address the House briefly in Latin: quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat. That means: those whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes mad.
It is extremely difficult to understand the reasons that can have led the Secretary of State and his acolytes in another place to alter a Bill which, as it came to them, was acceptable to the education world in general. We are told by the press—and not everything we read in the press is to be believed—that before this week is out we may have a new Secretary of State for Education. I can imagine nothing that would be less acceptable to a new Secretary of State than to be landed by the Bill in a totally unnecessary quarrel with the universities of this country. It would indeed be a bad beginning.
Therefore, I suggest that my noble friend the Minister—after, perhaps, taking advice and, as it is still very early, I do not think that the House would object to a short adjournment for the purpose—should propose that further consideration of the amendments be postponed until the overflow Session in the autumn. In that case, if there is a new Secretary of State, there will have been time to reconsider the matter and the amendments from the House of Commons might not be pressed. Then the Bill in the form in which it passed through your Lordships' House might become law. However, I see no movement on the part of my noble friend to fulfil my very well-meant and helpful suggestion. I shall, therefore, proceed—alas—with my Motion.
The question relates to the access by inspectors of schools to institutions, especially those of higher education, which are performing functions in the field of teacher training. There has always been a fairly helpful and close relationship between universities and the inspectorate. The universities would be quite happy to continue that and those which are engaged in teacher training would probably often welcome the presence of persons with particular knowledge of the subject.
58
However, the way in which the Bill has now been amended would tend to make such inspections an automatic matter rather than a matter of mutual agreement. In particular—and this is the main point mat I should like to make to my noble friend the Minister— it was said by the Secretary of State after the Committee stage when the Bill returned to another place that he would ensure that the powers of grant which are given to the agency would be exercised in such a way as to compel universities to admit the inspectors.
One may say that something which is done by compulsion and which would, in any event, have been done by agreement is no great matter. However, it represents a departure from what has consistently been maintained by Her Majesty's Government, not only in the case of this Bill but also as regards preceding education Bills; namely, that it was not their intention to use the funding power to affect the internal arrangements in particular fields of teaching and study of universities. Therefore, such provision would create a departure and no doubt might in future be regarded as a precedent.
The purpose of moving the alternative amendments to Commons Amendment No. 1 is to ask my noble friend the Minister to say that the Secretary of State had no intention of indicating the use of funding powers to compel the universities to do this, and that that was an incident in debate which could be overlooked.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3, but propose Amendments Nos. 1A, 1B and 1C in lieu thereof.—(Lord Beloff.)
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I should very much like to support what my noble friend said, especially in relation to Amendment No. 1C. Perhaps a little background history will not be inappropriate here from someone who was Her Majesty's Chief Inspector for teacher training and higher education for six years, including the time when the visits by HMI to university departments of education first began; indeed, all 40 institutions which offered training for teachers were visited during that time.
I have used the word "visit" because we were never inclined to call such visits inspections, nor did we ever assert a right of access, a right of entry., a right to enter a university or a right to have access to any of its papers. It seemed most important at the time because of the much more overriding principle of academic freedom of our universities that HMI should go into universities by invitation only. That very important principle was preserved throughout the whole of the 1980s and, to my knowledge, also through the 1990s.
It is true to say that in the time when CATE (the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education) was first set up, it was necessary for universities to have a report by HMI on their courses before those courses could be submitted for accreditation by the council. In many ways that was a strong incentive for them to invite HMI. Nevertheless, it seemed to us, to the vice-chancellors and to the professors of education concerned that it was a very important distinction to

59
draw that HMI did not make such inspections by any right of the Secretary of State to send us in or by any right of access that HMI had, but simply because the universities chose of their own free will to invite us: we were there as guests.
The status of HMI in universities was totally different, although I hope that the courtesies were no less in institutions other than universities. As I said, we were there as guests of the universities and we only had access to those papers and classes that the university concerned chose. In fact, the universities were the most courteous, the most charming of hosts, the most willing to allow us free access to anything that we felt was relevant and, by and large, had an extraordinarily good story to tell as regards what they were doing in the training of teachers. Indeed, it certainly left me and, I believe, most of my HMI colleagues with a deep commitment to the quality of work which the universities were doing in the training of teachers. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure us that such a vitally important element of academic freedom, and the relationship between HMI and the universities as regards such visits, can be preserved in the future.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment. The two previous speakers have put forward the heart of the case. However, I should like to stress the fact that accountability is not at issue here. Indeed, there is no dispute about the ability of inspectors to look at courses of initial teacher training. The two qualifications that the amendment makes are very limited and, I hope, not unreasonable: first, that inspectors may have entry "at all reasonable times"; and, secondly, that they may look at matters which "reasonably relate" to their business.
It is always a good rule to imagine that we are dealing with the business the other way round. As the Minister knows, the Department for Education is accountable to Parliament. It is bound to supply Parliament at all reasonable times—and, indeed, it does so—with information which relates to Parliament's reasonable queries. However, it has not always been thus. There was once a time in the Parliament of 1626 when another place insisted on marching into the Signet Office and rummaging through the files itself. The noble Baroness will, I think, imagine the kind of reaction which that produced in quarters in Whitehall. It is something which I think, happily, has not been repeated.
The measure has two very reasonable qualifications for entry: that it should be done at reasonable times, and that it should be concerned with matters which are intra vires. I may say that because of the amendment which the noble Baroness, to my great delight, moved at Third Reading of this Bill, the research of departments of education in universities would be, as I understand it, ultra vires for the inspectors. Therefore it is only the initial teacher training with which they are concerned. I cannot see that this is really likely to be contrary to what the Government intended. I would be glad to be told
60
either that the amendment is to be accepted or that, because it in fact represents no more than they ever intended, it is unnecessary.
Lord Judd: My Lords, from these Benches, I too, would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on having so reasonably moved this amendment. I hope that the Minister will find it possible to reassure the House this evening, as indeed the noble Lord sought. The issue has raised profound anxieties about academic freedom, and I do not think that they can be lightly dismissed. I have read with some concern what the Secretary of State said in another place. The Secretary of State has had a long innings—many of us would perhaps say far too long an innings—and towards the end of an innings perhaps due to tiredness and so on it is possible that even by his own standards language became a little wild. But for those of us who treasure academic freedom in the universities and centres of higher education as something very special in British traditions, and something not to be eroded, what the Secretary of State said bears scrutiny. He talked about wanting to leave,
"as much freedom as possible to higher education institutions".— [Official Report, Commons, 677/94; col. 357.]
Those are ominous words. In whose judgment is that freedom assessed? He talked candidly about proceeding by means which were "not quite as straightforward"— those were his words—"as amending the Bill".
He went on to say specifically at the same column of Hansard —he himself claimed that he was not putting it pretty crudely, but if this is not putting it pretty crudely I do not know what it is—that,
"the bottom line will be no inspection, no funding".
He claimed that that is the method by which what he and some of his honourable friends wanted would be achieved. He went on to argue:
"It will be a condition of my grant to the agency under clause 7 that … it should impose as a condition of its grant to all higher education institutions under clause 5 a requirement that they must allow HMI unrestricted right to inspect activities on which the agency's funds are spent".
What we have heard, in the reasonable way in which this amendment has been moved and supported, is that everyone wants to see quality in the preparation of our teachers. We therefore want to be able to discuss in a reasonable way what is going on; whether it is adequate and how it could be improved. But this evening there is the much graver issue of the tradition of academic freedom in our centres of higher education. If the noble Baroness is able convincingly to reassure the House tonight as regards what the Secretary of State really meant to say, I am sure we shall take that seriously, but, if not, we on this side of the House shall have no hesitation in supporting the noble Lord if he pushes his amendment to a vote.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to say a few words in support of this amendment. I wish to start by expressing my most profound sympathy to my noble friend Lord Beloff who could reasonably have expected an emissary, and who obviously did. He had large expectations of a visit from his noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare

61
bearing dozens and dozens of bottles of Krug. He must have been painfully disappointed and I am sure that all your Lordships would wish to express their deep sympathy with him.
At the same time as expressing sympathy with my noble friend I would just like to express a note of surprise. I may have completely misunderstood this, but my impression is that the Government have once again said that university freedom is not a matter of such great importance and that it can be intruded upon from time to time. It would certainly seem to me that when the Government have said that in the past they have achieved the astonishing feat of bringing all the university vice-chancellors together to a position of total agreement, absolute unanimity and great effectiveness. I wonder whether they are doing that again on this occasion.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I hope I may add a very brief word to this debate, and it will be brief simply because other speakers have been so persuasive and so fluent. I remind your Lordships that the present involvement of universities in teacher training at all levels whether it is B.Ed, Postgraduate Certificate of Education and at higher degree levels, has evolved over many years in this country in the light of experience. The same is true of the partnership of the universities with the schools in which the practical experience is gained. It is a partnership which both sides value.
In their quest for quality which has already been referred to—and which we are all aiming for— universities have frequently opened their doors (I do not know of any case where they have closed them) to Her Majesty's Inspectors. That interaction between those inspectors and university departments of education has proved valuable to both sides. It is an arrangement which, because it is voluntary, engenders a degree of very fruitful co-operation which I in my experience have noticed is often absent from enforced inspection. I hope that the Government will not—as the Secretary of State almost threatened in another place on 6th July (this has been referred to already)—apply the principle of no inspection, no funding. I hope that instead the Secretary of State will choose not to disturb an arrangement which works well and will leave the university-HMI interface to develop further naturally. I am sure that neither side will be at all reluctant to co-operate where real advantage can be gained.
On the other hand, real damage will be done and academic autonomy will be infringed—that is something which has always been of great concern to this House, as has already been mentioned—were inspectors to succumb, or be instructed to succumb, to the temptation to interfere with what is taught and what is researched in the field of education despite the proviso which has excluded research. I, too, hope that the Minister can reassure us that in this matter the natural processes of evolution can continue without great upset.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think we do our friends and colleagues in another place a disservice if
62
we say that we give no credence whatever to the rights of an elected Chamber to have its say, for the first time, on a Bill passing through these two Houses. This is a Bill that started off in the House of Lords and I believe we, rightly, did a good job with this Bill. I agree with my noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we sent this Bill in good shape to the House of Commons. However, we must not invalidate its legitimate right as an elected Chamber to have its say about this Bill.
Having said that, I want now, I hope, to give all the reassurances that noble Lords are seeking and to say that nothing has changed. The automatic, legally-based right of access, that is feared is the case, was indeed sought in another place and rejected. My light honourable friend did not accept the amendment.
I assume that the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Beloff are not designed to alter the requirement that the agency should have regard to Her Majesty's Inspectors' advice, which was the sole purpose of the original amendment. My noble friend's amendments seem designed to secure—although I am advised that they do not do so—that Her Majesty's Inspectorate's advice is available only when institutions agree to reasonable HMI access. My noble friend Lord Beloff wishes to prevent my right honourable friend securing such access for HMI through conditions of grant, as he has said he intends.
Those who took part in our debates on the Education (Schools) Act 1992, which established the independence of HMI within Ofsted, may recall that the inspection of school teacher training is mentioned specifically in that Act as a function which may be assigned to HMI. I recall giving my noble friend Lord Elton in particular a number of assurances that we intended HMI to continue to inspect this important area of provision.
It was suggested in the other place that—in the context of new arrangements for teacher training—it might be timely to put teacher training inspection on a firmer footing. But to give the inspectorate a new statutory duty in this area would have to have been matched by a new statutory right for HMI to inspect institutions. My right honourable friend decided not to go down that route.
On both sides of this House there is general support for the need for HMI to inspect and report on initial teacher training. HMI must have access to higher education courses, as well as to school centred courses, to allow open and fair judgments of quality to be made and the right balance to be struck between courses of different types. But the Government are equally concerned, as noble Lords know, never to encroach unnecessarily on the freedom of academic institutions.
HMI has had the de facto right to inspect teacher training in universities for many years—because the Secretary of State would not otherwise have approved the courses, as my noble friend Lady Perry pointed out. I stress that in that respect we wish only to preserve the status quo: to retain arrangements under which access is secured in practice by non-statutory means.
Course approval by my right honourable friend is, as noble Lords know, to be abandoned under the Bill. To replace it as the lever which secures HMI the access it

63
needs, my right honourable friend has decided to use conditions of grant. He proposes to make it a condition of his grant to the agency (under Clause 7) that the agency should in turn include among its conditions of grant to all higher education institutions (under Clause 5) a requirement that they must allow HMI to inspect all teacher training activities funded, in whole or in part, by the agency. That is the only way in which the agency will obtain information about the quality of provision. Equivalent access to schools running or involved in teacher training courses is secured directly under the 1992 Act.
The agency has to consult on the conditions it imposes under Clause 5, and that will enable the universities to make any representations they wish about the way in which the relevant condition of grant is expressed. It may well be that words similar to those used in my noble friend's amendment are included. It is certainly no part of our intention, or HMI's practice, to secure unreasonable access.
The right of access to schools and other public sector education institutions secured in the 1944 Act did not lead to unreasonable demands being placed on schools and institutions; nor did the arrangements for course approval. There is no reason why the new arrangements should be any different. But we need new arrangements because, as I have made clear, my right honourable friend will no longer have the course approval powers to underpin inspection. The agency could, it has been argued, build a similar right into its accreditation procedures. But in practice that would be the same as a condition of grant. An institution which did not allow access would not be accredited, and so not funded. The result would be just the same.
I can reassure the House that Ofsted has always limited its inspection of initial teacher training to those aspects of courses which are designed wholly or mainly for teacher training students. It does not have powers to do otherwise. It does not, for example, look at the subject study in B.Ed courses which is offered to other undergraduate students alongside intending teachers. There is absolutely no intention to alter that practice.
I hope that noble Lords who had any concerns about the proposed way ahead, including my noble friend Lord Beloff, are fully reassured that we are not intending to secure by conditions of grant anything which could not be secured through the course approval mechanism in the past or anything which higher education institutions will consider an unreasonable imposition.
We expect the practice to continue, but it is right to put on the record that any higher education institution not agreeing to be inspected or, even worse, refusing or being anti-inspection, could not possibly expect to be funded for teacher training if it were not possible to make judgments about the quality of the courses. That is what we are talking about here.
Finally, perhaps I may refer to the amendment which has been passed by the other place. I had hoped that that modest amendment would be widely welcomed, as it was in another place. It was prompted by the desire of Members of all parties to secure a firm role for Ofsted as the main source of independent quality advice for the
64
teacher training agency. That that was the Government's intention was clear from our initial consultation paper. The amendment put the position beyond any reasonable doubt.
I spent many hours at this Dispatch Box giving assurances to Members of this House that quality would be an issue for teacher training and that we would make sure that the teacher training given to our young potential teachers would be of quality. The only way that we can do that is to allow Ofsted and HMI to operate in the way suggested.
Clause 5(4) (b) relates to quality assessments to which the agency must have regard in carrying out its funding functions as respects a particular institution. As a result of the amendment these are divided into two parts: any assessments of quality made either by Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools to which the agency must have regard and any other assessments to which the agency believes that it would be appropriate to have regard or to which the Secretary of State requires it to have regard. HMI assessments are therefore set apart as the first and most essential evidence. The use which the agency makes of that evidence or any other evidence is a matter for its judgment in the light of the objectives set out in Clause 1 of the Bill.
I invite the House to agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1 and to reject the other amendments on the Marshalled List.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, we will all have listened to the Minister with great care, as we always do. I can begin by assuring her, in the light of her first remarks, that we do not deny that the other place has certain responsibilities with regard to legislation. I think that there is common ground on that.
It is unusual for the roles of the two Houses to be reversed. Normally a Bill goes to the other place and after passing through its various stages there comes to us. We then exercise what is usually referred to as our role as a revising Chamber. Noble Lords congratulate each other on how well they perform that role. This is the opposite. This Bill came first to this House and went through all its stages here, and the other place was then asked to act as a revising Chamber. The fact that in the opinion of everyone who has spoken so far this afternoon on the subject the other place did not exercise that right very judiciously is a matter for regret.
On the substance of my Motion and the alternative amendments, the noble Baroness has gone a long way to reassure us that no substantial departure in the direction of compulsion was intended. Whether universities themselves will be wholly satisfied with that assurance when they have read the text it is not for me to say. However, I believe that it would be the general opinion of this House that we should accept and have on record what the noble Baroness said. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Amendments Nos. 1A, 1B and 1C, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 1 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 12, page 6, line 28, leave out from 'may' to end of line 30 and insert '—

65

(a) provide courses of initial training for school teachers, or

(b) join in a partnership or association with other eligible institutions, or (alone or jointly with other eligible institutions) establish a body, for the purpose of providing such courses.'.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. I shall speak to Amendment No. 3 and ask the House to reject Amendment No. 2A, although it has not yet been spoken to.
It is now accepted on all sides that the particular changes made to the Bill in this House, which Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 remove, were defective. They gave to higher education the function of accreditation when—as the Opposition now accept — they intended to confer a validation function. I explained that distinction very clearly in my speech on the original amendments—but they were in any event pressed to a vote on tactical grounds, and accepted by the narrowest of margins.
I assume also for tactical reasons, the deficiencies of these amendments were not admitted by noble Lords opposite until the Bill had left this House. No further amendments to put them right came forward from the Opposition at Report stage or Third Reading—although noble Lords will recall how at Third Reading my noble friend Lord Pearson exposed the enormous confusion over just who did what to whom and in what order under the Bill as it then stood.
It was left to the other place to set matters straight— which it did by restoring the Bill to its original wording. That intention was made clear by my right honourable friend at Second Reading in the other place. It was carried out in Committee and fully endorsed at Report stage.
The objective of Clause 12 of the Bill is and was quite clear. It is to allow schools which are willing and able to offer courses of initial teacher training to do so with no more, and no less, regulation than is imposed on institutions of higher education. Higher education courses of initial teacher training must meet the Secretary of State's criteria—so must school courses. Both types of courses must be subject to inspection by Ofsted—against the same quality criteria. In all cases students leaving training must be graduates—and indeed those entering training courses run by schools must have a degree already.
Where we have always disagreed with noble Lords opposite, and continue to do so, is over whether schools must be required—not allowed, or even encouraged, but required—to run their courses in a partnership with and subject to the validation of an institution of higher education.
Of course that must be an option for schools. Most of those currently running courses have chosen to seek academic validation from higher education. But no current school-centred course—even those working very happily with a higher education institution—is a partnership in the sense that the institution is a joint provider. Indeed, while we use the word "partnership" to describe the arrangements entered into by higher education and the schools involved in school-based
66
schemes, this does not mean a partnership where schools are joint providers. In a school-based scheme it is the higher education institution alone which provides the course and is accountable for the funds. Those responsibilities are carried by the schools involved in a school-centred scheme.
The point of principle on which we stand is that schools should be free to choose whether or not to secure validation or work in partnership—or in some looser collaboration—with higher education. We do not want to force schools to adopt one particular model— just as we shall not be forcing schools to become involved in school-centred schemes. The Bill does not impose any unnecessary constraints.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Earl, Lard Russell, have tabled an amendment to these amendments which would secure such constraints. But for all the reasons I have given I ask your Lordships to join me in rejecting their amendment and agreeing with that made in the other place.
Since we last discussed these amendments, and this part of the Bill, I have visited yet again the young graduates who entered a course a year ago and have just graduated from the courses. I have to say that their courses have been outstanding. They all have secured jobs and I believe that they will be a very real addition to the teaching force.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Baroness Blatch.)
AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2
2A
At end insert:
("(1A) In subsection (1) above, a "course of initial training for school teachers" means a course provided by an accredited institution in partnership with and validated by an institution of higher education.")
Lord Judd: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2.
Let me make plain that we all recognise the need to improve the partnership between schools and colleges in teacher education and training. We must be clear about that. It is essential to evaluate the pioneer work already undertaken and to take seriously the difficulties which have arisen, with some centres of higher education withdrawing because they claim the schools have not been fulfilling their role, and with some schools, including Harrow no less, withdrawing because they feel the burden on teachers at the expense of pupils' education is too great. But the challenge is to get the matter right, not to run away from a partnership which we wish to argue is essential.
In a statement which has been unequivocally endorsed by every one of the teacher associations and unions, as well as by all the institutions of higher education which provide teacher education and training, the Standing Committee for the Education and Training of Teachers states:
"It is vital that initial teacher education brings together the different and complementary skills and experiences of both teacher trainers and practising teachers, if we are to produce the highest

67
quality of teachers … the initial education and training of teachers should [therefore] involve both practical and theoretical study of education."
However, one of the specific roles of the proposed TTA, as originally put forward in the Bill, was to promote wholly school-centred courses—an objective which noble Lords wisely declined to accept. It is an objective which the Minister has restated today.
The Government's Amendment No. 2 seeks to re-establish that misguided intent. By the same token, the Government have yet to establish why England needs this new TTA quango at all, with all its inherent dangers of direct ministerial political manipulation. By contrast, in Wales, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales is sensibly to retain its central role in teacher education and training. Why not England? It is difficult to discern from whence the pressure for the new body with its school courses comes other than from the enigmatic and eccentric preoccupations of the Secretary of State himself. There is precious little evidence of any significant number of good schools wanting to develop their own courses.
It is peculiar to say the least, for a Government which lambasts the inadequacy of teachers, as they see it, to insist on giving preparation of new teachers to those to whom they show, totally unjustifiably, mistrust. It is a contradiction all the more underlined by the Government's refusal to countenance a general teaching council, an objective to which I am glad to say that Labour is now resolutely committed.
The point has been stressed on more than one occasion. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles—it is good to see him in his place today—spoke powerfully last year from the Benches opposite when he stressed the great need for consensus in education policy. I am afraid that on this matter, as yet —but it is not quite too late— there has been little attempt by the Government to build consensus. Indeed, there is no consensus. I would be doing a grave disservice to the House, and to those tempted to collaborate with this senseless new arrangement, if I did not make it categorically clear that, as now put forward, with the responsibilities as outlined in the Bill, the TTA will be abolished, scrapped, by the incoming Labour Government after we take office. We see the TTA in its specified role as a dangerous undermining of the quality of our future teachers and of the status and self respect of the profession, and as a threat to the future of our entire school system.
Teaching is a complex and demanding profession. Teachers need to be broadly and well educated, and to be well briefed on related disciplines. Graduate status, to which the Minister referred, vital in itself, does not confer a sound understanding of child development. The National Commission on Education, under the distinguished leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, put it well when it said:
"Among the strongest arguments for substantial higher education involvement in teacher education are the independence of universities and colleges and their commitment to inquiry and scrutiny of established practices and ideas".
68
But it was not only the commission. Ofsted's report, The New Teacher, in 1993 firmly recommended that it is necessary to establish strong and effective partnerships between schools and higher education institutes together with thorough monitoring and evaluation procedures. It is very illuminating to read the Department for Education Circular 9/92 requiring students on secondary initial teacher training to spend at least 24 weeks in school. It stated:
"The Government expects that partner schools in higher education institutions will exercise a joint responsibility for the planning and management of courses for the selection, training and assessment of students. The balance of responsibilities will vary. Schools will have a leading responsibility for training students to teach their specialist subjects, to assess pupils and to manage classes; and for supervising students and assessing their competence in these respects. Higher education institutions will be responsible for ensuring that courses meet the requirements for academic validation, presenting courses for accreditation, awarding qualifications to successful students and arranging student placements in more than one school".
It is that last paragraph in the DFE circular which interests me most and which is highly pertinent to the amendment before us. Higher education institutions are given responsibility for course validation and for presenting courses for accreditation.
Much has been made by the Government of the difference between validation and accreditation. In Committee in the other place, the Minister quoted the chairman of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education who has described validation as:
"The approval by a provider or by an external body of a course of training for the purpose of making an academic award".
He described accreditation as:
"official recognition of a provider or a course of study for purposes of professional qualification".
I broadly accept those definitions, but meanwhile we still have very little, if any evaluation of the pilot schemes for school-centred courses. What we know is that there is a possibility of multiple courses offered by schools, especially those in a consortium. Accreditation of courses, not just accreditation of schools as institutions, becomes essential. Otherwise how, for example, would the holders of a certificate awarded by a South Huntingdon consortium, should it exist, feel when schools fail to shortlist them for appointments because those schools do not recognise the certificate's currency?
Your Lordships attempted to cover that with the amendment that accreditation should be by institutions of higher education. The Government evidently find that unhelpful. So be it. Let us try to be helpful. In response to criticisms through amendments in debate, the Government have indeed elaborated on how they believe the Bill will work in practice. Ofsted is to have a clearer role to inspect, monitor and advise the TTA and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. The Bill now ensures that only courses run by accredited institutions could lead to qualified teacher status.
With those assurances—and I hope the Minister will note this carefully—we accept Amendment No. 3 and will not press the issue of course accreditation. Indeed, we shall support Amendment No. 2 as well, if the Minister agrees to accept our amendment. Our

69
Amendment No. 2A makes it absolutely clear that a school has to be accredited before providing such courses.
Certainly the Bill ensures that qualified teacher status will only be afforded to those students completing courses at accredited institutions. But no matter how small the risk seems at present, the Bill does not prevent schools providing their own courses, perhaps sponsored, which do not confer qualified teacher status, but which may be used, for example, by independent schools. This would be totally unacceptable. It would be an unjustifiable distraction from the responsibility of the school to its pupils. Our amendment ensures schools may provide courses of initial teacher training only if they are accredited. I am sure noble Lords will agree that that closes a potentially dangerous loophole.
However, more fundamentally, we believe it is essential that with a partnership between school and higher education, a course is validated by the institution of higher education. The amendment does not give the upper hand to higher education. Not at all. The school is likely to initiate the provision of such courses and will therefore take the lead role. The higher education institution will then be able to offer its experience, expertise and facilities to advise the school in setting up the course. I emphasise again that the TTA will have accredited the school in any such partnership.
Our amendment in no way prevents an increase in school-based initial teacher training. Nor does the amendment prevent consortia from providing courses for such training. We are not pressing for a return to the Bill as amended by this House. However, our amendment, of course, retains the core principle of partnership, a principle which, in all seriousness I put to the House, has yet to be countered by any coherent argument. With validation by higher education as the minimum basis for partnership, our amendment brings security to students undertaking the new courses. Incidentally, a full partnership will also ensure that the academic and welfare support provided by higher education institutions, to a degree schools cannot hope to match, will be available to students.
The national curriculum requires teachers to give children a broad and balanced curriculum. The way to achieve this is surely schools working in partnership with higher education. Therefore, even at this stage, as an indication of good will and a determination to build a constructive consensus for the future of our education system, I hope that, notwithstanding what she said in her introductory remarks, the Minister will feel able to accept our amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether I could ask him a question. He said that he was prepared to accept Amendment No. 2 so long as the Government accept Amendment No. 2A. As they are wholly contradictory, would he explain to the House how that can be? Amendment No. 2 proposes to ensure that schools can operate alone without higher education involvement. Amendment No. 2A secures higher education involvement.
Lord Judd: My Lords, if I may just respond to that, with the leave of the House, as I said, we keep the whole
70
principle of partnership as central to our amendment and we therefore unashamedly see it as an important point to be accepted if we are to go along with the amendments which the Minister has put forward.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may reply, as this is very important. If we are to send the Bill back to the other place for further consideration tonight, it is absolutely essential that we send them something which makes sense. Amendment No. 2 reverses the need for school-based teacher training courses to become involved in any way other than by voluntary means with higher education. Amendment No. 2A requires that as a condition, and it will be a legal requirement within the Bill. The two are wholly contradictory. Does the noble Lord suggest that we send both amendments back to the House of Commons?
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am saying that if the House accepts our Amendment No. 2A then we will not press a vote on Amendment No. 2.
Earl Russell: My Lords, listening to that exchange, I cannot help thinking of my favourite quotation from Brakenbury in Richard III:
"With this, my lord, myself have nought to do".
I oppose Amendment No. 2 and support Amendment No. 2A. Degrees are like currencies. They are worth what they can be exchanged for. The difference which governments can make to that, though it exists, is small and often smaller than governments choose to think.
Part I of the Bill has been and remains intensely controversial. All the praise which has been given, in my opinion rightly, to the work done on the Bill in this House relates to Part II of the Bill. Part I remains as controversial as it was on the day when it was first put forward. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Judd, repeat the commitment to repeal Part I when, or if, he comes into office. That commitment was made by the Liberal Democrats before it was made by him and we are in complete agreement about it.
Where we have a Bill as controversial as this and we are considering the last nuts and bolts, it is worth considering those nuts and bolts so far as we can with an open mind about who is right and what the effect would be in either eventuality. If the Government are right and school-centred teacher training is capable of taking off and achieving a high standard without support, then the university validation would be no more than at worst a small irritation. It would not be insupportable.
However, supposing that we are right in our misgivings about what this would do to the standards of teacher education. Then Amendment No. 2A would be extremely important to preserving the standard of the qualification that is given and—a point that will be quite important to many people —to preserving the career prospects of those who have that qualification.
I have not forgotten the story from before the war of the man who applied to do postgraduate work at Oxford. He was asked: "What is your degree?". He replied: "BA, Albuquerque, New Mexico". He looked at the paper on which the man opposite him was writing. Seen upside down, it looked remarkably as if he were writing, "No

71
degree". We do not want that situation to happen. It would be extremely unfair on the candidates who would come out of this system.
Nevertheless, it is an area in which governments have to accept that their control is limited. However hard they try to enact that one qualification shall be regarded as equal to another, I think we all know how difficult that is to achieve in practice. With the university validation, I believe that it would be achieved. If there is to be a future in school-centred teacher training, then it should get off on the right foot. If it is a good thing, it will grow; and if not, it will not. Otherwise, what we are doing is a bit like enacting that £1 shall be worth 5 dollars. We can make that the law, but it will not happen.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Minster seemed to be in some confusion as to the implications of this side of the House accepting Amendment No. 2 and her side accepting Amendment No. 2A. I wonder whether I may try to explain the situation from my humble understanding in a way that perhaps she might understand. I take, as it were, as my text my own experience. I did a degree course at Portsmouth Polytechnic. At that time Portsmouth Polytechnic did not have degree conferring powers. My degree was externally validated by the Council for National Academic Awards. The council had no involvement in the running of the course at Portsmouth Polytechnic. It effectively oversaw the course. It is interesting that some years later Portsmouth Polytechnic has become a university with its own degree conferring powers, but that was some years later.
I suggest that it could be possible for totally school-based training to produce adequately trained teachers. But surely in the initial period, for the first number of years—it may take quite a number of years for that situation to become readily understood and accepted—it is only sensible to ensure that the school-based training is validated by a university or equivalent. On that basis Amendments Nos. 2 and 2A would seem to be eminently sensible running together.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I just want to mention that Church colleges of higher education currently train between a quarter and one-third of all our teachers. I therefore want to express the conviction of my colleagues that teacher training should be firmly rooted as part of the higher education sector and not cast out into some sort of new tertiary system that is run by schools in isolation. Instead, we want to encourage the involvement of schools in teacher education and training in partnership with higher education institutions, which can bring a wealth of experience and a depth of learning. We would like to build on and extend the very promising partnerships that have increasingly become a feature of the teacher training scene in recent years.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I should like to oppose Amendment No. 2A to Clause 12, which is designed to try to reinstate the original amendment that was carried in this House by the emphatic majority of two.
72
As I understand it, there are two reasons for the Government's policy and it is worth restating them. First, it is to open up an alternative route into the teaching profession for those with a more varied background than that of people who enter the profession now. Secondly, it is to offer a form of teacher training which is more practical and less theoretical than much of what is on offer at the moment. I support both those aims.
Here is an argument for the first. Since 1988, the numbers of those taking and gaining A-levels in maths and physics has dropped between a quarter and one-third. That is a pretty catastrophic fall. One recognised reason for that is the shortage of qualified maths and science teachers. The Government's proposals offer a way of encouraging that kind of teacher. Perhaps—perish the thought!—some of them are put off by the dogmatism of much established initial teacher education. Are we to say to such people that they are not to be allowed to become teachers? Secondly, surely we can all agree by now that the role of education theory as the basis for good teaching practice has been greatly over-sold. Teachers should certainly be encouraged to reflect on what they are doing. No one sensible can deny that. But reflection should not be equated with uncritical ingestion of theory. Too many teachers have been sold too many pups over the past 20 years, to the detriment of many pupils.
It is alleged that the Government aim to deprofessionalise teachers. I really do not know what to make of that. First, as has been stressed ad nauseam by my noble friend the Minister, Clause 12 is an enabling clause only. No school has to offer a teacher training course. No graduate has to apply for one. In fact, no school will offer such a course unless there is a demand. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that there is no demand. What is his problem then? There will be no takers. On the other hand, if there is a demand and it is not supplied, we run the risk of cutting out of the profession precisely those graduates whom we need to make good the shortfall in the supply of maths and science teachers about which I spoke earlier.
I am afraid that it is also true that every skilled occupation since the beginning of civilisation has had a vested interest in limiting entry. That is the essence of the guild system. The argument has always been that limiting entry preserves standards. That it also prevents new ideas and new practices from spreading is not heard so often. So we should apply the appropriate discount to that kind of argument.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may refer to one passage in the CVCP briefing which says that:
"The career progression of those trained on non-validated courses may suffer".
That sounds to me very much like a veiled threat. I hope that it was not intended as such. If university graduates are denied promotion and responsibility, however well they teach, because they have not gone through the hoops that are recognised by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, that would be a very

73
serious situation not only for the reputation of teaching but also for the future of our pupils. I strongly support the Government in resisting the amendment.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I feel that I ought to make my position clear. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord but I am not absolutely sure that it is necessary. That is what I want to find out now.
There are two ways of improving teacher training. One is by administrative acts—through more courses in the schools, and leave out universities. The other is by means of the partnership which the noble Lord wanted and which I want too. We ought not to weaken the link between the schools and the universities for a rather different reason than has so far been given. I believe that it is a moral or psychological link—I do not know which is the right word to use.
Let us imagine a promising young man who is trying to make up his mind about the career upon which he should now embark and spend his useful working life. He will ask himself: "Shall it be the law, medicine, accountancy, the Civil Service or teaching? I did well at school and I am told that I am cut out for a professional career. I like the idea of teaching. So does the girl that I am going to marry. We both want to be teachers. But we do want our families to be in the same kind of social position as the families of doctors and lawyers. Now we hear that one of the ways by which we thought we could attain that professional status—closer relationship with higher education—will now be weakened".
If that is the case, the Government should change their policy. With the Bill as now drafted, the Government, if they so wanted, could strengthen the partnership; that is to say, they could strengthen both sides—the in-school teaching and the validation by the universities, and no doubt it needs a lot of improvement—and build up that double partnership. If that is possible under the Bill and if the noble Baroness will give an undertaking that the policy of the Government is not in any way to weaken the link between the schools and higher education, I shall be satisfied. If she cannot give that undertaking, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, goes into the Lobby, I shall go with him.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I put my name to this amendment but I should like to make only a few remarks. In answer to my noble friend Lord Eccles, the Government have declared their intention to allow—or indeed their desire to see flourish—courses in schools which are not connected with higher education. On my reading of the Bill, which is probably that of most people, as well as the debates both in this House and in another place, the demand of the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, cannot be satisfied within the text of the Bill because it clearly allows schools or consortia of schools to put forward courses for teachers without any higher education partnership.
I find the arguments of my noble friend Lord Skidelsky quite extraordinary. I cannot see any reason to believe that it is a restriction on the kind of people who might wish to enter teaching as a profession to
74
indicate the normal route to achieving their goal. I agree with him about the need for more teachers of mathematics and science. Why should someone with such talents, which perhaps have been exercised in another walk of life, not agree to something which in fact is no different from taking a further piece of training because he resents the idea that in some way he would be associated with a university? Perhaps such a person exists in the noble Lord's imagination but he escapes mine.
I do not believe that we are talking about a restrictive practice. Let me take an obvious example. The medical profession would not say: "We will not bother about physiology and such matters. Let the students go into a hospital and learn that in the wards". We do not refuse the demand from the medical profession that the basic sciences should be acquired as well as the practical training with patients. The provision is not a matter of limiting entry for some guild principle; it is establishing the kind of training that is thought desirable. This House thought it desirable that there should be joint responsibility between institutions of higher education and schools. I cannot see why that is in any sense a restrictive practice.
I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, since I do not believe that either he or the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is likely to be in a position to reverse the legislation of the present Government in the next Parliament. I am concerned only that we should get the legislation right because we shall probably continue to be the governing party. Therefore, I think it is rather deplorable that in this respect there seems to be on the part of the Government an unwillingness to accept what is apparently the overwhelming consensus among all levels of the educational profession on this matter. Why do they wish to ignore the clearly expressed views of the universities and the views of many schools expressed both verbally and in their actions? Why do they not wish to seek general assent to what they are doing throughout the educational profession? Why do they not, therefore, ignoring the party points which may have been made by noble Lords opposite, simply accept a return to what this House originally decided?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, many of your Lordships may be in the dilemma that I am in, which has been almost but not quite resolved by my noble friend Lord Eccles. The dilemma is that over the years some teacher training colleges have developed a theoretical approach to education which has not resulted in the improvement of teaching that was expected of it. I do not want to overstate the case, but there have been some remarkable examples of that. We all have recollections of very sensible practising teachers who had the ability to imbue new arrivals into the profession with their standards and practices. We would wish that to be encouraged. I myself received a lot of education from such eminent teachers.
On the other hand, in the schools themselves there are many instances in which teaching is not of the standard that we expect. Many examples have been quoted during the earlier stages of this legislation.

75
The question arises as to which path one takes since either route is suspect. The choice offered to your Lordships by this amendment—or rejection of the amendment—is either to try something new or to stay where we were before under the aegis of further education.
Great as may be the weight of authority of higher education as a whole, we must consider the performance of higher education as evinced in the training of teachers over the past 10 to 15 years. I believe that it is important not to regard the issue as 100 per cent. one way or 100 per cent. the other way. We must look at what is proposed in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Skidelsky said, this is not a mandatory requirement; it is an opportunity to be taken up by schools and students if they so wish. The extent to which it is extended as a new practice will depend on two points. One is its success or failure in practice; the other is the decision of the funding agency whether to provide more funds or less to achieve the objective.
If my noble friend is saying, "Let us put in an alternative method as an experiment and also as a sharpener to those already training teachers", that is something I find rather attractive. If it has the effect of encouraging the existing institutions to perform in a more rigorous and lively way, that must be a benefit. On the other hand, if my noble friend is coming to the House with something to sweep away the whole of the existing machinery, including that briefly but eloquently supported by the right reverend Prelate, then that would be a matter for considerable alarm.
Therefore, my noble friend on the Front Bench will determine whether a number of us follow my noble friend Lord Eccles into one Lobby or into the other, depending on the extent to which she intends the power to be used. Obviously she can only give a limited undertaking. But to my mind it has not been made clear whether we are looking for a root and branch reform, which many of us would find excessive, or for something which would improve the existing system by adding an alternative and not undermine the attractions of teaching as a profession, which my noble friend Lord Eccles rightly pointed out is something of very great value in recruitment and the maintenance of standards.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he think it possible that ideas in departments of education would change faster if there were less government pressure to change them and not more?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not sure that I understood the question. If I did, I am not sure that I ought to answer it.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I should like to explain— though not at any great length—the reason I subscribe my name to Amendment No. 2A. When I look at the great professions already mentioned—medicine, engineering, science and technology generally—it is not and never has been acceptable to separate theory from practice. Each is essential to the other. My objection to what now stands as a result of the Commons amendment
76
is that it is possible to separate the two. That must surely be wrong. For that reason I subscribe my name to the amendment—and for one other reason.
We are all concerned about the quality of the entrants to the profession. At the end of the day what is provided in education depends on the quality of the entrants and the added value given by the courses and the actual practice within the schools. I am concerned that if we introduce a system in which entry can be through school only and not validated by a university—and this must be contrary to the Government's intentions—far from attracting the better students, it will attract the poorer students. Those who are the more able will go for the university-validated courses.
That does not seem to me to be right on any count. It neither gives the experiment of school-centred education a proper test; nor, on the other hand, does it give any benefit to the system as a whole. I hope therefore, along with the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, that the Government can give the kind of reassurance mentioned. At this point I must say that in all logic Amendments Nos. 2 and 2A are not compatible.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I want to support the Commons amendment, being the Government's amendment in the Commons, and to express my disquiet with Amendment No. 2A.
It is important to remind ourselves that it is an experimental suggestion. There is no question that all courses from now on will be run without the involvement of higher education. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that any school or group of schools would not wish to call on the resources of higher education in order to meet the criteria for courses which the Government laid down. If one reads the criteria for the provision of courses for teacher training, it is apparent that there is no suggestion of separating theory from practice. The theory is still there; it is part of the course and most schools, even if they were operating without validation from higher education, would still wish to involve the kind of expertise which only higher education can naturally provide. The additional cherry on the top—if I may use that phrase—of university validation is not an important issue.
If we are to allow experiment; if the good schools— and only good schools would gain accreditation—wish to experiment with their own initiative and the generation of excitement in the profession; and if we are to give to the professionals in the schools some control over entry to the profession, that is a good and desirable end. Noble Lords opposite who are arguing against the Government's wish to allow schools the opportunity to experiment in this way are inconsistent with their wish for a general teaching council. The nub of the wish for a general teaching council, at best, seems to me to give more control in the teaching profession over the quality of new entrants, their training and accreditation. The school-based course would do just that; it would allow good professionals in schools to take responsibility for the training of the next generation of their colleagues. That must be a desirable end.

77
To my noble friend Lord Eccles I say just one thing. If the Bill were to allow people to enter the teaching profession without any contact with higher education, then I too would be prepared to vote against the Government; but it does not. Clause 14 makes absolutely clear that only those who are already graduates can enter the teaching profession. There is no question of a young woman or a young man being put off the profession of teaching because it is something which no longer carries a university degree or qualification. Of course only graduates will enter the teaching profession and Clause 14 makes that quite clear. If there is to be a much more rigorous and well-accredited course following on a degree, largely school-based, that would make it more attractive to the kind of dedicated professional that we wish to attract to improve the standards of the teaching profession. I therefore wholly support the Government's position on the matter.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, perhaps I can add a brief word of support to the Government's position to draw attention to what I think is a fallacious argument, if I may have the temerity to say so, advanced by my noble friend Lord Beloff. He draws a parallel between medical education, and the necessity for university-based education in the medical profession, and teacher education. But a fundamental difference exists between the two—and I have worked in both areas.
When we are talking about the undergraduate education of medical or nursing students, there is a body of clinically-based knowledge which is necessary for safe, competent, sensitive, clinical practice. When we are talking of teacher education I do not see a similar body of knowledge in the name of "education" which is necessary for safe, competent, efficient practice. I plead guilty to having taught some of those subjects which form part of a teacher education syllabus. For example, I would not put sociology of education in the same domain of rigour or essential nature for safe practice as I would pharmacology or physiology for medical practice. Indeed, if one talks to many of the graduates who have gone through the university courses which qualify them as teaching practitioners, they say that the great majority were a waste of time and put many of them off. The useful parts were the parts connected with apprenticeship learning in schools where they understood the nature of teaching and learnt to teach.
I can reassure my noble friend Lord Eccles that the Government's amendment is not mandatory. It is entirely a question for those people who wish to see teaching flourish; who wish to choose teaching; to choose that route which they find most appropriate both in terms of provision and choice for their own professional training. It is not mandatory; it allows diversity, experimentation and choice and the Government have got it right. I hope that the House will support the Government's proposals and reject Amendment No. 2A.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, at the outset I shall address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, who I see had the discourtesy to speak to the
78
amendment and leave the Chamber. I do him the courtesy of replying because he posed a question that needs to be answered and placed on record.
There is an incompatibility between Amendments Nos. 2 and 2A. Amendment No. 2, as I explained, means that schools will be allowed to do teacher training where the involvement with higher education is a voluntary one. Amendment No. 2A makes it a legal requirement that there should be a link with higher education. They are incompatible. Therefore, if we send the Bill back to the House of Commons this evening with both amendments agreed, it will be a nonsense. I hope to have no part in that.
We have heard a number of arguments for compulsory higher education involvement. It is claimed that schools simply cannot offer adequate courses without any involvement from higher education institutions. But inadequate providers will not be accredited by the agency and Ofsted reports will make sure that bad provision, whether in higher education or schools, is weeded out. The recent inspectorate report which led to the closure of a university course demonstrates quite clearly that the involvement of higher education offers no absolute guarantee of quality. We are told that we should not encourage school-centred courses until we know more about how the pioneering courses have fared. But we are setting up an agency which can respond to the evidence from evaluation as it emerges. It is those who assert now, and would write it into the Bill, that such courses cannot work except under the wing of higher education who are prejudging the issue.
We are told that students who do not gain a validated qualification will not be employed. That is simply untrue. Those from the one unvalidated course currently running are gaining employment just as fast as those from other courses: indeed I would say, as I have met many of these young people, probably even faster. Schools may be more confident of students from a course run and assessed by serving teachers, and the students themselves are the best ambassadors for such courses. I visited the course in question last week and was enormously impressed, as I had been on my first visit when I met the students at the beginning of the course. I have to say that the calibre of all those involved was extremely high and qualified teachers from these courses are no less qualified under the law than those with other qualifications. However, care over recruitment leaves a great deal to be desired in much of the higher education sector.
It has been said many times—and it bears repeating— that these young people are all graduates. They are graduates in their subjects. The young people I have met have had a first-class postgraduate year of education and training. The visits that have been made throughout the year by Ofsted will form the basis of evaluation of those courses.
We are also told that schools do not want the burden of full responsibility: indeed, not only is school-centred training too much of a burden but even involvement in school-based schemes is asking too much. As my noble friend Lord Skidelsky said, if schools do not want this role it will not be thrust upon them. They are volunteers in this respect. If they want to run courses and purchase quality control, if they want to purchase validation or lectures and seminars from higher education, they can; and indeed

79
they do. Even for the unvalidated course—the course that is being self-validated—not only has the consortium been accredited but it uses outside agencies to come in and mix theory and professional studies with the practice of teaching. It is surely impossible to justify erecting a legal barrier to any other approach on the ground that schools do not want to pass that point anyway.
Perhaps I may refer to some of the points raised during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the TTA promoting school-centred courses. I should like him to point out to me where in the Bill that is the case. The Bill never required the TTA to promote school-centred courses. It allows schools to offer such courses and it requires that the agency should establish a balance between school-based courses on the basis of quality and cost-effectiveness with other courses. What is required of the agency—this point was raised not only by my noble friend Lord Eccles but by my noble friend Lord Elton—is that it will have a real and positive role to promote teaching as a career but not specifically school-based courses. That must be a choice for the schools and for the students, subject to all the rigours of inspection and accreditation.
My noble friend Lord Eccles wants assurances. I continue to repeat the point that these young people are graduates. They have been through higher education. They have the subject competences already well established. All the Bachelor of Education courses will go through higher education. Many of the courses taking place at the moment with consortia are using higher education and all of them are using outside agencies to make sure that they cover both professional studies and teaching practices as well.
The point was also made that the Bill should in some way enhance partnerships between higher education and schools. I can say that it does just that. The Bill should secure and enhance partnerships between higher education and schools. Higher education will have a greater incentive to form genuine and responsive partnerships with schools because schools now have a real choice.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to evaluation. I can say that a great deal of evaluation is going on at the moment. All of it is feeding back into my department and it will feed back to the agency when it is set up. There have been many more visits by Ofsted to the courses over the first year, and quite rightly so, than to similar postgraduate courses in higher education.
The right reverend Prelate was also worried. I hope I have given him assurances that this is just one other route into training. It does not invalidate any of the marvellous work going on in the Church colleges. Indeed, there is also a requirement on the agency to make sure that there is a balance of provision between the denominational colleges and other providers.
My noble friend Lord Skidelsky quite rightly pointed to the fact that this is an enabling measure. No school has to provide such courses. No student must apply for these courses. But what we do know is that schools are interested in providing these courses and students are interested in applying for them. Those completing the courses, contrary to what has been said by noble Lords
80
who are concerned about these matters, are actually getting jobs and they are getting them very quickly—even before their courses end. This autumn there will be 80 schools in 13 consortia offering around 450 places. All of the courses have had more applicants than they can accept.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, made a point about separating theory from practice. I have already stated that theory is not separated from practice. Indeed, that has been reinforced by my noble friend Lady Cox. It is simply not the case. In order to pass accreditation requirements it is necessary for the schools to satisfy the accreditation requirements that they will cover the professional studies as well as the practical side of teaching. My noble friend Lord Elton also touched on the extent of school-centred courses expected by Ministers. School-centred training is postgraduate only. Undergraduate training remains a matter for higher education and partnership with schools. We have no power under the Bill to compel more school-centred training, with or without involvement with higher education. It is a matter for the schools themselves.
I am sorry to sound a note of cynicism here, but I wish that those who are so vocal in their opposition to this measure would visit some of the courses and take the trouble to learn more about them. If they did I believe that their fears would be allayed. There is a fundamental and philosophical difference between us on this matter. If we are tested in the Division Lobbies, I hope that noble Lords will agree with our colleagues in the House of Commons that this is an enabling measure and a fresh opening into teacher training. I believe that it is wholly complementary to and not in conflict with that provision of higher education.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful for that very lively reply from the Minister. Perhaps I may briefly take up several of the points which have been made in what I consider to have been a very useful debate. In her characteristically direct way the Minister has made absolutely clear the Government's determination to have courses based in schools which shall be free, if those schools so wish, of an involvement in higher education. She has not prevaricated about that. That is precisely our anxiety.
The point which has not been answered in the debate today and which still troubles me is this: what will happen, for example, in the future career patterns of teachers who have been through such courses, if the courses have not been validated by an institute of higher education so that schools in any part of the country which may be contemplating an application from one of these students will have an assurance of the academic standard which has been reached in the course? Without such validation it will be impossible for schools throughout the country to have enough insight and information about all the school courses which may crop up in any particular part of the country.
That of itself is an argument which deals very well with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, because it is an option scheme and an experiment. What will happen to the students in the future? We have a responsibility for them as well as being concerned about the academic standards which are reached. The noble

81
Baroness, Lady Perry, made an important point and the Minister picked it up. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said that all the students will be acquainted with higher education in the sense that they are all graduates. But to be a graduate in geography or science is not the same as having insight into all the subjects concerned with the development of the child and the adjacent academic disciplines and the social sciences which are involved in its development. I suspect that the noble Baroness understands that point very well.
Therefore, as regards teachers, we are saying that it is essential to be certain that that person has reached the right level of learning on the subject matter of teaching itself and not simply the particular discipline on the timetable with which he or she may be concerned, such as geography or whatever.
I conclude by saying that it is validation which concerns us most. In my introductory remarks I hope I made it quite plain that in our amendments we are not suggesting for a moment that there should not be more school-based courses. We accept that point although we may have views about it. We are saying that if that happens the school should have a great deal of responsibility and all the lead responsibility for developing what is involved in the courses. We are saying that parents, governors, the rest of the profession and society as a whole should have an assurance that what happened was validated by a centre of higher education in terms of its academic status. For that reason and because that point has not been met in the reply to this debate, we must press this amendment to a vote.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lock wood): My Lords, the Question is that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2, as amended. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content".
Noble Lords: Content.
The Deputy Speaker: To the contrary, "Not Content"?
Noble Lords: Not Content.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I believe that the "Contents" have it.
Noble Lords: Order!
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I am sorry. The Question is that Amendment No. 2A, as an amendment to the Commons amendment, be agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 2A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2, shall be . agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 140.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Airedale, L.

Avebury, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Barnett, L.

Ardwick, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

82

Beloff, L.

Killearn, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

Bottomley, L.

Listowel, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carter, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mayhew, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

McNair, L.

Dainton, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Monkswell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donoughue,L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Park Of Monmouth, B.

Eatwell, L.

Parry, L.

Falkender B

Peston, L.

Gallacher, L

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Glenamara, L.

Redesdale, L.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Halsbury, E.

Russell, E.

Hampton, L.

Saltoun Of Abernethy, Ly.

Hamwee, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Serota, B.

Haskel, L

Shepherd, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sherfield, L.

Hollick, L.

Stedman, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howell, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Hughes, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jacques, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Judd, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Courtown, E.

Addison, V.

Cowley, E

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cox, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Annaly, L.

Cranborne, V.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Arran, E.

Davidson, V.

Astor, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Balfour, E.

Denham, L.

Barber, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Blatch, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blyth, L.

Downshire, M.

Boardman, L.

Eccles, V.

Borthwick, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E

Ferrers, E.

Butterworth, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Byron, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Cadman, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Caithness, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Carnock, L.

Goschen, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Gray, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Gridley, L.

Chesham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Colwyn, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hayhoe, L.

83

Henley, L

O'Cathain, B.

Hertford, M.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Hives, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Holderness, L.

Peel E.

Hood, V.

Pender, L.

Howe, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Huntly, M.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Rees, L.

Kenyon, L.

Rennell, L.

Keyes, L.

Renton, L

Kimball, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Rodney, L.

Leigh, L.

Romney, E.

Liverpool, E.

Seccombe, B.

Long, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lucas, L.

Skidelsky, L

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Stewartby, L

Stockton, E

MacLehose of Beoch, L

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strange, B.

Mancroft, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sudeley, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mersey, V.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Vivian, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Moyne, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Munster, E.

Wise, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wolfson, L

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L

Northesk, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 2A disagreed to accordingly.
6.22 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I commend Commons Amendment No. 2 to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 7, page 5, line 33, at beginning insert 'In'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 After Clause 17, insert the following clause:
Power to reimburse certain payments to persons formerly employed in teacher training
'.—(1) A higher education funding council may make payments, subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit, to—

(a) the governing body of a grant-maintained school or grant-maintained special school, or

(b) a further education corporation or the governing body of any institution designated under section 28 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992,
84
in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by that body in making safeguarded salary payments to which this section applies.

(2) This section applies to payments made to a person who in consequence of a direction given by the Secretary of State under—

(a) regulation 3(2) of the Further Education Regulations 1975,

(b) regulation 15 of the Education (Schools and Further Education) Regulations 1981, being a direction relating to a course for the training of teachers, or

(c) regulation 16 of those Regulations,

ceased before 1st April 1989 to be employed in a college for the training of teachers, or in a department for the training of teachers in any other establishment of further education.
(3) The amount of the safeguarded salary payment is the amount by which, in consequence of the matters mentioned in subsection (2), a person's salary exceeds that which would normally be appropriate to the post held by him.
(4) A body to which subsection (1) (a) or (b) applies shall give to a higher education funding council such information as the council may require for the purposes of the exercise of their power under that subsection.'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
This is a purely technical amendment updating existing legislation to enable the higher education funding councils to perform their functions effectively. Its length belies its modest, though important, effect.
The new clause relates to payments under the "Crombie" scheme which was set up to assist those who were redeployed following the reorganisation of teacher training establishments in the 1970s and early 1980s. The scheme allowed those who were moved to jobs at a lower salary in schools and further education colleges to receive salary enhancements. The necessary funds have since been paid by successive funding bodies to local education authorities.
A number of local authorities have suggested the need to revise payment arrangements because some of those involved are no longer local authority employees. They work in grant-maintained schools or further education colleges. The new clause therefore enables the funding councils to make payments direct to such schools and colleges in respect of any relevant staff now in their employ. I am sure that this explanation will help the House to agree with the new clause.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
5 Page 12, line 42, at end insert:
'and students who exercise that right should not be unfairly disadvantaged, with regard to the provision of services or otherwise, by reason of their having done so;'.
5A The Earl Russell to move that this House do disagree with the Commons in their amendment 5
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my purpose in moving this Motion is interrogative in the first instance. I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 9, which is grouped with it, in which the wording is similar
The provisions state that a student who chooses to opt out of a student union should not be "unfairly disadvantaged". Since none of us wishes to be unfair, the amendment states only that people should not be disadvantaged in ways in which they should not be disadvantaged. The sentiment is so unexceptionable that it seems important to find out exactly what the provisions mean. The wording concedes—this is vital— that if one chooses not to belong to a body, one suffers some fair disadvantages. First, I should like to ask the Minister in what ways it is fair for a person to be disadvantaged if he or she agrees to opt out. I await her reply to that with a certain degree of cautious optimism.
That is not my only question, although on that question I should be very grateful if the Minister could indicate that she was speaking to us under the ruling in Pepper v. Hart because that might clarify the matter considerably. Although our intentions may very well agree, the trouble that we have is that even since Pepper v. Hart the courts do not rely exclusively on the intention of the legislator. That is a very long-standing rule of law. So, however much we may agree on our intentions in the rule that people shall not be unfairly disadvantaged, that will not be the only thing that governs us.
I should also like to ask the Minister how this amendment from another place is to be reconciled with the points that she made to us about the European Convention on Human Rights when we debated the matter on Report. I understand that the effect of the European convention is that we may not restrict freedom of association. How does the amendment sit with that requirement? There may well be an answer, but I should very much like to hear what it means.
Before we reach any decision on this, we need to understand, first, what the amendment actually means and, secondly, how it will work. I shall listen to the Minister's replies with a great deal of interest. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Earl Russell.)
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think it will be most convenient if I say, first, a little about the amendments in this group brought from the other place before responding to the points that the noble Earl has raised on them.
After a stormy start to our debates on the student union reforms, with your Lordships' help we succeeded in putting together a robust and coherent package. This met with broad approval and I was grateful for the supportive remarks many of your Lordships made.
It may help if I remind your Lordships briefly of the purpose of these reforms and what we intend to achieve. We are determined to ensure that choice, fairness, democracy and accountability flourish in all our student unions. There is, I think, no dispute over the relevance of these principles to student unions.
The amendments made in another place do not affect the principles or structure of the Bill, which remain as when it left this House. The amendments clarify two points already agreed by this House: the choice of whether to belong to the union and the provision of
86
information to students. These principles of choice and information were approved in this House; the amendments simply provide further detail on implementation.
Amendments Nos. 5, 8 and 9 are concerned with the choice of whether to belong to the union. That choice is not available currently: it was provided in this House. It is essential that the choice should be real. In our earlier debates many of your Lordships were rightly concerned that students who exercised this choice should not thereby lose access to important services. Up to a point, I agree. A choice not to join the union, if it simultaneously cut a student off from all welfare or sports facilities, would be no choice at all. That is why we tabled amendments to ensure that students who choose not to belong to their student union are not thereby unfairly disadvantaged and to extend the complaints procedure to cover claims where students feel they have suffered unfair disadvantage in exercising this right.
But at the same time students must expect opting out to have some consequences or it is meaningless. That is what choice is about: weighing up the pros and cons of alternative courses of action; but the options must be fairly balanced. That is what these amendments are intended to achieve. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is concerned about that and I shall refer to the advantages and disadvantages of that in a moment.
Amendments Nos. 6, 13 and 14 enhance the information requirements of the Bill. Amendment No. 6 requires student unions to include details of all donations to outside bodies in their annual financial reports. Amendment No. 11 ensures that students have full details about their right not to belong to the union. Amendment No. 14 is a technical amendment which removes a potential ambiguity so as to put it beyond doubt that the information provided on services for non-members describes any services parallel to those provided by the union, not just the services provided by the union itself.
The right to choose whether to belong to the union is central to our student union reforms. Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 ensure that all students are informed about the right to choose, and provide further protection for students who decide to exercise that choice. The principle of choice, with its corollary of information, was first agreed in this House. The amendments brought from the other place do no more than enable this principle to become a reality. I believe th:3t we in this House should accept them.
Students who opt out of a union are not in the same position as those who stay in. That is self-evident. They must expect to lose something—for example, they cannot expect to stand for union president—and the Bill requires that the decks should not be stacked so heavily that students who want to opt out do not have a genuine choice. In some cases disadvantage may be fair; for example, where students who opt out cannot stand in elections. In other cases, disadvantage may be unfair; for example, where a student union provides the only catering service for students it could be an unfair disadvantage if opted-out students were denied access.

87
But if there were alternative catering facilities, it might not be unfair if student unions denied access to opted-out students.
The question is where the line falls between what the student expects to lose on opting-out and what is disproportionate. For example, it could be unfair if opting-out of the union meant that students could not thereby play rugby, but it might not be unfair if opted-out students had to pay a higher subscription to join the rugby club. It is not possible to give hard and fast examples. Each case will have to be judged on its merits and it will be for institutions to decide at what point disadvantage becomes unfair in the light of local circumstances which may vary. I go back to the principle established by your Lordships in this House before we sent the Bill to our colleagues in another place; that is to say, it will be a matter of judgment on the part of institutions themselves, and it will be for students to make a claim that they have been treated fairly or unfairly. The judgment would have to be made if that issue was not resolved within the institution itself.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that careful and thorough reply. There is a broad measure of agreement between us upon how the matter should be implemented. I am sure that that extends to institutions as well. I still feel a certain amount of anxiety about how the provision will be interpreted when it comes to the courts, as I have no doubt on some occasion or other it will come to the courts. But in the absence of any really substantial disagreement between us, it would be churlish of me to do anything but to beg leave to withdraw the Motion, and hope that the matter is interpreted by the courts in the way that the Minister and I both wish.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
6 Page 13, line 10, at end insert 'and each such report should contain, in particular—

(i) a list of the external organisations to which the union has made donations in the period to which the report relates, and

(ii) details of those donations'.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 Clause 21, page 13, line 11, after 'clubs' insert 'should be fair and'.
7A The Lord Beloff to move that this House do disagree with the Commons in their amendment 7
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.
I cannot altogether follow my noble friend the Minister in her account of the amendments relating to student unions because having studied the debates and the Committee stage in the other place, it becomes evident that what the amendments did was to illustrate by their inapplicability the original point which I made unsuccessfully to your Lordships: that the whole idea of optional membership of a student union, except in cases where there are many campuses, is not a sensible way of going about providing student services. In the Open University, and so on, there would clearly have to be exceptions
The amendments that we have were, in the end, accepted by the Government in another place, following pressure from a group of Back-Benchers whose hostility to universities in general and student unions in particular has been often referred to. They were led by the honourable Member for Colne Valley whose qualifications to speak on the subject are that he twice failed a preliminary examination at the university he attended, and left without a degree, which does not seem to me to make him a good adviser on matters of university policy. Nevertheless, he and his friends put forward these suggestions in which the one that I am now addressing is included.
The point is that once one makes that distinction between members and non-members, one cannot avoid getting into the kind of problem which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, illustrated and which arises again in the current amendment which relates to the distribution of money between clubs. It is sometimes thought that choice is an essential element of Conservative philosophy. I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the practice at a university (the University of Buckingham) of which the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, is chancellor and one of her former Ministers is vice-chancellor. At that university, membership of the union is acquired automatically by a student on admission, and over the years there have never been any protests or wishes to withdraw from it. Therefore the university can provide services for all students without the intolerable complication which a division of the student body is bound to bring about.
It is, after all, a question whether we wish to load the universities—which are already under considerable pressure from central bureaucracy for a number of academic reasons which have been rehearsed in this House—with yet another load of administration, complete with an apparatus for appeals and an ombudsman—and goodness knows what!—to decide whether some student is or is not entitled to this or that other aspect of university provision. Why cannot the universities be allowed to look after the students in the way they find most appropriate? I regard this part of the Bill, and its amendments, as unnecessary now as it was when it was first introduced. One cannot make any sense

89
of it. Therefore I should like to move and press at least one Motion to show the general mess which the Government have got into by pursuing this policy.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Lord Beloff.)
Lord Judd: My Lords, I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for having picked an issue upon which to make the point. Because if one looks at Clause 21 on page 12, one sees that it states clearly:
"The governing body of every establishment to which this Part applies shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that any students' union for students at the establishment operates in a fair and democratic manner".
The point is made: the institution's responsibility is laid down in the Bill. It is gratuitously insulting to re-emphasise the point in paragraph after paragraph. That seems to me at least to smack of an attitude of paranoia on the part of the Government. It is an ungenerous attitude that unless on every conceivable occasion the word "fair" is deployed people will act unfairly.
I expect that in many Ministers' establishments an item of furnishing is the mirror, because this preoccupation with fairness seems to have some interesting psychological explanations. We are faced with a Government who are not marked for their commitment to fairness in general matters of public policy. For them to be insisting in every element of a Bill of this kind that the point which is made adequately in Clause 21 is repeated is not only superfluous but humiliating for all concerned.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. It is worth while remembering that we have arrived at this position after a series of incidents which led us all to ask, "Were we pushed or did we jump?". When the National Union of Students knew that it was going to be reformed it came up with its own reforms. It does not matter whether it was pushed or whether it jumped; it has got to where it is now. Most people applauded its ideas, which were roughly compatible with what was in the Bill when it left this House.
Thanks to a great extent to the amount of dissatisfaction on the Opposition and Government Benches with the initial proposals, the Government accepted that the Bill in its current form was totally unworkable. We now have the position in which a club dealing with funds "should be fair". How on earth can one decide that? Is it to be by the number of people, the activity, a cross-section graph showing the number of people and the activity, minibuses to take out members of the hill climbing club, the number of tables provided to the board games society, or what? How on earth can one possibly impose the provision? As regards political societies, surely one must decide about the number of people, what they want to do and whether they are supporting someone or protesting. The provision is ridiculous and does not mean very much. Indeed, I suggest that many amendments on the Marshalled List are designed to ensure that people in the printing
90
departments of universities will have a great deal of work to do because they will have to print a series of lists and make them readily available to everyone.
I totally support the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I believe that Amendment No. 7 sums up the petty nature of certain Members of another place over the changes that we sensibly made to this Bill.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I too support my noble friend Lord Beloff. I am not against opting out on principle and I am in favour of choice. However, I am against opting out in this case and, the Minister will remember, I have always been because the provision is unworkable in the circumstances of campuses. The Commons amendments have only exposed the unworkability of the original principle. Except in a narrow political sense, I have never understood the purpose of allowing students to opt out of student unions but to use the facilities which those unions exist to provide. That is completely illogical.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked what are the consequences of choosing to opt out of membership. My noble friend was able to state only one consequence; that students who have opted out of membership will not be allowed to stand for election or to take part in the political affairs of the union. However, as regards every other issue, she said that it would be a matter for the campuses to decide what was fair or unfair.
That is a recipe for endless campus litigation. It will not be big litigation, but whenever a student who has opted out believes that he is being unfairly deprived of some facility he will be able to make an issue of it, and universities will seriously be disrupted by that.
I do not know how to deal with the problem because we agreed to the opt-out when the Bill was in this House. However, I believe that the Government should reconsider the whole matter because they will not achieve their purpose and they are letting us in for something which they do not expect but which is foreseeable in the light of this proposed legislation. Therefore, if supporting my noble friend's amendment and pressing it to a vote will give the Government a chance to reconsider the matter, I shall support that course of action.
Earl Russell: My Lords, Part II of this Bill is now a little like a Christmas tree. It left this House fairly well decorated but, as often happens when one has finished decorating a Christmas tree, younger children want to hang odd things on the lower branches. Something similar has happened to Part II.
The best way I can illustrate why I support the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in Amendment No. 7A is to cite the verse in the Koran which states that a man may have four wives provided he can treat them fairly. There is a school of thought among modern liberal Moslem theologians which holds that that is so difficult that it amounts to a prohibition. If one is to be fair one must have a criterion of fairness. When, in the classic phrase, one is comparing apples with oranges it is hard to know what exactly is fair. When looking at this requirement, my own college president asked, "How am I to be fair

91
between the rugger club and the Gilbert and Sullivan Society?". I cannot answer that because I have no idea how one draws up objective criteria to be fair to both.
Perhaps one can compare the University of Wales at Aberystwyth mountaineering club—in which I should declare an interest as my son is a member—with the history society at the same university. The mountaineering club may claim that it is entitled to more money because it has more members. The history society may claim more money because it brings in visiting speakers from far away and therefore needs to pay expenses. It can argue that it deserves more money because its activities are inherently more expensive. If such disputes are to be justiciable in the courts, we shall take up a great deal of court time and it is not as though we have a surplus capacity in the courts.
I do not see how we can protect ourselves against the prospect of vexatious litigation. Everybody would like to be fair and most of us do our best to be fair. Most of us know that with the best will in the world we often fail. If we are to be taken to court every time we try to be fair and fail, we really shall be in a mess.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I wish to add a few comments in support of what was has been said, in particular about the litigation that the provision will engender. Clause 21(2) imposes a number of onerous obligations on governing bodies as particular examples of what is set out in Clause 21(1). That provision obliges governing bodies to secure that student unions operate:
"in a fair and democratic manner".
Those are the overriding words; the need for fairness is set out in Clause 21(1).
It is now proposed that one should add the words "should be fair and" to Clause 21(2) (i). As a consequence, Parliament will either be including words that are entirely otiose and unnecessary because they are already covered by Clause 21(1), or—and, I suggest, more worryingly—a very important ambiguity will be written into the statute book; namely, does the word "fair" in paragraph (i) mean procedural fairness or substantive fairness?
If the word means procedural fairness, then it is perfectly possible that the courts would find that a justiciable question; that is, the kind of question that courts are capable of answering. But if it means substantive fairness —in other words, that the procedure for allocating resources must ensure that such allocation is itself fair and that the procedure involved achieves that aim—that is really not the kind of question which our independent courts would find it proper to answer.
Speaking as someone who earns his living relying upon ambiguities in statutes and watching the endless delays in applications for judicial reviews in respect of which our courts are now completely clogged, I strongly deprecate the inclusion of such language which would create the possibility that applicants could contend that the substance of the allocation of resources was unfair and that the courts were somehow to second-guess the matter in deciding applications for judicial review. It
92
would be a complete disaster. It seems to me to follow from the language that such an ambiguity would have to be resolved by the courts in the way that I suggested.
Baroness White: My Lords, those of us who have had experience, as I have, of student unions will very much deprecate the inclusion in this version of the Bill of provisions which have rightly been described as impractical. When the Bill left this House it had been considerably improved. The addition now of the words "should be fair", will really just add to the complexity of how one intelligently handles the affairs of one's students. I do not wish to take any more time on the issue because there are other matters to be considered tonight. However, I was shocked to find that the other place had, presumably, been encouraged by the Government to include such provisions in the Bill. It is a great pity. It will make life much more difficult on the campuses than it need be and will produce no adequate, positive or desirable result so far as I can discern.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have debated at some length to ensure that our package for the reform of student unions is both robust and coherent. We have striven to set out a framework which will enable the principles of choice, fairness, democracy and, indeed, accountability to thrive in all our student unions. That has been the goal and rationale from the start.
The amendments made in the other Chamber are in keeping with those principles, which this House approved. They merely provide further detail on implementation. Such is the case with Amendment No. 7, which provides for enhanced financial accountability and fairness by restoring the requirement for fairness to the procedure for distributing resources to groups or clubs. I believe that the other place, acting as a revising Chamber, was right to seek more specific wording here. Certainly it was our expectation in this House that student unions should be expected to act fairly in providing resources to clubs and societies; and if that is what we expect, the Bill should make that explicit.
By his resistance to Amendment No. 7, my noble friend Lord Beloff has queried the requirement of fairness in the distribution of resources to clubs and societies. Petty unfairness is all too common. The kind of thing we have in mind is the club that is politically unsympathetic to the student union leadership, and which finds it strangely difficult to book a room for meetings. That kind of behaviour should not be tolerated. The requirement for fairness was indeed included when the Bill was first introduced; when we revised this clause, the argument was that the requirement was redundant. But I believe that the other Chamber was quite right to restore it.
Some of those who have spoken to the amendment appear to have returned to base on the subject. They talked about whether or not students should opt out. I have to say that Amendment No. 7 and resistance to it is not about whether students should opt out. That was determined both in this House and in another place. We are talking about leaving institutions themselves to determine what opting out will mean for those who wish to take that course.

93
The amendment agreed in the other place is to establish clearly the notion of fairness. I have given examples of fairness and unfairness. While most people may be happy to have no notion of fairness addressed specifically in this part of the Bill, I have to say that those who are the recipients of unfair treatment will find it a very real measure. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can she answer the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Lester that the point of substantive fairness is not justiciable?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was absolutely right to refer to the requirement on institutions to act under the overall framework of the measures in Clause 21 in a fair and democratic way. We are talking here very specifically about the allocation of resources. So there is a procedural element involved: namely, that that should be fair and democratic; that the procedures should be set out; and that the issue of membership and non-membership should be properly addressed. However, in the case of allocating resources to clubs and societies, it was felt important in another place to address the issue of fairness. We believe that there is sufficient evidence to substantiate that case. I believe that Members of the other place are right to ask us to agree to their amendment.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I find the argument of my noble friend the Minister unanswerable; but, at the same time, it does not meet the case put forward. It is unanswerable because, of course, it is true that all people tend to be unfair and young people probably tend to be more unfair than most. There have certainly been cases of which I am aware—and, indeed, I could rehearse them—where the officers, a committee or members of a student union have discriminated against a particular society of whose views they disapprove. For example, the experience of Jewish and Zionist societies in some universities comes to mind.
However, it does not seem to me that the situation will be improved by putting in a number of opportunities for complaint which could lead to extensive litigation. In fact, it brings us back to the view that it is the business of universities themselves to ensure that the students and others making use of their facilities use them in a proper manner. The reason why I find this part of the Bill—and, indeed, most of it— objectionable, is that it seems to be a denigration of the responsibility which ought to rest on universities to ensure that their resources, including their physical resources, are properly used.
It also seems to me that to have given way to a group of Back-Benchers in another place who make no secret of the fact that they would like to destroy the student union system altogether, and for whom opting out is a glorious war against institutions of which perhaps they had an unfortunate experience in their youth, is unacceptable. As the noble Baroness put it, the Government's willingness to accept such views and to
94
insert such language in the Bill is something which makes me grieve a great deal. For that reason, I should like to test the opinion of the House on my Motion.
6.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 102.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lester of Heme Hill, L.

Airedale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ardwick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Avebury, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Beloff, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Butterfield, L.

Mishcon, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carter L

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dainton, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Redesdale, L.

Russell, E. [Teller]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Seear B

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Skidelsky L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howell, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Judd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elton, L.

Annaly, L.

Ferrers, E.

Arran, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Astor, V.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Balfour, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Barber, L.

Goschen, V.

Blatch, B.

Gray, L.

Blyth, L.

Gridley, L.

Boardman, L.

Halsbury, E

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Brentford, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Butterworth, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Byron, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Cadman, L.

Henley, L.

Caithness, E

Hertford, M.

Carnock, L.

Holderness, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Howe, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Kenyon, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Kimball, L.

Chesham, L.

Kinnoull, E

Clark of Kempston, L.

Leigh, L.

Courtown, E

Long, V.

Cowley, E

Lucas, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Craigmyle, L

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cranbome, V

Cumberlege, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Marlesford, L.

Denham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mersey, V.

Downshire, M.

Miller of Hendon, B.

95

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mottistone, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mountevans, L.

Stockton, E

Moyne, L.

Strange, B.

Munster, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E

Napier and Ettrick, L.

[Teller.]

Northesk, E.

Sudeley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trumpington, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Tugendhat, L.

Pender, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Perry of Southwark, B.

Vivian, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Renton, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Wise, L.

Rodney, L.

Wolfson, L.

Sharples, B.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
7.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Motion No. 8A not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor: Motion 9A—Lord Beloff—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think we have to move Amendment No. 8 if we do not carry 8A.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry. I am grateful for that.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
8Page 13, line 43, after 'students' insert 'who—
(i)are'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
9Page 13, line 44, after 'union,' insert 'or
(ii) claim to be unfairly disadvantaged by reason of their having exercised the right referred to in paragraph (c) (i) or (ii) above,'.
9A The Lord Beloff to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.
I think that the arguments for this have already been rehearsed and, although I would like to put it on record that I move this measure, I do not propose to speak to it.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(Lord Beloff.)
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I simply rise to invite the House not to accept Motion 9A but to agree with
96
the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.I do so for the following reason. This matter is about information to students. We insist that not only should they be informed—we believe that is self-evident —but that even potential students who write to a university or college for general information about the college where they are contemplating membership or participating in courses should have it made absolutely clear to them the arrangement for opted-out students as well as for those who are members of the union. It is no more or less than that.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Motion 9A.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
10 Page 14, line 4, at end insert 'in relation to any students' union for students at the establishment, setting out in relation to each of the requirements details of the arrangements made to secure its observance.'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10,I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. I need to be advised whether Amendment No. 12A is to be taken at this point.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House to take it at this point.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am in some confusion because I have always understood that amendments to amendments are dealt with before the government case. I wish to move Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. Perhaps it may be better if I move Amendment No. 10 and then leave the debate open, listen to the arguments in respect of Amendment No. 12A and then sum up on Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 and respond to Amendment No. 12A.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am entirely agreeable to that arrangement if it suits the Minister's convenience.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
11 Page 14, line 8, after '(a)' insert 'the code of practice currently in force under subsection (3) above, (aa)'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
12 Page 14, line 16, at end insert 'and shall include in any information which is generally made available to persons considering whether to become students at the establishment,'.
12A The Earl Russell to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.
Amendment No. 12 reads:
"shall include in any information which is generally made available to persons considering whether to become students at the establishment".
My objection is not to the objective, but because I do not think that it is possible. It is a requirement imposed on the Bill by another place to include in the prospectus exactly what will be done for opted out students. The point that we wish to make is that one cannot know exactly what arrangements one has to make until one knows how many people one has to make arrangements for. The point is fundamental.
If we include all the information in the prospectus and then find either that we have twice as many opted out students as we expected or that we have half as many opted out students as we expected we shall have to change the prospectus. We may then be accused of misrepresentation. Again, there is room for a great deal of trouble.
I have a great affection for lawyers, but it is not the chief purpose of this House to provide outdoor relief for lawyers. They have quite enough work to do already and it should not be the prime object of legislators to impose extra work on lawyers. Where possible, legislation should be clear and unambiguous. I do not think that we are achieving that here because I believe that we are imposing a requirement that simply cannot be met.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.—(Earl Russell.)
Lord Judd: My Lords, I support the noble Earl in the Motion. It seems to me that there are several points that should be underlined.
As we come to the end of our consideration of the Bill, this particular amendment encapsulates much of what is wrong with the whole direction of this legislation. We are now talking about the information that will be made available to potential students at a particular institution of higher education. What is the picture that will be put before them? Will it be the dream, as we used to have it, of the ideal of higher education, of a community of scholars in which all share and to which all belong, with the richness of belonging and exchange of dialogue between academics and students? Or will it be a heavily regulated institution suffering under a weight of injunctions from the Government, who apparently do not trust academics, administrators or even students to make a success of
98
their institution? This is a sorry reflection on the Government's whole approach to the potential of higher education in our society.
I make the point again that it is paradoxical that this Bill comes in a year dedicated to deregulation. The Bill will produce a bureaucratic nightmare. It is a petty Bill, well illustrated in what will now be put before students, negative rather than positive in intent. I am very sad to see it go forward from this House.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I fear that I too must support the Motion. It does not take a neanderthal or a liberal, as I understand the honourable Member who was responsible for the amendment defined us, to understand that this is nor. a workable amendment. That is my chief concern.
The only way in which universities and institutions generally could give such information would be through the undergraduate prospectus. As we all know, the deadlines for the prospectus this year are February for the copy and May for it to be issued so that it can reach in time people who will apply for admission at the end of this year but who will not enter university until next year. How on earth can the institution provide information nearly two years in advance? There is no way that it can reasonably expect to provide information for an unknown quantity of possible opt outs. How can it possibly do that under the terms of the Bill as it stands relating to students who opt out? Such provision would have to await the decision of students once registered and would very much depend on the size of the problem, which will vary from year to year and from place to place.
There are other important aspects of the union membership which could never be provided by the institution. A simple example is the access to cheap travel which the holder of a union card enjoys. Travel discounts are negotiated by the NUS at national level and no institution could secure similar terms through individual negotiation for a small number of students. Members of the AUT in a university enjoy similar concessions negotiated by the union at national level. Members of the university who are not members of the AUT do not benefit from those negotiated concessions, but nor do they expect to do so.
I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister, who has shown such statesmanship—or perhaps I should say seamanship—in her earlier navigation of the troubled waters of parts of the Bill, will look hard at the amendment. It is simply not practical. It is not merely that it will impose yet further heavy bureaucratic and administrative burdens and a drain on resources in institutions which are already overworked and which welcomed the good sense, the reasonableness and readiness to listen to practical problems which have characterised my noble friend's approach to this legislation so far. It is also that it simply cannot work. I cannot see how it could be made to do so.
I shall spare the House everything else that I had intended to say except to say that I think that the Bill already provides for an excellent complaints procedure and an independent investigator appointed by the

99
institution. It includes provision for fair application of the rules, and it requires institutions to take steps that are reasonably practicable to secure them.
Surely a government as committed as this one to deregulation should trust universities and unions to work together to solve any problems that may arise. And surely the Government could proceed on the excellent principle contained in the words of Mr. Boswell, the Minister, during the proceedings of Standing Committee E in the other place (quoted in col. 388 of Hansard of 21st June.) He was discussing codes of practice, but what he said is applicable. He said:
"It is essential for the individual institution, together with its student body and the student union, to decide what should happen".
Lord Addington: My Lords, I have considered how this situation might be achieved. One would have a prospectus with a code beside all the activities of the union. The code would indicate that if x number of people opt out next year this activity will be available; if there are x number more people, that activity will be available; if there are none, the activity will not be available; and if there is a change half-way through the year, the situation will have to change again. One could continue like that for ever. I suggest that the Minister takes the opportunity to take this message back to another place. The student unions are not the unpleasant bodies that they might have seemed. Some of the provisions regarding the student union bodies remind me of someone who as a small child had their sweets taken away from them and has come back 30 years later to wreak a terrible vengeance. Such measures run totally counter to any organised life for students outside their academic activities.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if I may follow the nautical analogy, perhaps I may ring a bell, sound a hooter or give a sounding. The requirement is not to announce to intending students what the arrangements will be. The requirement is to give details of any arrangements that the body has made. The provision is a historic not a prospective requirement. In the first year there may be no arrangements. The Bill refers to "any arrangements it has made". Perhaps we may leave aside the tone and emotion which noble Lords have taken from the provision, having perhaps ill-advisedly read comments about your Lordships made in another place which are perhaps less than complimentary. I am happily spared that aggravation because I have not read them. However, I have read the Bill. It simply requires an announcement of any arrangements that have been made. That is an announcement of historic fact and of no bureaucratic difficulty whatsoever.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the point that we have made will become relevant in the second and third year of the Bill's enactment. Referring to what will happen and what has changed may once again apply. The situation will become a nightmare.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not accept that. At the end of a year one states what the arrangements in place are for the benefit of those who will come. It is like one's annual accounts which deal with matters up to
100
31st March in the year concluded. It is not up to date. That may not be a good or useful thing—I make a narrow point—but it is perfectly easy to do.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with regard to the description put forward by my noble friend Lady Park and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that will only transpire if the institution wishes that to be so. If the institution, as I believe it should, determines the framework for treatment of members and non-members of the union, it will provide standard information which will go out with a standard pack just as all other information goes out. Information going to students ought not to be a year out of date but as current as possible. Treatment of members and non-members ought to be part of that information. Therefore information will be part of a standard pack.
My noble friend Lady Park gave a specific example about travel. If that is what the institution has determined, it would be entirely reasonable that it was not including the negotiated advantages of travel arrangements for students. But for students to partake of offers made by British Rail, Eurotravel or whatever it might be, it will be for the student to prove that he is a student. In many instances that is the only requirement; there would simply be verification of that fact.
The principle of giving information to students is important. Clearly the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is against that because he would cancel the requirement. He thinks that it is malign and malicious and that we should not give information to students. If the principle has now been established for both opting out or remaining members of the union, it is important that students understand what that means. The increased choice that goes with that principle should be extended as far as possible to intending students as well as to those who have already committed themselves to a specific institution.
I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate against the provision in Amendment No. 12 for information about services to students outside the union to be provided not only to current students but also to those considering studying at the institution. I have not heard anything to dissuade me from the view that I expressed earlier: that it is entirely right for an intending student to know in advance about the availability of provision of services and facilities should that student choose not to belong to the union. Once the institution has determined a framework for membership and non-membership, it must be ensured that students know about it.
If a minutiae of detail would flow from that, it is entirely possible for the pack of information which goes out to students to contain the fact that the updating of the information can be checked. It could give a contact number so that at least potential students are given access to a source of information which would help them to make an informed judgment about whether they wished to be part of that institution. I therefore ask the House not to agree with Motion No. 12A but to accept Commons Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Earl Russell: My Lords, of course I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that it is good that students should know what facilities are available to opted-out students when that is possible. It is good that noble Lords should agree and know what is to be the timetable of this House when that is possible. In both cases unpredictable things may occur. We cannot give a firm undertaking that we will reach a specific piece of business at a specific time. In just the same way, if we are to provide food to opted-out students, we simply cannot know what facilities are needed, how many seats, how much cooking or how many staff are required until we have some idea of how many people will require it.
The noble Baroness puts before us a perfectly good idea. But I regret to say that it is Utopian. Throughout the Bill the noble Baroness has been outstanding in her concern for the practicalities of the matter. On this occasion, I regret to say that that concern has let her down. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for drawing my attention to yet another ambiguity in the Bill as it will ultimately emerge. In the Bill, as he says, the reference is to, arrangements that the college "has made" for services. In the amendment the reference is to,
"information which is generally made available".
We have slipped from the past tense into the present tense. There is room for even further confusion.
It would be perfectly possible for this House to pass a law that I should fly. That does not mean that I would fly. If the House passes a law requiring universities to do what is stated, we cannot do it. There is only one way in which I can put that view on the record. It is to move that this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, the two examples that he gave are absolutely flawed. First, with regard to feeding students there is no guarantee that student union members will eat in the dining-room. Therefore it is a day-to-day operation for people feeding students to make judgments about how many people will come in and how many tables or chairs are needed.
With regard to the analogy of the flawed notice of the timetable of this House, as potential Members of the House who know that we shall come but have not yet arrived, we know what the rules are for Members and non-Members of this House. For example, until I am sworn into the House, I am not allowed to pass by the Bar of the House. We also know that rules pertain for husbands and wives of Members of this House. All that information is made available to us. That is simply all that we say: that the rules available to members and non-members should be made available before students become full members of the universities and colleges.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I cannot help wondering where the noble Baroness was on 4th November last when the Railways Bill came back from another place. The Commons amendments were scheduled for consideration the next day; and we were suddenly told
102
that we were to consider them that night. If the noble Baroness wishes to condemn what the Government did on that day, she can keep her position consistent. If not, then she cannot. I commend the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 95.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Airedale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ardwick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Avebury, L.

Mayhew, L.

Beloff, L.

Mishcon, L.

Butterfield, L.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Carter, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Craigavon, V.

Redesdale, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

David, B. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Sefton of Garston L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, I,.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Judd, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henley, L.

Annaly, L.

Hertford, M.

Arran, E.

Holderness, L.

Astor, V.

Howe, E.

Balfour, E.

Jeffreys, L.

Barber, L.

Kenyon, L.

Blatch, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Blyth, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boardman, L.

Leigh, L.

Brentford, V.

Long, V.

Butterworth, L.

Lucas, L.

Byron, L.

Lyell, L.

Cadman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Caithness, E

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Carnock, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chesham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mersey, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cranborne, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mottistone, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L.

Moyne, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Munster, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L

Downshire, M.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Elles, B.

Northesk, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Parkinson, L.

Elton, L.

Pender, L.

Ferrers, E

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Renton, L.

Goschen, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Gray, L.

Rodney, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sharples, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

103

St Davids, V.

Trumpington, B.

Stewartby, L.

Tugendhat, L

Stockton, E.

Ullswaler, V. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Vivian, L

Strathclyde, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller]

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Sudeley, L

Wise, L

Teynham, L.

Wotfson, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 12 agreed to.
7.37 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
13 Clause 21, page 14, line 16, at end insert:

'(a) information as to the right referred to in subsection (2) (c) (i) and (ii) above, and

(b)".

14 Page 14, line 17, after 'services' insert 'of a kind'.
15 Clause 26, page 16, line 4, leave out subsection (3).
16 Schedule 2, page 22, line 4, leave out from first 'or' to end of line 5 and insert 'teacher training'.
17 Schedule 2, page 22, line 9, leave out from 'training' to end of line 10.
18 Schedule 2, page 22, line 18, leave out 'the Teacher Training Agency' and insert 'a funding agency under Part I of the Education Act 1994 or the governing body of an institution receiving financial support under that Part'.
19 Schedule 2, page 22, line 19, leave out from '(2)' to end of line 21 and insert 'omit the word "and" following paragraph (bb) and after paragraph (c) insert:

"(d) with respect to studies relating to a funding agency under Part I of the Education Act 1994, the agency; and

(e) with respect to studies relating to the governing body of an institution receiving financial support under that Part, the appropriate funding agency or the governing body;".'.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 which were spoken to with Amendment No. 5, and Amendments Nos. 15 to 19 which are technical changes. They do not reflect any change in policy.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 to 19.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 1994
7.38 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this order is to make some minor modifications to the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 in order to reflect
104
the accession of Spain and Portugal to the 1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations.
It may be helpful at the outset to say a few words by way of background about the 1980 Rome Convention. This is a convention made between member states of the European Community, the purpose of which is to harmonise their private international law rules on contract. It lays down rules to determine which law is to apply to a contract that has connections with more than one country. It does not affect the substantive law of contract, but merely enables courts to decide which country's law governs a contract. This harmonisation is designed to make it easier for people to do business in the Community, since the rules on applicable law will no longer vary according to which member state's courts hear litigation in the field of contract law.
The two basic principles of the convention accord with previous United Kingdom law, and its implementation has therefore led to few changes in our law. First, the parties to a contract may choose which country's law is to apply to it; we regarded this enshrining of freedom of choice as central to the convention. Secondly, in the absence of such a choice the contract is to be governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected; the convention lays down various rebuttable presumptions for determining this connection.
Certain matters are excluded from the scope of the convention, including contracts more closely related to family law, trusts, wills and succession, certain insurance contracts and questions governed by company law. There are special provisions on employment contracts and consumer contracts which are intended to benefit the weaker party. Although the convention is made between EC member states, it will apply to all contracts with a foreign element, whether with an EC state or not, which come before the courts of an EC state.
The convention was opened for signature in 1980. This country signed it in 1981 and ratified it in January 1991, having given effect to it in United Kingdom law by the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990. The reason for the delay was the time taken to negotiate two protocols to the convention which provide for the European Court of Justice to have jurisdiction in certain cases under the convention and which were signed in 1988. This country's ratification was the last needed to bring the convention into force on 1st April 1991. All nine member states at the date of the opening for signature of the convention have now ratified it.
Although the Rome Convention is not strictly a piece of Community legislation, it is related to Article 220 of the Treaty of Rome, the treaty which established the European Economic Community. The purpose of this article is to ensure that member states enter into negotiations to secure the simplification and facilitation of recognition and enforcement of judgments in the Community, and new member states undertake to accede to the conventions made thereunder, in particular the 1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The Rome Convention concerns a related area

105
of private international law and Greece therefore acceded to it by the Luxembourg Convention of 1984. The United Kingdom ratified this latter convention and it too is now in force.
The convention on the accession of Spain and Portugal was signed in Funchal on 18th May 1992. It followed that for Greece very closely and is largely of a formal nature. It is to be found in the schedule to the draft order, Article 9 of which will insert it as a new schedule into the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990. By Article 1, Spain and Portugal accede to the Rome Convention. Articles 3 to 7 deal with texts, copies, ratifications and entry into force. Article 5 provides for its entry into force as between those states which have ratified it three months after ratification by Spain or Portugal and by one other contracting state; thereafter it will come into force for other states on the first day of the third month after they ratify. It came into force on 1st March 1994 in relation to Spain, the Netherlands and Italy.
Article 2 deletes Article 27 of the Rome Convention and makes consequential changes elsewhere. Article 27 enables this country, by means of a declaration, to extend the scope of the Rome Convention to Gibraltar. Its deletion follows a similar change made in the San Sebastian Convention whereby Spain and Portugal acceded to the 1968 Brussels Convention, and is also consistent with the 1988 Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and judgments made between member states of the EC and those of EFTA.
The object of Article 2 is to remove from the face of the convention the reference to,
"any European territory situated outside the United Kingdom for the international relations of which the United Kingdom is responsible".
As well as covering the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, this is also an oblique reference to Gibraltar, which is, of course, an issue of long-standing sensitivity in Spain. The practical effect of the deletion of Article 27 will be minimal. Contracting states will remain free to rely on accepted principles of public international law, as expressed in Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, that a party is entitled to apply a treaty to all its territories.
Although the right to extend this convention to Gibraltar after the commencement of this order would thus be unaffected, the Government have in fact decided to make such an extension shortly. We see no reason to delay it until after the coming into force of this order. No legislation is needed in this country because Gibraltar has already enacted the necessary legislation in its own legislature.
In conclusion, the changes to the 1990 Act contained in this draft order are minor and uncontroversial and are necessary in order for this country to be able to ratify the convention whereby Spain and Portugal have acceded to the 1980 Rome Convention. As such this order facilitates a useful development in an important area of private international law and I commend it to the House. I beg to move
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I may quote from the last words of the noble and learned Lord, this order is indeed happily uncontroversial. From these Benches I have nothing to add to what the noble and learned Lord has so clearly said about it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1994
7.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretery of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne)The Parliamentary Under-Secretery of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, which together provide the statutory basis for the disciplinary arrangements of the three services.
As noble Lords know, it is a long-established practice that the Services' disciplinary system is fully reviewed every five years through the consideration of an Armed Forces Bill and an Armed Forces Act is passed making such amendments to that system as are considered necessary. In each of the four intervening years the disciplinary code is reviewed annually by an Order in Council. The last Armed Forces Act was passed in 1991.
With the leave of the House, I wonder whether noble Lords would allow me to follow previous precedent and take the opportunity of this debate on the three service discipline Acts to mention a very small number of subjects in my opening remarks that are being undertaken in the Armed Services on disciplinary and personnel matters.
Perhaps I may begin with homosexuality. Noble Lords will remember that the Select Committee in another place recommended, and the Government indeed accepted, that homosexual activity of a kind that is legal in civilian law should not constitute an offence under service law. In announcing acceptance of that recommendation, the Government stated that Section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 would be repealed as soon as the legislative programme allowed. As noble Lords are aware, that legislative opportunity presented itself through the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, and Clauses 144 and 145 of that Bill seek to achieve the repeal of Section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 and corresponding provisions in respect of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We debated this matter in Committee, where the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Boardman was carried. We have now reflected on this and have tabled further amendments which are designed to tidy up the amendments carried in Committee. It would perhaps be otiose to anticipate the debate which we expect to have tomorrow at Third Reading.

107
Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I shall not say anything further on this subject, except to treat this occasion as something of a trailer to tomorrow's proceedings.
Noble Lords will also be pleased to know that the new tri-service guidelines on dealing with homosexuality in the Armed Forces were distributed down through the services' chain of command in March and a copy was placed in the Library of the House on 22nd April.
Perhaps I may emphasise to the House, as I have done on several previous occasions, that it remains the firm policy of the Armed Services not to accept homosexuals or homosexual activity within the Armed Forces. That policy is made clear to all applicants when they first apply. Service personnel are no longer prosecuted for homosexual acts that are legal in civilian law provided that no other service offence has been committed.
I turn now to the question of ethnic monitoring—a subject that has come up a number of times before in the debates in this House. I told the House last year that we intended to introduce in-service ethnic monitoring later on in 1993 and that that would begin with an ethnic origin survey. I am sure that noble Lords will be interested to hear that instructions on in-service ethnic monitoring and the code of practice on race relations in the Armed Forces were distributed throughout the services in December 1993. So we just made the deadline.
I can also advise the House that the ethnic origin survey began last December and was completed in May. Questionnaires were distributed to all regular personnel, with the obvious exception of the Brigade of Gurkhas. Completed questionnaires are being returned. Later this year they will be analysed and appropriate statistics compiled. The speed of response has been variable. Your Lordships may be interested to know that so far, of those distributed to the RAF 67 per cent. have been returned, of those distributed to the Navy 55 per cent. have been returned and of those sent to the Army 48 per cent. have come back.
The information obtained from the survey will allow us to establish the numbers and ranks of ethnic minority personnel in the Armed Forces and will also enable the services to monitor their equal opportunity policy, for example, by checking whether ethnic minority personnel are achieving the same promotion rates as their white counterparts. The ethnic origin information will remain strictly confidential and will be used only for monitoring the Armed Forces policy of equal opportunities for all personnel, whatever their racial origin.
We intend that statistical analyses of the ethnic origins of serving personnel by service and rank group will be published in due course in UK Defence Statistics, which is the statistical publication that accompanies the annual statement on the Defence Estimates.
The ethnic minorities continue to be under-represented among applicants and indeed entrants to the Armed Forces, despite strenuous efforts made by the services to encourage their recruitment. However, the services will continue to introduce a range of measures aimed at increasing ethnic minority recruitment and will also continue to monitor the ethnic
108
composition of applicants to the Armed Forces. All of the services' recruiting organisations have an officer responsible for ethnic minority recruitment matters and all three services have ethnic minority awareness training for recruiting staff.
The services are fully integrated, non-discriminatory organisations. They are also subject to the Race Relations Act 1976. It has been made quite clear throughout the Armed Forces that racial abuse or discrimination of any sort will not be tolerated. Any complaint by a member of the Armed Forces concerning his or her treatment will be thoroughly investigated under the redress of grievance procedures provided for in the service Discipline Acts that we are discussing. If the complaint is substantiated, appropriate action will be taken against those found to be involved.
Although complaints are generally dealt with by the commanding officer, if a complaint cannot be resolved at that level or if the complainant is dissatisfied, the complaint may be referred up the chain of command and ultimately to the appropriate service board. The Army and the Royal Air Force already keep a record of complaints which involve a racial element and the Royal Navy expects to introduce a similar reporting system soon.
Your Lordships will be aware that women have always undertaken a wide variety of duties in the services and that over the past few years their employment opportunities have been widened. They now represent nearly 7 per cent. of the total strength and very few roles remain closed to them. Women entering the services now have the same opportunities to pursue careers which qualify them for a wider range of the most senior posts at one-star rank and above. The highest rank held at present by a woman is that of brigadier or equivalent. In fact, there are five of them.
Your Lordships may be aware that during the Gulf conflict over 1,000 women served in a variety of roles, including aboard Royal Navy ships. Women also served with the United Nations peacekeeping forces and are serving in the former Yugoslavia and Cyprus. They are now able to serve as air crew in all three services. The Navy has one female pilot under training and seven women under observer training. The Army has two trained women pilots in the Army Air Corps and a further two are in training. The Royal Air Force has three women pilots, two on multi-engined aircraft and one on rotary wing aircraft. Eleven female navigators have also entered service on multi-engined aircraft. A further 29 pilots and 14 navigators are under training. The Army is revising its policy on the employment of women to increase further their employment and indeed deployment opportunities.
I mentioned last year that the Army was developing proposals for the introduction of what has been called gender-free physical testing. The Army hopes to introduce that into the service in spring 1995. It will enable physical capacity rather than sex to determine suitability for a particular specialisation. Gender-free testing is not a policy in itself but will be an aid to determining suitability for a particular role according to physical capacity. The Armed Forces are of course

109
continuing their work to remove remaining differences in the terms and conditions of service of men and women wherever that is possible.
Before I finish, I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute—I know that your Lordships will wish to be associated with it—to all the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. It is very much to their credit that at a time of unprecedented change for them their morale, dedication and professionalism have never wavered. It is important to remember that in order that they can continue to be as effective as they are, particularly in the face of danger in areas such as Northern Ireland and the former Yugoslavia, we should do our very best to support them, introducing an element of stability which will put their minds at rest about the future of their careers after the turbulence of the past few years and months. Part of their effectiveness is undoubtedly based on the fair and equitable system of discipline that operates in the Navy, Army and Air Force and the consequent high morale that that engenders. That system of discipline is founded upon the three service Discipline Acts. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to approve the draft order laid before the House on 23rd May. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I apologise to the House and particularly to the Minister for the absence of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel who unfortunately has to be elsewhere. I have spoken on these matters from these Benches in the past and I am now very pleased indeed to have the opportunity to come back to issues in which I have always taken a keen interest.
Let me begin where the noble Viscount ended; namely, his valedictory remarks about the service that this country receives from its servicemen and servicewomen. This is a fine opportunity to pay tribute to our Armed Forces. We have celebrated and commemorated the events of D-Day and I know that the Minister played a major role in serving his country. He is to be congratulated on the success of the organisation with which he was involved. This House is not short of men and women who, when younger, served in the forces and continue to take a sharp interest in the welfare of those who now serve in those forces. There is not a whisper in the country against the quality and loyalty of any elements of the services. I myself served in the forces during the Second World War. There were times when criticism was made about the behaviour of personnel, unruliness and on occasion the attitudes taken. However, to the best of my knowledge at this time the standing of our forces is as high if not higher than it has ever been in the past. The Minister and his colleagues can be satisfied and grateful about that.
Quite rightly, the noble Viscount told us that the discipline in the services owes much to the framework of the Acts that are under discussion tonight. Nevertheless, the debate provides us with the opportunity to ask questions. I know that the Minister will have come to the House prepared to deal with them.
110
In his speech, the Minister spent some time on the introduction in December 1993 of an ethnic monitoring survey. Clearly it is far too early to draw conclusions from any data that have been collected. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what kind of consultation took place, for instance, with not merely the Commission for Racial Equality which was consulted, but with any of the groups putting themselves forward as representing ethnic minorities. I think particularly of those who are not merely part of an umbrella organisation like the Commission for Racial Equality, but others who say that they represent the views of black people, Cypriots or West Indians. There must be a range of bodies and I wonder to what extent they were consulted.
I am sure that the Government must be as puzzled as we are when looking at the disappointing shortfall that exists between the potential numbers of ethnic minorities that could be recruited and those who are recruited. I am sure that the Minister must be disappointed that, despite pay and conditions which, if not of the highest, are certainly at as high a level as they have ever been, and despite the undoubted loyalty of ethnic minority groups to the flag and the state, the proportion of ethnic minorities in the services is exceedingly low.
Of course we are talking of volunteers; about people who want to serve. Therefore two questions arise. Why are we unable to make it more attractive for those in ethnic minority groups to serve in the forces? Does the Minister have any idea of the reasons for the reluctance on the part of those in ethnic minority groups to come forward and serve in this way?
The Minister raised the question of the extent to which women now serve in our forces. Having served in the Second World War I can say that percentage-wise the ratio was considerably higher at that lime. We are told that 7 per cent. of the total strength of the Armed Forces is made up of women. Clearly 7 per cent.— meaning that 93 per cent. are men—does not reflect the balance of the sexes in the community. Does the Minister have any target in that regard? I think he will agree that 7 per cent. is too low. What kind of figure will he accept as being reasonable? Is it 20 per cent., 30 per cent. or what? Does the Minister have any comparison of figures to give the House in relation to the proportion of women in the services in, for instance, America, France or Germany? If they have been more successful in inducing women to serve, what techniques do they use?
The Minister referred to the Navy. I shall be interested to know whether the small proportion of women who want to go to sea to serve can be strengthened. We have gone past the days when a furore broke out over this aspect of women's service. Two years ago when, for the first time, women were allowed to go to sea, all sorts of tales were raised as to what may happen. I am not asking whether or not anything did happen because from time to time the newspapers tell us. But can the Minister say whether or not the Government are endeavouring to increase the proportion of women who serve in the Navy?

111
The Minister quite rightly drew attention to the hiatus in the intentions of the Government to deal with Section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act. I am a little puzzled. He made reference to the amendments to be moved tomorrow designed to tidy up the legislation. Does that mean that there will be an attempt to negative the purport of the amendment carried against the Government's wishes by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman? I see also that in the Commons the Minister said that what happens in this Chamber will have no impact on the Government's intentions.
I shall not be drawn into the decriminalisation aspect, which is what the Government intended and what the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and his colleagues sought to correct. But I shall be grateful if the Minister will spend a minute or two telling the House whether what was carried in this House on the Criminal Justice Bill at Report stage has any meaning and whether any amendments at all passed in your Lordships' House at Report stage have any meaning.
Perhaps the Minister can say something in relation to the incidence of drinking. It is a social problem and something about which the Minister and the Government will share my anxiety in regard to the excesses that occur in the taking of drink or drugs. We know that drug-taking, sadly, is on the increase in society. Drinking is something which has always been associated with certain aspects of the services. Perhaps the Minister can tell us something about that.
Finally, perhaps the Minister can comment on a remark made by my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Eric Martlew, when he said during the fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments that in a recent homeless report it was found that one in four people who were sleeping on the streets were ex-service personnel. I do not know how valid that information is. However, it must be a source of worry to the Minister. Is he satisfied that the arrangements that should be in place when servicemen are discharged are in place? A mechanism of some kind is in place; it cannot be perfect. One cannot walk out of the Armed Forces and say, "I do not want this; I do not want that; but I will take the other". Can the noble Viscount tell the House what steps are taken to monitor what happens to ex-servicemen when they leave the services?
Another general question on which the Minister may like to comment is that of prejudice in general to coloured people in our services. It is not a question of the aggravation of percentages. It is a question of hostility. I listened carefully to what the Minister said regarding the intentions of the ministry. But can he say that he and his colleagues are doing more than issuing instructions and guidelines? Is there anything more that they can do?
This is one of those occasions when there is no difference between these Benches and the Government on the need for both the Act and the orders. We thank the Minister for the care he gave in presenting them to us.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am sure that we are all agreed that the question of homosexuality in the forces
112
can best be dealt with tomorrow during the Third Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, will find that there is no point of substance here. It is a question of whether or not we put into the Bill the question of administrative discharge. It is a procedural matter.
I was sorry that the noble Viscount took some credit for the Government for putting the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the forces into the Criminal Justice Bill. I put it to him that it was by no initiative of the Government at all; it was an initiative by the defence spokesman of the Liberal Democratic Party to whom he should have paid tribute for his enterprise and wisdom in what he did.
On the question of ethnic monitoring, it is obvious that, when the survey is published and we see the results, we shall be disappointed. That is certain. The situation is appalling. As I understand the last figures published, whereas 5 per cent. of the population is from the ethnic minority groups, only 1 per cent.—perhaps less than that —are in the forces. I wonder why that is.
I had a great deal of experience during the war of working alongside black soldiers in the United States Army. I know that conscription explains a lot; but I cannot understand why, in the United States Army, people from ethnic minority groups are in all the senior posts and yet we cannot do better here in that regard. I am sure that there are ways of improving the situation. I wonder whether we have studied the American experience; whether we have asked for co-operation from highly successful military personnel in the United States Army, Navy and Air Force who are black and whether we have asked them to come here and help us? I am sure more could be done. Perhaps the ministry's new idea, which is a good idea, of closing the recruitment offices and recruiting through the jobcentres may give an opportunity for more recruitment from the ethnic minorities. Something must be done because the situation at the moment is appalling.
The noble Viscount said that promotion results were as good for the ethnic minorities as for the run-of-the-mill recruits and soldiers. That is surprising and welcome. But, heaven knows, we need to make more progress in this field. In this context the noble Viscount described very accurately the machinery of making complaints about assaults and other ill treatment. How many complaints have been made? Is the figure going up or down? How many of them are racially motivated? If the noble Viscount has the facts we should be very glad to see them.
The remark about gender-free physical training fascinated me. Has gender-free physical training been tried anywhere else outside the Armed Forces? We shall all be very interested to see the results. It may in some circumstances help the cause of those who wish to see women playing a bigger part. In other respects it may make them think again. But it is a sensible idea for the Armed Forces and the results will be fascinating. Following up what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, how is the project of sending Wrens to sea going? We have heard conflicting reports. I should like the noble Viscount to tell us whether all is well there.

113
Those are the main questions to which I should like to have answers. I end by saying, as the noble Viscount said, that these have been trying years for the forces. It is not only that Northern Ireland and Bosnia are two of the more unattractive operational tasks for the forces but it is also that they have had this constant uncertainty from repeated, often piecemeal, cuts and reorganisations by the Government. Now they face another one—the noble Viscount did not make it clear. There is the whole question of conditions of service. That is another source of disruption and worry. We are not altogether satisfied by what we hear about the way it is being conducted and we suspect that there is more civilian input than is sensible.
It is a very good tradition on these occasions to pay tribute to the wonderful service that we get in this country from the Armed Forces. It is more sincere than ever when I say that this country owes them a great deal, especially in the unusually difficult circumstances in which they are serving.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble Viscount has been so deluged with questions that I feel diffident about asking one further question, especially as it will take me a moment to explain the context of the question. In the Sex Discrimination Act and in the Race Relations Act the Armed Forces were excluded from the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, including the industrial tribunals. Parliament took the view in the mid-1970s that it was better for grievances to be redressed internally by the redress of grievance procedures. As a result though of European Community law that exclusion was ended a couple of years ago when the Divisional Court decided that the exclusion would not pass muster under the equal treatment directive.
Consequently, as the noble Viscount knows only too well because of the damage awards that resulted, men and women in the Armed Forces can have their complaints of sex discrimination dealt with in the ordinary way just as the police and prison officers can. But I do not think that that has been applied to complaints under the Race Relations Act. Whereas in the past the Government have very wisely decided always to implement the knock-on effects of Community law by uncapping damages, for example, and by dealing with interest payments, they have not decided to do so in the sphere of race relations. At least that is my understanding of the position. My question comes out of that. Will the Government consider, as one way of encouraging racial justice and racial equality in the Armed Forces, doing the same in race relations as they have in sex discrimination cases and entrust the jurisdiction to the independent courts rather than to internal procedures, which however fair they may be are not able to have the same virtues and benefits as the independent judicial process?
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the three noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I certainly felt that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was at the very least an extremely graceful and charming substitute for the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who
114
normally speaks for the Opposition on these matters in your Lordships' House. I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord for the kindness that he displayed about the organisation of D-Day. As he knows, we are indebted mostly to members of the Armed Forces for the magnificence of that occasion. The tribute paid to the Armed Forces by the noble Lord and by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, will have been noted by the Armed Forces and appreciated. I extend my gratitude to the noble Lords for what they said.
The noble Lords raised a number of points which I shall do my best to answer as succinctly as I can. I start with the question of race relations. All three noble Lords raised this matter. I am very pleased that they did because it is a matter for which I have a personal responsibility in the Ministry of Defence and it is one which I have endeavoured to take extremely seriously during the two years or so that I have enjoyed that responsibility—I use the word advisedly.
I was particularly interested by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, about whether we had looked at the United States experience. All of us are aware of the extraordinary competence of General Colin Powell, who is an example for all soldiers, white and black. For that reason I was particularly pleased to be able to encourage the organisation recently by the Adjutant General at Bovington Camp of representatives from all over the Army to discuss the question of how we could do better in this important area
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, will be interested to learn that we asked a former colonel in the United States Air Force to lead part of our discussion. He himself is black and is now resident in this country— I assume he likes living here. He has already done a great deal of work for both public and private bodies based on his experience. I hope I do not misquote him, but when I asked him how we could breed our own General Powell, if I may put it that way, he said, "You must have people who are prepared to be standard bearers because the only way in which you can encourage people"—this is where I address myself to another question asked by the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Mayhew—"and convince them that there is a worthwhile career in the Armed Forces for them, particularly if they have black or brown skins, is if they see people in senior positions who also have black or brown skins".
The point that my American friend made to me was that the first people, even in the American forces, who crossed that line were exceptional people. There is no way of avoiding finding exceptional people because if they are going to gain acceptance from all their colleagues of whatever racial origin, they have to be self-evidently highly competent in the jobs that they do. I hope that that one example will be enough in this brief debate to give some flavour to the work which we have been trying to undertake particularly in the past 18 months in this important field.
I now address the question which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked me. As a distinguished lawyer, he will be familiar with what I believe have come to be known as the Anderson principles. I shall not bore your Lordships by reading them. The noble Lord will know

115
of the High Court's review of the Army Board's decision in respect of Private Anderson's racial discrimination case and that five principles emerged. We have adopted those principles. I hope that that will go at least some way to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Lester, although I am aware that he asked us to go a little further than that.
The department consulted the Commission for Racial Equality about the code of practice on relations in the Armed Forces and instructions on ethnic monitoring. We did not consult other bodies as such, but we made sure that recruiting staff developed contacts with ethnic minority communities about increasing recruitment among them. If I am spared this autumn, I intend to take a personal interest in that and to develop close contacts with people from the ethnic minorities at ministerial level. If your Lordships are interested, I shall be happy to report in due course on the effects of that work. Unfortunately, thanks to DCS and other matters, I have had to postpone my original intention rather longer than I intended to.
I am aware that this has been a short debate. There were a number of other questions which your Lordships asked. I shall explain this tomorrow, but it is very important to understand that there is no wish on the part of the Government to negative the amendment of my noble friend Lord Boardman. I believe that there is no difference between my noble friend and the Government on the intention. We shall accept the principle of putting the matter and the intention on the face of the Bill. I have endeavoured to point out in your Lordships' House some of the disadvantages which are attendant on that course of action. We lost, and we hope to show ourselves to be good losers. The amendments are merely technical in nature and address the very deficiencies in my noble friend's own amendment which he acknowledged during the course of his introduction of it.
As regards targets for women which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked me about, the percentage of women in the British armed forces is I believe higher than in most of the armed forces of our allies. I believe that only the American armed forces have a higher proportion of women. Certainly, the British armed forces have a higher proportion of women than our European allies. That may have something to do with the professional nature of our armed forces and with the professional attainment of the women who work in them.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, also, asked about conditions concerning the Bett Inquiry. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has been showing a great deal of interest in that matter. Is there too much civilian input? It is important that there should be civilian input because employment habits have moved on very much in the past decade or so. It is important that the armed forces should examine best practice elsewhere to see whether we can learn from it. Your Lordships will be as aware as I am that the armed forces are a very different case from ordinary civilian employment. Therefore in the end the terms and conditions of employment examined by the Bett Inquiry must always have as their guiding rule
116
whether they will add to or subtract from the operational effectiveness of the armed forces which is why they exist.
I am most grateful to your Lordships for the spirit in which you have participated in this debate. I am more than grateful for the unanimity in your Lordships' House with which the armed forces of the Crown are admired. My more than two years so far in the Ministry of Defence have convinced me that there is no finer department for any Minister, however junior, to serve in. I have counted it an enormous privilege to have done so. I shall do my best to serve their interests in your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994
8.26 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the adjourned debate on the Motion, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee] be now resumed.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we return once again to debate the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order. This follows the adjournment of the earlier debate on 29th April. This is a fairly formidable document, and is couched in fairly legal terms and, even in the context of European Community orders, is somewhat more complicated to understand than most. I would like to apologise at the start to those of your Lordships who may already be familiar with the subject but, in view of the gap since the order was last debated, I think that it might be helpful if I were to outline briefly the main provisions of the order and the background to its introduction.
This Order in Council is to be made under the European Communities Act 1972. It will consolidate, and it will incorporate into United Kingdom law, nine European Community directives which all relate to freedom of movement and rights of residence. It also extends the rights of free movement and residence to nationals of Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden in accordance with the European Economic Area Agreement, which came into force on 1st January 1994. All of these countries were members of the European Free Trade Association and all but Iceland will, we expect, become members of the European Union in January of next year.
For this reason, the order refers throughout to "European economic area nationals"—that is to say, to nationals of those five states together with nationals of the member states of the European Community or, as it is now known, the European Union. Under the provisions of the order, and in accordance with Community law, on arrival in the United Kingdom a European economic area national must produce a valid European economic area passport or national identity card. At most major United Kingdom ports and airports, we have introduced a separate European economic area immigration channel in order to speed the passage of British and other European economic area nationals.
No stamp or endorsement is placed in the European economic area national's passport. Subject to a brief passport check to confirm their identity and nationality, he or she is then free to enter the United Kingdom in much the same way as is a returning British citizen.
Having entered the United Kingdom, the European economic area national is then free to work in an employed or in a self-employed capacity to carry out business; to study here; to retire here; or to reside in any other capacity.
Students, retired people and others, who wish to reside without working, need to be financially self-supporting and to have sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on our social security system.
The order also contains provisions which allow family members of European economic area nationals to join them in the United Kingdom. There are powers to exclude and to remove European economic area nationals and family members on public policy; public security, or public health grounds. The order also sets out rights of appeal.
Of the nine directives which the order implements, six are already dealt with in the existing immigration rules. The three most recent directives which relate to students, retired people and others who are financially self-supporting, are already complied with administratively.
Once the order is in force, it will confirm our existing immigration practice in relation to European economic area nationals and their families. It will also enable us to meet our obligations to incorporate all the "Rights of Residence Directives" into United Kingdom law. It will also establish a separate legal instrument, distinct from the immigration rules, covering the treatment of European economic area nationals and their families under Community law.
The order is, as I have said, rather complex. This complexity is necessary in order to ensure that the provisions of the nine directives are accurately reflected in the order. However, I know that some noble Lords opposite—and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter —expressed concerns previously over some aspects of the drafting of the order. I shall do my best to try to resolve these. For example, some noble Lords questioned the need for Article 2(2) which is, remarkably, only one line in length. This excludes from the provisions of the order anyone who seeks to avoid immigration controls by contracting a marriage of convenience with a European economic area national.
It has been said that there is no basis in European law for such a provision and that, without further definition, the term might be interpreted too widely. I would like to make it quite clear that this provision has been included to deal with marriages which are entirely bogus, the purpose of which is simply to circumvent immigration controls. I would hope that I could allay any fears that this provision might be used against genuine marriages. We regard it as a very important principle that a party to a marriage, which is nothing other than a marriage of convenience, cannot be
118
regarded as a member of the family of a European economic area national and that he or she cannot, and should not be able to, benefit from Community law.
We recognise that the European Court of Justice has not issued a substantive ruling on this point of principle. But, the United Kingdom Government have had their view upheld by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in the recent case of Kwong. I understand that leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal has been granted in the Kwong case and that this may lead to a reference to the European Court of Justice. But I am happy to confirm that we would consent to such a reference being made to the European Court of Justice in this case. That does not, though, alter the need for marriages of convenience to be excluded from the provisions of this order.
I can assure your Lordships that it will remain our policy, in the majority of marriage cases, to grant a residence document to spouses of European economic area nationals, who are exercising their treaty rights, simply on the production of evidence of their nationality, their identity and their marriage and evidence that the European economic area national is exercising a treaty right.
We will make further enquiries, before deciding the application, only when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the marriage is a sham—for example, where a marriage involves a non-European economic area national who is on the point of deportation and where there is no evidence of any relationship with that person prior to the marriage.
I can also confirm that we would not regard as a marriage of convenience a marriage which is a genuine marriage but where, for example, a couple were living apart for work reasons or where the marriage had suffered a breakdown, leading to a separation.
During the debate on 29th April, some noble Lords suggested that the order should include provisions relating to the various European Community association agreements with Turkey or other countries. I should make it clear that this order is limited to transposing into United Kingdom law the nine directives which relate to free movement and rights of residence for European economic area nationals and their family members. Association agreements are of a different character and they do not confer rights of free movement on individuals. It would be outside the scope of this order to deal with association agreements or other wider aspects of Community law. In any event, while recognising our obligations under Community law, the Government do not consider that the immigration rules are in conflict with association agreements.
Some noble Lords expressed concern that the order fails to make provision for relatives who cease to be dependent on a European economic area national. There are, in fact, no provisions in the European Community directives for the treatment of those family members who cease to have an entitlement to remain as dependants. These people, therefore, must qualify on their own account—either under this order or under the immigration rules.
It has also been suggested that the order should cover the admission of more distant relatives who have been living under the same roof as the European economic

119
area national. We do not consider that if we "facilitate" or "favour" applications from more distant relatives that fact should confer upon them an entitlement to admission to the United Kingdom. But we do recognise our obligation to consider any such applications. In order that applicants should be aware of this, we will ensure that it is reflected in the information leaflet for European economic area nationals which will be published following the entry into force of the order.
The order introduces a new term, the "European economic area family permit". This is an entry clearance document which will be able to be obtained from a British diplomatic post overseas by non-European economic area dependants who wish to install themselves with a European economic area relative in the United Kingdom. It has been suggested that this is an entirely new requirement. In fact, this is not so. Non-European economic area dependant relatives, who are coming to the United Kingdom for settlement, are already expected to be in possession of an entry clearance document before they depart. This is in line with the entry clearance requirement for the foreign dependants of British citizens or of people who are already settled here, if they are coming to join their relative on a permanent basis.
The European Community directives do not contain any general provisions relating to settlement. The new immigration rules will, though, enable European economic area nationals —apart from students—who have been issued with a residence permit which is valid for five years to be granted settlement after four years here.
In providing a route to settlement under the immigration rules, we have, therefore, gone further than the directives themselves require. The grant of settlement in such circumstances is a matter of domestic immigration law and it does not constitute a "social or tax advantage".
We do not accept, therefore, that this is discriminatory compared with the treatment of the foreign spouses of British citizens who may be eligible for settlement after 12 months. It is the immigration rules which set out that the spouses of those who are settled here under domestic immigration law may be eligible for settlement after 12 months. This provision would, of course, apply equally to the spouse of a European economic area national who had been granted settlement under the rules.
During the debate on 29th April the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, drew attention to the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which raised doubts as to whether the order was intra vires. The joint committee suggested that the requirement that a student should demonstrate that he had sufficient resources, so as to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the United Kingdom, might be more onerous than the directive had intended. As the order does not refer to a "declaration", the joint committee said that it believed that it was doubtful whether the order in this respect implements the directive.
With the greatest respect to the joint committee, we take the view that the drafting of the relevant article does properly reflect the requirements of the directive.
120
The order does not specify the means by which a student may assure us that he has adequate resources. The wording of the relevant article in the order—which is Article 6(2) (h) (ii)—is taken from the directive and we remain of the view that it meets our obligation to transpose the Students Directive into United Kingdom law.
We will only require applicants for student residence permits to show reasonable evidence of funds, such as bank statements. A declaration, consisting of a letter indicating financial support from parents or other sponsors, would generally be regarded as sufficient. Our clear view remains that it cannot be right that a student should be able to acquire a right of residence—possibly also thereby becoming a burden on public funds—by misrepresenting the adequacy of his resources through a false declaration.
I apologise if I have gone over territory which may already be familiar to some of your Lordships, and to have done so in a degree of detail which some of your Lordships might have found tiresome. However, I hope that by doing so, I might have managed to reassure your Lordships that the order is a measure which should not represent any substantial change in the treatment of European economic area nationals and their families.
The order will also, for the first time, provide a separate provision in United Kingdom law covering the rights of residence of European economic area nationals. This will not only help to clarify those rights in domestic law, but it will enable us to comply with our obligations to implement Community legislation on rights of residence. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the adjourned debate on the Motion, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee] be now resumed.— (Earl Ferrers. )
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to my noble friend if I raise a long-standing issue. This is an extremely complex order. As my noble friend knows, it refers to immigration. I would put just one question. My reading of the order is that it does not—I have had this confirmed—impose any further burden under immigration (carriers' liability). I should be grateful to my noble friend if he would confirm that point when he replies.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, as the Minister made clear, this is the second time that the order has been debated in your Lordships' House. In the first debate the draft order was subjected to severe criticism from my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who unfortunately cannot be present this evening, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Since then there has been a substantial exchange of correspondence and one or two meetings on the issues outstanding between Members of the Opposition and the Government Front Bench. We are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, and Mr. Charles Wardle, the Minister in another place, for the help that has been given and for the clarifications that have been received.

121
I am also grateful to the Minister for reading into the record this evening the substance of some of those letters and discussions as background to the understanding of this complex order. There are, however, still some points upon which I wish to record the Opposition's reservations with the hope that the Minister might respond to one or two of those reservations and allay our worries, and, if he does not, to indicate that there is this conscientious difference of opinion which perhaps cannot be resolved.
The Minister will not be surprised to know that the first problem relates to marriages of convenience. Broadly speaking, there are two issues here, neither of which affects the central agreed point—that people should not benefit from marriages of convenience and how that general principle is incorporated into the order. We welcome the assurance given by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in his letter of 12th July that the test of primary purpose in UK immigration rules does not apply in European economic area marriage cases.
However, in the letters received by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, from the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, and Mr. Charles Wardle, the definition of a marriage of convenience still seems to be rather loose and objective as, for example:
"a marriage entered into solely for immigration purposes, with neither partner having the intention of living permanently with the other as man and wife in a settled and genuine relationship".
It is difficult to see how, in that necessarily subjective context in which judgments have to be made about the nature of marriage, elements of primary purpose which have been excluded from European economic area marriage issues will not creep back in. I think that they will, and that will be unfortunate.
Letters from Ministers talk about marriages of convenience being sham and bogus marriages, but we are not given a definition, a criteria or detailed guidelines. I still feel that the order should be more specific about those things. The Minister has given one or two example in his speech and in correspondence about what in his understanding would constitute a marriage of convenience. But if officials are to act on some notion of a marriage of convenience it would have been better to have had something more substantial by way of criteria and guidelines. That point is perhaps particularly apposite since in a recent decision in the Queen's Bench Division of the Supreme Court it was held that a marriage of convenience can include a marriage where the couple intend to stay married. It is not for me to question the judgment, but it is one that causes some worry about the extent of the interpretation of the notion of a marriage of convenience. The order should have been much more specific.
If we are to invoke marriages of convenience, excluding the criterion of primary purpose, then we need to have a much clearer idea of what the concept involves, and I do not believe that the correspondence has elucidated that sufficiently, and neither did the Minister's speech this evening.
The second point on marriages of convenience is an important procedural one. As the Minister said tonight and in his letters to my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in the case of Kwong the question of
122
marriages of convenience is likely to be referred to the European Court of Justice for it to rule on whether it is right to introduce a marriage-of-convenience rule into a national provision which seeks to implement Community law.
The point I want to make here is not over the substance of that, but it does seem curious to introduce the provision of a marriage of convenience into the order before the court's judgment has been made, particularly since in his letter the Minister seems to be almost pleased that the application to the court is likely to be made and he looks forward to a rapid resolution of the issue. In those circumstances it seems odd to have incorporated marriage-of-convenience exclusions into the order without waiting for the European Court of Justice to rule on the Kwong case.
So far as we can tell, issues relating to marriages of convenience affect about 40 people a year. That sort of number of cases is investigated. In the light of those quite small numbers, we should be able to ask for greater clarity about the assumptions made in, as it were, identifying marriages of convenience.
The second general issue that I want to raise relates to a point that the Minister addressed in his speech; namely, association and co-operation agreements. As I understand it, and I am not a lawyer—no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will put me right if I am making a mistake—the European Court of Justice has ruled twice on the rights of residence of Turkish workers. In both cases (one in 1992 and one in 1993) Turkish workers who have completed at least one year's employment in a member state are entitled by Community law to an extension of their work and residence permits. Those judgments are nowhere reflected in the immigration rules or the order. The order, in my untutored way, seems to be the obvious and correct place for such a provision since it is, as the Minister stated, implementing directives and law relating to rights of residence.
The Minister may well argue that he considers the association agreements to be of a different character and to fall outside the ambit of the order. Indeed, that is; a point that he made in his speech. But surely it is true, as a point of Community law—again I stand to be corrected on this—that the provisions of the association agreements which the court has held to have direct effect have the same character as all other provisions of Community law in this area which the order claims to be implementing. It therefore seems that the court's judgments in this area are of the same character as the directives and law which the order tries to implement. I may be wrong in my interpretation of the point of law but if I am not it is curious that the order does not reflect that.
I wish to raise two other general points. The order, and the letters of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, suggest that a non-EEA child who joins or accompanies a family here and who then becomes 21 or ceases to be dependent by leaving school and getting a job, for example, will no longer qualify to stay with the rest of the family. It would seem, therefore, that one of the implications of the order is; that Ministers are prepared to contemplate the break-up of families

123
who have lived in the UK for a number of years prior to being granted indefinite leave to remain if at the stage they apply for settlement one child is working or is aged over 21.
That contrasts strongly with the provisions of the Statement of Changes in immigration rules to come into force on 1st October 1994, which provides for the granting of applications by a child who is:
"under the age of 18 or has current leave to enter or remain in this capacity";
or, in the case of settlement applications,
"is under the age of 18 or was given leave to enter or remain with
a view to settlement".
It must be wrong that children in European Economic Area families have less protection than others and strong assurances of the practice to be followed, which we hope will be in line with that envisaged in the immigration rules, should be incorporated into any leaflet which is being prepared.
I ask my final point as a direct question because it was put to me this afternoon. I have not had a chance to write to the Minister about the matter but, if he is unable to give me an answer tonight, perhaps he will write to me. I was not clear whether a comment that he made in his speech addressed the point. It has been put to me that the suggestion that non-EEA nationals can apply for settlement after 12 months living with a settled European Economic Area national spouse cannot be correct. European Economic Area national family members are entitled to the rights of residence held by their spouse or parent, as was confirmed, so it has been argued, in the case of Surinder Singh. The Somali wife of an Italian settled here five years ago, for example, was judged to be entitled to settlement and not just to an initial one year's probationary period.
I do not know whether that is how the law stands but it is a specific question which suggests that the general point made about the 12 months qualifying period is wrong. Therefore, overall, we believe that after all the lengthy correspondence and meetings there are still points which lack clarity and give cause for concern. The aim of my speech has been to register those points in the hope that the Minister will be able to respond at least to some of them and, if not, to put our anxieties on the record.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I wish first to express regret on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter that he cannot take part in tonight's debate, in particular as he played such a prominent part in the debate on 29th April. I am here as his understudy.
Secondly, there is no need whatever for the Minister to express any apology, as he did in his concluding remarks, for the full and detailed nature of the statement that he has made to the House. On the contrary, I endorse everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Plant, as words of gratitude to the noble Earl and his colleagues for the way in which they have assisted the House in this matter.
I wish to thank the noble Earl for clarifying uncertainties and ambiguities in the draft order as regards the scope and effect of the order itself and its
124
compatibility with European Community law. During the earlier debate, it was left to the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, to bear the heavy burden of responding to the formidable comments, criticisms and questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter. Therefore, it was sensible to adjourn the debate until this evening because it has enabled discussions on these issues to take place with the noble Earl and his advisers.
I welcome the assurances given tonight about the way in which the Home Office regards the relevant practice and the way in which government will interpret the order. It shows the value of the decision of the Appellate Committee in the case of Pepper v. Hart, since the assurances given by the noble Earl tonight will be able to be looked at by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal adjudicators and the ordinary courts in order to resolve any uncertainty or ambiguity in the order.
Without the explanation that has been given by the noble Earl tonight, the draft order would bear on its face the stigma of illegality under European Community law. That is because of the vagueness and overbreadth of the undefined concept of a marriage of convenience derived from the rules on the control of Commonwealth immigration. The Minister has given a narrower meaning confined to manifestly bogus and sham marriages. That, too, is welcome. Whether it will pass muster under European Community-Jaw will need to be decided by the European Court of Justice. It would have been preferable if the order had made the position clear rather than leaving it to the noble Earl to give clarification in his speech. It would be presumptuous of me to express any opinion on the answer to that question. However, it would be most welcome if the matter could be decided speedily and we are glad to see that the Government will support any reference under Article 177 to the European Court.
Having expressed gratitude and welcomed the statement, I wish to say something which is more critical. It is unsatisfactory to have opaque and vague language in a statutory instrument without proper definitions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Plant, in his criticism. It is also unsatisfactory that other principles of rules of European Community law in this area have still not been directly incorporated into United Kingdom domestic law.
In the case of Re Freedom of Establishment: EC Commission v. Italy in 1988, the European Court of Justice stated:
"if a provision of national law which is incompatible with the EEC Treaty (even a treaty provision which is directly applicable in the national legal order) is retained unchanged this perpetuates uncertainty and therefore itself constitutes an infringement of the Treaty by the Member State".
It is therefore not sufficient to fail to introduce implementing measures properly into United Kingdom legislation. I refer to implementing measures on such matters as rights and obligations contained in association agreements or judgments of the European Court on the right of establishment of companies in other member states employing foreign workers.

125
I appreciate that those issues are beyond the scope of this order. But surely it is incumbent on the United Kingdom to implement Community law properly in these other areas too. I hope therefore that the Government will speedily introduce clear and transparent measures so as to implement Community obligations and rights properly and fully in these other important areas. That is no reason to oppose the Motion which is before the House tonight, nor do I subtract anything that I said earlier by way of gratitude to the noble Earl.
9 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may just tell the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, how grateful I am for his kind remarks, especially those expressed at the end of his speech. I know that he and a number of other noble Lords were concerned about the provisions of the order. It is indeed a complicated measure. If the noble Lord who is an expert on such matters finds them complicated, he will understand how a mere novice like myself also finds them complicated. The noble Lord said that he wanted to see transparent measures taken. I understand what he means. The noble Lord also said that he found the language in the order to be difficult and that he wished it had been simpler and clearer without a Minister having to explain it. I also understand that view. I am only glad that I have been able to explain the order and to iron out any difficulties that I believe some noble Lords certainly had before I spoke.
Many points were raised by several noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Mountevans referred to the carrier's liability. I should just point out to him that Article 19 of the order makes it clear that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 does have effect, but only in relation to a visa national who is required under the order to hold an EEA (European economic area) family permit. It means that there should be no more onus than is the case under the present arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Plant, referred to marriages of convenience. I was glad that he accepted the fact that people should not benefit from such marriages. Indeed, I do not believe that anyone thinks that they should. I can confirm that the primary purpose test of the immigration rules does not apply in European economic area marriage cases. The noble Lord also said that he wished that the definition of marriage of convenience was more precise. However, in my opening remarks, I said that such marriages were marriages which were entirely bogus, the purpose of which was simply to circumvent immigration controls. I should have thought that that was a pretty clear definition of what a marriage of convenience is regarded as being from the Government's point of view. Of course, each marriage will differ, but it is better to have such a broad, obvious generality rather than to try to be too precise and possibly miss some marriages which ought to be caught. I do not think that I can be any clearer than I was when I gave the earlier definition in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Plant, also referred to the association agreements. He suggested that the obligations under the Turkish association agreement are not reflected in the order or in the immigration rules.
126
However, I explained earlier that such rights are outside the ambit of the order. Nevertheless, I can assure the noble Lord that the right of Turkish workers is given full effect under our work permit schemes. As regards the Kwong case, the noble Lord suggested that the fact that there may be a reference to the European Court of Justice should delay the order. But I made clear that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal confirmed the Government's view that parties to a marriage of convenience should not benefit from Community law. Therefore, we feel content with the position which we are adopting in the matter.
The noble Lord also referred to an example— although I forget exactly what it was—of a non-European economic area national marrying an EEA national. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, but I shall have to study that slightly complicated position. Perhaps I may write to him on the matter. The noble Lord was also concerned about dependent children. The order makes it clear that children of an EEA national who are under the age of 21 or who are dependent upon an EEA national will qualify for residence here, along with the EEA parents. They will be able to apply for settlement in the way in which I described earlier. The noble Lord was worried that they may come over here at a certain age and then, by the time they are possibly a year older, they may find that they do not have the right to stay here. Obviously, one has to have a cut-off point in such matters. But once those children reach that age, they will be able to apply in their own right.
As regards settlement for European economic area nationals and their dependants, I can tell the House that the matter is dealt with in the United Kingdom immigration rules. It is not contained either in the European Community directives or in the order now before us which implements them. As I said at the outset, the order incorporates nine totally different directives which are not all that easy to follow. Therefore, it is quite difficult to incorporate all of them in one document and make it relatively comprehensible.
I am grateful to noble Lords for the understanding with which they have dealt with the problem. I hope that the answers that I have given tonight will satisfy noble Lords that the order is in fact both appropriate and proper and that your Lordships will be content to accept it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Bill
9.8 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 67 [Power to contract for police]:
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 53, leave out lines 45 to 50.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small amendment which seeks to leave a subsection out of the Bill as drafted. The reason for it is quite simple. The subsection as drafted in the Bill defines the limits within which transport police may act as constables. When the

127
Bill was drafted that definition was necessary but it no longer is. The provision has been overtaken by the Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Act 1994 which deals with the matter. Consequently, the subsection is no longer needed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 82 [Planning permission]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 58, line 24, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (4)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together. The purpose of these amendments in my name is to give effect to undertakings given by the promoters during proceedings in another place that they would not seek to take advantage of the deemed planning permission given to the park-and-ride site under Clause 82 of the Bill. Assurances were given that in due course the undertakers would apply to the county council for planning permission and the county council would have discretion to grant temporary or permanent permission and to impose conditions.
The proposed park-and-ride site in connection with the light rapid transit system comprises some seven acres of the forest recreation ground. It is important that before the car park goes ahead consideration should be given to its impact on the provision of other public transport which could be undermined by the existence of the park-and-ride in this particular location. Consideration should also be given to whether the site, if developed for park-and-ride, could be made suitable and available for public recreation outside the normal working and shopping hours when it would mainly be in use in connection with the light rapid transit route.
I am extremely grateful to the Open Spaces Society for drawing my attention to the proposal which— however valuable the light rapid transit route may be, and I agree that it is valuable—constitutes yet another nibbling away at our diminishing supply of public open space. It is important therefore that as much as possible should be done to limit the impact, and this can best be achieved in the context of a planning application at the appropriate time.
Because it may be some years before this part of the scheme goes ahead, it is important that the requirement for a planning application should be made clear at this stage. The undertakings were, I am sure, made in good faith but they are recorded in an obscure part of the proceedings and could easily be forgotten or overlooked some years hence. At that point even the personnel dealing with the development may have changed. It is therefore important that these undertakings should be put on the face of the Bill in the form of the amendments which I propose. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, will see the value of the amendments and will be prepared to accept them.
It has been suggested to me that accepting these amendments may delay the Bill further. But, as we have just heard, the noble Lord himself has proposed an amendment and that will have to go to the Commons. I believe that there were other amendments made in
128
Committee which will also need to be approved by the Commons. Therefore there is no question of my amendments holding up the Bill and I hope that they will be accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I have only a few words to say. My noble friend Lady Nicol said that the undertakings were given by the proposers. I would like to know whether these have been honoured in letter as well as in spirit. That is rather important because people or groups tend to promise all sorts of things and part of our duty consists in ensuring that the promises are firmed up. On the other hand, I have a slight worry as regards whether an area that was laid aside for park-and-ride should be available for other people outside the times it is used for park-and-ride. I believe that the provision is a wee bit too vague and I would like it to be tightened up considerably. When does an area cease to be needed as a park-and-ride area? Is that six o'clock, seven o'clock, or eight o'clock at night, or is it seven o'clock in the morning? I believe that that matter must be looked at and I hope that the Minister will deal with that.
The only other worry I have concerns the difficult problem of nibbling away at open space. I believe that those were the words that my noble friend Lady Nicol used. However, to a certain extent, if one does not nibble away at the open space on the periphery of a conurbation, one will nibble away at the open space right in the centre of the conurbation and destroy the whole concept of park-and-ride. I hope to receive a satisfying answer to those points. I fully support my noble friend Lady Nicol in her endeavours to tighten up this particular aspect of the Bill.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, Clause 82, as drafted, is in accordance with the normal manner of dealing with planning matters in Private Bills. The promoters have followed the usual procedures which have been used hitherto.
This specific problem was considered in Committee in both Houses. This is an attempt to reopen a matter which was rejected in Committee in both Houses after careful consideration of the representations made by the Open Spaces Society and others.
My noble friend Lady Nicol says that the assurance given in Committee was inadequate and obscure. The promoters are content for the assurance to be repeated on their behalf.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I did not suggest that the assurances were obscure but that the place in which they are recorded is obscure.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am happy to accept that correction. The place in which they are found is the Minutes of the Proceedings, and they may not be readily available to everybody. Accepting that point, the promoters are content for their assurances to be repeated on their behalf during this Third Reading debate, which will be more readily accessible to anyone who is concerned with these matters. In that way it will appear on the record.

129
I have been asked to make it quite clear that the promoters regard this and other undertakings given to Parliament during the proceedings of the Bill as being of the utmost importance. There is no danger of them being overlooked. Moreover, the promoters regard the undertakings as binding on them.
The current local plan predates the proposal for the light railway and makes no mention of the matters which are under discussion now. However, a new citywide local plan is now out in draft form for public consultation. It is expected that following the formal deposit and public objection stages and any local plan inquiry it will be adopted in 1996. The inquiry and discussions on the plan will of course deal with the matters which my noble friend Lady Nicol has raised.
The new subsection proposed for inclusion in the clause states that the development for which planning permission is granted in accordance with subsection (3) shall not include the car park in the forest. I am told that the drafting of the amendment is defective and rests on a misinterpretation of the clause. Planning permission for the works will not be granted by Clause 82 but by the general development order which states that development authorised by Private Acts is permitted development. The purpose of Clause 82 is to impose a 10-year time limit on the permitted development.
As I have already said, similar provisions to Clause 82 have been included in all recent Private Acts authorising light railway systems and railways, and are to be found in most recent Acts authorising public works.
I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with an assurance given on the record, to be recorded in Hansard, in the following words. If the Bill becomes law, the promoters will not take advantage of the permitted development rights given by the Bill and the general development order to establish a park-and-ride site in the forest recreation ground, but instead will seek planning permission for the site so that consideration may be given to the attachment of appropriate conditions to any permission which is granted.
I hope that my noble friend takes note of the words "the attachment of appropriate conditions", which I hope will satisfy her. I hope with that assurance on the record, she will feel able to withdraw her amendments.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I wish to make a few brief remarks. First, it may be helpful if I inform the House that the Government have examined the Bill and raised no objection to it.
Secondly, with regard to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, we believe that Clause 82 as it stands is acceptable. Provisions very similar to Clause 82 have been included in almost all other recent Acts authorising public works. Clause 82 is therefore well precedented.
In any event, it seems that the proposed amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has already submitted, are unnecessary, since the promoters have already stated in Committee that, notwithstanding the provisions in the Bill, a planning application will be made in respect of the park-and-ride site which is the subject of the proposed amendments.
130
Bearing in mind the assurance that has been given, and repeated and restated by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, this evening, I suggest to your Lordships that the amendments are unnecessary.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I am grateful, too, to my noble friend Lord Howie for the clear assurance that he has given. Of course, it does not have the same force as having the provision on the face of the Bill. However, I believe that if it came to any inquiry about future developments, due weight would be given to the clear assurance that will now appear on the record. I therefore beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved. ]
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I shall speak briefly at this late hour. The light railway is proposed to run from the centre of Nottingham to the nearby town of Hucknall, about 13 kilometres away. The proposal has been widely accepted in the area by most organisations. It is true that there have been objections. However, most of the objections have been met and the promoters have made a substantial number of undertakings, all of which they regard as very serious.
The reason for the proposed light railway is simple. It is to relieve traffic in Nottingham and, by relieving traffic, to increase the opportunities for economic development in that city.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Howie of Troon.)
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I, too, am concerned about the Bill and about some of the objections raised. I feel that I am being a little unfair. Today was the first time that I saw the amendments. I have evidently lost the opportunity to put down amendments which would have suited my anxieties, and those of many residents of Nottingham, about the Bill.
Perhaps I may explain the direction of the intended route. It starts in the city centre. Anxieties were expressed in Committee. I appreciate that the majority of Members present were not on the committee and therefore the story that I tell will be new to them. The line starts in the centre of Nottingham. A point which has worried me and the people of Nottingham is that the area at the start of the line is so congested that the speed of the vehicle will have to be restricted. That sounds all right, but we have just had an example of how high technology can fail with computerised braking systems that cannot work even on a new construction on Blackpool pleasure beach.
The vehicle then moves out of the area in question and goes through one where the streets are so narrow that it has to go north through a shopping area and return through a residential area. That residential area has been subject to traffic calming measures over a long period. Evidently there is a problem from traffic. The railway will be a new form of traffic in the area. The calming measures will not be as effective because a railway line will be laid down through the shopping area. That was the subject of very extensive spending by Nottingham

131
County Council before the railway was planned. There is a grave danger of two things happening: first, the congestion will be fairly heavy; secondly, that shopping area may go altogether.
The line goes north of the city to Hucknall and adjacent is a nice piece of land which will be ripe for development. I was assured both in Committee and in Nottingham itself that there was no question of it being developed as an alternative shopping area to the one that I mentioned. I do not believe that. I believe that economic pressures will be such that it will be developed as a shopping area and all the expenditure of money in the suburb will be wasted. It will decline still further and the area which Nottingham has been trying to build up will be ruined. Efforts will have been in vain.
The third point of anxiety is that just north of that area there is a newly developed housing estate—that is, new in comparison with the rest. Cutting through the estate was an old commercial railway line that served the colliery in the north. It was a narrow one. The proposal is to run the new railway line between two rows of houses adjoining, and in some cases about 10 feet away from, the back gardens of those new houses. Naturally that is a cause for concern to the residents.
There are other proposals in the Bill, and I believe that what is happening in Nottingham is that someone has fallen for the new-fangled fashion of introducing trams again. Economic and political pressures are being exerted in order to get things through. Some of the objections were raised by individuals, and entirely through my own fault I am now out of time as regards moving any amendments. So my only chance to air these points is to say what I have done in this Chamber and then suggest that perhaps a better way to decide whether the people of Nottingham want the railway, the light rapid transit system, is to propose that they themselves should examine it. Here I rest in the knowledge that this is the last Bill to be considered under the present system. So the situation will be that if we do not pass the Bill, it will go back under a completely new procedure to the people of Nottingham.
132
I speak tonight because I recognise the anxiety of the people in Nottingham who are worried about the problems that I have just outlined. They are worried about how long it will be before the rapid transit railway is built, with the consequent blight that will be visited upon them. If we say no to the Bill, it will go back to Nottingham, which in my opinion is the proper place for it to be considered.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sefton for his observations on the Bill. He was a member of the committee and knows the situation thoroughly. He will, of course, be aware that most of the matters which he raises now were discussed in the committees of both Houses. They were accepted by both committees, who thought that the Bill should go ahead.
My noble friend raised a number of matters of detail. It is not uncommon for a double track railway to be split if the geographic circumstances demand that it should be split. It is very similar to a dual carriageway on the road. Dual carriageways are sometimes separated—and sometimes by quite substantial areas. That is all that is happening in this case; the twin tracks are being separated for the convenience of running and to make the railway possible. There is nothing unusual or abnormal in that.
What strikes me most is that, as I understand it— and, unlike my noble friend, I was not present on the committee —there was very substantial local consultation about the proposal for this railway, and the results of that consultation indicated general approval. There were of course objections. It would be absolutely astonishing if there were none. But the promoters have gone to very considerable lengths to meet those objections. I hope that the House will pass the Bill.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before ten o'clock.