Sitting of 1 February 1973

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Dangerous Toys
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an inquiry into toy safety, with a view to ascertaining what changes in the law are necessary to cover all the hazards to children from dangerous toys.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): I am not convinced that such an inquiry is needed. The Toys (Safety) Regulations 1967 are kept under review in periodic discussions between the local authority associations and the Home Office, and further regulations are being prepared.
    Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern about the number of dangerous toys which are sold in spite of the regulations? Does he recall the glass drinking bird which exploded in a child's face at Christmas, although it had been condemned as highly dangerous several years ago? Will the investigations include an examination of the loopholes by which this sort of thing can happen, and the making of regulations?
    Mr. Lane: We shall look further into the point raised by the hon. Member. I am aware of concern felt over this matter. That is why we are proposing to extend the regulations into matters such as the safety of electrical toys, flammability of pile fabrics, from which some toys are made, and the elimination of sharp points and edges.

    Animals (Experiments)
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the 4,849,119 experiments on animals performed without the use of anaesthetics in 1971 were painless.
    Mr. Lane: I regret that this information is not available; but authority to dispense with anaesthesia is never granted where an operation more severe than simple inoculation or the taking of a blood sample is proposed.
    Miss Fookes: Will my hon. Friend take steps to see that the information is forthcoming in some form? This is a matter of the greatest concern to a large number of people, and the hon. Member's answer is not good enough.
    Mr. Lane: With respect, it is not easy to get precisely the information required but I acknowledge that there is a great deal of concern. I consider that the safeguards in the Act are adequate. We are always looking for ways to improve them, but we must remember the definite benefits which result from what I prefer to call tests rather than experiments. If my hon. Friend and others would like to discuss the position with us, my noble Friend the Minister of State and I would be very happy to meet them.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: How on earth can the Minister or the hon. Member for Merton and Mordern (Miss Fookes) know whether the experiments performed are painless? Surely only the animals can know that, and they are dumb.
    Dr. Stuttaford: Would my hon. Friend not agree that there is an element of hypocrisy here, in that we express Concern about the children who suffer from the effects of thalidomide but now we are complaining of too many tests being carried out on animals?
    Mr. Lane: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. We must keep a sense of proportion in this matter and be just as concerned, if not more concerned, for humans as for animals.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: In the opinion of many distinguished medical experts a high percentage of tests now carried out by vivisection could be carried out on

    1585
    cultured tissues. It is accepted that there is a residuum which can be carried out only by vivisection. Does the Home Office know—and if it does not know, will it carry out a survey to discover—what percentage is representative in each case?
    Mr. Lane: The possibilities of getting the sort of information now obtained through tests on animals by other means—that is, through other forms of research—is a matter for the Secretary of State for Education and Science, with whom we keep in close touch.

    Ugandan Immigrants
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was spent in renovating Piddlehinton Camp so as to make it habitable for the Ugandan Asians; how long they were there; and to what future use this camp is to be put.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): The preliminary estimate of the cost of preparing this camp for use by the Uganda Resettlement Board is somewhat less than £50.000. The camp was used as a resettlement centre from 19th October to 17th November. The camp is, I understand, surplus to the requirements of the Ministry of Defence, which will be disposing of it under the normal procedures.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is not £50,000 a lot of money, even in the circumstances, for a camp which had not been occupied for seven years, which was totally unsuited to people coming from a tropical country, and which is about to be demolished at any time?
    Mr. Carr: Yes, I am afraid it is a lot of money. Of course, it was not easy to provide for the needs of a large but unknown number of refugees, as we had to last summer. We had to search out all the possible camps of this kind which could be used. In the event the camp was needed for only a short time, and with the wisdom of hindsight we might even argue that we could have done without it. But it was almost impossible to foresee that at the time the decision to prepare it was taken.
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what
    1586
    was the cost attributable to the use by Ugandan Asians of Hobbs Barracks, Lingfield; how many were housed; on what days it opened and closed; and what was the average cost per head.
    Mr. R. Carr: Hobbs Barracks was used by the Uganda Resettlement Board as a resettlement centre from 13th October 1972 to 12th January this year. During that time 1,652 refugees passed through the centre. Final figures for the cost of using the camp as a resettlement centre are not yet available, but the average cost per refugee is estimated to be about £100.
    Mr. King: In the light of these costs and other likely costs to follow, will the Home Secretary accept that most of the Ugandan Asians will in the end, quite naturally, join Asian communities in the big cities, and that attempts to scatter them around the countryside in groups of one or two houses, whether or not they are humane, are likely to be fruitless?
    Mr. Carr: I agree with my hon. Friend that it will not be easy to get the sort of dispersal he is talking about, but it has from the beginning been the Government's policy—rightly so—to do their best to achieve that. We owe it to those areas of the country where there are problems of over-concentration and overcrowding. However difficult, we should seek to do this in the interests of those areas and of the refugees.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Opposition are impressed by the economy shown by the Uganda Resettlement Board, rather than the contrary. Will the Home Secretary say how many refugees are still in the camps, and will he convey to the Uganda Resettlement Board the considerable admiration that many of us have for the work it has done?
    Mr. Carr: Yes. I have previously paid tribute to the work of the Uganda Resettlement Board and to the many thousands of people and voluntary associations who are helping it, and I certainly pay tribute again. I agree that, on the whole, this has been an economical operation. Hon. Members who are worried about this should realise that in terms of total public expenditure there is a substantial reduction in terms of the aid expenditure that would otherwise have

    1587
    been spent in Uganda. We would rather it were spent in Uganda, but I have made clear from the beginning that we could not spend it in both places. The number in the camps is now 6,000, or slightly less.
    Mr. Douglas-Mannasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to admit the husbands of holders of British passports who have been expelled from Uganda in order to alleviate the hardship to the families concerned, to ease the burden on public funds of supporting these families, and to end the sexual discrimination involved in the present practice.
    Mr. R. Carr: Earlier this week I met the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who has responsibility for Ugandan refugees in camps abroad, including the husbands to whom the hon. Gentleman refers. I discussed with him what could be done to speed up the reuniting of families. He is now consulting with other Governments and he will be in touch with me again in the near future.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: I suppose I must be grateful for that somewhat uninformative reply. Does the Home Secretary agree that in the light of his disgraceful statement last week, when he spoke of accepting our responsibility for United Kingdom passport holders by admitting them through the special vouchers scheme, there is no longer any danger of a precedent being set which would affect people expelled from other countries, and therefore no longer the slightest justification for imposing hardships and sexual discrimination in immigration matters by separating families.
    Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is not putting a very integrated picture of the situation. We must remember that these families were separated in the first place only because of our speedy action in having been willing to remove wives and children to safety, but it was made clear to both husbands and wives that this would mean a period of separation. I assure the House that we wish to see them re-united as quickly as possible. There has been a United Nations response, those who are concerned accept this situation, and we are anxious to help them to deal with that responsibility as best we can.
    Mr. Nigel Fisher: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are not only compassionate grounds for re-uniting these families but also material ones, in that these are breadwinners who could support their families if they were allowed to come here, rather than that their families should be supported at the taxpayers' expense?
    Mr. Carr: Yes, it is urgent for economic as well as for other reasons. I repeat that I have had a most useful discussion with the High Commissioner. He has been in touch with one or two other Governments, and will be in touch with me again in the near future.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the Home Secretary appreciate that if the United Nations chooses to remove these non-British passport holders from the United Kingdom their families will have to join those passport holders somewhere else? Does he realise the upheaval which this will cause to the heads of these families?
    Mr. Carr: We made clear to the families before they left Uganda, and before separation, that they might have to be re-united in a country other than this. We shall help them to be re-united elsewhere.
    Mr. John Fraser: Since the right hon. Gentleman has discretion to admit these United Kingdom passport holders if he cares to do so, why should they be treated less fairly than fiancées who are able to come to this country and remain here after marriage if separation may cause unreasonable hardship to wives?
    Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman should realise that this is a special refugee situation of great tragedy for those who are affected. We wish to re-unite them as soon as we can. The United Nations is accepting responsibility, and I am working in close co-operation with it. Britain has taken full responsibility for a very large number of people.

    Law of Citizenship
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made on his review of the law of citizenship.
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to announce a

    1589
    decision on his review of the law of citizenship.
    Mr. R. Carr: We are proceeding with the necessary technical studies; but, as I indicated in my reply to Questions on 7th December, the subject is a complicated one.
    Mr. Fraser: Will the Home Secretary confirm that eventually, when his technical studies are complete, there will be a formally-constituted committee of inquiry into the law of citizenship, that all groups affected will be represented and that the committee will work closely with the Commonwealth Secretariat? Will the Home Secretary, as a matter of citizenship, urgently look at the plight of United Kingdom citizens who are imprisoned in other countries because their leave to remain there has expired and who carry British passports which have the unique distinction of debarring them from entering the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Carr: I should like to look into the second part of the question and communicate with the hon. Gentleman. On the first part, I should not like to commit myself at this stage to a formally-constituted committee of inquiry, but there will have to be widespread consultations outside the country as well as inside it. I will keep the House informed as to how we proceed. We want to proceed quickly and we have to proceed thoroughly, and, I accept, not in isolation.
    Dr. Glyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is deep concern in the country on this question? We are undoubtedly faced with the possibility of large-scale immigration, and the country wants the Government to get on with the studies. I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said, but will he get on with this as quickly as possible, in consultation with our Commonwealth partners and European friends?
    Mr. Carr: I assure my hon. Friend that we are getting on with it as quickly as possible. It is urgent, but it is also very complicated, and there will have to be widespread consultation inside and outside the country.

    Maintenance Orders
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how
    1590
    many letters he received in January 1973 from women awarded alimony by court order who had not received it.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Carlisle): Seven letters were received in January 1973 from women complaining about the enforcement of maintenance orders in magistrates' courts in England and Wales.
    Mr. Dalyell: The Minister may have had seven, but I have had 83 since the Mechanics of Payment of Aliment Bill. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that there are a great many women—perhaps I have been partly responsible for this—[Laughter.]—whose hope have been built up. As the report of the Finer Committee is disappearing into the distant future, could this question be hived off from the main part of the committee's deliberations, and something done about it?
    Mr. Carlisle: I do not know about the hon. Gentleman's hopes, but he obviously gets rather more letters from women on this subject than does the Home Office. He has had 83 in one month, whereas the Home Office received 67 in the whole of 1971 and 59 in the whole of 1972. I am not sure on what evidence the hon. Gentleman says that the Finer Committee report is disappearing further into the future. As far as I know, the Finer Committee is shortly to report.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: My respect for the capacities of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is boundless, but I do not hold him responsible for this problem. May I ask the Minister of State to look at this again? Most people in this position write to their Member of Parliament rather than to the Home Office, and I should be surprised if most hon. Members on both sides of the House have not encountered this problem as one of the most substantial they come across. There is no doubt but that women who are just above the supplementary benefits level, and therefore cannot gain from the mechanics now adopted by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, are often in a desperate plight, especially those who have young children when the courts' decisions are not carried out.
    Mr. Carlisle: I assure the hon. Lady that I am fully aware of the seriousness

    1591
    of this problem, as I think I have said every month to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)when he has tabled Questions about the number of letters received. Within the lest two years we have brought in the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971, and we are still awaiting the report of the Finer Committee, which was set up by the Labour party, on the whole problem of one-parent families. We shall certainly look with interest at that report when we receive it.
    Mr. David Jamesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to change the law whereby persons unable to work and in receipt of sickness benefit can be consigned to prison for arrears on a court maintenance order.
    Mr. Carlisle: A magistrates' court may commit a maintenance defaulter to prison only if it considers after inquiry in the defendant's presence that the default is due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect to pay. My right hon. Friend sees no need, therefore, for legislation on the lines proposed.
    Mr. James: My hon. and learned Friend will know of the two cases I have in mind. Can he tell me what public advantage there can be in sending a man who has one collapsed lung and emphysema in the other lung, in receipt of £11·51 supplementary benefit, from his own bed to a prison hopsital bed for six weeks for £60 arrears of maintenance? Will my hon. and learned Friend recognise the fact that I have another constituent who has a suspended prison sentence hanging over his head for the same offence—if we can call it an offence—whose recovery from multiple injuries sustained in a road accident is being materially retarded by frequent appearances in court?
    Mr. Carlisle: First, it is not an offence. I shall willingly look at the cases to which my hon. Friend refers. However, he would not expect me to comment on individual cases. Magistrates' courts have the power to impose imprisonment, but only if they are satisfied that the failure to pay is due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect.

    Jurors
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to ensure that jurors are chosen by the court without any interrogation as to their personal views on public and political matters.
    Mr. Carlisle: A practice direction on this matter was given by the Lord Chief Justice on 12th January. My right hon. Friend does not think that further action is called for.
    Mr. Stokes: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but does he think that it goes far enough? Is there not still a risk of a repetition of what happened during the Angry Brigade trial when the jurors were questioned? When the safety of the State is under discussion, is it not vital for jurors to be without any political taint?
    Mr. Carlisle: The decision on any question and on what questions to ask in any particular case must of course be a matter for the judge who is trying the case. On 12th January this year the Lord Chief Justice issued a practice direction to all courts and all judges, as follows:
    "It is contrary to established practice for jurors to be excused on more general grounds such as race, religion, or political beliefs or occupation."
    I have no reason to believe that there is any need for further action to be taken.

    Fireworks (Accidents)
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accidents from fireworks requiring hospital treatment occurred during the month of November 1972, and how many of the victims were children.
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the total casualty figures of firework accidents occurring on 5th November 1972; how many of these necessitated an overnight stay in hospital; and how these figures compare with those for 1971.
    Mr. Lane: The hospital returns are now being analysed, and I hope it will be possible to give the full figures later this month.
    Mr. Archer: Is it not clear that publicity campaigns alone are not stopping these tragedies? Will the Minister consider legislation restricting the sale of fireworks to representatives of groups and organisations presenting properly controlled displays?
    Mr. Lane: I am not convinced at present that this is necessary. If the final statistics for 1972 show serious cause for concern that our measures are not being effective, we will consider whether there are any further steps we can usefully take for the future.
    Mr. James Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the deep concern that is felt by our women constituents? Last November in my constituency a petition was signed containing thousands of signatures. Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that I have taken deputations to his Department during the time of his predecessor, and that it was agreed that the Home Department should attempt to get in touch with the local authorities about this matter and that we should have public displays in parks and elsewhere with the aid of the police? Has that been followed up?
    Mr. Lane: I am, of course, aware of this matter in my constituency as well. There is a trend towards the holding of larger public displays with this in view. I remind the House that in 1970 and 1971 the number of injuries in England and Wales as a result of firework accidents was much less than half the figure of 10 years before. We want to maintain that progress.

    Juvenile Offenders (Accommodation)
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of places available in remand homes, detention centres and residential schools for juvenile offenders in South London.
    Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend has recently made available to courts in England and Wales an additional 108 places in junior detention centres. The provision by local authorities of accommodation for offenders committed to their care is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
    Mr. Goodhart: Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there is a particular shortage of secure accommodation for disturbed adolescents in the South London area? Will he bear in mind that magistrates at juvenile courts are too often faced with the stark alternative of sending unruly boys to the Ashford Remand Centre and unruly girls to Holloway, or letting them run wild?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am aware that there is a shortage of secure accommodation for those to whom my hon. Friend has referred. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services dealt with this matter at a recent meeting with the Magistrates Association on the Children and Young Persons Act. I think that all I can do is to refer my hon. Friend to what was said on that occasion.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is concern not only in South London but in the country generally? Can he give an undertaking to the House that never again will a juvenile be sent to Holloway Prison or a men's prison'? It is that matter which is so disturbing.
    Mr. Carlisle: Of course, I cannot give that undertaking.
    Mrs. Short: Why not?
    Mr. Carlisle: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to explain. The law provides that over the age of 14 a person can, if the magistrates certify, be sent on remand to a prison. That provision still applies. It is bound to continue to apply until we have adequate alternative and secure accommodation. We want to provide—and at the moment it does not adequately exist—alternative and secure accommodation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is attempting to achieve that.
    Mr. John Fraser: As the reconviction rate following attendance at junior detention centres is now almost 85 per cent., making them universities of crime with a very high pass rate, will the hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that resources are diverted to more successful forms of treatment? In particular, will he ensure that the Area Planning Committee for London, which is supposed to report on

    1595
    schemes for the treatment of young offenders by the end of 1972, will report fairly rapidly?
    Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman's final question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, to whom reports are sent.
    I was not aware that the Inner London report had not been presented. It is within my knowledge that my right hon. Friend has received reports from most of the areas.
    I am quite satisfied that the power to send a person to a junior detention centre by the courts should be retained until we are absolutely satisfied that there are adequate alternatives, and at this moment there is none.
    Mr. Hiley: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the courts are deprived of a useful form of punishment today, compared with some years ago, when a little corporal punishment would have solved the problem and would have avoided people having to go into institutions?
    Mr. Carlisle: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that that is a wholly different matter, upon which the views of the Government are known.

    Children of God Movement
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many aliens have been permitted to enter Great Britain in connection with the Children of God movement.
    Mr. Lane: Accurate figures are not available but the number is believed to have been something over 150 in 1972. Many have since left.
    Mr. Hunt: Is my hon. Friend aware that among those leaders who are left are many who are peddling a dubious brand of Christianity to impressionable and often unstable young people, and, in the process, turning them against their parents and society? Unless it can be shown that these Americans are engaged in gainful employment, is not there a strong case for seeing that they are united with their mysterious leader, Moses, back in the United States?
    Mr. Lane: I know of this anxiety, and my right hon. Friend is keeping a close
    1596
    eye on the adherents of this movement. So far we have no evidence of criminal offences. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will use our powers to get rid of any who prove undesirable.

    Immigrants (Repatriation)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what stage has now been reached in the review of voluntary repatriation of immigrants.
    Mr. R. Carr: I hope to announce my conclusions shortly.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am glad that that will be so? A little urgency might strengthen public confidence in the Government immigration policy.
    Mr. Carr: I can assure my hon. Friend that when I say "shortly" I hope that I shall he proved right, and that I mean "shortly".

    Illegal Immigrants
    Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement following the entry of a number of illegal immigrants via the ship "Marika", recently arrested in Bristol docks.
    Mr. Lane: On 22nd December on the M1 the police stopped a car which contained six men who were believed to be illegal immigrants. The men were apparently from a party of 36 who left the Continent on 17th December in the motor launch "Marika" and arrived at Bristol docks on 21st December. Five of them have been returned to India and the sixth has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment and recommended for deportation. The police are seeking the remainder of the party and the organisers of the expedition.
    Mr. Grieve: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there is a widespread impression among those who have experience of the problem of illegal immigration that the number of cases which come to the notice of the police and finally into the courts represents the tip of an iceberg? Will he assure the House that he will do all that he and his Department can do within their power to deal with

    1597
    what is a very grave problem in society today?
    Mr. Lane: I give that absolute assurance. I know that there is anxiety about this matter. We are regularly reviewing the arrangements and the defences against illegal immigration. I remind my hon. and learned Friend that we are now setting up an intelligence unit at New Scotland Yard to collate and disseminate information about people engaged in this deplorable practice. We will not hesitate to strengthen these measures if necessary.

    Gatwick Airport (Mr. Howard Hughes)
    Mr. John Grantasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will inquire into the circumstances in which special arrangements were made by the immigration authorities at Gatwick Airport on 27th December 1972 to facilitate the entry of Mr. Howard Hughes and his entourage; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lane: When Mr. Hughes and his party arrived at Gatwick they were afforded the facilities normally available to passengers in private aircraft arriving during the night at that airport.
    Mr. Grant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members and, I am sure, the general public will be grateful to know that they are entitled to this smooth and streamlined treatment? However, does he expect us to believe that there was no preferential treatment, and that no strings were pulled? It is a bit rich.
    Mr. Lane: There was no preferential treatment whatsoever.
    Mr. Lipton: Do the immigration authorities still have the right to insist upon a medical examination when they have reason to believe that an alien immigrant may be mentally abnormal?
    Mr. Lane: We have very good powers which enable us in certain circumstances to insist on a medical examination, particularly of those who intend to stay more than six months. Mr. Hughes established his identity, his nationality and
    1598
    his financial means, and he was admitted for only three months.
    Mr. Redmond: Does my hon. Friend accept that in the country as a whole the movements of Mr. Hughes are just about as big a bore as those of George Best?
    Mr. Lane: As that question comes from my hon. Friend, who represents a Lancashire constituency, I will not argue with him.

    Casseroles (Lead and Cadmium Content)
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to prevent the sale of imported casseroles which contain more than safe limits of lead and cadmium.
    Mr. Lane: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 22nd January to a similar Question by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).—[Vol. 849, c. 25–26.]
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the House welcomes the fact that cooking utensils safety regulations are to be introduced on 1st April and that others will follow later with regard to the cadmium and lead content of ceramic glazing? In view of the clear statement made by his right hon. Friend, in answer to a Written Question which I tabled on 9th August last, that he intended to make these regulations, can he explain why the Observer on 31st January carried a story to the effect that the Government had no intention of making these regulations, and why information in regard to his statement was not available?
    Mr. Lane: The information in the Observer was incorrect. We intend to introduce these regulations covering not only ceramic ware but metal ware. We shall take account of the possible risks which have now come to light in the sort of ware about which my hon. Friend knows so much.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no evidence against the British casserole-producing industry?
    Mr. Lane: That is my understanding.

    Probation Officers (Pay)
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning anomalies in the pay scales of probation officers in the Greater London area; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. R. Carr: I have received representations against statutory rules made in November last, which treat members of the four probation services in outer London less favourably in the matter of excess rate payments than those in inner London. Any question of altering these arrangements would have to be considered by the Joint Negotiating Committee and in the context of the Government's counter-inflation policy.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Home Secretary agree that these anomalies do not exist in the closely associated professions in the social services, particularly after the recommendations in the Seebohm Report? Does he not feel that the regulations are unfair, and will he review them when an opportunity arises?
    Mr. Carr: Yes, I shall be prepared to review them through the proper machinery, with the kind of proviso that I have made. The Butterworth Inquiry was a big forward step in trying to assess the true worth of the probation service, and brought about a large measure of fairness between the probation officers and social service workers.
    Mr. Spearing: No.
    Mr. Carr: I think the probation officers would accept that. It has equally proved to be the case that there are still some unfortunate rough edges, which are now causing trouble.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Does the Home Secretary recognise that there is great concern in the probation service, first about the fact that many social service workers are being appointed above the basic grade, whereas most probation officers are being appointed on it, and that in this respect the Butterworth recommendation has not been implemented by local authorities; and, secondly, that there is a great deal of feeling over the A and B grades in a situation in which, in London, 80 per cent. of probation
    1600
    officers have qualified for B status and are conscious of the small rump of their fellows who are being treated as second-class probation officers?
    Mr. Carr: I am aware of the divisiveness of the A and B grading system. This recommendation—whether it was wise is another matter—was one of the Butterworth recommendations which was implemented, but it is clear that it is a new development which we shall have to review before long.

    Water Safety
    Mr. Cordleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an independent commission on water safety in view of the number of drowning accidents in the United Kingdom each year; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lane: I cannot yet add to the reply which I gave to a similar Question by my hon. Friend on 6th December.—[Vol. 847, c. 440.]
    Mr. Cordle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all those who are concerned about the human tragedy of drowning will be disappointed with the reply? Is he further aware that between 600 and 700 people in England and Wales annually die by drowning, that 150 of those are between the ages of 4 and 15, and that 110 drowning accidents occur to children between the ages of 1 and 4? Will he look at this matter again?
    Mr. Lane: We are actively considering this matter at the moment. My right hon. Friend will shortly receive a deputation from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents to discuss the proposal for a commission. In the meantime there is a great deal more that local authorities can do. Quite apart from any question of a commission, there are problems which require urgent attention—for example, the control of speedboats, which is a matter which we are now discussing with local authorities. Therefore, we are trying to make quick progress.
    Sir R. Thompson: Do we need another independent commission to advise us—a commission whose findings no Government will implement? Would it not be wiser to encourage schools to teach

    1601
    children to swim and to provide facilities for them to do so?
    Mr. Lane: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. John Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that the great bulk of the under-fives shown in the statistics drown in water butts and similar things, that that figure has nothing to do with the main problem, and that, unless we are careful, a great deal of false sentiment can be generated?
    Mr. Lane: My hon. Friend is correct. A considerable number of cases of drowning take place in inland waters.

    Cinemas and Bookshops (Offensive Displays)
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has now decided to take to control publicly offensive displays relating to film shows and bookshops.
    Mr. R. Carr: I am considering proposals for amending the Cinematograph Acts; so as to provide wider powers to deal with public advertising by cinema clubs, and for modernising the present laws relating to indecent public advertisements and displays; but I am not yet ready to announce my detailed intentions.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: May I say to my right hon. Friend how much I applaud what he has just said? When I say that after 2½ years perhaps one feels that it is time something like this was done, I hope that he will take my remarks in the spirit in which they are made. May I assure him that these displays give a great deal of offence to a lot of decent-minded people?
    Mr. Carr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I regard the present manner and scale of display as a commercial assault on freedom and not an expression of freedom.
    Mr. David Steel: In his considerations, will the Home Secretary look at the recent legislation in Sweden, where I understand they have been quite successful in banning this sort of public display while at the same time being more liberal than we are over what may be published?
    Mr. Carr: I shall certainly look at what they are doing in Sweden.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Am I right in drawing the conclusion from what my right hon. Friend says that he is also truly sympathetic to the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) and I have now in draft and will be publishing in a day or two, to control public display in bookshops, and that that comes under the umbrella of his observations?
    Mr. Carr: I shall look with sympathetic interest at the Bill when it is drafted.
    Mr. Heffer: Can the right hon. Gentleman speed this up, because many of us in the House who have very progressive ideas on a number of things—[Laughter.] I hope that hon. Members will listen for a moment. We find displays of this kind extremely offensive. As we have had them for far too long in this country, it is really time that they were removed, as they are offensive to ordinary decent working people.
    Mr. Carr: Perhaps this is a subject on which I can look for support from both reactionary and progressive hon. Members alike.

    Students (Postal Votes)
    Mr. Mark Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will advise returning officers for the impending county council elections on the eligibility of students for postal votes during university and college vacations.
    Mr. Carlisle: No, Sir. The grounds on which persons may be entitled to be treated as absent voters are laid down in the Representation of the People Act 1949. My right hon. Friend considers that it is not necessary, nor would it be proper, for him to seek to advise electoral registration officers on the interpretation of these provisions.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the definition of the question whether a vacation is a holiday and, therefore, whether students are absent of their own volition determines whether 200,000 people will be able to vote in particular areas in the elections on 12th, 13th and 14th April?
    Mr. Carlisle: What is quite clear is that for those who are absent on holiday it is not a ground for obtaining a postal vote.

    1603
    I must stand by what I have said—that the interpretation of the question whether or not a person is on holiday must be a matter for the electoral registration officer and not for the Home Office.

    Civil Defence
    Sir D. Rentonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to make preparations for protecting the population from the effects of hostile air attacks, conventional or nuclear; what is the nature of those preparations; how much will have been spent on them by the Government Departments and local authorities, respectively, in the current financial year; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. R. Carr: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes". The preparations made form an integral part of the arrangements for the defence of the United Kingdom and it would not be in the national interest to go into detail about them. In 1972–73 the gross amount to be spent on civil defence is estimated at £10·7 million, of which £2·3 million will be spent by local authorities.
    Sir D. Renton: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend has said about nondisclosure in the national interest. However, will he say what he is doing to ensure that local government reorganisation causes minimum delay in improving the arrangements which we have—such as they are—for dealing with war-time emergencies, parts of which have been announced by his predecessor?
    Mr. Carr: I believe that the new local government system, when it is established, should help. I cannot tell my right hon. and learned Friend what I am doing at present, because it is rather too early. But I will give close attention to this matter as the new authorities come into being and, indeed, in preparation for their coming into being. I promise my right hon. and learned Friend that I shall do what I can.

  COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
  Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister what official meetings he had with the TUC and CBI during the Christmas Recess.
  Mr. Spearingasked the Prime Minister if he can now announce the date when he expects to meet together representatives of both the TUC and the CBI.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): As my right hon. Friend is in the United States, I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend had four such meetings, two with representatives of the TUC and two with representatives of the CBI. My right hon. Friend has made clear that we are ready at any time to have further discussions either bilaterally or on a tripartite basis.
  Mr. Meacher: When the Prime Minister discussed fairness at these meetings, did he explain to the TUC that under the present Government, according to the Treasury's estimates published in HANSARD, the average wage-earner has gained an extra £250 net while the average executive has gained about £1,250 net—five times as much—and if shareholding gains and housing capital gains are included, an extra £30,000, or 120 times that much? Is not the right hon. Gentleman the biggest barrier to fairness that this country has to get rid of?
  Mr. Barber: I must say, first, that I agree with Professor Alan Day, who said that some of the hon. Gentleman's figures are grossly misleading—
  Mr. Meacher: And your figures.
  Mr. Barber: —and his conclusions practically meaningless. In fact, the present Government have done far more than the previous Government for the relief of poverty.
  Mr. Spearing: Is the Chancellor aware that the hospital ancillary workers who are represented on the TUC were last Friday offered a wage increase of £1·86 under the £1-plus-4 per cent. formula? Can the Chancellor say why he thinks it fair that under phase 1 they would have been eligible to receive £2 a week whereas under phase 2 they are apparently to receive less?
  Mr. Skinner: Phase 3 will be worse.
  Mr. Barber: We have set out our policy quite clearly in the White Paper and the objective, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is to control the rate of inflation,

  1605
  and this we are succeeding in doing. I have no doubt that, by and large, we shall receive the support of those who put their country first.
  Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Will my right hon. Friend make clear that whatever arrangements are made for the control of profits there will be scope for companies to maintain and to increase their own investment?
  Mr. Barber: We shall make quite certain that the limitation on profits, as we have expressed it in the White Paper, will leave an adequate margin for investment. In deciding upon the formula which is set out in the White Paper, one of the factors uppermost in our minds was the absolute necessity of not taking any action which would prejudice capital investment. This is why the limitation on prices is related to costs and to net profit margins over the last five years as a percentage of sales rather than to a set norm. This will enable real profits, like real wages, to continue to grow with the expansion of the economy, and this will make possible the increase in capital investment.
  Mr. Edward Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House are just as concerned as he is about the wellbeing of this country and curing inflation? Indeed, judging from some of the things that he has done we are a good deal more concerned. Does he really believe that any prices and incomes policy can be fair and generally accepted if it does not deal with capital gains, especially on land and houses?
  Mr. Barber: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to act in the national interest. I express the hope that he and some of his hon. Friends will support trade union leaders like Mr. Anderson of NALGO, Mr. Chapple of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication Union and Plumbing Trades Union, and Mr. Jackson of the Union of Post Office Workers, who have urged that consultation with the Government on the policy should continue. Land, to which he referred, is dealt with in the White Paper.
  Mr. Tom King: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the confusion and concern mentioned in The Times today about the treatment of profits underlines again the urgent need for the earliest pos-
  1606
  sible publication of the codes on pay and prices? May I urge that these codes be published at the earliest possible moment?
  Mr. Barber: The time which will be taken between now and publication depends largely on the consultation that we have always said was desirable and, indeed, necessary, before we settle the details of the codes.
  I think that I dealt with the first point raised by my hon. Friend. When answering Questions on Tuesday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to whom reference was made in that report in The Times this morning, referred to excessive profitability, not to increased profitability.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Prime Minister if he will invite the heads of the nationalised industries to join his discussions with the CBI and the TUC about counter-inflation policy.
  Mr. Barber: I have been asked to reply.
  A representative of the nationalised industries took part in the talks leading up to the decisions on the second stage of the programme for controlling inflation set out in the recent White Paper, and we will obviously want to discuss the implementation of the policies with the nationalised industries.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. No doubt he read the profoundly worrying remarks by the Chairman of the Electricity Council on Tuesday. As the finances and boardroom morale of the nationalised industries are in a somewhat parlous state, may I ask why it was decided that the pricing restraint imposed on the nationalised industries under phase 2 should be more severe and restrictive than that imposed on other loss-making concerns?
  Mr. Barber: That was obviously one of the factors to which we gave the most serious attention. As my hon. Friend knows—because we have discussed the matter on a number of occasions—I have never sought to deny the disadvantages of holding down prices in nationalised industries which are in deficit. But, bearing in mind the overriding importance of controlling inflation, we came to the conclusion that in present circumstances this

  1607
  was the right policy, and I have no doubt that it is.
  Mr. Palmer: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have treated the nationalised industries very badly in this respect?
  Mr. Barber: No, Sir.
  Dame Irene Ward: When my right hon. Friend is considering all the very difficult matters concerning the nationalised industries, will he remember that retirement pensioners and those living on small fixed incomes want help with heating allowances? As he has so rightly and generously said that the question of old-age pensioners will enter into the Counter-Inflation Bill, will he remember to do something so that they have adequate heating, which I do not think they have now?
  Mr. Barber: We have already increased the real value of the national insurance benefits by about 7 per cent., allowing for the increase of prices, and that excludes the £10 lump sum provided at Christmas. We have also undertaken to have annual reviews. Therefore, I think we have acted reasonably in regard to retirement pensioners, and this is an earnest of our will to look after them.
  Mr. Atkinson: Is it the Government's view that any future tripartite talks should be in the form of representations from the parties taking part, or that they should be in the form of negotiation about policy matters?
  Mr. Barber: We shall be very happy to carry on conversations with any of the parties concerned, bilaterally or in tripartite talks, formally or informally—in whichever way is considered best. I say that because I know from the published statements of a number of trade union leaders, to some of which I have referred, that there are those in the TUC who would like to continue discussions with us, and those who have said publicly that they also believe that the TUC should be represented on the pay and prices boards. It would be a great help if those Labour Members who have considerable influence on the trade union movement would, in the national interest, support those trade union leaders who take that responsible view.

  SOLOMON ISLANDS
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Solomon Islands.
  Mr. Barber: I have been asked to reply.
  My right Hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Chancellor confirm that the Prime Minister has mentioned to President Pompidou the legitimate fears of Solomon Islanders, Australians and New Zealanders about the French nuclear tests? Has the Prime Minister actually talked to President Pompidou about these fears?
  Mr. Barber: The French Government are aware of our concern in the event of any resumption of tests, in view of our responsibilities in the Pacific. I am confident that if the French decide to resume tests they will, as on previous occasions, give us adequate warning, so that we can make appropriate arrangements for radiological health surveys.
  Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman must realise that that is a most unsatisfactory answer. As there is, and has been for the past year, formal consultative machinery for the Foreign Ministers of the Six—as they then were—and applicant countries to consult together on foreign policy matters, why has not the Foreign Secretary raised this matter in that forum? If he has not already done so, will the Chancellor consult his right hon. Friend to make sure that he does so at the next meeting?
  Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman will have seen recent reports in the Press to the effect that the French Government are proposing to explode a nuclear device in the Pacific Ocean this year. Obviously we are also aware of the reports, but there has been no official confirmation of their accuracy. If there had been private communications, with the French Government, then both the fact of those communications and their content remain private.

  MAPLIN
  Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Department of the

  1609
  Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry regarding the development of Foulness Airport.
  Mr. Barber: I have been asked to reply.
  Yes, Sir. The two Departments work closely together at both ministerial and official level on all matters connected with the airport.
  Mr. Adley: In view of the substantial changes that have taken place since the Roskill Commission was set up, particularly regarding the efficiency of the advanced passenger train and the European Economic Community's commitment to regional policy, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he feels totally confident that in present circumstances this matter should proceed without further review?
  Mr. Barber: On the question whether there is a need for another airport, the Roskill Commission unanimously recommended that a third airport was needed, with the first runway operational by 1980. The latest traffic forecasts and the urgent need to reduce the noise problem at existing airports support that concluson.
  On regional policy, the development of Maplin is fully consistent with the Government's strategic plan for the South-East.
  Mr. Stonehouse: If this country is to maintain its share of inter-continental air traffic is it not vitally necessary that the plans for the development of Foulness should go ahead? Is it not also important that communications between the metropolis and Foulness should have top priority? What is being done about that?
  Mr. Barber: I understand that the Department of the Environment takes account of all the environmental and transport aspects—including housing and other services—which are required for the development. The Department is working closely with the Department of Trade and Industry and, indeed, with the other agencies concerned. However, I agree that transport to the airport is a matter of the utmost importance.
  Mr. Crouch: May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the fact that what concerns us about the development of Malin Sands is the development not only of an airport but of a seaport, and possibly an industrial complex as well?
  1610
  Will he assure us that in the matter of co-ordination between Departments the Department of the Environment will have the last word?
  Mr. Barber: I will draw the attention of both my right hon. Friends to what my hon. Friend has said.

  THALIDOMIDE CHILDREN
  Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister what recent representations he has received from Distillers Company about compensation for thalidomide children; and what replies he has sent.
  Mr. Barber: I have been asked to reply.
  None, Sir.
  Mr. Ashley: Perhaps they were stunned by the Chancellor's letter.
  Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the major consequences of the thalidomide campaign has been the focusing of public attention on the financial plight of all severely disabled children? Does he admit that the Government's offer of £3 million is grossly inadequate and is really playing with peanuts in view of the needs of these children? Will the Government make adequate provision for all disabled children and ensure that their income, as well as the income for thalidomide children, is guaranteed against inflation?
  Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make it clear that we should direct our attention to all disabled children, and the Government have shown that they are very much concerned. We introduced the attendance allowance, which already benefits about 20,000 severely disabled children and their families and is likely to benefit three times that number in two years. We are making available £3 million immediately to complement the help which is already provided for congenitally disabled children through the National Health, housing, education and personal social services. We have undertaken, when a settlement is reached, to consider providing a further similar sum for those children.
  Mr. Pavitt: Does the Chancellor recognise that, although we applaud the overall approach that is being made by the Government to the whole problem of

  1611
  congenitally deformed children, the nation owes a special debt to the thalidomide children because, without that case, the whole of the legislation of the Committee on the Safety of Drugs and the Medicines Act 1968 probably would not have the teeth that it has? Therefore, we owe a debt to them for focusing attention on drug safety.
  Mr. Barber: I will ask my right hon. Friend who is primarily responsible for matters relating to drug safety to take account of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) say that attention is being focused on disabled children generally. I think that is the right approach.

CONCORDE
Mr. Benn(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the cancellation of the options on Concorde by Pan Am and TWA.
The Minister for Aerospace and Shipping (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I very much regret that Pan American and TWA have felt unable to purchase Concorde at present. Both have, however, indicated that they will maintain an interest in the future of the programme and be open to further discussions with the manufacturers. I very much hope that both airlines will decide at a later date to order Concorde.
The manufacturers are now engaged in an active sales campaign and are in detailed negotiations with a number of other airlines. The British and French Governments will continue to give the manufacturers every support in these negotiations.
Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the Minister for answering my question and for the active support given by the Government to the sales campaign up till now.
While I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment at the failure of Sir George Edward's mission, we understand that this must be taken in perspective in view of Pan Am's financial difficulties and so on. But it is a serious setback, and must be seen as such.
1612
Is the Prime Minister raising with the President in Washington the much more important question of the landing rights for Concorde flying under BOAC and Air France colours into the United States, which is an essential interest for this country, to see that this matter is not set back by environmental pressures wrongly directed in America by the pressure of the American aircraft industry, itself motivated by the loss of its Boeing, or as a by-product of the campaign against the restoration of the Boeing in the United States?
I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise and to make clear what is, I think, not as fully understood as it might be, that if by any chance the Concorde project were to fail it would de-gut the British aircraft industry. It would certainly stunt the growth of the city of which I share representation in the House. It would have a much greater significance for the British economy and reputation than is perhaps understood by those who are critics of the aircraft.
As the Government, with the French Government and the industry, are to look again at the sales strategy, may I ask the Minister to discuss with his colleagues whether the time has come for more information to be made available to the public about the Concorde project? That point was put by the Opposition in the debate before Christmas. Will the hon. Gentleman accept from us that the secrecy surrounding the Concorde project, far from helping, is actually damaging its prospects? In the United States and France there is a far wider public discussion about these issues than has ever been allowed in this country.
Mr. Heseltine: The House will be aware that the question of landing rights was discussed first by myself and then by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with officials of the American administration over the past fortnight. It is our view that the American administration wish to see that Concorde is able to land at American airports, and that there are no regulations which would prevent it from so doing.
The right hon. Gentleman's second question, the general concern that he rightly has as a constituency Member for employment in the Bristol area, is very well known to the present Government, as it was to the previous Government.

1613
But the preoccupation of all of us associated with the Concorde is to concern ourselves with the sales programme and not to deal with the rather more gloomy circumstances which at present are not relevant to our considerations.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether there should be more publicity, whether more facts and figures should be made available. I remind the House that for 11, hours last week I provided a great range of information to the Standing Committee examining the Concorde Aircraft Bill. If hon. Members read the OFFICIAL REPORT of that debate, they will realise that a vast amount of information is available and that we had a detailed opportunity there to consider the Concorde programme. The House will have a similar opportunity when the Bill comes back on Report.
Sir F. Corfield: At this juncture, perhaps above all others, it is essential that my hon. Friend should be free to carry on the further negotiations without being pressed to disclose his hand to Parliament and thence to the public. In view of the clear interest of American carriers to postpone supersonic transport for as long as they can, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be very unwise to interpret what has happened as something more than a move in very tough negotiations which require determination?
Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. and learned Friend's intervention is particularly helpful, because no man knows more than he of the difficulties of combining the job of Minister responsible to the House with that of sponsorship of a commercial project of the kind we are discussing. I totally agree with the points he put to me. Obviously I have real responsibilities to the House, but so I have to the taxpayers, who have invested large sums of money, and to the tens of thousands of people employed on the project. In those circumstances, I believe it is right that I should concentrate on the top priority, which is to ensure that I give every support possible to those who have to conduct the commercial negotiations for the Concorde programme.
Mr. Palmer: What the Minister has just said is rather worrying. Will he reassure those thousands of workers in Bristol who are dependent on the project
1614
for their livelihood that the Government's support for Concorde remains undiminished?
Mr. Heseltine: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of the closing sentence of my initial answer. I said:
"The British and French Governments will continue to give the manufacturers every support in these negotiations."
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does my hon. Friend agree, nevertheless, that the withdrawal of two major potential customers creates a rather new situation? Is there not a case for setting up a Select Committee of this House to obtain information from all concerned and from all sides so that we know whether the Government are right to pursue this programme in the new circumstances?
Mr. Heseltine: I fully understand the general argument about the need for parliamentary inquiry and the use of a Select Committee for the purposes. But in view of the stage which the sales campaign has reached the appointment of a Select Committee could not be considered helpful to the salesmen who have the job of negotiating whatever decisions have to be made.
Mr. Stonehouse: Having got to this stage, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be rash and foolish to give any hint about cancellation? Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind the importance of this project not only to Bristol but also to the thousands of subcontractors up and down the country? On the hon. Gentleman's point about protecting the taxpayers' money, will he be in a position soon to tell us about the new pricing arrangements, with BAC especially, to avoid the cost-plus situation which seems to be a technique of guaranteeing a return to the company concerned rather than of ensuring top efficiency?
Mr. Heseltine: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there should be no hint of weakness, vacillation or doubt in the Government's mind. Nothing that I have said could give rise to any such suggestions.
The right hon. Gentleman's second point was about the cost-plus situation, which was referred to recently in the national Press. As the programme has

1615
developed it has become increasingly possible to fix the design of an increasingly large part of the programme. We have been in discussion with the engine and airframe manufacturers with a view to moving to a fixed-price element in the programme. The discussions have been going on for some months and the House will appreciate that it is a necessary step to take to try to get the maximum possible control on the cost situation in a high technology exploratory situation.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's third point that not only in Bristol but throughout the United Kingdom the Concorde programme is of immense importance. I have myself pointed out to the House that one hon. Member in four has people in his constituency working on the programme. What is more, it is equally important to the employment situation in France.
Mr. Biffen: Is my hon. Friend aware that in all quarters of the House there will be approbation for the full-hearted way in which he has sought to promote the sales of Concorde? Nevertheless, is my hon. Friend aware that only those bemused by the superstitions of high technology will assume that we can continue as though it were business as usual? Is my hon. Friend aware, further, that there are some hon. Members who are not so naive as to suppose that they can talk about the undesirable aggregate levels of public expenditure without drawing attention to certain components of public expenditure which have highly questionable economic and social implications?
Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that my hon. Friend will dissent from the view that the responsibilities that I have are those for giving every support possible to the Concorde programme. Obviously in any dialogue about public expenditure it is a matter for hon. Members to raise such matters as they wish.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will the Minister consult his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General with a view to publishing a White Paper setting out in detail the circumstances, if any, in which we should be able to withdraw from or to renegotiate this project if we wanted to? In such a White Paper will the hon. Gentleman set out a quantification of the damages which the Government will have to pay?
Mr. Heseltine: No, Sir.
Mr. McLaren: Is my hon. Friend aware that we realise that no one has worked harder than he has to secure the American contracts and that he has the support of nearly the whole House and the country behind him in his efforts to ensure the continuing success of the project? Cannot we be sure that in the long run supersonic transport is bound to come?
Mr. Heseltine: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. The advent of supersonic transport is not entirely within the control of the British and French partners. The Soviet Union has a supersonic transport which it intends to introduce into service at about the same time as our national flag carriers.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those who said that the American airlines would not purchase Concorde derive no satisfaction from having been proved right? Is he aware, further, that the commercial considerations which motivated the American airlines are likely to motivate anyone else who examines the project? In the circumstances, surely the hon. Gentleman should not exclude from consideration the possibility that a grave error has been made and that in the interests of all concerned it would be better if we guided the efforts of the British aircraft industry in another direction?
Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as aware as I am that the decision of Iran Air and of China to purchase Concorde flies in the face of his suggestion that following the decision of one or two American carriers everyone has to reach the same conclusion. There are few hon. Members who would argue that because the Americans make one decision we should all make the same decision.
Mr. Hastings: Is not it probable that this decision reflects the economic performance and position of Pan American rather more accurately than that of Concorde? Secondly, is not it possible that we have exaggerated the importance of the transatlantic route in any event and that the greatest advantage lies in the Far Eastern routes? Ought not the manufacturers and the Government to

1617
concentrate in this direction? Thirdly, is not it fair to say that nothing now can stop supersonic flight and that if the Americans by the end of the 1970s opt out and leave the field to Europe and to Russia they will place themselves in a very dangerous position?
Mr. Heseltine: The House will understand that it will not help if I make comments about Pan American's financial position. As for the importance of the transatlantic route, I draw attention to this morning's statement by BOAC, which obviously attaches great importance to it. The fact that BOAC and Air France will introduce Concorde on to that service in 1975 must be a tribute to their judgment that it is an important route. It carries the highest proportion of first-class passengers of any major route.
The possibility of supersonic transportation being extended by the introduction of an American SST is for all hon. Members to reach a conclusion upon themselves. But expenditure on supersonic transportation is continuing in the United States. At no time in history when human beings have been given the choice to go faster have they ever failed to take that choice.
Mr. Benn: Without prejudice to the argument about whether more information should be made available on Concorde's performance and so on, will the hon. Gentleman consider making available in either a Written Answer or a full Press statement the degree of commitment in the project that there is in this country in terms of investment and employment throughout the country, so that those who are still pursuing the theoretical but now historical argument about 1962 can realise the extent to which we are involved in building the aircraft and therefore can measure their comments about it against the background of our real interests instead of pursuing the matter in rather different terms?
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman frequently made this information available when he was responsible. Like my predecessors in this Government, I have continued to do so. I shall see to it that the information is republished, although it is already available for hon. Members to seek.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Edward Short: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 5TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Water Bill.
Motions on the Northern Ireland Fire Services Order and on the Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations.
TUESDAY, 6TH FEBRUARY—Supply (7th allotted day). There will be a debate on Housing in the United Kingdom, which will arise on an Opposition Motion.
Motions on the Northern Ireland Orders relating to Museums, Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration, and Financial Provisions.
WEDNESDAY, 7TH FEBRUARY—Debate on a motion to take note of the White Paper on Public Expenditure to 1976–77 (Command No. 5178).
Motions on the Salmon and Migratory Trout Orders.
THURSDAY, 8TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Maplin Development Bill.
Motions on the Representation of the People Orders.
FRIDAY, 9TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 12TH FEBRUARY—Consideration of Private Members' motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, Second Reading of the Education Bill (Lords).
Mr. Short: May I ask the Leader of the House two questions? First, will he give the House an assurance that the steel White Paper will be published next week and that we shall have an opportunity to debate it shortly afterwards? Secondly, will he give us an opportunity in the very near future to debate the Government's White Paper on education? This was published without any statement from the right hon. Lady and we must have an

1619
opportunity in Government time to question some of its very doubtful assumptions and even more doubtful conclusions.
Mr. Prior: I am not certain that the White Paper will be available next week. At the moment the timetable is within about the next ten days. Of course I accept that the House will wish to debate the White Paper, certainly before we get engaged in the usual spring debates on defence, the Budget, and so on, and I give that undertaking to the House.
On the question of education, at the time of publication of the White Paper I made it clear that I would provide time for the House to debate it. The point I am thinking about at the moment is that we have a debate on education today. Whether we want to have another debate on education so quickly is a matter for the House to decide, but of course I am perfectly prepared to repeat my undertaking that we shall have a debate on the White Paper.
Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is urgent need for debate on Northern Ireland agriculture, particularly in relation to the EEC and the problems it has created? Would he consider the possibility of permitting some of the time, say one and a half hours, to be used to discuss agriculture, by taking one of the other Orders in Council formally?
Mr. Prior: I recognise that there is great interest in Northern Ireland in the agricultural part of the EEC regulations, and I noted what my hon. and gallant Friend said. I am not certain whether it would be in order to do as he suggests, but I will of course look at it. He asked about Northern Ireland business generally. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows only too well, there will be plenty of Northern Irish business in the next few months.
Mr. English: I have received a very nice letter from the right hon. Gentleman, but is he aware that I still have not received any copies of the record of what happened in Strasbourg? While he is thinking of things that have not happened yet and are his responsibility, will he tell the House why, for far longer than he has been in office, the Leader of the House has not brought in any proposal resulting from the Joint Committee on Defama-
1620
tion and Privilege in relation to this House?
Mr. Prior: The multi-lingual version of the European Parliament proceedings is available in the Library and can be ordered through the Vote Office. I recognise that there is a delay in translation of the full proceedings, and we are looking at this to see how we can speed it up. I will do my best to see that the House has the full proceedings as quickly as we can get them, but the House can at the moment get the multilingual version.
I should like to consider the other point made by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Powell: What provision does my right hon. Friend propose to make in advance of the report of the ad hoc Committee for the House to consider draft proposals for Community legislation so that the House can express its opinions to Ministers, as we have repeatedly been promised, before decisions are reached?
Mr. Prior: I am hoping that the ad hoc Committee will report quickly on these problems, but until it reports, if the House will discuss through the usual channels or directly with me what particular draft regulations it would wish to debate, I will see whether time can be found.
Mr. Faulds: Would the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements to have all the recording equipment in the Committee Rooms scrapped? Is he aware that on two recent occasions when I was in Committee with other Members of the House the damned stuff broke down, and that on one occasion I had the daunting task of trying to recreate the rich, tumbling flow of my contribution? Will he make arrangements promptly to hire a sufficient number of old-fashioned but competent manual transcribers?
Mr. Prior: Knowing the quality of the hon. Gentleman's ability to recreate the tumbling flow of his speaking, I cannot think that he had any trouble in doing that. But I will see what has gone wrong with the recording equipment. One of the problems we have is in finding sufficient people of the old-fashioned variety, as he has asked me to do, who can carry out these duties.
Mr. Kimball: Would my right hon. Friend say whether the tumbling flow of full democracy will be restored to Lincoln during the course of next week, and has he any indication whether business will be interrupted for the moving of the writ for the Lincoln by-election?
Mr. Prior: I must tell my hon. Friend that that is not a matter for me, nor have I any information about it.
Mr. David Steel: Can the Leader of the House say when he will tell the House of his reaction to the very many proposals made this week concerning talks through the usual channels about the method of selecting Standing Committees?
Mr. Prior: I had quite a lot to say on that last week and I am not in a position to say anything further at the moment, but some of the problems which the hon. Gentleman mentioned are, of course, still being discussed and could arise again.
Dame Irene Ward: My right hon. Friend will remember that last week he very kindly told me that he was going to find out about the Booz Allen Report and would write to me. Would he bear in mind that I really do enjoy having letters from him and that I have not had any? As he has not let me have an answer up to the moment, would he please add some information as to what the Government are doing about making selective proposals to shipowners in regard to what they are going to do to help them in connection with the building of ships? I am longing and longing to get a letter from him.
Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend received the report only this morning and he will be considering whether a version excluding commercially confidential information can be published. I think it would be best to await his decision before considering the possibility of having time for a debate, but if I have any other information I will certainly write to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Strauss: In view of the apparently well-informed articles that have appeared in many papers during the past few days saying the Ministers are considering the problem of the declaration of hon. Members' interests, can the right hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to get an official statement on the matter and, in particular, whether the Government are
1622
now considering implementing some or all of the recommendations of the Select Committee that went into this matter in 1969?
Mr. Prior: I think the right hon. Gentleman's experience of that Committee will have told him that this is not at all an easy problem. It is very much a matter for the House as a whole and for hon. Members in all parts of the House to consider what further action, if any, we can take that will help. I would suggest that it would be of advantage to the House as a whole if we could have consultations, and I am prepared to hold consultations through the usual channels and in all parts of the House to see how best we can deal with a very difficult and complicated problem.
Mr. Marten: Reverting to the point about the EEC raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that since 1st January there have been 66 draft regulations, directives and orders? Is he further aware that I have looked through a number of them and find that at least 20 of them are important and should be debated quickly? If he is aware of this, may we have time next week or the week after, specifically a day, to go through at least some of them?
Mr. Prior: I cannot promise any time next week and I could not promise a day in the week after that. If we are not to get the preliminary findings of the ad hoc Committee quickly we shall have to make some arrangements to discuss these draft regulations. I would like to consult with the House about how best to do this.
Mr. Wallace: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it looks very much as if the National Health Service will be reorganised before the legislation is discussed by this House? Is he further aware that considerable detail has already been fixed and organised before we have seen this legislation? When is the legislation likely to be discussed here? Before everything is arranged, I trust.
Mr. Prior: I am sure that it is the desire of my right hon. Friend that the Bill, which is now in another place, should reach this House as soon as pos-

1623
sible. I hope that it will not be long delayed in getting here.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor made a promise that there would be consultation with Members representing Northern Ireland about the Northern Ireland business which came before the House? Does he intend to carry on in the way of his predecessor or is he not ready to consult Northern Ireland Members? Is he aware that they have not been consulted, with the exception of the leader of the Unionist Party in this House and probably the Opposition spokesman? Can he tell us when we are to have the opportunity to debate the important proposals of the Diplock Commission in view of the escalation of violence in Northern Ireland? Surely this House should have an opportunity to discuss such matters?
Mr. Prior: I am certainly prepared to consult hon. Members from Northern Ireland about the conduct of Northern Ireland business. I thought that I had met the wishes of the House in dealing with such business, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said. I hope to be able to say something more about the Diplock Commission in the very near future.
Mr. William Hamilton: In the light of what the Prime Minister said last week about the Franks Report, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that the House will debate this report before the Easter Recess? Turning to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), may I ask whether it is not imperative, in the light of recent events, that we should have a debate on the report of the Committee dealing with the outside financial interests of Members? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this report, published in December 1969, has never been before the House?
Mr. Prior: The subject of the outside financial interests of Members raises difficult questions for the House as a whole. I am willing to consult to see how best we can deal with it. My right hon. Friend said that the Government have not yet completed their examination of the important recommendations in the
1624
Franks Committee. We shall announce our decision as soon as possible, but I certainly could not promise a debate in the near future. It must depend on when the Government make their statement.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the spate of vile murders and counter-murders in Northern Ireland, may I invite the attention of my right hon. Friend, as I did last week, to Motion No. 134? [That this House deplores the failure of the independent broadcasting authority to discharge its duty under section 3 of the Television Act 1964 in that it allowed Mr. David O'Connell, a leader of the Provisional Wing of the IRA, to appear on London Weekend Television and to incite murder and violence against Her Majesty's Forces and loyal subjects in the United Kingdom; further regrets the affront to the Government of the Irish Republic, co-operation with which is essential to the defeat of terrorism, implicit in the holding of the interview in Eireann territory where this organisation is illegal and Mr. O'Connell is sought by the forces of law and order; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to take appropriate action forthwith.]
Does he not think that the House should have some sort of explanation of the conduct of the Independent Broadcasting Authority which seems to many of us to be not only anti-British but illegal in respect of the television interview of Mr. O'Connell?
Mr. Prior: Programme content is a matter for the broadcasting authorities, not this House. As I told my hon. Friend last week, I believe the whole House deplores this programme. I am certain that the Authority is well aware of the feelings on this subject.
Mr. Harold Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing assumption outside this House that Parliament is apathetic and indifferent to industrial health and safety? Will he dispel this by recognising the importance of the Robens Report, published over six months ago, which we have not yet debated? Will he make arrangements for us to do so?
Mr. Prior: The Government hope to announce their broad intentions on the Robens Report shortly. It will be best

1625
to await this before considering the question of a debate.
Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider what facilities he can make available to the House to discuss the Government's plans for the future of the Nature Conservancy? Does he recognise that many hon Members on both sides will take it badly if the Conservancy is carved up and we are presented with a Bill carrying out a fait accompli?
Mr. Prior: The hon. Member, and other hon Members, took the opportunity to discuss this subject last Monday week during the debate on the report of the Science and Technology Committee. I think I am right in saying that the Government are considering the introduction of legislation about this. I will get in touch with the hon. Member and let him know.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry but we have an important statement followed by a debate for which I have a long list of speakers from both sides of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
Following the spate of sectarian killings towards the end of last year, the joint Task Force of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Military Police was set up in December to investigate and prevent sectarian murders. In the first three weeks of January there was a marked decline in the number of murders and of murder attempts. Two people were murdered in this period, one Catholic and one Protestant. Bad as this was, it was a marked improvement, and much of the credit should be given to the Task Force, which was responsible for the arrest of three men who have been charged with three murders committed last year.
However, there has now been a fresh and appalling wave of murders. During the last four days five people have been murdered, one of them a mere boy, and there have also been cases of attempted
1626
murder; and now this morning at about eight o'clock a grenade was thrown in Kingsway Park on the east side of Belfast at a bus which was carrying men to their work in Dundonald. One man was killed and nine others injured, of whom three a still in hospital.
On behalf of Her Majesty's Government I would like to express deep regret and extend our sympathy to the families of those killed and injured in these recent bestial incidents.
Every effort is being made by the security forces to apprehend those responsible for these crimes. Since 1st January 16 people have been charged with 10 murders. A massive security operation has been carried out today by the security forces in the area in which the bus was attacked, and is still going on.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Secretary of State aware that we on this side of the House have firmly supported the security forces in their fight against the IRA bombings and murders, but that equally we want to see action taken against all other forces who use the bomb and the bullet? What sort of people are these who kill young people and throw grenades at men on their way to work? Our concern, like that of the right hon. Gentleman, is for Protestants and Catholics whose families have been murdered.
On the wider aspect, is the Secretary of State aware that we all note that sectarian murders have increased since an officer of the UDA announced that it could not longer hold back a fierce Protestant reaction? Is no action to be taken against an organisation which breaks the Northern Ireland Public Order Act, some of whose leaders have publicly admitted responsibility for bombings? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the UVF has admitted responsibility for today's killings at eight o'clock this morning?
I return to the point about weapons made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for nearly two years now. Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that a UDA leader wrote in the Sunday Times last weekend that his organisation always relies on legally held weapons in its operations? Will he now call in all weapons and re-issue a new type of licence to those who genuinely

1627
need protection? We fully appreciate that there are people in the rural areas who need for themselves at night the protection that the security forces cannot give them, but will he please now take action on this in view of the revelations made in the article to which I have referred?
Finally, is not uncertainty a contributory factor, though no more than that, I accept, to violence, and for this reason alone will the right hon Gentleman announce very shortly to the world via the White Paper his conclusions about the future government of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman has made a number of points very fairly, as he always does. First, as far as the work of the security forces is concerned I would like to make it abundantly clear that the security forces will act, have always acted, as I have claimed, and will continue to act completely impartially against people who commit crimes from whatever part of the community they may come. That will certainly go on.
As far as sectarian murders are concerned, it is very important to me, as I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, never to fall into the legal trap of saying what are my views about particular actions before these have been fully investigated by the police. Some people have fallen into this trap before, and I must be careful not to do so myself. But I recognise, of course, that some of these murders are sectarian in character, though some may well not be. But I fully appreciate that certainly some of them are.
With regard to wild talk from one quarter or another, no one who has done my job for nine months could deplore that more than I do. I find myself living in a position where wild talk from all quarters and all directions all the time seems to be the habit of the day, and the only person who is not entitled in any way at any time to indulge in any wild talk is myself. Though everybody else does, I do not. That is the situation one has to face.
The trouble is that I have to take very carefully into consideration all these actions and all these words of various people. I will consider most carefully what people say, but they should all
1628
know how important their words are, from whatever part of the community they come, and consider what influence their words may have not on people who are used to political talk but on many people who are not and who act in very different ways. I want to say this afternoon to all sides of the community in Northern Ireland: is it not posible to have less wild talk of all kinds which incites people and which is very dangerous? I will certainly look very carefully at the words that are used.
Coming next to the question of weapons, I recognise that this is something which is very difficult for people outside Northern Ireland fully to appreciate. I have studied this matter most carefully, and I believe I can say, totally impartially. First of all, I would like to take the position of shotguns. Of 105,000 or thereabouts legally held weapons, over 70,000 are shotguns. I do not think this is an unreasonable number of shotguns in an agricultural community, as no one on either side has suggested that shotguns as such are responsible for these crimes or that they should be recalled.
As to other weapons, there are those in all sections of the community—and I emphasise all sections—who are provided with weapons for their personal protection. I would like to say to every hon. Member in this House that for my part I would not like to be in the position of some of these people if, in fact, weapons for their personal protection were withdrawn from them. This is something the House should understand. It is easy for me, of all people, to say so in all the circumstances in which I am placed, as the House will understand. Nevertheless, having said that, I will accept the hon. Gentleman's view and will look at this, provided it is accepted that shotguns in an agricultural community and in all the circumstances are not the problem. I will certainly consider very carefully what has been said on other legally held weapons.
As to uncertainty and the White Paper, I have consistently said that I do not know, and cannot know, the date when this will be published. I recognise that uncertainty has a part to play, but I would not accept that it is a major part. I would say to the House—and I believe hon. Members will agree—that on the

1629
question of deciding for the future, the question of the White Paper, something which is to affect Northern Ireland and its people very deeply, it is very much more important to be right than to be rushed.
Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we join with him and the hon. Gentleman opposite in expressing our deepest sympathy to the relatives of all who have lost their lives as a result of these ghastly murders? There are probably no words in the English language strong enough to condemn the kind of incidents that have just occurred, from whatever source they may have come. Probably the worst thing in the situation at the present moment is the degree of speculation and the rumour that is rife about the origins, causes or motives of these events. While one appreciates the legal trap which my right hon. Friend rightly envisages, it is still very important to give the public as soon as it reasonably possible the fullest possible information whenever that is available.
With regard to the actual endeavours to find the criminals, from wherever they come, and bring them to justice, would my right hon. Friend say whether he is still satisfied with the degree of co-operation between the Army, the Task Force and the Royal Ulster Constabulary and whether there might not be a rôle in intelligence work to be played by the RUC Reserve? Finally, on the question of arms, has he any evidence that any legally held arms have ever been involved in any of these incidents?
Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend has raised various points. First, on the question of speculation and rumour about the various murders, of course, as I said before, everyone is entitled to speculate and indulge in rumour; the only person who is not is me. That is perfectly fair and proper. However, I wish people would not speculate but would give the security forces and the police an opportunity to try to establish the real facts, which is what one wants to know. Perhaps that is really asking too much.
On the question of bringing these people to justice, apart from the figures I have given of those who have been charged, it is important to know the facts, because there is a feeling that the
1630
forces of law and order are not reacting as strongly as they should do; so it is important to know what has actually happened. Since 1st January, in cases involving the more serious terrorist offences, 60 persons have been sentenced to a total of 292 years' imprisonment plus one life sentence. Let no one say that those are not severe deterrents for those who have been guilty of various crimes and found guilty of them in the courts. Lest anyone has any doubts, let those serving those sentences have no doubt that as far as I am concerned in the circumstances in which I am placed, if they are found guilty and given those sentences that is the right place for them to be for that period of time. It is very important for everyone to realise that.
My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned the work of detection by the Task Force. I went out with the Task Force the other night. I do not pretend that I played an important part in the rôle of detection—that would not be likely. But I saw its work and I greatly admired it. It is very important that in this police operation the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Military Police should co-operate together, and I believe that such co-operation has had and will have substantial success, particularly as a deterrent, which again in itself is very important. I am prepared to consider anything which would improve intelligence work. Obviously, I have a particular responsibility for intelligence and I must simply note what my hon. and gallant Friend said.
Mr. Peter Archer: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is impossible any longer to justify confining the application of the Detention of Terrorists Order to only one side? Will he ensure that so long as it continues in use it will be applied impartially?
Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly do that. I have always said that it would be applied impartially. The signing of interim custody orders put before the Commissioners is done on the judgment of Ministers. We do it ourselves. No one else takes the decisions. We take all such decisions totally impartially. We make what we believe is the right judgment in the circumstances. We shall continue to do so. What the Commissioners

1631
decide is, under the Detention of Terrorists Order, their decision, and I believe that it is right that that process should continue.
I was asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South about evidence that legally held weapons had been responsible for any of the crimes committed. I have no such evidence.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: I am sure that the whole House retains full confidence in my right hon. Friend in his difficult task. I am glad that he is to look again at the question of weapons. It is vitally important, as we move towards what may well be a climacteric in the Northern Ireland situation, that the Government make it clear—particularly in relation to Section 7 of the Public Order Acts, dealing with the prohibition of quasi-military organisations—that they are carrying out the law and that law and order, having been taken over by this House, will be fully maintained in Northern Ireland. I think that if there is any sign of weakness while we move into a very dangerous situation, it will be disastrous. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will look at these points very seriously. The law must apply equally to both communities.
Mr. Whitelaw: I accept the importance of applying the law equally to both communities. But I think one must simply say, in looking at this matter, that while all sorts of crimes may be committed by one lot of people or another, no one should have any doubt as to what has been going on over the last four years. One has to look at the situation in that context.
My right hon. Friend returned to the subject of legally held weapons. I think that it is important for the House to keep this in proper perspective. While I will certainly look at the margin between the number of shotguns and the total number of weapons held—over 100,000, including over 70,000 shotguns, and including guns for personal protection—let no one have any doubt that the real trouble in Northern Ireland is the illegally held weapons which are coming in.
In the Sunday Times article to which the hon. Member for Leeds, South referred, one person said he relied on legally held weapons while another
1632
boasted of how many illegal weapons were being brought in. That was in one and the same article. It is extremely difficult to know what on earth is going on in such circumstances. I will look again at the question of legally held weapons, but even when I have done so the problem still remains of illegally held weapons, which make up far the greater proportion of weapons.
Mr. Speaker: May we revert to question and answer, please?
Mr. Fitt: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the circumstances in which the latest increase of sectarian murders has taken place seems to indicate that a calculated campaign is being waged with the intention of intimidating and terrorising the Catholic minority in Belfast particularly, with the added intention of trying to influence the Government in relation to the decisions they may take in the White Paper? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to disregard the disclosures and revelations made by a person who has defected from the UDA? Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept it as a fact that the UDA has been importing arms, has blown up a public house in Belfast and has also been using legally held weapons? Has he given instructions for these people to be questioned about the serious charges? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to keep telling the House that legally held weapons are of no moment in this matter when there is no way of finding out whether a legal weapon has been used in an assassination attempt or murder in Northern Ireland? There is no way of proving it. Does he agree that right-thinking people in both the majority and the minority would not be averse to having all legally held weapons called in forthwith?
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to follow him in speculation about the motives for various murders. He will appreciate how wrong it could be for me to comment one way or another. He is entitled to his view but it would be wrong for me to comment.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the disclosures about the UDA by one person. In a short period in Northern Ireland, I have found it most fascinating to read disclosures, particularly where they affect me personally, of what various

1633
people are said to have done or of what has been said to me personally. Frequently these reports contain considerable inaccuracies. But I have the benefit, which perhaps these other persons have not had, of having a record taken of what happens at these meetings. As I say, frequently the disclosures are inaccurate. If they are inaccurate on that scale, they may be inaccurate in many other respects—and frequently are. They also frequently conflict.
But having said that, I would add that of course what is said is most carefully gone into. What was said in that article is being gone into now. I confirm that police inquiries are going on into various statements which have been made. This is a matter for the police and not for me, but I am entitled to tell the House of the inquiries.
The hon. Gentleman returned to the subject of legally held weapons. I have never said that this is the worst part of the problem. What I have said is that shotguns are widely accepted and that there are also weapons, far fewer in number, for personal protection which are equally widely accepted. I have said that there is only a small problem there compared with the enormous problem of illegally held weapons, and I am glad to say that the security forces have been successful in capturing many of these weapons. Nevertheless, there are still a great many left.
Mr. Kilfedder: Does my right hon. Friend know that as recently as a debate last night I utterly condemned those guilty of murder, whether they be Protestant or Catholic or ordinary criminals?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is the widest belief throughout Northern Ireland that prisoners found guilty of atrocities will be released in a general amnesty as part of or shortly after a political settlement? I therefore welcome his statement that these thugs will serve every day of their sentences and I trust that this will act as a deterrent. Will he intensify the search for those responsible for these fiendish and atrocious crimes?
Mr. Whitelaw: I accept what my hon. Friend has said in condemning violence and I am grateful to him. I am grateful to all those on both sides of the House who have consistently condemned violence
1634
from whichever quarter it has come. It is important that there should be such condemnation.
There are those who say that we must have more protection against these thugs. Very well. The security forces will do all they can, as always, and I am prepared to consider any further measures of protection which are put to me constructively. But when people say in general terms that they want more protection, I must ask them to state exactly what are the measures they wish to see.
My hon. Friend referred to some people believing that sentences will not be served. I have made abundantly clear my view and that of the Government and I hope that it will be properly noted, because these rumours go around. This rumour is not true. It has no substance whatever.
Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman said that he wants to know some of the methods which people concerned in Northern Ireland wish to see adopted. One of the methods which they wish to see adopted is the taking in of all legally held arms. Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that in the Northern Ireland situation with its rumour, with its myth, with its fears, a demonstration by the right hon. Gentleman that he understood the fears of ordinary people and was prepared to order all legally held arms to be brought in, be they shotguns—and Belfast is not an agricultural community—or any other arms, and then issue some sort of licensing for arms held for personal protection, or for shooting foxes—although he probably does not like that—and in other circumstances when they are necessary, could be understood and appreciated as a gesture which could build up confidence. The pulling in of legally held arms would be a tremendous boost for many people.
Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps on a lighter note—in serious affairs it is sometimes as well to have a lighter note—I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should think that I mind the shooting of foxes. That is by the way. As I said to the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), I shall of course consider the question of legally held arms, bearing in mind, first, that I believe that the situation about shotguns is reasonable. I shall consider all these proposals. I am very ready to do that. But I beg the hon. Member for

1635
Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), when he speaks about people's fears in these circumstances, to put himself in the position of some in all parts of the community who have weapons for their personal protection and to ask himself whether, if he were living in that community, he would be happy to see these arms taken away.
Mr. McNamara: I said so.
Mr. Whitelaw: I think the hon. Member accepts that, but I must say this: it is a very important factor for me to take into account. In anything I do I have to take into account, first, shotguns—I do not believe it would be reasonable to disturb the position over shotguns—and also the very proper fears and anxiety of people who have weapons, justifiably in my opinion.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House. I will allow two more questions on this subject.
Rev. Ian Paisley: With reference to the Task Force, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what co-operation he is having with it in Protestant areas and what co-operation there is with it in Roman Catholic areas? I live in East Belfast, as he knows. The Task Force has been very effective there and arrests have been made. Could he tell the House whether this force is having co-operation in districts where there have been murders and a hue and cry to find the murderers? It is hardly fair, in my opinion, that the security forces should be condemned if they do not have the fullest possible co-operation from the people in the localities where these dastardly crimes are committed.
Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that if he outlawed all weapons, only the outlaws would have weapons? If he announced the calling in of all licensed weapons there would be a frightening situation. Is he aware that there are people in lonely parts of the country who never see a member of the British Army, or a policeman, or a reserve policeman, or a UDR man, and that their only protection is the weapons which they legally hold? Will he also tell the House that he can ascertain whether a crime has been committed with a legally held weapon or
1636
an illegally held weapon when the murderer is apprehended—for then it can be found whether the weapon was licensed?
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member has made three points. On the first, I am grateful for his tribute to what the Task Force has done in East Belfast. I am grateful to him and others for their co-operation in the work that the force is doing. I wish there were the same co-operation throughout the city of Belfast, in all areas, with the work of the force, but I regret to say that that is not the case. Those who want to see these troubles and murders ended have one course open to them which I hope will be considered very carefully: the more effectively they co-operate with the Task Force in giving information, the more likely it is to be successful in bringing these crimes to an end.
Secondly, just because I understand very well the anxieties put forward by the hon. Member about people who hold arms legally, I have systematically, firmly and determinedly adopted the attitude I have explained. I remain quite ready to consider matters at the margin of this problem, but I am absolutely adamant in saying that I am not going to create fear and distress among a lot of isolated people. That I shall not do. The House will realise that it would be very wrong if I did so.
On the third point, once one has been able to establish which weapon was used in a murder, or one has been able through forensic means to bring someone to court on a charge, it is possible to ascertain whether a murder was committed by a legal or an illegal weapon. When I gave the answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) that there was no evidence as yet that a legally held arm had been used for a murder, that answer was based on such information.
Mr. Douglas: Would the Secretary of State concede that one of the most astounding aspects of sectarian killings is the age of those alleged to be perpetrating killings and the age of those who are killed? Will he have discussions with the education authorities and those in the schools to obtain the co-operation of those authorities to inculcate, if possible, in the young the idea that by acting in

1637
this way they are only laying up future trouble for themselves and for those who lend assistance to those perpetrating killing? Secondly, will he consult the Press in Northern Ireland and emphasise the feeling in all parts of the House that we are concerned here not with the religion of those who are killed but with the fact that they are citizens of the United Kingdom and that the reporting of the religion of a victim should be very much a secondary aspect?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for both points he has made. On the first point about the youth of those engaged, not only in some of the killings but recently, as he will also have noticed, in some of the bomb incidents and many other activities, it is a very serious matter that the young are certainly being used for these purposes. What perhaps the House does not realise and what perhaps the world does not realise—and so few people co-operate in this—are the tremendous efforts which are being made in the schools by teachers in all parts of the community to bring young people together, to promote games and recreation. A great deal of work is being done in that way. I pay tribute to those people. It is very unfair that because violence inevitably is news the
1638
efforts of those people do not gain the prominence which they should gain in Press reports. A great deal of this work is going on and everything which we in the Northern Ireland Office can do to promote it will be done. It is very important.
As to the question of the religion held by people who suffer, the House would be absolutely right in accepting what the hon. Member says. What matters in the end is that United Kingdom citizens are being killed in this way. Our job in this House, and the job of everyone, is to prevent that from whatever part of the community those people come.
Mr. McMaster: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. As you are aware, the incident on which this matter was raised was that of a bomb placed at the door of a bus in my constituency, which caused death and injury to many of my constituents. I wonder whether, when an incident such as this arises, the hon. Member concerned——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should make a communication on a matter of this kind privately. I did receive information from another hon. Member that the incident was in his constituency, but these matters should be discussed privately.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [6TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered

  SECONDARY EDUCATION
  Mr. Speaker: I apologise for the delay in reaching the debate, but the remedy is in the hands of those who catch my eye, for if they shorten their speeches by just two or three minutes each they will make up the lost time.
  Before I call on the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to move the motion, I should inform hon. Members that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members. That is, in line 1, leave out from 'House' to end and add:
  welcomes the Government's policies for Secondary Education, the importance attached by the Secretary of State to educational considerations, local needs and wishes, and the wise use of resources, in the exercise of her powers to decide individual proposals under section 13 of the Education Act 1944 (as amended), and the Government's determination to have regard to the wishes of parents about the education of their children.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
  That this House regrets that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has, by the arbitrary and capricious use of her powers under sections 13 and 68 of the Education Act 1944, postponed and prevented the implementation of plans for the comprehensive reorganisation of secondary education and has, by the practice of rejecting parts of schemes submitted to her, jeopardised plans prepared by local education authorities to provide for the needs of all the children within their responsibility.
  A debate about comprehensive education needs to begin with a definition. Calling a school comprehensive does not make it so. The concept of comprehensive education has a precise meaning. It must involve children of all levels of intellectual attainment and ability from a variety of backgrounds coming together within a single educational community. A true comprehensive system and the complete abolition of selection are indivisible. For a Government to approve plans for new comprehensive schools but
  1640
  at the same time to refuse permission for the amalgamation of grammar schools with them is simply to ensure that the old divisions at 11-plus are perpetuated and that the increasingly accepted advantages of true comprehensive schools are denied.
  That is not simply my view. The second Black Paper which represents, in general, educational views which are anathema to me of course overstates the case, but in its typically crude way it is basically right. It says:
  "A balanced intake is essential. Each local authority has the choice of a bipartite system of grammar and secondary modern schools or of full comprehensive schools in its area. One cannot have grammar schools alongside comprehensive schools."
  I agree with almost all of that, although the passage about local authority choice is obviously wrong. Our charge today is that in spite of the promise of circular 10/70 that
  "authorities will now be freer to determine the shape of secondary provision in their area"
  their choice is often limited in a way which is palpably neither reasonable nor consistent. That is our charge. But let me save the House subsequent time by making very clear what our charge is not. We do not accuse the Secretary of State of acting outside her legal powers. With one or two possible exceptions—one of which I will deal with in a moment—she has remained rigidly within the law, but that is hardly surprising. Sections 13 of the 1944 Act allows the Secretary of State sole judgment over any reorganisation proposal. Her judgment is made by comparing new schemes with criteria which are largely of her own construction. She is in the fortunate position of a referee who is able to make up three-quarters of the rules as the game goes on, and frankly there is no wonder that she is able to secure victory for the side of her choice without actually infringing the few rules which are determined before the game begins.
  And let me make two other points equally clear. We do not believe that any Secretary of State has the automatic duty to approve every scheme submitted to her Department. To complain that Section 13 has ever been used would be obviously unreasonable. No doubt some of her refusals were justified, but that is not the point. Nor is it relevant to argue,

  1641
  as I am sure we shall hear today, that a large number of reorganisation proposals have been approved. We do not accuse the Secretary of State of rejecting every submission. We know that reorganisation plans for many schools have been accepted. About that we are neither surprised nor grateful, particularly when we remember that many of the approvals are for schools within schemes that have been changed out of local authority recognition by the insistence that grammar schools should be excluded. The Government have two distinct personas with regard to the discussion of secondary education reorganisation. At education gatherings the emphasis is on the number of schools reorganised. At party conferences the argument switches to the type of schools which have been preserved. The Secretary of State said at Blackpool last year, I think with some pride:
  "I have upheld 92 objections, mostly in favour of famous or well known grammar schools."
  She said—[Interruption.] What a pity the hon. Members below the gangway who are cheering now were not cheering at the Manchester education conference when Government policy was advanced in quite different terms.
  Of course, many complete schemes have been approved but the approval of some is no excuse for the rejection of others which are equally good. I go on to give one example of the sort of conduct about which I complain. It is not the most extreme example I could find. The sorry story begins with the Secretary of State's approval for the closing of a grammar school—although the Secretary of State made sure it did not end that way. It demonstrates the impossibility of sensible planning under the shadow of arbitrary and capricious use of Section 13. The example concerns three London schools.
  Strand is a small maintained boys' grammar school in an elderly building. Tulse Hill is a boys' comprehensive school, purpose-built during the 1950s actually in the Strand grounds. Dick Shepherd is a girls' comprehensive school in the same area. The Inner London Education Authority made proposals for the three schools, proposals which many
  1642
  hon. Members will regard as reasonable to the point of being obvious. The Strand and Tulse Hill buildings, standing side by side, were to be used to form a single new comprehensive school. Pupils from Strand were to be transfererd to the nearby Dick Shepherd school where building extensions, a legacy of earlier and happier days, were planned and approved. No reasonable person could regard those proposals as anything other than a carefully conceived, closely integrated plan which stood or fell by its overall merits. But that was not the view taken by the Secretary of State.
  The closure of Strand was approved. The alteration of Tulse Hill, the school which was to use the newly-closed Strand buildings, was forbidden. So was the alteration to Dick Shepherd, the school into which the pupils from the closed Strand school were to have gone. All that nonsense was justified by reliance on the letter of the law, on the Secretary of State's undoubted right to consider proposals school by school, even when it was probably nonsense so to do. That of course presented the ILEA with a substantial dilemma and after a degree of anxiety the authority decided to proceed according to the Secretary of State's formula. But before that was done the parents of pupils at Strand chose to contest the closure in the courts. As a result of that an injunction forbidding the closure was made in May 1972 and the education officer of the ILEA reported the judgment in the case to the Authority in these terms:
  "The proposals made by the Authority were a package deal—an inter-related scheme affecting all three schools. The Secretary of State had approved a proposal that was not submitted and what she did was not within the power which she had under the Act to modify proposals submitted to her"
  That was the judgment on her conduct.
  The ILEA was therefore faced with a second dilemma. It resolved it by abandoning the immediate closure of Strand and making a second application to the Minister which it believed to be simplicity itself because it was legal in that it was a proposal for one school complete unto itself, simplicity itself because the Minister had already approved the principle of closing the Strand school. Therefore, to give legal force to her wishes, though

  1643
  not to the legal way in which they had been imposed upon the ILEA, a second application was made in July 1972. Six months later, on 5th January this year. the Secretary of State replied.
  The proposal was approved in the summer of 1972 and was turned down in January 1973 in a letter which explained that the change of heart had come about because
  "the volume and strength of local feeling in favour of retention had considerably increased".
  HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."
  Mr. Hattersley: Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen cheer, but I will tell them what was wrong with that.
  A number of questions immediately arise. The first concerns good local authority planning. There had been weeks of consultation with teachers and governors, and months of consultation with parents. At the end of it all, after two years in which the Department of Education and Science had steadfastly refused to give any advice to officers of the authority about the sort of scheme they might approve and the sort of scheme they might not approve, the scheme was subject to a ministerial roulette. On one day it was right to close Strand, on another day it was right to keep Strand open.
  Any hon. Member with experience of local authority planning will know what capricious behaviour of that sort does to local authority morale. Having served for 10 years on a local council, I can think of no greater deterrent to careful, conscientious local authority planning.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman think that local authority morale is more important than local feeling?
  Mr. Hattersley: I am coming to that point, in the hope that there is one hon. Member who actually believes that majority local opinion matters to the right hon. Lady. I will deal with that question at once.
  The second question involved in the Strand issue concerns the reason for the refusal—the volume and strength of local feeling, something that has been wheeled out as justification in the amendment that we are later to debate. That has become the most common reason for the rejection
  1644
  of comprehensive proposals. To employ a second footballing metaphor, it has become the "sweeper-up", the tactic that is used when other more sophisticated forms of defence have allowed the opposition to take over the field.
  We know that the Act requires the Secretary of State to take account of objections by
  "any 10 or more local government electors".
  That is an absurdly low minimum figure. Its interpretation is a matter for the Minister, and we need to know, and I intend to pursue, how her discretion in this area is used.
  I am sure that it is accepted on both sides of the House that a substantial body of opinion can be whipped up in support of virtually any existing school. We need to know how the significance of that support is measured. Already we know something about the right hon. Lady's criteria. We know that the objectors need not be connected with the school or have any particular experience of education. We know, for instance, that the educational objectors in my town of Birmingham who claimed that they had sent several tens of thousands of objections to the Minister began their appeal for objections on the high note of academic excellence of a letter which began:
  "Try writing your name and address more than 90 times—yes, 90 times—then go back and add your signature and you will have sent 90 objections to the Minister."
  We should know how seriously and how significantly the Secretary of State judges opposition of that sort.
  We also know that there is no question of measuring support for ending selective secondary education against the support for continuing it. I will give an example. In Kidderminster, where the Secretary of State had, as she said in a letter,
  "… regard to the views expressed by local government electors"
  in perpetuating a number of grammar schools, the petition against comprehensive reorganisation was signed by 4,500 people—about 7 per cent. of the total electorate of 70,000.
  In her own constituency of Barnet, where the right hon. Lady saw fit to retain certain grammar schools, the poll on reorganisation produced 24,000 people in favour of reorganisation and 4,000

  1645
  against. I hope that when hon. Gentlemen opposite scream their support for the participation of parents and local government objectors in the area they will explain why some objections are more important than some support.
  Indeed, by the operation of Section 13 the reorganisation of secondary education is almost the only element of Government policy that is determined by referendum. The distinction and novelty of this referendum is that victory goes not to the side with the biggest vote but to whatever group can be cobbled together to represent the prejudices of the Secretary of State. The only conclusion we can draw—[Interruption.]—Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene? He seems to be saying something.
  Mr. Michael Fidler: I was only commenting that the remark seemed unworthy, bearing in mind what the Secretary of State has done.
  Mr. Hattersley: If it is unworthy, bearing in mind what the Secretary of State has done, will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether it is arithmetically inaccurate, considering the figures I have quoted? That is the important point.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): The two figures quoted by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) are not comparable. One has to do with the specific Section 13 notice and the other has nothing to do with that.
  Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Lady is demonstrating the rigid legalism about which we complain. She is doing all these things to which the motion calls attention. She is certainly not taking account of the wishes of the electorate in the borough which is under discussion.
  The only conclusion we can draw is that the Government do not even consider the wishes or the needs of the electors as a whole. If a substantial vested interest wants to preserve the local grammar school then, again working by the letter of the Act—and I do not deny that the right hon. Lady does that—that vested interest will be allowed to do so. The judgment of the local education authority made on behalf of all the children within its responsibility is arbitrarily overriden
  1646
  because it is that particular minority that matters.
  Mr. Fidler: The hon. Gentleman is pleading a cause on the basis of 10 years' local government experience. I speak with 21 years' local government experience. Does he think that it is advisable for local authorities to submit plans now, when they will be going out of existence in a few months' time, and for plans to be considered not for the new districts but for the old districts which soon will no longer exist?
  Mr. Hattersley: That is a totally new point which is an abuse of interjection. I will deal with it with pleasure and my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) in winding up the debate will deal exactly with this problem, the problem of Worcester for which, with the creation of new authorities, the right hon. Lady has made life virtually impossible in 1975 by approving in two areas schemes in direct conflict with what would have happened in those areas had she refused permission. The argument is on my side.
  I will return to the stream of thought which the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) tried, unsuccessfully, to interrupt.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
  Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman's intervention is like the previous one, with pleasure.
  Mr. Raison: I am anxious to disturb the hon. Gentleman's stream of thought because I regard it as a rather mouldy stream. Will he comment on one other example which appears to put the lie to his argument, the example of Richmond on Thames, where the Secretary of State approved a comprehensive reorganisation scheme in spite of there being strong defenders of the retention of the existing grammar school? That seems to make the point very clearly.
  Mr. Hattersley: I have three points to make about Richmond. Richmond had to wait until the spring to be told by the right hon. Lady what would happen to the Richmond children in the autumn. That is not good departmental behaviour.

  1647
  Secondly, to excuse the right hon. Lady from doing anything wrong because she has done something right is not pure logic. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asks how we can object to the right hon. Lady's behaviour when she has disapproved of comprehensive schools in some areas but has agreed to a comprehensive school in Richmond. That is behaviour which I would describe as capricious, and that is what the motion is about.
  I now return to the speech which I was going to make before that welter of interruptions. I wanted to offer to the House further evidence of which parents matter to the Government. Further evidence can be gleaned from an examination of the Kidderminster case where three grammar schools were preserved despite the comprehensive scheme. They were preserved for the enthusiasts of grammar schools, including a one-stream entry grammar school about which some grammar school authorities will want to make their own judgment.
  The Secretary of State said in her letter to the local authority that she wanted to preserve the opportunity for parents to send their children to selective schools and to a single-sex school. Of course, a grammar school place was available to only one Kidderminster parent in seven. For the rest there was no choice. Equally, the prospect of single-sex education remains only to those in Kidderminster who had passed what is described there as "the 11-plus". In fact, the vocal protests of a minority were allowed to preserve the choice for the minority. The system adjudged best for the community was, therefore, arbitrarily rejected.
  I hope that as the debate continues we shall not hear very much nonsense about the existence of parental choice, desirable as that may be in itself. I know perfectly well what Section 76 says. I also know that the judgment in the Watts v. Kesteven case virtually qualified Section 76 out of existence. More important, I know that "choice" is a privilege which only very few people enjoy. In the selective system, a majority of the children have been and always will be directed to the nearest secondary modern school. I hope that we shall have no nonsense that might suggest that the parents in most depressed parts of
  1648
  my constituency, for instance, have any educational choice which is meaningful to them.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that because choice is limited, which it is, it should therefore be extinguished altogether?
  Mr. Hattersley: I am suggesting that choice under a selective scheme is deeply limited. I am suggesting that choice under a pure comprehensive scheme is a great deal more to be preferred.
  I must ask the right hon. Lady another important question. According to the law she sits in judgment on reorganisation schemes. According to her own criteria, local opposition to change is an adequate reason for retaining selection. In the light of that, does she regard it as right to use her influence and authority to stimulate the petitions, the round-robins and save-our-schools campaigns?
  The right hon. Lady has never been anything but frank about her rôle. If I might say so, without offence, it has been one of the more attractive aspects of her participation in this business. At her party conference last year, according to The Times Educational Supplement, she pleaded for those who believed intensely in the future of grammar schools to be vocal in their interests. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are right to cheer, for their right hon. Friend has practised what she has preached.
  For example, a meeting recently took place between the right hon. Lady and a group of dissident Surrey Conservatives who wanted to oppose their party's plans for secondary education in the county. The Conservative chairman of the county's education committee has not disguised his feeling about the meeting. I shall give the right hon. Lady all the details and all the correspondence if she likes. He said at the last council meeting,
  "I regret I have no first-hand information on the matter. But I may say that I was rather surprised to learn in a roundabout way that the meeting was going to take place."
  I dare say that as the day wears on and information is obtained we shall be told that the meeting between the right hon. Lady and various members of the Working Council was official and legal. Let me tell the right hon. Lady and the

  1649
  House that it became official only because it was legalised with embarrassing haste.
  In mid-December rumours appeared in local newspapers in Woking that a number of dissident Conservatives, who were disenchanted with the Conservative education plans for Surrey, would meet the right hon. Lady to make sure that they could vocalise opposition to the plans. The Woking Town Clerk wrote to the council, as a result of these reports, to the effect that by the time the council agenda had been prepared—that was 15th December—the Woking Council had heard nothing about the proposed meeting between a few of its members and the right hon. Lady.
  On 18th December the Woking Council received what I can only describe as a cryptic letter from the Department of Education and Science. It said,
  "Mrs. Thatcher has at the request of Mr. Cranley Onslow, MP agreed to receive a deputation of councillors."
  That letter, which reached the council on 18th December, invited the council to meet the Secretary of State two days later. I do not know how often the right hon. Lady invites councillors to go to see her within 48 hours, but on that occasion she did. If hon. Gentlemen are amazed by the speed of the Department of Education and Science, they will be more amazed by the speedy response of the council. The invitation arrived on the 18th December for a meeting on the 20th. On the 19th the Woking Council met and overnight a group of Woking dissidents were transformed into an official deputation from the Woking County Council.
  Mrs. Thatcher: May I clear up this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) asked me to receive a deputation. Naturally I try to accede to all hon. Members' requests. I received a deputation in the same way as I received the hon. Gentleman's deputation, in his capacity as an hon. Member from Birmingham.
  Mr. Hattersley: I was grateful for that, although I had to wait six weeks for a date. The House will draw its own conclusions from the 48 hours which elapsed in the Woking case.
  I shall give another example which took place at Grantham where the autho-
  1650
  rity of the Secretary of State has been employed with even less restraint. A programmar school lobby from Grantham wrote to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who naturally passed on his letter to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Her reply to the right hon. Gentleman was passed back to the grammar school lobby who saw fit to publish it. The letter included two perfectly legal but remarkably disingenuous sentences. It said:
  "My decision whether or not to oppose such proposals is taken in the light of any objection which may be received … I note that some parents are already preparing a petition on the matter to me."
  As a nod is not quite as good as a wink to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Gentleman thought it right to add his comment which was published in the Grantham Journal on the same day. It urged those who had objections to make their views known before the Secretary of State came to a decision—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is wrong with that?"] I will explain by asking the right hon. Lady a question. Having played a public part in the promotion of objectives, does she agree that it would be intolerable for her to use the objectives as a reason for turning down local reorganisation schemes?
  Mr. Cormack: A third-rate debating point.
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman says that that is a third-rate debating point. Let me give him another one which comes not from me but from the right hon. Lady's predecessor. The right hon. Lady will be aware of Lord Boyle's reproof to her, which was published in the Journal of Educational Administration in June of last year, which reminded her that she has a judicial as well as a political function. She will also be aware that her predecessor, the present Lord Chancellor, talked about the use of powers under the Act and said that he did not regard it as appropriate—he was speaking about an Aylesbury grammar school in 1957—to override a local education authority unless he was convinced that it had not merely been wrong but prejudiced. I throw in these two cheap debating points alongside mine.
  Another argument that the right hon. Lady has employed in the past to justify

  1651
  the rejection of reorganisation proposals is the necessity to avoid split sites. Let me give another example relating to one reason advanced for the refusal to sanction the amalgamation of two schools for London, namely Rutherford and St. Marylebone Schools.
  One block of St. Marylebone Grammar School is nearer to Rutherford than it is to St. Marylebone and is divided from its parent school by a main road. Plans were going ahead to buy the intervening land and to reorganise the way the school was to be divided in such a way that the new scheme would probably have minimised the amount of travelling.
  I offer this as an occasion when the Secretary of State has turned down the scheme on grounds which, irrespective of doctrine, are inadequate. I admit that there are times when split sites are disadvantageous. I do not refer to the case at Barnet where a split site was to be divided into junior and senior high schools, with a clean break at 14. That was clearly strategy to avoid the siting of a grammar school. We are referring to cases where split sites divide schools which means that hundreds of children have to move from one area to another.
  During the last two years there have been a number of occasions when reorganisation proposals have been turned down because split sites have been thought to be a bad thing. Equally, during last year there were a number of occasions when local authorities have wanted to end the problem caused by split sites. This happened in Sheffield, West Bromwich and Scunthorpe where education committees sought permission to provide new secondary buildings which would concentrate comprehensive schools on a single site. On each occasion permission for the new building has been refused.
  We are therefore left with an intolerable pincer movement. The creation of a split site school is judged to be undesirable and will almost invariably be opposed. The abolition of the split site is expensive and will certainly be forbidden.
  Much of the work which would have been carried out under Sections 13 and 68 of the Act has been rendered unnecessary by the Government's constant refusal
  1652
  to approve new secondary buildings for reorganisation and many other things. There was the case in York where building plans for the city's upper school were rejected. This was also the case in Sunderland where expenditure of £1½ million for Farringdon, Broadway and Corby Hill Schools was refused. The relationship between the building programmes and reorganisation plans raises most important issues of principle.
  The White Paper on Public Expenditure forecast the most extraordinary reduction in expenditure on school buildings—not failure to expand but literal reduction. In the financial year that is about to begin, capital expenditure on schools will amount to £375 million. In 1976–77 it will have fallen to £281 million—a cut in the school building programme of 30 per cent. Nobody can doubt the need for new school building. Most county boroughs could swallow up the £10 million proposed in the White Paper and still barely meet their own needs. Why is the right hon. Lady so savagely cutting the capital budget? Is it simply Treasury stringency, is it because the Government remain unsure of the sort of secondary schools they want to build, or is it simply another way of preventing the absolute end of selection?
  When the Secretary of State answers that question, I hope that she will turn her mind to another. It concerns the time taken for her Department to pass judgment on reorganisation proposals. The St. Marylebone—Rutherford proposals took 16 months for a proposal affecting two schools. In a number of other cases, notably Richmond and Farnham, local education authorities had to wait until a few weeks before the end of the summer term to learn the fate of their children in the autumn. In Birmingham the Secretary of State has even refused to disclose the date on which she will give advice on the merits of the programme.
  By taking this attitude the right hon. Lady is not simply inconveniencing local authorities but is leaving thousands of parents and children in a state of uncertainty about what will happen to them in September. For her to tell education committees, as I have heard her do, that when in doubt they must read the Act and apply the law, is to substitute rigid legalism for compassion and common sense.

  1653
  Every local education authority to which I have spoken on this topic—both officials and elected members—has given the same explanation for this procrastination. They say that the Secretary of State decides virtually every case personally. There are no rules, no guiding principles; each judgment is ad hoc. A few minor schemes go to the noble Lord who is a junior Minister in the right hon. Lady's Department.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: There is nothing wrong with being a junior Minister.
  Mr. Hattersley: Some Ministers are more junior than others. The other junior Minister in the right hon. Lady's Department makes the occasional decision. He was sent off to Sheffield to make them an offer—not an offer they could not refuse, but an offer which it was known they would not accept. But all the rest of the important decisions had had to await the Secretary of State's personal pleasure. If I am wrong, I am sure the right hon. Lady will tell me. This is why there is so much ministerial roulette, so much planning in the dark. What is needed, and what the next Labour Government will provide, is a clear statement of secondary school policy and a new education Act to enable it to be put into practice.
  The 1944 Act, with all its epoch-making virtues, was meant as the instrument of a single revolution. The change it made possible was so great that its authors did not provide the machinery for further change. Section 13, debated largely in reference to the rights of denominational schools, is intended to inhibit alteration. It was designed as an obstacle to local authorities changing the character of their schools, and it is an obstacle which in some way must be removed.
  A quarter of a century beyond that Act, we now see education in different terms. In his note on the 1870 Act to Mr. Gladstone, John Morley wrote
  "At bottom, the battle of the schools was not educational; it was social."
  I believe it always is, and I believe that is as true today as it was in 1870.
  Our view and the Government's view of society differ. We do not believe that competition is the only, or even the best, educational stimulus. We believe that such a theory is neither socially nor
  1654
  scientifically justified. We believe that the best interests of all people in the country are served, not by the unremitting use of whatever advice is at hand to preserve selective secondary education but by the open adoption of a truly comprehensive system. Such a policy will improve education without regard to outdated ideas of class and standing in society.
  5.19 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  welcomes the Government's policies for secondary education, the importance attached by the Secretary of State to educational considerations, local needs and wishes, and the wise use of resources, in the exercise of her powers to decide individual proposals under section 13 of the Education Act 1944 (as amended), and the Government's determination to have regard to the wishes of parents about the education of their children.
  I wondered what kind of speech the hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Roy Hattersley) would make in support of the Opposition's narrow motion. It boils down to three things. The first is that precision is capricious. The second is that if one has strong views one should not make them known, particularly on grammar schools. The third is that in future it would be better if I did not accede to requests from hon. Members to bring their constituents to see me. That is about all his speech amounted to.
  He wanted to have the argument all ways. He said that I was wrong to approach the matter legally, yet when I dealt with the matter of human feelings, as happened over the Strand Grammar School, the Dick Shepherd School and the size of the Tulse Hill School, he dismissed those matters completely.
  May I first deal with the nature of the powers under Section 13. I note that the hon. Member says that he will do away with that section if ever his party returns to power. In that case, he would be doing away with all rights of local electors or those affected by the proposals to make their feelings known directly to the Secretary of State who would then be acting on any proposal as an automatic rubber stamp. The Section 13 procedure which I have to operate and which his predecessor kept in existence and did not

  1655
  propose to abolish, even towards the end of his Government, requires that formal proposals be submitted to me in each case in which it is intended either to establish a new school or to close, enlarge or significantly change the character of an existing, school. At the same time, public notice must be given of the proposal and a period of two months is prescribed during which local government electors may submit objections to me.
  The very procedure, therefore, which the hon. Gentleman would abolish, includes means whereby local views on proposals for individual schools may be fully taken into account before final decisions are made. And it is that to which the hon. Gentleman objects. Just as I have a duty to examine and to assess carefully a proposal in all its details, so I have a duty to exercise the same care in consideration of all the objections which are made to the proposal. Clearly, where the volume of objection is large and the substance well reasoned a full examination of the material will have considerable relevance to a proper assessment of what local needs and wishes really are.
  For the convenience of authorities, Circular 10/70 summarised the main criteria—they are in the amendment—for formulating and judging the proposals. These are educational considerations in general—I often think that the Opposition do not look at these schemes on educational considerations at all—local needs and wishes in particular, and the wise use of resources. Educational considerations in general clearly include not only questions of pattern of provision, to which the hon. Gentleman partly referred—two-tier schools, all-through schools, sixth form colleges, age of transfer, and so on—but they also include reasonable choice of school. When the examination of proposals and the objections made to them reveal a strong conflict of view in the particular circumstances, this, too, requires full and patient consideration.
  No proposal has ever been held up by me. Since I came to office I have approved about 2,650 statutory proposals relating to secondary schools and rejected 115, roughly 4 per cent. These figures reduce to proper proportions the very limited scale of those contentious cases which receive a great deal of publicity. Some of the criticism of the decisions
  1656
  taken in this minority of cases has been directed to the fact that I have actually used my powers for the purpose for which they were intended; that I have actually listened to objectors and have rejected some proposals under Section 13, as, if it were a reversal of the laws of nature that any proposal under Section 13 should fail to receive approval.
  This seems wholly to misconceive the nature of the jurisdiction which it is the duty of any Secretary of State to exercise. A proposal is not a decision, and the precise machinery for objection is not mere decoration, although the hon. Member would have it that way. The duty is to make decisions on proposals on their merits and in the light of any objections which may be made. If the Secretary of State, in the exercise of this discretionary jurisdiction, concludes that a proposal is not well-founded, would not be in the best interests of the children concerned or does not accord with local wishes, it is his clear duty to reject it.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On the matter of procedure, the right hon. Lady has said that she places very great stress upon local and parental wishes. Where objections to any scheme for one school are overridden, will she say whether it is her practice to reply in detail to the objections she has received?
  Mrs. Thatcher: Very rarely do we reply directly to the objectors in detail. The objections are analysed at the end of the period, and sent to the local authorities for their comments, together with requests for full details of the re-organisation scheme. The details required are very extensive. We evaluate the local education authority's reply to the objections. I have had requests from those who have made objections to see whether they could have the comments from the local education authority further to rebut the arguments. But there must be an end to this process, and so far we have never let the comments on the objections go to the objectors. That is the procedure which we operate.
  If rejections were happening to every other proposal which was submitted or even to a substantial proportion of all proposals, one might well conclude that things were not as they should be—that authorities were failing to put forward sound proposals or that a Secretary of

  1657
  State was basically hostile to a wide range of types of proposal. But, granted that authorities have to submit proposals for any significant change of schools, a rate of rejection of the small size indicated is not in itself either surprising or disturbing. A vast majority of proposals I get are well thought out. They are the subject of wide consultation and cooperation between local authorities, teachers and parents. We do not receive large volumes of objections to each and every proposal. We receive them only where there is a genuine conflict of view. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, it would not, therefore, seem easy to whip up support just because a few people wish to preserve a particular school.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: When the right hon. Lady is considering whether a particular school shall be changed in character, for example, from a grammar school to a comprehensive school, does she consider under the Act the effect it has on children in other schools adjacent to the particular school before she reaches a decision? If so, I suspect that her figure of 4 per cent. is fictitious because she will know that if she retains a grammar school in a particular area it has a very adverse effect on other schools which surround it.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, we consider that. I shall deal with that specific point shortly.
  Anyone who believes that a proposal submitted under Section 13 can ever be regarded as "open and shut" is simply failing to recognise the nature of the law and the duty it imposes upon the Secretary of State.
  I come now to the hon. Gentleman's point about the practice of rejecting parts of schemes. The motion speaks of it, too. This is no doubt a reference to the fact that an authority sometimes submits a large number of individual proposals which together are intended to achieve the reorganisation of a particular area. We managed to do Twickenham first, and then there were tricky parts about Richmond. The local educational authority could not have been more co-operative in the way in which it dealt with objections and met the points. In the Richmond case there were only about 600
  1658
  objections—I am speaking from memory—which were very small in number; most of them were met by the authority and the scheme went through.
  It is perfectly true that when proposals come in in groups, the rejection of one or two proposals may have implications for the implementation of the remainder of the proposals which have been approved. But in educational terms, in terms of resources and of contentiousness, not all proposals are equally well founded. Great care is taken to work out the relationship between individual proposals and to recognise the authority's broad intentions and strategy. But even then, it remains necessary to examine each separate proposal individually, and on its merits. In doing that, I should be failing in my duty if, having concluded that a particular proposal was not well founded, I nevertheless approved it because not to do so would have reprecussions elsewhere. Where, on merit, such decisions have been necessary I am always ready to consider, as a matter of urgency, any revised proposals which the authority may wish to formulate as a result of reviewing the situation.
  A number of the 115 proposals which have not been granted have been the subject of revised proposals, some of which have been granted. So the 115 are not all cases of final rejection. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook referred to the 4 per cent. I think that 4 per cent. is slightly on the high side, because not all the 115 proposals have been to comprehensive schemes. They are figures for secondary schools as a whole.
  Mr. Kenneth Marks: What part does the right hon. Lady's Department play in any discussions before local authority proposals come forward? Are there no discussions before these schemes actually come to her in the form of proposals?
  Mrs. Thatcher: We have given up the practice of approving plans for a whole area because it caused confusion. There have been one or two cases where we approved and took note of plans, but we do not now have preliminary considerations about plans for a whole area.
  Mr. Hattersley: Since I asked the right hon. Lady almost the same question as that put to her by my hon. Friend the

  1659
  Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), may I clarify what I think he means? My hon. Friend's question was clear to me but not apparently to the right hon. Lady, according to her answer. Assuming he were the chief education officer for a borough in contact with the Department and the borough decided that it wanted a complete comprehensive scheme, would the chief education officer be able to talk to civil servants in the DES and be guided about the kind of scheme that the Minister would be likely to accept?
  Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman will find there are certain matters on record as guidelines that we do not like. I made a long speech to the NUT at its last conference pointing out some of the drawbacks of large schools, split sites, two-tier schemes and 14 as the age of transfer. These matters are on record and are available for anyone to see. We are very careful indeed not to give any decision or guarantee on any preliminary inquiries which come to us because that of itself would prejudice the final decision.
  The motion speaks of our postponing and preventing schemes. Far from postponing and preventing plans for comprehensive development, the vast number of approvals in the last two and a half years is leading to major development of a wide range of patterns of reorganisation. Since April 1971 the establishment of all-through comprehensive schools has been approved in the areas of almost 60 authorities; middle-school proposals have been approved for more than 30 authorities and sixth form college proposals for a further 12 areas. Against this background, concentration upon the small minority of rejected proposals, which I believe I have been justified in upholding, shows a lack of understanding of the broad situation.
  I have identified and spoken publicly of a number of general issues and problems in secondary reorganisation. I have drawn attention to the organisational problems of very large schools and the advantages of smaller comprehensive schools. I understand, from the reception of that speech, that it found many echoes in the minds of listeners to it.
  Some children develop and prosper better within the atmosphere of a smaller community. One reason why I turned
  1660
  down the Tulse Hill proposal, to which the hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred, was that it was for enlargement of an 11-form entry comprehensive to a 13-form entry comprehensive. I thought that was already large enough without going much larger.
  Another proposal that I rejected on the ground of size related to the Trowbridge, Wiltshire, scheme. The local education authority wanted to put four schools together and call them one comprehensive school consisting of 2,700 pupils. That scheme was turned down because it was much too big. The local education authority resubmitted proposals for two smaller comprehensive schools, each composed of two schools, and they were approved. So local education authorities are used to looking at the guidelines and making their submissions regarding comprehensive schemes in the light of them.
  Again, proposals for two-tier arrangements require close scrutiny. I should like to quote from the Assistant Masters' Association which has great experience of these matters. [Interruption.] Of course, hon. Gentlemen on the Opposite side are prepared to listen only to some teachers and not to others. This was about a scheme in Bexley. The Assistant Masters' Association said:
  "Transfer of pupils to another school at the age of 14 makes for considerable difficulty in guiding them into correct choices of GCE and CSE subjects, and makes other curriculum decisions much harder. We are sceptical about whether the necessary degree of syllabus cooperation between the schools involved would ever be achieved in practice."
  These were practising teachers making submissions under the procedure for objections about a scheme which would affect them. I can understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to get of Section 13. They are prepared to listen only to a limited number of people—not to those who are affected by the arrangements.
  Very careful attention is also given to any proposal for a school to be established on two or more sets of premises.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: Referring to the point that the right hon. Lady was making about the age of 14-plus for transfer, may I ask whether she is aware that many other teacher trade unions, in addition to the Joint Four and the Assistant Masters' Association, are of the opinion

  1661
  that 14-plus is a bad age at which to transfer children?
  Mrs. Thatcher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have always thought that the arguments against it spoke for themselves, but from time to time it is necessary to make it clear. We are still getting schemes for two-tier arrangements for transfer at 11 to 14 and 14 to 18. A number of authorities which started on that kind of two-tier arrangement are now moving away from it because of the inherent difficulties that it causes. It is probably better that we should make our views clear on that matter so that such schemes are not submitted. One of the worst features from the teachers' point of view is to go through one lot of changes and a few years later to go through another lot. They hate it. It is bad for them and for their pupils.
  I turn from Section 13 to the question of parental choice. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not like that because the terms of their motion suggest that I have used my powers under Section 68 of the Education Act to impede or delay schemes of reorganisation on comprehensive lines.
  I have not used my powers under Section 68 to this end. Like all Ministers of Education before me, including my noble Friend Lord Boyle, I regard the use of the power of direction under Section 68, which Parliament gave, as a weapon of last resort. I have used it in only eight cases where I have concluded that authorities were acting unreasonably. All these cases concerned the admission of pupils to schools—either a small number or a large group. These decisions have all been on the side of the parents, and I am not ashamed of that.
  In only one case was my direction closely related to the establishment by an authority of a comprehensive school. I approved a proposal by Surrey to establish a comprehensive school at Rydens for pupils of 13 to 18. However, at the same time I directed the authority not to deprive parents in the catchment area which had been drawn for the 13-to-18 school of the right to let their children try for places at grammar schools at the age of 11 if they wished. That authority, although there are many
  1662
  other schools in the area, sought to put a rigid ring fence round one school which would have meant that people in that area who had children of high academic ability were robbed of all chance of going elsewhere. It seemed totally unreasonable and I directed the authority to act as I have indicated.
  There are many parts of the country where geography or other factors lead to parents having little, if any, choice of schools. Where there can be a choice—this was so in the case I have just mentioned—because schools in sufficient number and variety are available, I am determined to do what I properly can to ensure that parents' right of choice is not eroded and is, wherever possible, extended.
  Mr. J. D. Dormand: I am genuinely seeking information on the use of Section 68. The right hon. Lady properly said that it is used as a last resort. She then stated that she has used it eight times since she came into office. Does she not agree that that is a much greater use of Section 68 than there has been in the period, say, since the war?
  Mrs. Thatcher: Not as far as I am aware. It may be used to secure the admission of pupils to a particular school, sometimes against the authority's wishes. I have refused to use it on a number of occasions. In some of them admissions policy has been involved and in some there have been other factors. I do not think it is a large or frequent use of Section 68. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that I have been in my job for two and a half years. On the whole, Labour Secretaries of State for Education and Science have had a shorter period in office.
  The overwhelming majority of parents send their children to schools maintained by local education authorities. Many parents want to have a real say in what school their child should go to. I should like to see many more taking what is, after all, a natural and basic interest in the choice of school.
  I am the first to recognise that it would be idle to suggest that within a publicly provided and maintained service every parent can have an unfettered choice of school. There are limits imposed by cost, organisation and geography, but my

  1663
  aim is to see that choice is extended and not reduced wherever possible.
  Mr. Ernest Armstrong: When the right hon. Lady gives choice to a limited number of parents to choose a grammar school by retaining a grammar school, she compels 75 per cent. of the children to go to a school that nobody chooses.
  Mrs. Thatcher: It depends how many children one considers have a greater ability than we are now managing to bring out in the schools. I know the hon. Gentleman's creaming-off argument, but what he objects to is where in certain areas, I have retained one or two grammar schools, mainly in areas in which I have given decisions for a wider choice of schools.
  I absolutely agree with my noble Friend Lord Boyle, who has said:
  "There are some other local authorities which have reorganisation plans that make educational sense either for the whole or a part of their area. But we do not believe that the time has come for the rapid and universal imposition of the comprehensive principle. This applies especially to our big cities, for several reasons. First, our big cities contain a particularly large number of established grammar schools of real excellence and, secondly, Socialist plans for the big cities so often involve botched-up schemes—taking a group of existing schools, often separated by wide distances, and giving them one head, which is absolutely no good at all."
  Hon. Members: What is the date of that speech?
  Mrs. Thatcher: It was after circular 10/65 of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). My noble Friend went on to say:
  "There is one other point about big cities. I agree with those who say that the imposition of nothing but comprehensive schools in big cities is bound to handicap the able child from a poor area."
  The hon. Member for Sparkbrook quoted one of my speeches to the Conservative Party conference. That was a speech of my noble friend when he was Shadow Secretary of State.
  The hon. Gentleman says that he knows all about Sections 76 and 37. But the interesting point to me is that his actions are against parental choice. He is trying to restrict it, at the very moment when his leader is making speeches saying that the Labour Party stands for increasing
  1664
  individual choice. On 20th January the Leader of the Opposition said:
  "Labour's task in identifying the road to democratic choice is directed … to showing how we can give the lead to the nations in exalting the role of the individual in society, making clear to him or her the choice which lies open and encouraging the deliberate use of that choice.… A people drilled, dragooned and distracted into believing that there is no choice, that they are denied any real power to choose, can find themselves drifting into a target for extremists."
  This is the moment when the hon. Gentleman announces that he will abolish the rights of objectors by abolishing Section 13.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that on present form the Leader of the Opposition does not hold any view for very long, and that it may be for only a very short time that we have the benefit of his holding views such as those he recently expressed?
  Mrs. Thatcher: It looks as though his views do not extend to education.
  The hon. Gentleman made great reference to Strand School. I was not quite sure what he was accusing me of. I seem to be accused of being too legalistic, of actually using my powers, of not listening to human voices or of not listening to the local education authorities. I listened to the parents, I listened to some of the objectors and I watched the fight which the parents had. They had it for one reason: that they believed in Strand School as it was. It happened to be a grammar school, but one of the reasons why they fought so hard was that it was a small school.
  The case for the school was perhaps best put by a former pupil in a letter he wrote to the ILEA magazine Contact shortly before the decision:
  "So the battle for Strand School is reaching its final sordid stages. Another living institution will die the death, in pursuance of policies laid down by a party which proclaims that people matter more than plans. Not, apparently, if those people attend a grammar school.
  I write as a former pupil of the school, one who came from a 'culturally impoverished' background, from a Brixton home in which books were not to be found, the child of parents of little education and no notion of intellect. Strand, then as now, was not the best of London grammar schools: its most illustrious alumnus seems to be David Jacobs.

  1665
  But it opened up for me, an uncouth 11-year-old, a totally unexplored, unknown world. I tasted the fruits of hard work and application in a sternly but humanely disciplined community a small community where one knew was known by, the headmaster. I learnt the delights of intellectual study; and after eight years I left for university having passed four A-levels and narrowly failed a fifth, and those in subjects reputedly difficult for children of a poor cultural background—English, French, Latin, German, History…
  A small community, with a narrowly defined purpose, played its part in shielding me from the many pressures on a working class boy to be an early leaver Thank God, I say, for that bastion of elitism and privilege.
  And, finally, let the ILEA not delude itself. Selection will not end. Selection by ability will go. But my child can still be 'selected'. If he has an IQ of 30. If he can dance. If I, his father, have money and can send him to an independent school, or move to a 'good' area. If we prefer selection on these terms, so be it. But I did not have an IQ of 30; I could not dance, and my father had no money. Thank God there was Strand School."
  That letter, not in legalistic language, was based on experience. It was written by a former pupil who wished that opportunity to continue, who wished that small school to continue, and wished it for anyone who got there on a basis of merit whatever his background.
  The parents fought. They took the case to court, where they were upheld. Then they fought again in increasing numbers. The hon. Gentleman accuses me of having listened to them. I am glad that I listened to them and upheld their objection.
  There is one more point connected with the scheme about the Dick Sheppard School. The hon. Gentleman said that I turned it down on a technicality. There were enormous numbers of objections to the scheme, but the main ground for objection—not only the weight of objection—came from those who particularly wanted to retain a girls' comprehensive school. To change it from a girls' comprehensive to a co-educational school, to give in to the request to change the size, would have been to go against the wishes of many parents of children at the school. There is quite a number of immigrant Indian parents in the area who like their daughters to go to girls' schools. That was not a technicality. It was not legalistic. It was listening to the real human objections and feelings of the persons concerned.
  1666
  I do not believe that the hon. Member for Sparkbrook has ever really faced up to the problem of the neighbourhood school which is in a less than good neighbourhood. What happens in those circumstances is that one gets a school which is comprehensive by name in a bad neighbourhood. The school reflects the character of the neighbourhood. In order to try to overcome this, local authorities draw artificial boundaries to get what they call a good social mix. The parents object. The Secretary of State then has to make one of two choices—either to uphold their objections or to direct them. The policies of the hon. Member for Sparkbrook would lead to ignoring the parents' objections and wishes and to the direction of children to schools. It would lead to the end of the parents' real interest in going round schools, trying to choose schools for their children which they think suitable—and they are just as interested in choosing between comprehensive schools as between schools of a different kind.
  Mr. Marks: Did not the right hon. Lady, Lord Boyle and the remainder of Conservative hon. Members on the Committee at the time vote for exactly that idea when we discussed the 1970 Education Bill?
  Mrs. Thatcher: No. We pointed out steadily and consistently that if every school was comprehensive and the Government insisted on getting a full ability range, what would happen was exactly what is happening in the ILEA. Children are divided into above average ability, average ability and, at the bottom, below average ability. We stood out against that concept. It has caused great trouble in the ILEA. In the end it means the direction of children to schools.
  The hon. Member for Sparkbrook also referred to the capital provision that we have made for secondary schools. I turn now to the terms of the amendment and refer to the capital provision. When the Government took office, their immediate task in secondary education was to provide resources for raising the school leaving age. We provided capital resources on a generous scale which had been dictated by what the hon. Gentleman's predecessor said was necessary. However, the Labour Government postponed their promises. We were left to carry them out.

  1667
  The capital was forthcoming. The ROSLA programme was for three years and provided £36 million in 1970–71, £50 million in 1971–72 and £61 million in 1972–73. But that is by no means all that we did for the secondary building programme. Over the five years 1970–71 to 1974–75, in addition to those amounts, we have authorised secondary building projects for basic needs of no less than £386 million at 1972 prices. It is a very substantial secondary school building programme. The basic needs and the ROSLA programme taken together enable local authorities to draw up plans in their areas for reorganisation schemes. In the new White Paper we are now providing £10 million each in 1975–76 for secondary school improvements in addition to the money that we are providing for primary school improvements.
  There is one factor which I might mention. It is a small one but it provides a degree of freelom which was not open to local education authorities when the Labour Party was in power. Since 1970 I have approved some 50 proposals for off-programme building worth £3 million. These include about a dozen cases in which, under the new arrangements that we announced after the last election, local education authorities are selling surplus land for housing purposes and using the proceeds to undertake additional school building. Only this week I have approved appropriations of some 15 acres of land in Birmingham from the education committee to the housing committee, and the proceeds of more than £500,000 will be used for improvements and extensions to primary and secondary schools and for the provision of some nursery classes. That is another point of freedom which was not allowed to local education authorities under the rigid financial controls operated by the Labour Government.
  The sense of the motion and the implications of the speech of the hon. Member for Sparkbrook are threefold. He says that I have misused my powers, that I have done so on a serious scale and that the result has been to impede or frustrate the development of secondary reorganisation. But the curious way in which his arguments were advanced demonstrates something quite different. First, the hon. Gentleman is the victim of a threefold delusion. I should have misused my powers if I had made the uncritical affir-
  1668
  mative judgment of every proposal which the Opposition clearly would not do. This I have not done and I shall never do. As it is, I have exercised my discretionary powers as the law provides. Secondly, the small percentage of rejected proposals has assumed obsessive proportions in the mind of the hon. Gentleman. Thirdly, the effect of my decisions under Section 13 has been positive and constructive.
  Where I have approved proposals, reorganisation in many forms has proceeded on sound lines. Where I have rejected proposals a far more liberal choice for parents than would otherwise have been possible has been preserved. Any Secretary of State concerned solely with patterns of organisation and not at all with specific choice in specific places would be betraying his office.
  I welcome this opportunity to affirm that the Government's policy rejects any such crabbed and mechanical approach. I ask the House to support the amendment.
  5.57 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Wiley: As it is already nearly six o'clock, I shall try to help by being brief, and I shall confine my remarks to my constituency. I want to help the Secretary of State. She is extremely unpopular. Indeed, she is probably more unpopular than anyone else in my constituency—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall explain why in a moment. I hope to give her an opportunity to redeem her reputation.
  From every quarter in Sunderland there is an insistent and articulate demand for comprehensive secondary education. All Catholic children have and take the opportunity of comprehensive secondary education. This year, of the other children, eight out of 10 go directly into comprehensive schools. Until we finish the job—which in my constituency means the building of the Carley Hill School—naturally enough there is intense disappointment and a feeling of real deprivation about the minority who do not attend comprehensive schools.
  We met Lord Belstead. He was very sympathetic. He was patient. I would concede that the noble Lord was charming. But a few weeks after we had met him we were told that we could not have approval for the Carley Hill school.

  1669
  The right hon. Lady is obviously misinformed, judging by her reaction to what I said when I begun. The right hon. Lady has spoken about parents' choice and local wishes. The Sunderland Council of Churches has written to her and told her that we had a census in Sunderland and this revealed an overwhelming demand for comprehensive secondary education. We have repeatedly had parents' meetings—I have been to some—at which there is an articulate demand for comprehensive secondary education. All the teachers' unions are emphatic in support, and so is the Head Teachers Association.
  It was because of this continuing pressure, as the right hon. Lady knows, that the local education authority felt itself driven to put forward proposals for a 12-plus non-selective system of secondary education. They know well enough that this is very much second best and they were shocked—and I assure the right hon. Lady of this—when they heard of her refusal to meet us and consider again the question of the Carley Hill school. I assure her that this is not political. She surely knows that the leader of the Conservative group has now written to her and said that the Conservatives share the concern of the parents and urge her to approve the building of the Carley Hill school.
  I just want to make two points very briefly, and the first is this. Lord Belstead, of course, based his refusal on basic needs, but the Carley Hill school will replace four schools: one of them is 100 years old—obviously this has got to go; two are between 60 and 70 years old—surely near enough to the Department's criterion; and the fourth is scheduled for use as a primary school. I do not quarrel with the right hon. Lady about her priority for primary school building, but even if we look at this without emphasising that if we concentrate on primary school building we still have to provide for cases such as this in Sunderland in the secondary school building field, even if we look only at the primary school building, what do we find? One of the schools to be replaced will in fact be used as a primary school. In the case of the other three, we desperately need the sites; these will be sites for new primary schools, and in a constituency such as
  1670
  mine—tight, compact and densely built—there are no alternative sites.
  The second point is one I have made repeatedly in the House. I acknowledge—and with about the worst record of unemployment of any town in the country it is not surprising—what has been done and what the Government are doing to aid and support us in Sunderland. I realise that the Government are aware that we have an exceptionally large number of construction workers unemployed in Sunderland. What I beg the right hon. Lady to do is make her voice heard, see that her influence is felt, because when we consider Government aid and support we also have to consider the priorities, and I assure her that as far as the people of Sunderland are concerned the top priority is the building of the Carley Hill school.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to address the House for the first time. I listened with interest to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). However, I hope he will forgive me if on this occasion I do not comment on his speech, and I ask for the customary indulgence of the House for a maiden speaker.
  I am very glad that the first opportunity I have of speaking in this House is on the subject of secondary education. It is a subject which is of great interest to me and to many thousands of my constituents. First, however, I want to pay a tribute to my predecessor, the late Charles Curran, who I know was a Member of this House much respected for his independent and forthright views. He was also greatly loved and respected by his constituents, irrespective of their political views, and was generally reckoned to be a first-class constituency Member. He left behind him a legacy of good will which it has been my good fortune to inherit, and I know I have to set a high standard to be considered a worthy successor.
  I want now to tell the House a little about Uxbridge, which is situated on the western edge of greater London. It is a long, thin constituency, 10 miles long and three miles wide, stretching from Hare-field in the north to London Airport in the south. It can be said to contain a very

  1671
  important and representative cross-section of the community. There is, for example, a good deal of light industry, there is agriculture, there is the important commercial centre of Uxbridge itself and there is the large sector of the residential population which earns its living in central London and commutes there and back daily. There is then London Airport itself, the very hub of international communications, which is also one of the largest employers in the area. Above all, there are many fine schools with a tradition of excellence in education of which my constituents are justly proud.
  Uxbridge is and has been for many years a politically marginal constituency. Consequently the electors take particular care how they cast their votes, because they know that each and every one counts in determining the result of a parliamentary election. In the recent by-election the future of secondary education in my constituency was one of the important issues, and it is for that reason that I have chosen it as the subject for my maiden speech. Having been elected from among no fewer than seven candidates, I believe that I can properly represent the views of a majority of my constituents on this subject. I also speak as the governor of a grammar school, a comprehensive school and an independent school, and—perhaps even more important—as the father of two children.
  In considering the terms of the motion which is before the House this afternoon, I can think of no better place to start than Section 1 of the Education Act 1944. Section 1(1) of the Act lays upon the Secretary of State for Education and Science the duty to provide a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area. Moreover, it lays upon the Secretary of State the duty to secure effective execution by local authorities under her control in providing this varied educational service. This, then, is the foundation of the Secretary of State's powers conferred by the 1944 Act.
  It is, however, Section 13 of the Act which provides that where local education authorities wish to make any significant change in the character of a school they shall submit such proposals to the Secretary of State. Such changes are known in modern parlance as reorganisation. It is for carrying out her duties under this section of the Act that my right
  1672
  hon. Friend is being criticised this afternoon.
  My own view of the provisions of Section 13 is that they very wisely give to all those likely to be affected by reorganisation an understanding of what is afoot and a chance to object. These are not my words; they come from administrative circular 6 of 1970, issued under the authority of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) when he was Secretary of State for Education and Science in the previous administration. I have no doubt that at that time he thought it was a good idea for parents and electors to have an opportunity to object to the proposals for reorganisation. Indeed at that time he must have thought it fitting that parents and electors should be reminded that they were given this right in the 1944 Act—the right to carry their objections to the Secretary of State so that he could make a final decision.
  There is no doubt about the great intensity of feeling among many parents about the fate of certain schools which have given outstanding service to the community. This intensity of feeling is shown by the number of signatures of objection which have increased fivefold during the past year. In other words, the public welcome the opportunities to object which Section 13 provides. I feel certain that as time goes by the actual number of parents and electors exercising their rights is increasing and will increase further.
  What we are beginning to see is a realisation on the part of parents that good schools, whether they be modern bilateral, comprehensive or grammar, must be defended at all costs against the arbitrary local power exercised by local education authorities. The arbitrary nature of this power is amply demonstrated where the local education authority attempts to rush through ill-conceived reorganisation proposals, in the hope that it can change the character of the local schools before the next election.
  Parent power is now beginning to be felt. A good example of this is the concern felt by a number of parents in my constituency about the fate of Isleworth Grammar School for Boys, situated in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isle-worth (Mr. Hayhoe). In this case no fewer

  1673
  than 17,659 signatures of objections to the Section 13 notice were collected. The parents of children in that school number no more than 1,000. The House will realise that there was massive support for this school from other electors.
  If such a volume of opposition is to be disregarded, this is surely a prime example of the arbitrary exercise of power by a local education authority. A great deal of public concern was expressed at my by-election about the proposals of the local education authority, Hillingdon, to introduce a comprehensive system of education for its schools. Those proposals, had they been accepted in their entirety, would have meant that two famous grammar schools, Bishopshalt and Vyners, would have changed completely in character and my constituents would have lost the varied educational service they have enjoyed ever since the passing of the 1944 Act, to which I believe they are still entitled.
  This is particularly important because the local education authority has also ceased to take up places at direct grant schools as from next September. This will result in a further reduction in parental choice. Happily, however, I can tell the House that my right hon. Friend has recently decided not to approve that part of the local education authority's proposals which would have resulted in the loss of those two fine schools. In making that decision my right hon. Friend has clearly given careful consideration to the views expressed by local government electors and to the local education authority. She has paid attention to the breadth of educational opportunity offered by these two well-known schools.
  This is what I mean when I talk about the importance of local opinion, local needs and wishes being understood by the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend is not using her powers in an arbitrary or capricious manner. On the contrary she is doing what the local education authority should have done. She is taking account of local needs and wishes, the views of parents and electors. In so doing she is carrying out the duties laid on her by Section 1 of the 1944 Act. In other words, she is ensuring that the local education authority provides a varied and comprehensive education service. I assure the House that to many of my
  1674
  constituents in Uxbridge she is regarded as the champion of parents.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. J. D. Dormand: This is the first occasion on which I have followed a maiden speaker and it gives me genuine pleasure to say that the House has listened to a model maiden speech. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) is obviously extremely knowledgeable about this topic. He has delivered his speech with great clarity, so much so that one might imagine he had been a Member of this House for some years. I am sure that I reflect the views of the whole House when I say that we look forward to his further contributions with great interest.
  I will obey your injunction, Mr. Speaker, and be brief. I should like to take up briefly a point raised with the Secretary of State by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks). It is an important point; the Secretary of State realised this at the time and I do not think she attempted to mislead the House. I refer to the query about pre-submission of plans. It is a well-known fact that officers, and often chairmen of education committees, meet officers of the Department and that there is a valuable link between the Department and the local education authorities. My hon. Friend pointed out that the plans are, if not finally decided, decided to a large extent before the submission is made.
  Mrs. Thatcher: May I make one thing clear? The plans come in. The procedure is to take note of them. Even when the procedure was to approve or disapprove them, if approval was given there was always a sentence at the bottom saying "This is without prejudice to the rights under Section 13." There is no difference about this.
  Mr. Dormand: I do not wish to labour the point. It seems that this is a very good thing, particularly as it concerns secondary education reorganisation.
  This debate is concerned with the principle of comprehensive education at the secondary stage. I find it extremely difficult—a continuing source of amazement—to realise that in this year of grace 1973 the Secretary of State and apparently the Government—and, judging

  1675
  from some of the comments today, many hon. Members on the Government side—are still unable to accept this principle. Hon. Members of all parties have said frequently that there is nothing magical about the age of 11. Yet in our primary schools there is no segregation. We have fully comprehensive education up to the age of 11.
  If the Plowden Report is to be believed, and most people accept it, we have some of the best junior comprehensive schools in the world. I challenge the right hon. Lady to produce any serious and reputable educational research advocating segregation at 11-plus. One is inevitably drawn to the conclusion that the views of the Government on this are doctrinaire and not based on any educational considerations.
  Circular 10/70 relating to this matter was issued in the autumn of 1970. It was supposed to be a green light to Tory authorities to reverse their plans. In fact, it had no such effect. I believe that the Secretary of State totally misjudged the feeling of education committees, education offices and parents in thinking that the tide of comprehensive feeling was to be reversed at that stage. The Government ought therefore to be encouraging this great movement and not, as they are doing, inhibiting it. In my view they ought above all to be encouraging in every possible way the building of purpose-built comprehensive schools.
  I recognise the practical day-to-day difficulties with which the Secretary of State has to deal. I refer to the overriding need to build purpose-built comprehensive schools. In January 1972, the latest date for which the Minister was able to give me information on this matter, of 1,591 schools recognised as designated comprehensive schools only 287 were purpose-built. Even allowing for all the practical difficulties which any Department has to face, that shows a lack of determination to provide for comprehensive education. Many hon. Members on this side believe that this is absolutely fundamental to this form of education. In 1961 there were 81 comprehensive purpose-built schools. Ten years later we can only say there are 287. That seems tome to show a complete lack of determination to provide this fundamental part of secondary education.
  1676
  The Secretary of State referred to financial provision. I believe that the lack of financial provision for secondary school buildings in the last year has exacerbated this very serious position out of all proportion. As has been said many times, we on this side are very suspicious about the financial arrangements concerning secondary education. We regard it as yet another factor inhibiting comprehensive education. But there is another aspect of the money situation—and this is my real purpose in intervening in the debate—which is not only causing a great deal of concern to my own local education authority but is also a general problem. I refer to the impossibility of local education authorities to meet the cost limits imposed by the Department's regulations. I am aware that this affects all school building but this debate is related to secondary schools and therefore it is legitimate to consider it in this context.
  My own local education authority, which has written to me about this matter, finds it impossible to meet those cost limits. It is asked, as are other local education authorities, to make savings on various aspects of plans produced by the architects. But my authority—and I fully support it—takes the view that such savings would cause a lowering of standards. I relate this to my previous remarks about the need for purpose-built comprehensive schools. I am sure that anybody who has studied the history of education, even over the last 30 or 40 years, could very easily point to examples—I regret to say from both Governments—where a reduction of standards has caused difficulties with which in many areas we have not yet caught up. That is what the Government are compelling local education authorities to do. Is that what the Government want? Is this yet another aspect of inhibitions placed on the reorganisation of secondary education?
  I ask the Secretary of State to give further consideration to three things: first, to increasing the cost limits; secondly, to consider implementing a regional cost limit—and I can speak with feeling on this because of the sky-high costs which at present operate in the North-East at the moment; and thirdly, to abandon the present policy of insisting on fixed-price tenders where the project

  1677
  which is submitted takes at least two years to complete. Embodied in these three suggestions are the kind of things which are placing secondary education reorganisation in a straitjacket from which local authorities are finding difficulty in extricating themselves. It is a nationwide problem.
  The County Architects' Society, described by the industrial reporter of The Times as
  "normally a quiet, non-militant group",
  was reported in that newspaper on 3rd January as expressing:
  "its great concern at the continued inability of Government Departments to make adjustments to the present cost limits".
  The report went on to say:
  "There is a real danger that many new schools … programmed to start before the end of the present financial year in March, 1973, will not get off the ground."
  That will affect secondary education reorganisation probably more than any other factor at the present time. When we add that problem to all the other problems being placed before comprehensive education at this time, one can only think there is a bleak future for it.
  The financial restrictions to which I have referred which are being imposed on local education authorities by the Government were the main reason which led me to take part in this debate. But I would like to speak on a matter on which I was glad the Secretary of State spent some time in her speech, the question of parental choice. Much nonsense is talked about parental choice. Indeed, I go further. There is no such thing in education as complete freedom of parental choice. One of the best publications which the Department of Education and Science has produced—I am not sure in which year—is the manual of guidance to local education authorities on this question. It is a realistic and sensible document but it is largely based on the fact that a local education authority cannot at any time provide all the facilities that parents would like. In other words, it could not meet the wishes of all parents at all times in dealing with staff, accommodation, single-sex schools, which were dealt with by the Secretary of State, and so on.
  It may be of some interest that for the sake of accuracy I telephoned the Depart-
  1678
  ment this morning to get the number and name of that circular. The Department, which I telephone frequently, cannot be more helpful on anything I ask. I was interested, and now I am curious in view of the Secretary of State's remarks today, to learn that the circular has been or is being withdrawn. I can see a puzzled look on the Secretary of State's face. Perhaps therefore, when the Under-Secretary of State replies, he will have some information for me. I was curious before I telephoned. The point of my curiosity, now underlined, which I put to the Secretary of State is whether that circular is to be revised in the light of comprehensive education. In other words, is that manual of guidance intended specifically to refer to a parent's choice either for grammar school education or for comprehensive education as a specific reason? In view particularly of the information that I received accidentally this morning, I believe that the House is entitled to some comment on that. It may be that the Secretary of State is to argue—and there is the usual support for them from the Government side today—that grammar schools ought to be built alongside comprehensives to permit what in fact would be a phoney choice.
  Those are questions on which we should have answers today. Comprehensive education is now in floodtide and is almost universally accepted. It ill behoves the Government to continue their feeble attempts to reverse that tide in the way shown by the speeches we have heard today.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on his maiden speech and I am delighted to be the first hon. Member on this side of the House to be able to do so. My hon. Friend was right to say that we had great respect for his predecessor, the late Charles Curran. Indeed there was enormous respect for him in the House. I am certain that Uxbridge made the right choice of successor to Mr. Curran when they elected my hon. Friend last year in what was a notable victory on his part. Having heard his maiden speech, I think it is obvious why he achieved such an excellent result and I hope that we shall hear him speak about education on many future occasions.

  1679
  I am sorry that I cannot say the same about the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I am not particularly interested in defence matters so I never heard him speak in defence debates when he was Opposition spokesman for defence, but I am sure he must have performed much better on defence subjects than on education.
  Far from censuring my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Opposition should be congratulating her on the massive expansion in education. Criticism has been made of primary schools getting preference. I cannot see how the Opposition can object to this. For far too long most people who care about education have felt that primary education was the Cinderella of the system, that there were far too many old primary schools and that something had to be done about it. The Conservative Party at the last election pledged that something would be done to improve primary education. But it is unfair to say that secondary education has consequently been neglected. My right hon. Friend gave the figures of the improvements in secondary education.
  In the main, however, the debate centres on what form of secondary education we are to have. The Labour Government wanted to impose a completely comprehensive system, and those of us who were in the last Parliament and served on the Standing Committee considering the Education Bill remember the long battles which went on. However, one day certain hon. Members opposite were absent unpaired and the Government lost Clause 1 of the Bill, which meant that the whole Bill had to be dragged through the whole mess again. Luckily, the General Election intervened and the Bill never came to fruition.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) tried to say that in the discussions on that Bill we were in favour of certain things. It is completely untrue. We opposed the whole concept. We felt that local education authorities should have the right to decide what was best for their area in consultation with parents and teachers. In any case, as the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) has said, the cost of introducing a totally comprehensive system would be astronomical.
  1680
  Today the Opposition are attacking my right hon. Friend for holding back on comprehensive schemes. She has proved that it is not true. It would be interesting to hear how many examples the Opposition can produce of good educational schemes which she has turned down. I want to quote part of what my right hon. Friend said to the National Union of Teachers' conference in April last year. She said:
  "Where well thought-out proposals for reorganisation have been put forward, and where plans are matched by the ability to implement them in reasonable conditions, they have invariably been considered sympathetically. I have always laid emphasis on the need for close and early consultation with teachers before the formulation of proposals, and I have been strongly impressed by their contributions both in the preparation of schemes and in their implementation."
  That is particularly relevant to what is happening in the county borough of Dudley.
  I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Sparkbrook, when complaining about certain comprehensive schemes being rejected, did not include that scheme in Dudley. In Dudley, the chairman of the education committee is Councillor Wilson, who apparently believes that he is God's gift to education in Dudley. He has put forward a scheme for 16 all-through comprehensive schools. There are grave educational doubts about whether Dudley could maintain 16 viable sixth forms. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State when he replies will give us an idea of the number of children voluntarily staying on at school over the age of 16 in Dudley at the present time.
  If that scheme had been educationally sound I would have given it my unstinted support, but my right hon. Friend has stated that there are certain aspects which she cannot approve and she has asked the local education authority whether it will perhaps look again at these aspects before discussing the rest of the scheme. I see nothing wrong with that.
  We have constant emphasis on consultation but I am afraid that the consultation in Dudley was a mockery. I have talked to many parents who have told me that they were asked to attend a meeting with the chairman of the education committee for consultation and

  1681
  discussion but that all they got was a monologue from the chairman. I am glad that the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) is present because I have something to say to him later.
  What about the teachers in Dudley? The Dudley Head Teachers Association had a meeting to discuss the future of secondary education in the borough and with only one dissentient came out solidly in favour of a plan for 12-plus to 16-plus middle schools to be followed by sixth-form colleges—a very different plan from the one which Councillor Wilson has submitted to the Secretary of State. At the conclusion of the document which the association sent to every councillor in Dudley, it said:
  "An 11–18 scheme would lead inevitably to the use of many school annexes in central Dudley where many of the schools are small and on restricted sites. It also is difficult to see how substantial building could be avoided in other areas within the County Borough. The prospect at Brierley Hill Grammar School, Dudley Grammar School, and High Arcal Grammar School of having to organise—in one building—a very large sixth form, a diminishing grammar school and an emergent comprehensive school—each with its separate ethos—is a frightening process, Tension would be immense."
  That view was expressed by prominent teachers in the borough and cannot be fobbed off as the view of Tory activists.
  If we are to have nothing but comprehensive schools, perhaps the Opposition can explain how they would decide the intake of the schools. Would they advocate that all children in a given area would go to the same school? Or would they instead go for the new "in" word in the Socialist vocabulary, "The social mix"? That is a stormy issue in Leeds at the moment.
  How does the "social mix" work? There is an example in the Inner London Education Authority where children at primary schools are banded as "A" if they are above average, as "B" if they are average and as "C" if they are below average. While my right hon. Friend was speaking, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) kept repeating like a parrot "Selectivitis, selectivitis, selectivitis". What is banding in the Inner London Education Authority if it is not selectivitis? Each secondary school would then have to take a quota of "A", "B" and "C" children. This
  1682
  would mean that children would be involved in a great deal of travelling, often to schools a long way from home. This, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, has aroused a great deal of ill feeling.
  Unfortunately in London there are certain schools which have been called "sink" schools because conditions are so bad. Many parents were unhappy when they found that their children were allocated to a "sink" school. We remember that not so long ago parents were deliberately keeping their children away from school as a protest against their being sent to schools where the conditions were so deplorable. However, it would seem that in the ILEA there is one rule for one and another rule for another.
  I want to quote from the Daily Mail of 27th September 1972. The report says:
  "A Governor of a London 'sink' school admitted yesterday that she had succeeded in having her own son transferred away from it.
  Last night she was accused of 'fantastic hypocrisy' over her action.
  The 11-year-old boy was originally allocated a place as one of the bright 'guinea pigs' to go to Islington comprehensive school in the hotly contested transfer scheme which is aimed at spreading good and bad pupils evenly through London's schools.
  But now he has been allowed to go to the much better Woodberry Down Comprehensive School in another district.
  His mother is Mrs. Jean Donnison, a Labour Party member and wife of Professor David Donnison, a leading Labour educationist.
  Both are involved in Islington Labour Party and are supporters of the Labour-controlled Inner London Education Authority.
  Angry parents protesting against the transfer scheme accused the Donnison's of having double standards over the education of their son, Harry.
  'This is fantastic hypocrisy', said Mrs. Ruby Clarke, of the Hackney and Islington Action Group. 'To think she is a governor of the school.
  'Of all people you would expect them to support the new scheme, since it is a Labour idea. They expect our kids to go there but it is not good enough for them.'"
  That just about sums up the attitude of the Labour Party. I would have far more confidence in what its Members said if I found more of them practising what they preach. Mrs. Clarke was completely right when she talked about hypocrisy.
  The other way in which a social mix could be achieved would be by redrawing the catchment areas. This is what is

  1683
  causing so much uproar in the city of Leeds today because under this scheme a catchment area would be withdrawn to include children from various social backgrounds. This again would mean the bussing of children. I have tried to ascertain from the chairman of Dudley Education Committee what would be the position in Dudley. I want to know how the intake, if we have a comprehensive system in Dudley, would be organised and whether we would have neighbourhood schools or a social mix which would involve busing. This is of vital interest and concern to many of my constituents, but so far the issue has been dodged.
  The hon. Member for Dudley jumped to the defence and was quoted in the Wolverhampton Express and Star as saying:
  "that there was more likely to be bussing under Mrs. Thatcher's plan because it retained selectivity in some areas of the borough."
  That is a ridiculous argument. I should have thought the hon. Member would be much wiser to shut up than to show his ignorance on this issue because my right hon. Friend has not produced a plan for Dudley. She has asked Dudley to look at certain aspects of the plan which Dudley submitted. There is a great deal of difference between children going by bus to a grammar school which their parents want them to attend and which the children want to attend and in having children sent deliberately to a school which their parents do not want them to attend and which perhaps the children do not want to attend. That is the difference when I argue against a scheme of deliberate busing.
  Dr. John Gilbert: The hon. Member was kind enough to let me know that he would be referring to me, but he did not indicate the language in which he would refer to me or to the chairman of the education committee, who is one of the most loyal and conscientious public servants Dudley has ever had. At the moment the education authority is spending £7,000 a year on busing. The chairman made it clear that under the scheme he proposed he hoped that this expense would be eliminated. It is also perfectly clear that if there are grammar schools in two areas the rest of the district must serve as a catchment area and it is perfectly obvious that there then has to be bussing.
  Mr.
  Montgomery: The hon. Member does not appear to have grasped the situation. The point I was making was that if parents want their children to go to a school and the children want to go there, the bussing is voluntary. There is a difference between going voluntarily and being deliberately bussed to a school to which the parents do not want their children to go and which the children do not wish to attend.
  I remind my right hon. Friend that next year there is to be local government reorganisation and Halesowen and Stour-bridge are to be joined to Dudley. It would be sensible for the three authorities to have talks now and to try to produce a sensible plan for adoption when the new council comes into existence next year.
  I have no hesitation tonight in supporting the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend. I hope that she will continue to approve schemes which are well-thought-out and thoroughly sound, but she also has the responsibility of turning down hotch-potch schemes which are ill-conceived and educationally unsound. Despite what the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said, I believe that my right hon. Friend has gained the respect of the vast majority of people who care deeply about education. I think she has proved that she has far more concern for good educational schemes than for party dogma, and that is surely a prime requisite of a good Secretary of State for Education.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: For some time I have been trying to winkle out of the Secretary of State her reasons for turning down plans for comprehensive schools under Section 13. Tonight she has raised the veil slightly, but in the majority of cases we do not know her reasons. I believe that she has turned down about 70 plans without any reason whatever. Is she afraid of showing prejudice or inconsistency, or both? I do not know.
  I believe, however, that the reason for the right hon. Lady's action and her bias is her emotional commitment to maintaining selection—for whatever reason. Tonight she said, more than twice, that there would be entry "based on merit". Of course she has been quite consistent

  1685
  in this. In the debate on the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech on 8th July 1970 the right hon. Lady said:
  "I believe that there is still a place for certain selective schools of excellence…. I believe that it is wrong to exclude this from our future plans."
  The then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), said in the same debate:
  "The fact is that, no matter how the secondary schooling is organised, there will always be a substantial element of selection as such and that such selection is not against the child's interest but is in favour of it."
  I cannot agree with that. He went on:
  "And there is selection in these cases because children differ in mental gifts, in their aptitudes, in their industry and in their ability to concentrate "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July 1970; Vol. 803, cc. 685–6, 793.]
  On 11th May last year the Secretary of State admitted in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) that from June 1970 to May 1972—the two years since the General Election—she rejected about 30 proposals to convert selective schools into non-selective schools.
  So far as I am aware there is a consensus by most authorities that if one selected the top 20 one would be mistaken in at least five cases at O-level and the equivalent number in secondary modern schools will do better than those five. Therefore I put it to the House that selection is inefficient and is not, as the Under-Secretary said, in favour of the child's interest, but against it.
  I will give the Secretary of State a prime example, a recent one. One of my constituents, Christine King, was branded as a failure at 11 years old. She was not bright enough for a grammar school and could not make the top stream even in a secondary modern school. She went to Victoria Girls' School, Watford, a secondary modern school. Since then—in 1971—it has become an all-ability school. In her first year Christine was not considered good enough even for the top 30, but when the time came for her to take her O-levels she had improved considerably. Then, two years ago, she started doing A-levels and made up her mind to go to university. She was given an unconditional acceptance at Leeds
  1686
  University but the A-level results were so good that she decided to fly even higher. And, where do you think she landed? At none other than the best university in England—Cambridge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oxford."] I have heard of Oxford. We call it the "other place". She is going to Cambridge.
  The House may be interested to know that 20 girls were called for an interview for six places. Christine had to compete with girls from some of the leading girls' schools in the country. Not only did she get a place at Cambridge, but she got it at the college of her first choice—Newnham College. She is a brilliant example of a late developer. She is the first pupil in the 77 years of Victoria School's history to win a place at Cambridge. Of course, I must pay tribute not only to her for the hard work she did but to the excellent teaching at Victoria Girls' School.
  However, that is just one example of the futility and the injustice of selection. Nevertheless the Secretary of State seems wedded to the idea of selection. Let me tell her, therefore, that the sooner she obtains a divorce—I mean from the idea of selection—the better it will be for all children.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer: I believe that the whole question of comprehensivisation has been done to death in the discussions that we have had, and therefore I take the point that was made and lay behind the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley) who, I think rightly, put his emphasis upon the nature of the community and the way in which children go to school and there find their education whether we have a system which divides children one from another, and whether we have a choice for some and not for others. It was that part of his speech which I felt was concerned with education. I am sorry that there was not more in his speech concerned with the subject. It is an important point and has to be answered by those who do not believe that the headlong rush into a totally comprehensive system is satisfactory.
  I have been the chairman of the governors of a large comprehensive school in London. I am very much in

  1687
  favour of comprehensive education and, with others, I have fought the arguments that have been used by people who are against comprehensive schools. I want to ask the House whether we should not start much earlier when we consider a matter such as that before us today and ask whether we have not jumped a stage in the argument.
  We have automatically assumed that comprehensive education is necessary because it is the only way to ensure equality of opportunity and to get rid of the divisiveness which has been graphically portrayed by various hon. Members in this and previous debates. I wonder whether it is not true that until we face the educational fact that a child's future is very often determined before the age of eight—if not before that age, then certainly before the age of 11—we shall not get our priorities right.
  I believe that my right hon. Friend deserves commendation on her secondary school provision because of the priorities that she has chosen. She has said that if children come from a deprived home background the first step must be to give them the linguistic help which they need so that they can get equality of opportunity at primary school, and her proposals for nursery schools have been widely welcomed on both sides of the House.
  One cannot talk about secondary education without mentioning that part of education which precedes it. It is essential to put the emphasis on primary schools if we are not to have a situation in which children coming from a socially deprived background go to socially deprived primary schools and therefore what they have lacked in their homes is not made up for during their earlier years. It is now recognised that it is early in a child's life that the disadvantages of an impoverished background intellectually are either got over or fortified for the whole of his educational future.
  When that child comes to the age at which he moves from primary to secondary school one is faced with a genuine difficulity. One cannot make the simplistic comparison that was made by the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) between primary schools and comprehensive and secondary schools, because the nature of the primary school is that the
  1688
  small child must be able to get to it from the immediate catchment area. The problem of the comprehensive primary school is precisely the problem of the catchment area. The poor primary schools are precisely those in areas where, because it is a comprehensive school serving all the children of that area, it takes on the quality—and sometimes, unfortunately, the lack of quality—of that area.
  We have done a great deal, and we want to do more to overcome that problem, but do not let us assume that when we get to secondary education we can ignore the difficulties which come from a comprehensive system which is put into a socially divisive system outside. It is my belief that one of the great sadnesses of our society is that over the years we have built socially divided ghettoes in housing. There are many areas which, by their nature, are divided because they are totally built by the local council, or totally built by private development.
  To impose upon a society like that a comprehensive system in the belief that automatically it will provide the kind of social mix which many of us think is necessary is an illusion. Indeed, in some areas we have increased the degree of social divisiveness because of the nature of our comprehensive reorganisation. In Bristol, for example, where many children went from the edge to the centre of the city for secondary education before the new scheme came into operation, there was a great deal more social mixing than there is now when the comprehensive schools serve the areas around them and those areas are divided because of the local authority's housing policy.
  Mr. Dormand: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point about primary education but, following what he said, would he not agree that the Conservative philosophy ought to be applied even earlier and that there ought to be selection at the age of eight? That would be utter nonsense.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point entirely but I shall not go back over it because many of us have seen the difference between a comprehensive system which is forced upon a school with the result that some children have to walk some distance to the school and going to schools of their parents' choice.

  1689
  We are talking about secondary education, and it must be true that the general pattern of education today is a comprehensive one. I support, and have supported, that very proposition in difficult circumstances in my constituency. The House should not arrogate to itself, nor should the Labour Party arrogate to itself, the belief that the present view on education was held 30 years ago. To use almost the words of the hon. Member for Sparkbrook, the view then was, "Everybody knows that division at 11 is the sensible way to organise secondary education. Everybody accepts that it is best to provide decent grammar schools in every area for every part of the country, and it is outrageous that some reactionary should hold out for some alternative system".
  The reply to that is that at no time in educational history have educationalists always been completely and utterly right. Therefore, I do not accept that we cannot argue for this proposition merely because many people support it. It seems reasonable to believe that the comprehensive system, despite its many advantages, might not always be right for every area and for every child.
  When the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) raised the question of his constituent going to Cambridge from a school which was not as academic as many other schools to which he might have gone, I was interested to hear him conclude that she was a prime example of a late developer. I believe that to have been the prime example of selectivity. He said with pride how the girl had been able to go to a particular university better than any other university. I am sad that he said that with pride because the whole of his argument was that selectivity was unacceptable.
  A constituent of mine who has gone to a polytechnic was a comprehensive school drop-out because the comprehensive school in his area did not provide and could not provide the kind of academic teaching necessary for someone of his kind of ability. The whole basis of the comprehensivisation falls down on the mathematics. In London we do not have enough children of what used to be called grammar school stream to provide a grammar school section for
  1690
  all our comprehensive schools. We know that from a figure produced and accepted by both sides of the Inner London Education Authority and relating to several of the divisions of north and east London.
  One of the reasons, therefore, that the Chief Education Officer in London has been quoted as admitting that there were schools in London to which he would not like to send his children was that not all the schools could have a grammar stream, even if we had the most complicated system of bussing and even if there were no grammar schools in London. Even if there were a totally comprehensive system throughout all our cities there would be comprehensive schools with academic reputations and others without, and therefore there will be an element of choice, and that choice is bound to be divisive in some sense unless the comprehensive system is based upon the principle in which the schools merely reflect the area in which they are located, a principle which I hope the Opposition will reject.
  Mr. Harry Lamborn: Will the hon. Member concede that the problem of providing what he described as a grammar school intake in some of our comprehensive schools in the inner London area stems directly from the fact that it is impossible to run a comprehensive system and a grammar school system side by side with the deliberate creaming off of many children, which prevents the comprehensive schools being fully comprehensive?
  Mr. Gummer: I am glad that the hon. Member made that intervention because the two divisions that I purposely chose were the two which are almost completely comprehensivised in the whole of London. That is why it is a particularly serious problem to be faced in parts of east and north London.
  But if it is accepted that there will also be some kind of divisiveness and choice, it is necessary to consider where the parent fits in. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) obviously thought these children were not the parents' children but the children of the divisional officer or possibly even his own. He seemed to think that he had the right to say to all parents that he was correct and that what he said was perfect for their children. He would say how

  1691
  they would fit into the school and how the mix would be proportioned and the children would become as units—and one unit, being above average, would fit into one place and another unit, below average, would fit in somewhere else. In my constituency parents are upset when they find that their child cannot go to the local comprehensive school when a child living further away is able to do so. I have to explain that the other child is in a different band from theirs, but I cannot tell them which band because I do not know. All I can say is that they have been marked down so that their child shall not go to the comprehensive school.
  The Inner London Education Authority has just produced a plan for my constituency concerning the last remaining county grammar school in it, the Brockley County Grammar School. I have examined the scheme carefully because I am concerned about the future of Manwood Secondary School which is in two poor buildings divided by the South Circular Road. I had fought a previous scheme by the ILEA which had overlooked this school. When I discovered that this was to be a comprehensive school on four sites divided by the South Circular, one of the buildings of which had been a primary school restored to that status after the war at a cost of £60,000, and when I discovered that this four-site school was supposed to be a comprehensive school, I began to think that possibly the parents had some right on their side.
  I went to the consultative committee where the parents were to be asked their views. They were told that there was to be no consultation whether their school should be part of the comprehensive system. Nor was there to be any discussion whether they wanted the school to continue as it was. The only consultation was whether the school should be joined with the Manwood School, the nearest building of which was only a mile away, or with another school, the nearest building of which was three miles away.
  I dare say that when that report goes in to the Secretary of State it will state that consultation was conducted on the scheme. However, no spokesman in favour of the scheme could be found from among the 500 people in the hall. Nobody clapped anyone on the platform who sup-
  1692
  ported the scheme. The parents did not seem to matter. I know that is one of the objections to which the Secretary of State has been asked not to listen, but how do we solve the problems in my area of the children who go to school in my area? Surely parents should have some sort of choice. If choice is removed it means that there will be a State system in education under which the State will provide education for all, make it compulsory and refuse parents any right to influence that education.
  That seems to me to cut right across the concept of participation which most of us believe in. I believe that we are back in the rigidly State-controlled Marxist ideology. [Laughter.] The hon. Members who laugh at that are those who are still stuck in the 19th century concept that the State knows best and that the alternative to individuals choosing for themselves is that someone should choose for them. If that is done it means that people cannot make their own choice in important matters for themselves and their children because it is believed someone else knows best.
  I ask the Secretary of State to see that as far as possible the choices which are available are extended to as many people as possible—including the docker in my constituency who has no education but who has two sons at university today because they were given the kind of academic education that a small school can give, whether it is a small comprehensive or a small grammar school. The small school has an important place in our educational system.
  I ask the Secretary of State to be determined to say that the last word on education has not been said in the pages of The Times Educational Supplement over the last few weeks; that educational attitudes and concepts will change and that it is wrong for us to believe that we have an arrogant right to say that now and for all time we know the answers and therefore that the whole system shall be changed irrespective of the buildings, the resources, and the needs and demands of the people locally. If that means that we have a system which does not fit into a neat pattern—whether it is one where a few children go to particular schools because they happen to be academically bright or academically stupid—it means

  1693
  that we are in the tradition of education in this country for 1,300 years, which is a tradition of variety. If the complaint is that people do not have a choice, surely the answer is to spend more money on and devote more resources to nursery schools and primary schools so that when children go to school they are given the necessary help to make up for any poverty of background. In that way every child will have a fair choice. If we wish to achieve that we must stop talking about comprehensivisation and start asking about providing equality of opportunity from the age of three to the age of eight.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. Brynmor John: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Dormand), prior to the debate I thought that the principle of comprehensive education was now accepted by most people, but it seems that the ancients among the Tory back benchers, have shown that they have not taken on board the research, development and information which has been disseminated about comprehensive education during the last few years.
  It is not good enough to speak, as the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) spoke, with his customary vigour if not relevance, of the hypocrisy of having more confidence if more of our children used the comprehensive system. The Opposition could ripost, equally, that we would have more confidence in hon. Members on the Conservative benches in speaking of the State education system if they or their children had ever used it, much less the grammar school system.
  Then we had the extraordinary tutorial speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer), whose lectures are so much more welcome to this House than they are to sixth forms. His mixing with younger people does not seem to have improved him, for a more garbled speech I have rarely heard. He condemned the inequities of our society and went on to say that it was a rigidly Marxist one.
  We do not say that the comprehensive system is an automatic rectifier of the social injustice and social inequities in Britain today. Rectification of those inequities would need not only rectification of the education system but greater
  1694
  financial and social equality. If that is what he is suggesting, I am with him. We should work for social equality and for taxation systems which do not give an advantage to private education as opposed to State education. But the hon. Gentleman's speeches during this Parliament have not suggested that that is what he wants.
  We say that, granted an inequitable society, the comprehensive system is at least one step towards reversing the general trend towards inequality and disadvantage. Let us not be mealymouthed about this. We do not object to educational variety. What we object to is the maintenance of the educational privilege inherent in the grammar school system. The hon. Gentleman said that he agreed that comprehensive education was right, although in the remaining 99 per cent. of his speech he seemed intent on proving it wrong—it is right in principle, but it is not right for all children in all places. What I and my party object to is that the children for whom it is not right always happen to be middle-class children in middle-class areas, not working-class children. It is the perpetuation of privilege to which we object.
  We cannot make exaggerated claims for the comprehensive system. It may not be the ultimate answer, but the argument of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West taken to its logical conclusion is that because the future may produce further refinements we should do nothing.
  When the hon. Gentleman calls the local authorities Marxist, is he referring to Breconshire, Radnorshire, Leicestershire and Anglesey? I doubt whether those counties have erected barricades for weeks. Does he realise that they are the forerunners of comprehensive education? Does he realise the educational results which have been achieved in those counties? It is a farrago of nonsense. The risk run by our sixth formers from the Conservative Party is not because the Conservative Party tries to inculcate into them party propaganda, but because those who address the sixth formers are likely to speak nonsense.
  I want briefly to speak about a campaign currently being run in my constituency against the comprehensive system. It illustrates the danger of the whipping-up of so-called public concern and the

  1695
  effect that this might have on the whole educational scheme for the area. I want to try to correct in advance any mistaken idea which the Secretary of State for Wales may have for dealing with the present proposals. It was proposed that the Vale of Glamorgan should be reorganised on comprehensive lines with one school at Llantwit Major. Parents in Cowbridge were rightly concerned that no provision was made for the retention of a school there and that their children would have to travel to Llantwit Major. After proper consultation the scheme was changed so as to preserve one comprehensive school at Llantwit Major with seventh form entry and one at Cowbridge with seventh form entry. I regard that as proper consultation. This was a legitimate matter for parental concern and the representations were met flexibly.
  That has not satisfied a wealthy and vocal minority of people living within the area, who are trying, by various factions to retain the Cowbridge Boys' Grammar School as a grammar school. They have made lavish use of publicity, which they can well afford, and Press reports. The best comment on the quaintness of their views is that they organised a parade of vintage cars. Vintage cars are about as antiquated as the educational system which these people seek to perpetuate. Because of all these activities many parents have been persuaded to support these factions and their claims, and to support them by distortions of the truth.
  The first thing that they play upon is the undoubted past excellence of the school and the fact that it has existed for many hundreds of years. It is not good enough in education to talk about the past. We are trying to plan for the future of these children, and to concentrate on history is as dangerous in education, as it is in Northern Ireland.
  Secondly, they lay great emphasis on the boarding facility which they say will be removed from the Vale of Glamorgan if Cowbridge Grammar School is removed. They cite particularly the children of RAF personnel at St. Athan, of whom there are only about six at any one time, and in any event the school holds only six. I concede the need in some cases for boarding education but what is symptomatic of the "privilege"
  1696
  approach is that it is assumed that there is a need for boarding accommodation only for children who are at grammar school. Children who are at secondary modern schools can go hang.
  The third point on which they try to mislead the public is the selective use of local authority support, support which has been universally denied to them.
  When the hon. Member for Lewisham, West speaks about the State knowing best, I wonder how much of the educational system he understands. It is the local education committees in the locality which make the selection of the type of system they want.
  Mr. Selwyn Gummer: They are making the distinction between the policy put forward by the Labour Party which is that the Government would dictate from the centre the policies of local authorities—which is the policy of the State knowing best—and the present situation in which policies are put forward by local education authorities.
  Mr. John: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should use so feeble an argument. Of course the Government dictate overall policy; they must do so. The hon. Gentleman's Government do that in the same way as any other Government. His Government are the originators of the removal of school milk from the jurisdiction of local authorities. That was within the decision of local authorities until this freedom-loving, choice-loving Government removed it from them.
  Was the hon. Gentleman awake at the time or was he away at a conference? However, I shall return to the point, as the hon. Gentleman seems to have failed to appreciate it entirely, that the campaign for the retention of grammar school education in Cowbridge is being pursued by the affluent for the retention of the privileged within their area. It is repugnant to most parents in that area. What they have done by their opposition is to put in doubt the replacement of five primary schools during 1973–74.
  The right hon. Lady spoke glowingly about the programme of replacing antiquated primary schools. But because of the campaign, and because of the allocation within this financial year of the sum necessary to reorganise all comprehensive education, the replacement of five primary schools will be put in doubt if there is

  1697
  much more delay. The campaigners have ignored the fact that by the retention of the Cowbridge grammar school, at least four out of five children will be denied the benefits of the best system of secondary education that we have yet devised—namely, the comprehensive system.
  The hon. Gentleman made great play about bussing. However, if the campaign for the retention of Cowbridge grammar school is to succeed, four out of five children will be condemned to compulsory bussing to another area. There is no possible argument for the erection of a comprehensive school in Cowbridge side by side with a grammar school.
  Finally—and this is a result which I think will surprise the hon. Gentleman, who thinks that it is only in the retention of grammar schools that parental concern can be aroused—because of the doubt which the education authority has about the continuance of the secondary education system, it has had, as a precaution, to reintroduce certain selection procedures which are necessary under the present system. That has upset the majority of parents who thought that that barbaric nonsense had been dealt a death blow once and for all. The hon. Gentleman also referred to selection by merit. Which of us believes that we can choose merit at the age of 11? That is thoroughly discredited and it does no honour to the right hon. Lady to cling to that outworn approach.
  I hope that the right hon. Lady will not be taken in by the foolish and mischievous campaign which is now being waged by a small section of the inhabitants of the Cowbridge area. Parental choice is a fine phrase, but in practice it means little to most people in the country. I am less concerned with parental choice, although I am a parent who has a child in a comprehensive school, than I am with pupil choice—for example, the choice of the pupil as to the career he should follow, the subjects he should study, and whether he is able to develop his talents to the fullness of his ability. That seems to be the real choice. What is happening today, and what the fine words of the right hon. Lady do not entirely disguise, is that a vocal middle-class minority is applying a tourniquet to the educational health of this country.
  Mr. Michael Roberts: Absolute rubbish.
  Mr. John: I wonder how much the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Michael Roberts) knows about the area of which I am speaking. I doubt if he knows very much. He probably knows as much about it as any other area or any other subject upon which he assays the House. In fact, that is a great condemnation. He has already, by his decision on local government reorganisation in Glamorgan, shown that he is amenable to the decisions dictated by party politics rather than by good sense. However, I do not expect him to jeopardise the educational future of the majority of children in my area, and the educational excellence which could come about, if we plan properly for the future on the lines suggested by the Galmorgan County Council. I hope, if the hon. Gentleman is asked to adjudicate upon the scheme, that he will use his decision rationally in the interests of the pupils and will not subjugate them to the vociferous minority whose only concern is that they perpetuate for their children the privilege that they enjoy.
  7.26 p.m.
  Miss Janet Fookes: The Opposition's motion is very narrow. I suspect that they have found it hard to find fault with Conservative educational policy. They are compelled to look at the comparatively few cases which my right hon. Friend has seen fit, after looking carefully at the proposals, to turn down. We should have a sense of proportion. She has refused only a very small number. One would gain the impression from the Opposition that she turned down the lot. That is not true and is very unfair to her. As I understand it, she has accepted no fewer than 2,600 proposals and has turned down roughly 111.
  I agree with the principle of comprehensive education. I do not propose to give my reasons tonight. The debate should be turning far more than it has on the form that comprehensive education is to take. That would be a far more attractive and fruitful source of debate than the one that we have had or, at any rate, the one that the Opposition have put forward. It will be recalled that the famous—or infamous—Circular 1065

  1699
  listed no fewer than six types of comprehensive organisation. We should be discussing it in the light of experience rather than carping about whether we have it at all.
  I am much concerned by the size of some comprehensive schools. I believe that that apprehension is shared by many of my hon. Friends on the back benches. I know that it is of great concern to my right hon. Friend. I have known the real bewilderment that a child faces when it is moved from a comparatively small school—for example, a primary school—to a very large school at the secondary stage. We are expecting children to make the transition from primary schools to secondary schools which accommodate a thousand or more pupils. Experience does not justify a school of that size and I hope that no more will be brought into existence.
  The head of a comprehensive school, who believes thoroughly in that principle, has told me that he considers that the problems of organisation are beyond the powers of any head to deal with satisfactorily. It is true that in a large school a pupil has an enormous number of subject choices. However, it gets to the point where the choice in itself is bewildering, when the child cannot benefit from the choice and when a smaller range in a smaller and more personal school would serve the purpose just as well. It is rather like the firms which become so large that there are dis-economies of scale instead of the old and traditional economies.
  I deplore for other reasons some aspects of the two-tier system which means that children scarcely get into a school before they are pushed out at the other end, perhaps spending two years at the first stage and then going to another school. I deplore that movement at the critical age of 14 years when children are preparing possibly for examinations. That seems to be an unsatisfactory form of comperhensive education. Far better are the middle schools which do away with the traditional primary and secondary organisation with the break at 11 years, when the children go in at five, go to the next stage at seven or eight and then, at 12 or 13, go to the upper school. The system has all the benefits of a smaller upper school and the process is not broken
  1700
  off at an artificial stage at the age 11. I must declare an interest because the scheme is operating in Merton and Morden. I have had the advantage of seeing it work in practice, and it works very well.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I agree with the hon. Lady, but will she go a step further and recommend the secondary college system, with a break at sixteen after O-levels?
  Miss Fookes: The sixth form college principle is a new concept. The Secretary of State has approved certain proposals to allow sixth form colleges to develop and it is an interesting experiment, but because they are so new I approach the idea with caution. There may be areas to which they would be well suited, but we should watch the situation carefully.
  Sixth form colleges have certain advantages from the children's point of view. Having taught girls, I know that they get tired of the same hackneyed school experience and probably would welcome a break at an age when they feel grown up and adult. A sixth form college presents them with a challenge, and would probably have a different and freer atmosphere, without the necessity for the wearing of school uniforms.
  These colleges may present staffing difficulties because many staff may not wish to remain in a secondary school if they could teach "the cream" in a sixth form college. This is a real problem which must be examined.
  The solution may lie in having greater flexibility in the use of staff. Too often in the past we have thought on the lines that staff belong to one school only, and that is that. In future there may be merit in looking at proposals to allow teachers to work in a secondary school and also undertake some work in a sixth form college. This might be a useful way of overcoming difficulties.
  We also must consider the advantage of having single-sex as against coeducational schools. Many parents are coming to the view that a single sex-school is old-fashioned and would welcome the opportunity for their children to mix. But we must recognise that many parents still prefer single-sex education for their children. The Secretary of State

  1701
  might well look to parental choice in guiding her decisions on this topic or at least might make provision for one or two single-sex schools in an entire scheme.
  The most difficult problem to which nobody has yet found the answer is how to deal with bad schools in bad areas. We have not begun to solve this problem and the various solutions which have been advanced—a social mix, bussing and all the rest—are no real solutions to the problem. This may be a long-term matter which will involve the building of better schools and the provision of better staff to go into what undoubtedly are difficult situations. We shall have to build on those ideas rather than to go in for an artificial mixing.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will continue to look with an eagle eye at the various schemes that come before her, but I welcome the way in which she has passed so many schemes which seem to her to be educationally sound.
  7.38 p.m.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) made an extremely thoughtful speech, with very much of which I agreed. The Secretary of State made much play of the fact that she has statutory duties to fulfil under Section 13 of the Act. Nobody criticises her on that score, because we appreciate that she has a statutory duty to look at schemes. It must be said that bad schemes have been produced by local authorities under Labour and Conservative Governments. I remember that when I was PPS to my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), who was then Secretary of State for Education, he had occasionally to decide that certain schemes were educationally unsound and needed revision. There is no objection to the Secretary of State's power in that respect, but I am critical about delays under the present regime which occur before a scheme is approved.
  The right hon. Lady unfairly accused my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) of wanting to ignore parents' wishes. The Secretary of State, seems to forget that before a comprehensive scheme ever reaches her there is widespread consul-
  1702
  tation by local authorities with parents, teachers and local residents. It is the right hon. Lady who is being unfair because she must acknowledge the fact that parents are consulted at an early stage on nearly all schemes.
  My main criticism of the right hon. Lady is not that she does not listen to objections, but that she appears to listen to certain objectors rather more closely than she listens to others. She is too susceptible to the highly organised groups which seek to put pressure on her for the
  retention of a particular school. The right hon. Lady, like many of her Conservative colleagues, probably believes that comprehensive schools and grammar schools can co-exist in the same locality without much harm coming to anybody. That attitude is quite wrong. The word "comprehensive" means "all-embracing", and if one section of pupils is being creamed off to a grammar school then the other school can no longer be called comprehensive.
  Many people who have wide experience of education matters believe in comprehensive secondary education. If pupils up to the age of 11 go to primary schools which are comprehensive, why on earth does that process have to stop just because a child is over the age of 11? Furthermore, selective examinations are grossly inaccurate, particularly at the age of 11.
  I taught for 13 years in a secondary modern school. We were getting children through examinations with up to eight or nine 0-levels and they were children who had failed the 11-plus. I believed that we had a duty to give every opportunity to those children—the opportunities which they would have had had they gone to a grammar school.
  Looking back on it, although I am sure that we were right, I think that we did it at the expense of some of the others in that school who were less able. By concentrating, as we had to do, on a number of children who were academically bright and, because of the stupidity of the selective system, had not gone where they should have gone, the rest of the school tended to suffer.
  My argument for comprehensive education has very little to do with class or social mix. I believe that many of the traditional grammar schools had a fairly

  1703
  good social mix, and their pupils came from all classes. My argument for comprehensive education is that we should have, in the same buildings and surroundings, an educational mix, in which people of all abilities are taught on the same site and come together for various things. I am not in favour of a complete abolition of streaming. That does not make sense as yet, but perhaps it would if we got better and better teachers. But at least pupils could all be on the same site.
  I believe that not only can the less able learn from the able, but also that the able can often learn from the less able. I should like to give an example of that. In 1953 I came to a secondary modern school straight from university, as a graduate teacher. I can remember walking into the school and meeting the headmaster, who told me, "I want you to go along to room 4"—I remember it because it was my home for the next two years—"where you will find the class waiting for you". When I saw the class I was horrified, because 25 of the 30 children were gipsies. This was a school in the New Forest which catered for a big gipsy encampment. I wondered how I would cope with them. In talking to these childen I eventually learned an awful lot from them including how to catch trout with an electric battery and two wires. I learned to understand them, and they, I hope, learned something from me.
  I believe that the real argument for comprehensive education is that one should not separate abilities into two or more separate establishments.
  Mr. Peter Fry: Apparently the hon. Member disagrees violently with any form of selection at the age of 11, or 12 or, perhaps, 13, yet he accepts it at the age of 18. At what age is selection acceptable?
  Mr. Mitchell: I do not wish to get diverted on to the subject of higher education at this stage, as there will be another debate later on the White Paper.
  I was educated in a traditional small grammar school and I remember an experience I had when I left school and joined the Army. We had the old two-tier bunks in our barrack room. I was on the top bunk and the chap on the bottom bunk said that he had had a letter from his girl friend. He asked me
  1704
  whether I would read it to him. I was embarrassed. I said, "Why should I read your girl friend's letter?" He was also embarrassed, and said, "I cannot read." That was a very illuminating experience for me. I had mixed throughout my life with people of roughly my own ability and I did not realise that at the age of 18 there were people who could not read or write. I got used to writing his letters for him. It was a great experience, which taught me a lot.
  This is not a class matter; it is an educational matter. The main argument for comprehensive education is to teach all abilities in the same surroundings—because that is what we shall get in society afterwards.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The "one nation".
  Mr. Mitchell: Indeed. Let me now deal with the parental choice aspect. I believe in the maximum of parental choice. In the area in which I taught before coming to Parliament, about 17 per cent. of children passed the 11-plus and went to grammar school, and 83 per cent. went to a secondary modern school. I taught in a secondary modern school, and not one parent of the 83 per cent. of pupils in that area had any choice as to where their child should receive its schooling. The only people with the choice were the parents of the 17 per cent. who passed the selection examination.
  I have, perhaps, told a lie here, as there was one child who had the choice. He came to me one day from the bottom stream in the school and said, "Please, Sir, I have passed my scholarship". This was right. He had passed an examination to get into the local ESN school, the school for the educationally subnormal. That school would take only children with whom it thought that it could do something and, therefore, the children had to have some form of educational requirement in order to attend. Those classified as ineducable came to us.
  This boy said, "I do not think I shall take up the option, sir. I will stay here because I like it." He was the only child who had any choice as to a school. So parental choice is a matter which is greatly exaggerated.
  In my constituency we were fortunate that secondary reorganisation in Southampton took place in 1966–67. It was

  1705
  interesting that, although the local Conservative Party opposed this bitterly at the time, when the Conservatives took control of the council soon after that, they made virtually no changes.
  It is working well, but there remains in the middle of the scheme one selective grammar school. This school is not fully maintained and, therefore, there is little we can do about that. We had to leave the scheme with that particular school outside. The trouble is that this selective school is creaming off pupils, particularly in the area concerned, and this has a very adverse effect on the children in the comprehensive schools nearby. This can be seen in all sorts of ways.
  One other way in which the Secretary of State—either deliberately or, perhaps, subtly; I do not know—has been trying to delay in certain cases the implementation of comprehensive education is in the control of secondary school building. I do not dispute that the Secretary of State was absolutely correct in putting the emphasis on primary schools. That was right in the context of 1970. But the policy has been put forward and processed too rigidly, and it has been almost impossible for any secondary school to obtain any money to do anything. This has seriously held up reorganisation schemes in many parts of the country.
  In my constituency we have a secondary college, Richard Taunton College, which urgently needs remodelling. It is the college which I happened to attend when I went to grammar school as a boy, and at which the former Mr. Speaker was a teacher. The toilets, the craft room and the art room are just the same as I knew them when I was a pupil there. Although we cannot get any money for it at present, I hope that we shall get some under the new allocation.
  I hope that the next Labour Government will introduce legislation at an early stage to abolish selection altogether. We tried to do that last time by persuasion. We achieved much, but we always knew that there would be that small group of reactionary local authorities, the Bournemouths of this world, which would refuse to have anything to do with comprehensive education. Had we won the last General Election, a Bill
  1706
  would have been on the Statute Book to abolish selection altogether. I hope that the next Labour Government will also scrap entirely the direct grant system, because that system grew up by accident and serves no useful purpose in our society.
  I hope that the next Labour Government will also turn their attention to another section of schools which we call the non-denominational voluntarily-aided schools. Let us hear nothing from the Government benches about restricting the rights of local education authorities—not after the Housing Finance Act. One thing that we have learned from the present Government, of which I hope that the next Labour Government will take note, is how to deal with local authorities which are, perhaps, awkward in some ways.
  Finally, there can still be a great deal of freedom for local authorities to choose, inside a non-selective system, the type of comprehensive system that they want. They can go for the all-through comprehensive, the 11–18 years school. I advocate strongly the secondary college with the middle school. In other words, a first school from five to eight, a middle school from eight to 12, a secondary comprehensive from 12 to 16 and a secondary college from 16-plus. I call it a secondary college rather than a sixth form college because the latter implies that it is a purely academic institution going for only A-level courses. I believe that a secondary college should cater for all who want to stay on post-16 whether they are going for A-level or other courses. An increasing number of youngsters who may not be at the top level academically want to stay on post-16.
  I have been critical of the Secretary of State. I end with a word of praise. I am pleased that the right hon. Lady, despite pressures she may have had at one stage from Tory backbenchers, the Treasury, or elsewhere to delay the raising of the school leaving age to 16, pursued and achieved that policy. I am sure that was right.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Roberts: It is indeed a pleasure to follow a fellow member of the National Union of

  1707
  Teachers, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell), particularly as he said that he was concerned with educational matters rather than what could be described as matters of class. I went some way with what he said. He then said that when he taught in a secondary modern school he found that teachers had possibly—he was not sure—concentrated on the brighter pupils at the top of the school to the detriment of those further down. He did not say at the bottom or in the middle of the school, but somewhere further down. I am sure that he and his colleagues were too educationally sincere and conscientious to have done that.
  The same risk is involved in a comprehensive school as in a grammar or any other type of school. In a comprehensive school, as the hon. Member knows, people refer to "bands of ability". In many comprehensive schools organised and run by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues there are bands of ability: the first four streams, then the next four, and so on all the way down. It may be that, a comprehensive school having been organised on that basis, one band is neglected. Clearly that is the responsibility of the school concerned. It is one of the risks in any kind of organisation.
  I should have had far more respect for the hon. Gentleman's argument on grounds of education if he had not slung in at some stage the point that he would scrap the direct grant system. Why scrap the direct grant system? Surely, not on educational grounds.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Yes.
  Mr. Roberts: Surely not. It might be argued that in a large city to take the grammar school creaming-off might put the comprehensive schools at a disadvantage.
  Cardiff contributes 12 girls to the Howells direct grant school. Does anyone believe that if each year those 12 did not attend the Howells direct grant school but were distributed two here, three there and none somewhere else, it would make the slightest difference? The significance is "none somewhere else", because this concerns the right social mix about which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke. I should be grateful if he or anyone else could
  1708
  tell me how we can get the right social mix. Even if I accepted the question and said "Yes, you can bus people all over the city", what does one do? Do the proponents of the accurate mix which is essential for each school—so that each school in a city has the right balance of ability and social background—go to find out the pupils' social backgrounds? Are we to take what is called a series of "good addresses" and say that we will bus some here and bus others there? Anyone considering that argument knows that it is nonsense.
  I am a proponent of the comprehensive system. I left the grammar school system to work in the comprehensive system and did so for six or seven years. The great problem is that some parts of the city of Cardiff have totally different social mixes from other parts. That gives the lie to the argument that the grammar schools engage in creaming-off. Clearly certain places will not be affected in any way where there is one grammar school structure within a great area which is generally served by the comprehensive system.
  I do not think that educationists looking back over the last 10 years will say that the cause of comprehensive education has necessarily been advanced best by the purists and the theorists who talk about the social mix. I am quite certain, however, that they will accord to my right hon. Friend a very important place among those who have looked after the true interests of education and of comprehensive education.
  My right hon. Friend, with great courage and conviction, has said that there is a place for the small school and a place for the small comprehensive school. This is important for several reasons. A headmaster does not know all his pupils even in a small comprehensive school of 1,200. He cannot know them all. What is more, the pupils do not know him. It may be argued that that does not matter very much because he knows somebody who knows the pupils well. Sometimes it is an advantage that the pupils do not know the headmaster but at least know and trust really well somebody to whom they can talk.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are many schools of perhaps 400, 500 or 600 pupils within the selective system where

  1709
  the headmasters do not know all the pupils and yet the schools seem to survive reasonably well?
  Mr. Roberts: The headmaster of a 400-pupil school is as conscientious as the headmaster of a 1,200-pupil school. Headmasters try to get to know their pupils as best they can. The fact is that in a school of 1,200 pupils it is three times more difficult, and there comes a point of escalation at which it is utterly impossible. Even in a comprehensive school which would be described as small it is very difficult for a headmaster to know all the pupils.
  Part of a headmaster's job is to create the administrative machine, and he does it. Therefore, although he does not know all the students, he can appoint a responsible member of the staff to liaise with them. If he wants to know what a student is doing at a particular time or how he is fitting into the school, he can ask the person who is responsible.
  The larger the school, the longer the chain of command. I have taught for many years. I believe that the front line of education is in the classroom, on the playing field, in the laboratory, and in the workshops. The further the chain of command stretches from the front line to the headmaster's study, the less effective is the headmaster, however he wants to work. I have seen how headmasters can be surrounded by their immediate advisers—year teachers, the heads of lower schools, the careers masters—so that the immediate advisers too are not in direct touch with the pupils in the classroom. Therefore, the person who has to make the ultimate decision is unfortunately cocooned, not of his own volition, from the very people doing the major job of education.
  Mr. Spearing: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he not agree that the very remoteness of which he talks is also true in the national system of education, where those from the separatist grammar schools, direct grant schools and big public schools, those who are regarded as the experts because they go to the best schools and teach in them, are unaware of the real education needs of most of the nation?
  Mr. Roberts: That is totally irrelevant to my argument. I am talking seriously about the problems of comprehensive schools, not trying to make odd social or party political points.
  Another thing that worries me about the system is that in order to create the machine, the headmaster has to take out of the classroom more and more of the teachers who are best qualified and most experienced to carry out the administrative jobs, merely to combat size.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has spotted one of the grave weaknesses in the organisation of comprehensive schools. This is not to say anything against the system but points out where comprehensive education in large schools has gone wrong. It is better that we should have and move towards smaller schools.
  Many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, so I shall be brief. I recognise, as we all do, the disadvantage of the small school; its sixth form cannot offer as many opportunities as the sixth form in the large school. But I do not think that the right way to arrange the size of the school is to say that the ideal size is that which will throw up the number of pupils who will make a viable sixth form. If that were done in the better residential parts of Cardiff, where the parents are most concerned, there would be a comparatively small school, and perhaps in the area where we want most personal attention there would be a vast school.
  I think that we are on the right lines with smaller schools, but we need much greater co-operation at sixth form level between schools—not a sixth form college. In that way I am certain that comprehensive education, with the guidance of my right hon. Friend will make a great contribution to the country's education service.
  8.3 p.m.
  Dr. John Gilbert: I shall not detain the House for long as I wish to confine myself to a constituency matter with which the Secretary of State is well acquainted.
  I do not propose to rehearse any of the arguments for or against Dudley's plan for secondary comprehensive reorganisation. They are all very familiar to the right hon. Lady and to the parents

  1711
  of Dudley, who are becoming heartily sick of the controversy over their children's future. I am asking tonight for a decision as soon as possible.
  The Secretary of State has rejected certain parts of Dudley's plan. In her rejection she asked Dudley Council whether, in the light of her decision, it wished to start again from the beginning, considering the whole scheme again in the light of the changes she made, or whether it wanted to return to her to ask her to approve the remainder of the plan in the light of the changes she requires.
  The amputation of significant parts of any local authority's scheme will create problems, and that has happened in Dudley. Clearly the relationship of the original scheme to the changes that the Secretary of State requires will cause the local authority to give urgent and penetrating scrutiny to the implications of her decision. That scrutiny has been given. The director of education of Dudley wrote to the Secretary of State on 12th January referring to the letter from the Department of 28th December, in which the authority was informed that the Secretary of State was unable to approve the proposals for five schools in the authority's plan to reorganise secondary education on comprehensive lines.
  The director of education's letter continued:
  "The plan envisaged 16 comprehensive schools to cover the age range 16–18 including sixth form provision in each. The Secretary of State's decision affects two of these schools only, the remaining 14 being situated in Coseley, Sedgley and Brierley Hill and in three areas of Dudley."
  That means the old county borough area of Dudley. The letter went on to say:
  "The Education Committee has now had an opportunity of considering your letter in detail and has decided to urge he Secretary of State to approve the 14 remaining proposals."
  There then followed a list of the schools involved.
  The letter continued:
  "Each of these schools will have its own catchment area and therefore will not be affected by the decision … The committee is also satisfied that by 1978–79 it will be possible to establish sixth form work in comprehensive schools without any deterioration in standards or quality of work and that both facilities and staff will be available at the appropriate time.
  The committee also wishes me to point out that so far as the changes in local government
  1712
  in 1974 are concerned, Halesowen is already reorganised on a 13–18 basis of comprehensive schools, whereas no reorganisation has taken place in Stourbridge."
  If we have to wait until 1974 we are starting all over again with three entirely different types of secondary education. It means that the whole plan will be set back several more years. The education committee in Dudley, for quite understandable reasons, thinks that would be an entirely unsatisfactory state of affairs, and I endorse its arguments on that.
  The Council is emphatic that it wishes the Secretary of State to consent to the rest of its proposals without delay. As a result of the Secretary of State's decision, the merits of which I will not argue tonight, the situation in Dudley grows more critical every day. The director of education was in touch with the Department recently by telephone and I understand that papers have reached the Secretary of State personally. We have no knowledge when a decision can be expected. I am told that serious consequences can follow very shortly as a result of the need to make arrangements for admission to secondary schools in September. The director of education's memorandum stating that says:
  "A 12-plus examination must be held in part of the town area of Dudley. If the rest of the plan is not approved the 12-plus must be spread over the whole County Borough. Schools break up for Easter on Wednesday April 11 and return on May 1. During this current term, tests should have been completed and the papers marked so that orders of marks can be prepared."
  The Secretary of State will be aware of the problems involved but I wish to emphasise them.
  The memorandum continues:
  "The schools will be required to be informed by letter of the selection procedure. This would consist of two tests either a week or fortnight apart. Papers for the tests are available."
  One serious factor concerning the local authority, however, is that
  "In the last two years, border line cases have been interviewed by panels, but this part of the procedure may have to be dispensed with in view of the need for notifying parents as soon as possible, and well before the end of the summer term."
  I hope that in the light of the letter sent to the Department and the extracts I have just read from a memorandum sent by the director of education to the chairman of the education committee,

  1713
  whom I consider to be one of Dudley's most loyal and public servants, the Secretary of State will accept at any rate the need for a decision as quickly as possible.
  In my view the original plan of Dudley Council was probably better than what the Secretary of State is proposing. I do not think that the original plan was a doctrinaire one. I am confident that it would not have resulted in any bussing and that it would have resulted in a satisfactory social mix. A compromise was accepted. Secondary school would start a year later than the Labour group planned originally. But we accepted that.
  Even if Dudley's current plan does not turn out to be the best one, it is not irrevocable. It is possible after a few years' experience for Dudley's proposals to be adjusted, to incorporate the idea of sixth form colleges which is the matter of controversy at the moment in the county borough. These proposals do not close the door and they are not irrevocable in that respect. With the passage of time we shall see who is right.
  What we need now is a decision. We need it badly. There are worried parents all over the county borough who demand it. It is the duty of the Secretary of State to give it. I hope that we shall have it from her without delay.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: This education debate happens to be the first in which I have had the privilege to participate. I hope that that will not be interpreted as a sign that I am a late developer, even if I cannot press the analogy to the point that one hon. Member opposite described in giving us the experience of his constituent.
  I begin by drawing the attention of the House to two conversations which I had the privilege of enjoying recently. The first was at the Parliamentary and Scientific Conference at Lausanne where I asked a Fellow of the Royal Society who must be nameless what he thought was probably the most significant factor deciding the relative scientific excellence and achievement of the West versus the Soviet Union. He said that without doubt by far the most important factor was the way in which we developed, aggregated and advanced our highest mathematical
  1714
  ability in the West. I asked how they did it in Russia. His reply was extremely interesting. He said that the Russians creamed the whole of Russian society and they picked out the boys and girls of the highest mathematical ability. They took them to three academies outside Moscow and gave them the very best mathematical education that the Soviet Union knew how to provide. He said that in his view that was probably one of the reasons why the Soviet Union was making conspicuous advances in areas where mathematics was the foundation of this type of success. I shall not forget that conversation.
  The other conversation took place on the far side of the United States. One of the most barbaric habits in the United States is the working breakfast. However, sometimes when one is staying in an hotel in America one meets some very interesting people, and they do not skulk behind The Times but engage one in conversation. I was spoken to by a gentleman who asked me what I was doing there. I told him, and I reciprocated. He told me that he was attending the parent-teacher conference of his children's school. I asked what sort of conference it was. He replied that it was a conference held twice a year attended by a large number of parents and most teachers in the school to discuss the curriculum and how children were progressing. Apparently the conference took two full days and was held in the hotel.
  Then we began talking about education. It was at the time that the comprehensive controversy was just beginning in this country. He said to me "It is extraordinary to us that here we are in the United States trying every conceivable way we know to achieve once again the excellent academic standards which you still seem to have in the United Kingdom and, to our astonishment, there you are in the United Kingdom apparently trying to turn the whole system upside down and do what we did 20 years ago when we had our vast education explosion in the United States and, in a sense, went comprehensive only to find that we suffered severe and serious educational problems."
  Those are two comments on comprehensive education. However, I want to quote two more because it seems to me that they express the essential problem

  1715
  of the controversy between those who favour comprehensive education and those who feel that it is not the perfect solution to our problems. It was first expressed in the Conant Report which President Conant of Harvard produced on "General Education in a Free Society". He said:
  "The purpose of vocational education is, by recognising the influence of circumstances to mitigate it, not to eliminate it. There must be a place for both special and general education for those subjects which divide man from man according to their particular functions and for those which unite man and man in their common humanity and citizenship."
  This has always seemed to me to express the essential fundamental problem of education, that we are on the horns of a dilemma which, until we have reached the millennium with unlimited resources, we shall never eliminate. He concluded:
  "General and special education must not be placed in competition with each other."
  As I see the problems that we are considering, this is what seems to be happening. We are creating situations in which general and special forms of education are placed in competition with each other.
  I shall now be intensely parochial and refer entirely to the local context in which I am considering this problem at the moment. In Havant and Waterloo within my constituency, there is a depressing situation. We have six county secondary moderns, two mixed grammar and two partly selective mixed schools. In addition, I might say, not because they are within the boundaries of my constituency but because many parents send their children to them, we have two other schools, Horndean and Churchers College, Petersfield. Many of my constituents send their children to Peters-field from as far away as Hayling Island because there they receive the quality of education that they require.
  I intend to talk about only three of those schools because they are important and because they illustrate the central core of the debate. Havant grammar school, founded at the beginning of the decade, has 920 pupils and 58 staff. Purbrook grammar school, a much older school founded just before the First World War, has 934 pupils and 54 staff. The third is a very interesting school, Wakeford comprehensive school, which was in the process of establishing its sixth form. The staff had been recruited and the facilities
  1716
  had largely been obtained. All that has not happened is that it has not started sixth form teaching yet.
  Until recently the main scheme for reorganisation involved a reconstruction on an 11-to-18 basis. Wakeford was to become an 11-to-18 comprehensive with a substantial and significant sixth form element. The other schools were to be reorganised on an 1l-to-18 comprehensive basis when the facilities and resources became available for them. For a variety of reasons this was considered not to be possible, essentially on the ground of lack of resources. As a result, a completely new scheme was developed with a different basis altogether.
  What was to happen was that Havant grammar school and Purbrook grammar school, two of the most distinguished schools in the Portsmouth area, were virtually to disappear. Havant was to become a sixth form college drawing from all over the area and Purbrook was to lose its sixth form and become an 11-to-16 comprehensive. None of the original six county secondary moderns was to develop into 11-to-18 schools. They were to remain as 11-to-16s feeding these two schools. In addition, a college of further education was to be established in Havant to assist the process.
  What will happen if this scheme is enforced? As far as Purbrook grammar school is concerned, the pupils in the first to fourth forms already there and having accepted to enter the sixth form will not be able to do so. Many of the staff will leave. They have indicated quite clearly that they dislike the prospect which now faces them and, as it has been put to me—not by the headmaster of the Purbrook grammar school but by another distinguished educationist in the area—"Purbrook grammar school will disintegrate". That was the phrase that was used.
  In the case of Wakeford comprehensive, here again the sixth form preparations and all the expenditure on them will be entirely wasted. Many of the staff already recruited on the basis that they would be in an 11-to-18 comprehensive, ending with sixth form instruction, will be disaffected and inclined to leave. Parents who sent their children to the school on the basis of an 11-to-18 prospect are very disenchanted and feel let

  1717
  down. It is interesting that Wakeford school serves mainly Leigh Park, which is a very difficult and problematical area in my constituency and is known to be one in which there is a considerable amount of emotional, social and educational deprivation for the children concerned. Many children from this area will not make the change to a sixth form college and, as it has been put to me, will be totally lost to the educational process.
  As far as Havant grammar school is concerned, the school tradition will be severely curtailed and, as we all know, the sixth form college is a very different animal.
  What has happened concerning the parents? We have heard a good deal in the House this evening about processes of consultation. Apparently in this area the processes of consultation have been intensive. There have been meetings for the head teachers, meetings for all teachers, meetings for governors and, finally, very well-attended meetings for the parents—by which I mean drawing up to and over 1,000 people. The outcome of this is perfectly clear and, as far as I can judge it, decisive. At the Purbrook grammar school, where 700 parents attended, there was overwhelming disagreement with the proposed scheme. The petition which is to be presented to this House will have over 1,000 signatures. At Wakeford, which is a comprehensive, 72 out of the staff of 76 disagreed with the proposed reorganisation. According to the response to the questionnaire sent to 1,000 parents, 90 per cent. are opposed to the scheme, and 100 per cent. of the fifth form parents are opposed to the scheme. These are not—and this is important—what, to use an unpleasant designation, might be described as middle-class parents fighting for their own special interests, but I think they know where the interests of their children lie.
  It seems to me that the philosophy which has been applied in suggesting and bringing forward this system is the philosophy not of the Green Paper but of the White Paper. The scheme is put forward as a complete, final, organised scheme. The processes of consultation are gone through, and then very little indeed is done about the results of that
  1718
  consultation. I do not regard this as a significant, successful or indeed honest way of consulting public opinion. So if one asks the question of parents and teachers whether they think that proper weight has been given to their views, one gets an almost unanimous "No".
  I would be the first to argue that those who have put forward these schemes have done so with great sincerity and conviction. They have been operating under severe constraints, probably the most important being that of lack of resources. The second most important constraint is probably the pressure, which has been described on both sides of the House this evening, for the abolition of the 11-plus evamination. This has been recognised by those in the education committee and in the authorities—the Hampshire authority, the Havant and Waterloo authority—whose responsibility it is to attempt to meet the demands for an improved educational system. But what I think they have perhaps neglected or paid insufficient attention to is the sheer weight of the upper and nether millstones which are operating in this educational sphere. They are both exceptionally heavy, but the corn being ground is the seed corn of the future. That is why there are such very strong, passionate and convinced reactions from the parents involved.
  It seems to me that what we must do here is quite clear. We must consider how this can be re-done. We must ask those concerned to look at it again. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will look at this again. She has told us that her discretion under Section 13 has been exercised with the greatest care. I would submit that this is an occasion on which that discretion must be exercised. I hope that those who are very much concerned by the scheme which has been put forward, which has caused the greatest concern throughout the district, will realise that everything my right hon. Friend said earlier about the Government wishing to achieve the best possible outcome in all circumstances is absolutely true.
  8.27 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Lamborn: As a member of the Inner London Education Authority for the past 15 years I intend to direct my remarks to the special problems arising for secondary education

  1719
  in the Inner London area. The advance to comprehensive education in London was started in the early years after the war by the former London County Council and considerable progress has been made, but I think we have reached the position in London now where the whole situation is frustrated by the fact that so many of the buildings used by secondary schools in the Inner London area are very aged, many of them having been built by the old School Board for London. We have the position that finance is not available for new buildings and proposals submitted to the Secretary of State are rejected because it is not considered desirable to approve certain comprehensive proposals involving separate buildings. So we go round in a vicious circle.
  One thing which arises from this is that I can think of four or five grammar schools which were part of comprehensive proposals—grammar schools with good traditions to provide the basis for very good comprehensive schools within the Inner London area—but because of the failure to get finance for building in the Inner London area they have transferred outside that area and have become comprehensive schools in the area of other education authorities.
  This has been a loss to London because these grammar schools within a comprehensive system had a contribution to make. As the chairman of a large comprehensive school as well as the governor of a grammar school I believe that a combination of the two is useful. These grammar schools, with their traditions, can play an important part in forming the new comprehensive schools. Because of the failure to provide finance we in London are in difficulties in advancing a fully comprehensive system.
  It may be asked why, having proceeded so far in London, is there a hurry to move towards the comprehensive system? I would like to deal with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Brierley Hill, (Mr. Montgomery) who referred to what he called "sink" schools, a disgraceful reference for which the Press has to be thanked. It is a disservice to education to use this description. The hon. Member referred to the "sink" schools and the criteria which the Inner London Education Authority laid down as guidance to headmasters involved in
  1720
  forming a comprehensive school side by side with an existing grammar school, with the "upper crust" being creamed off.
  It is unfortunately true that, unless we make special efforts we shall have creamed grammar schools at one end of the scale and creamed secondary schools at the other. Then under a system of parents' choice some poor little chap will be hawked around to four or five different schools and will end up in a school which is a creamed secondary modern. To obtain a balance the Inner London Education Authority last year issued criteria for dealing with intakes. The first criterion was that an endeavour should be made to provide a balanced intake so that we did not perpetuate a system which has the creamed secondary modern at one end and the creamed grammar school at the other. The second criterion was the location of the school in relation to the home and the third was whether the would-be pupil had a brother or sister at the school.
  The hon. Member for Brierley Hill took exception to these criteria. I would have thought that any educationist would be anxious to prevent a grouping which leads to 90 per cent. of the children in a class being of less than average ability. Proximity to the school is obviously an important factor which a headmaster should consider. The same applies to the point about a brother or sister being at the school.
  There is a crying need in London, and many other older urban areas too, where schools are frequently 100 or more years old, for new school buildings. We cannot continue to say that there will be no money for new schools. We cannot refuse to approve comprehensive proposals on this score. I am not prepared to advocate schools as large as those we had in the early days of moving towards comprehensive education in London. The school of which I am chairman is a coeducational school with 1,700 pupils. I am inclined to think that is too large. Some of the old school buildings are quite unsuitable for any kind of modern education. There is a great need in the older urban areas for new school buildings. If we could get these then we in London could get ahead with the job of making the system fully comprehensive.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Redmond: I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Lamborn) will forgive me if I do not follow him in what he said. My knowledge of London is limited and mine is really the voice of Lancashire. This debate is most timely because of the developments in Bolton yesterday. It is unfortunate that in tabling this motion the Opposition should have stretched our credulity beyond measure by using the words "arbitrary" and "capricious". After all, the policy of the Labour Government was to say to the local education authority, "You have to go comprehensive or you cannot have a new school"—and nowhere is the result of that policy more evident than in Bolton, where a blunt refusal was given to the building of a new secondary school, and we are suffering from that in a shortage of school places today. Who was arbitrary? The Government amendment put things in proper perspective because it confirms the need to decide individual proposals with regard to the wishes of parents and local needs. I rather wish that the amendment had also added "and the views of teachers".
  I am no great education expert, unlike some of those who have spoken, but I know how parents feel because I am a parent, and I know that all parents worth their salt have a burning desire for the best they can get for their children. Therefore, on that basis, if one were to start from scratch with what industrialists, particularly the British Steel Corporation, like to call a "green field site", it is obvious sense that one would build a comprehensive school. But seldom are we starting from scratch. And because we have some other system than the comprehensive—and there is no need to start worrying about the 11-plus, which can be got rid of anyway—the situation of not starting with a "green field site" is exactly the position we are facing today. In the county borough of Bolton, whose Labour education authority set up a working party about seven months ago, that working party has produced a document for comprehensive education. I do not call it a proposal, for it is a document. It was produced only yesterday. I got it by post this morning.
  1722
  I want to be fair. I have not read it as thoroughly as I might because I have been attending and listening to this debate. The document asks parents to comment, but as far as I can see from a first quick reading it does not give much on which to comment after seven months' work. But not being a dogmatic educationist, Socialist or anything else, I for one want to know what parents and teachers want, because I believe they are going to ask some pertinent questions—questions which all parents, all teachers and all ratepayers should be asking when they see a document like this. They will ask, how are children to be chosen for comprehensive schools or any new type schools? Are they to be drawn out of a hat, or are we to have neighbourhood schools?
  What is to happen to the five direct-grant schools we have in the borough—certainly an almost peculiar situation? What about the church schools, Catholic and Church of England, that we have? The mixture of schools, five direct-grant schools and a large number of church schools, in a town the size of Bolton emphasises the importance of what I am saying and produces an almost unique situation, and it underlines what I have said, that we are never starting from scratch. Whatever we are doing in education we have to build on the foundations that exist. In that sense it is important that Bolton people should realise that we now have a Secretary of State who, in the terms of the amendment, is
  "to have regard to the wishes of parents …"
  I suggest—and I hope my right hon. Friend will agree—that now is the time for parents to start making their views known loud and clear. I am speaking also for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Reed) when I say that if people in our respective constituencies will start writing letters saying what they think for or against the proposals, either way, we are a channel of communication that is open if they want to use it.
  I want to be fair. At first sight it seemed that the Bolton working party had gone a bit easy on dogma. I was glad to see this, but then I got a copy of last night's' Bolton Evening News and found that the working party had originally put in an opening paragraph to the document which is not there any more. But the

  1723
  paragraph was published in the Bolton Evening News. It said:
  "Bolton has achieved excellent standards in secondary education as witnessed by the high proportion of pupils staying at school beyond the compulsory leaving age and by very good results in external examinations at 16 and 18."
  It is worth pointing out that Bolton had the original concept of comprehensive schools on what were called "bases"—three schools on a base. It was developed over the last 25 years. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) may laugh but the proposal for these base schools said that we would be producing a system of comprehensive education. It was only when "comprehensive" became a party political word that Bolton ceased to have a "comprehensive" education.
  Alderman Mrs. Ryley, who was Chairman of Bolton Education Authority for so long and knows a great deal about education, has commented about the missing paragraph:
  "We must not say how good things are at the moment We must bring in what Transport House says is Labour Party policy. I think it was very mean to take out that paragraph."
  I think she was right. That paragraph praising the quality of Bolton education was taken out because the Labour group simply would not—I will not say "could not"—see that there was quality in the existing system of Bolton education. A party that is so blinded by dogma as to do a thing like that has no right to put down a motion such as the one we are debating.
  Having got across the message that my hon. Friend and I want to hear from the parents, I can say that this is not a matter of party dogma. It is vital that there be no sacrifice of the future of our children on the altar of political dogma, whether it be from the Left or from the Right.
  Mr. Spearing: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that he would have a comprehensive school on a green field site. Has it occurred to him that it might be useful if some of the direct-grant schools were to go comprehensive?
  Mr. Redmond: One of the direct-grant schools in Bolton, the Canon Slade Church of England School, has already put out proposals for a comprehensive wing. This shows that there
  1724
  is nothing dogmatic about the system of education in Bolton which was originally called "comprehensive". I am trying not to be dogmatic but what we have to do is to try to devise the correct and best system to suit a particular area. Given a green field site I would build comprehensives, but given five schools doing a good job, and five bases also doing a good job, and the church schools in the area, I believe that we must build on that system.
  I have not said that the system is perfect. I think that it is very good. Nothing is ever perfect. But we should try to build on what is good in order to make it even better. The Labour-controlled education authority has produced this scheme for the County Borough of Bolton which is to disappear. It would be better to say here and now that the scheme which should be put to my right hon. Friend should come from the new metropolitan district council which will cover a larger area, have more schools and will perhaps produce a different set of foundations on which we should be building.
  8.44 p.m.
  Mr. Neville Sandelson: My sole reason for intervening arises out of the speech of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). I tried to find him and to warn him that I should be making a brief reference to what he said. Whatever regrets I have about the outcome of his by-election, I have no reservations about joining in the welcome which the House has given to him today and in the congratulations on his maiden speech.
  The hon. Gentleman and I are colleagues in so far as we represent the same London borough, and while it would have been churlish for me to interrupt him today in the course of his speech, I cannot allow his assertions to pass quite unchallenged in regard to the local education position. I must utterly repudiate his suggestion that the Secretary of State's refusal to give Section 13 consents to the applications made by the local education authority in regard to Bishopshalt and Vyners grammar schools has been welcomed by the people of the borough of Hillingdon. In fact I believe the complete opposite to be true.

  1725
  The borough council has established and is now extending an excellent comprehensive school structure. The vast majority of parents and teachers in the area have been clamant in their demands for comprehensive schools. In my experience there is great disappointment among most of these parents when their children are not found places in these comprehensive schools. At the beginning of each school year I receive shoals of irate letters from these parents.
  I recognise that the Minister has given some consents to provide for reorganisation along comprehensive lines in the borough but her refusal in regard to these two schools is disruptive and deliberately undermines the successful operation of comprehensive schools in the same locality. For reasons of time I cannot now develop this theme, but I deplore the doctrinaire attitudes of the right hon. Lady and the Tory Party. The right hon. Lady is pandering to a small number of politically motivated people and by her actions she is threatening the full educational validity and effectiveness of the choice made by the vast majority of parents and teachers in the area. Her action flies in the face of the proposals carefully thought out by the authority and she should be in no doubt of the resentment her decision has caused.
  8.46 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Hicks: I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate at this particular time. As a person who was employed in the educational service before becoming a Member of this House, I have been somewhat reluctant to take part in a full educational debate for the reason that I formed the impression, rightly or wrongly, that debates of this kind are too often dominated by the professionals and thus objective thoughts tend to take second place to subjective comments. There is, of course, a real need for contributions in depth which professionals can offer, but I feel that in education at present the greatest single requirement is for more objectivity and, if I may say so, less theory and more common sense.
  I shall deal briefly with three specific aspects, but I preface my remarks by saying that I believe the nation is tired of the arguments regarding the battle whether the private sector should be
  1726
  encouraged or abolished just as more and more people are beginning to realise that the debate whether selection should continue in the context of the public sector is becoming equally sterile in the public mind.
  I maintain that politicians are doing a positive disservice to education at present when they deliberately and continually provoke feelings throughout the country whether the comprehensive system should become universal. The Labour Party, I regret, must take a major share of the blame here, but it would be equally wrong for the Conservative Party to allow itself to be pushed into the position of the party that automatically supports the status quo. That in my judgment would be as doctrinaire as the attitude adopted by our political opponents.
  I think we must all recognise that education is essentially an evolutionary process and that if we as a nation are to derive maximum benefit from the resources spent on education, both in the State and in the private sectors, we must have a minimum of dogma and allow common sense and sound judgment to prevail.
  I have stated that in my opinion the public are getting tired of the debate on the type of secondary school organisation which is most desirable. I think that most people have come to the conclusion that variety and flexibility should characterise our schooling system.
  What is more important still—and judging by some of the comments in the debate today the House does not seem to have grasped the fact—is that more and more people are becoming far more concerned about and interested in what goes on within our schools than with how our schools are organised. I fully appreciate the sensitivity surrounding this aspect. Nothing would be worse than continual external interference, but I seriously question whether our existing techniques and attitudes in our secondary schools, especially with respect to the kind of curriculum that is followed, prepare our pupils for the kind of world in which they will live and assist them in making their own contribution in later years to improving the standard and quality of community life as a whole. Linked to that facet is the question of career guidance within our secondary schools. I know that this

  1727
  is a difficult area. Changes have been and are being introduced which I trust, will help our secondary school pupils.
  There is, however, just one specific observation that I wish to make in this context this evening. Whatever the scale and the quality of expertise evolved from outside sources—be it through the good offices of the Department of Employment, the local authority career advisory services, private industry and commerce, or whatever it is—the choice of a career by any pupil will in part reflect the general school environmental influences at work in that educational establishment, and in this context this implies the attitude and outlook of the teaching staff with whom the pupils spend five, six or seven years of their secondary school life.
  My own personal experiences lead me to form the opinion that it would be a mistake if we were to ignore this intangible aspect of the influence and informal guidance of our teachers, and my one major regret is that in all too many of our secondary schools these environmental influences are too restrictive and traditional.
  That leads me to my third and final point. I believe that we have to introduce a more outward-looking dimension into our secondary school system. Far too often schools are not only too insular in their relations with the local community but, unfortunately, they present themselves as separate entities into which the visitor steps almost with fear and trepidation. It is all too often almost as if the teachers are afraid of outside pressures because of some misguided concept of the loss of stature or fear of criticism which parents and other interested outside persons are likely to make. I believe that it is in the interests not only of the education of our children but of society as a whole that there should be a positive movement to break into this restrictive cycle and tear down these barriers, and the new system of teacher training, which will be much more broadly based, may help.
  The secondary school could and should become one of the principal foci of local community life, both in respect of involving parents in the more formal education of their children and in the use of physical facilities which most modern secondary schools have to offer.
  1728
  In conclusion, I ask the House, and in particular my right hon. Friend to put to one side as much as she possibly can the organisational aspects and thus the political considerations of secondary education and concentrate her attention on the kind of activity that goes on within the school. After all, the primary purpose of our educational system is surely the training and preparation of our young persons for later life. I believe that if my right hon. Friend adopts that course the great majority of the parents of this country will support her efforts.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Marks: The criticisms made by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) of some schools of being isolated from the neighbourhoods of their pupils apply far more to the grammar schools than to the comprehensive schools. I was interested to hear the comment by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) who said that if a fresh start were to be made from green fields obviously all schools would be made comprehensive. I do not know to what extent his hon. Friends or the Secretary of State would agree with that. I believe that British education went the wrong way when the tripartite system was introduced and it is now something of a struggle to get out of it.
  A few weeks ago I asked the Secretary of State for her views about 11-plus selection examinations and she said that she had no views. In fairness to her I must say that I believe that she was thinking during that Question Time of her legal position in relation to Birmingham, about which the questions were being asked. I believe, however, that she should have views and she should let the country know what they are. I had hoped that today she would have taken the opportunity in the debate to outline those views. Does she believe in the continuation of the tripartite system or would she go for comprehensive schools now? I have been trying to discover what vintage of Conservative she is and I looked up the 1952 Conservative Party Conference resolution. It says:
  "That this Conference believes in the educational value of separate Grammar, Technical and Modern Secondary Schools and deplores any attempts to replace this tripartite system by Comprehensive Schools."

  1729
  Perhaps that is her vintage. If not, what about this one from 1953:
  "That this Conference welcomes the progress made by the Minister of Education"—
  a Conservative one—
  "in carrying out the reforms of the Butler Act and expresses its conviction that Socialist proposals for destroying the Grammar Schools and undermining the position of the Independent Schools would result in a reduction of educational opportunities for all children."
  Or is she the 1967 vintage:
  "That this Conference condemns the hasty and ill-considered imposition of a compehensive system of education, against the wishes of parents and local authorities, when finance is required urgently for the expansion of teacher supply, the improvement of primary education and the growth of higher education."
  Again, in fairness to the Secretary of State, perhaps the last is nearer to her view than the 1952 resolution. The significant fact is that while the 1952 and 1953 resolutions were carried unanimously—there was one dissentient to the 1952 resolution—it was necessary to have a ballot on the 1967 resolution and it was carried by only a narrow majority. I wonder what side the right hon. Lady was on in 1967 and whether that resolution had anything to do with the replacement of Lord Boyle as chief Conservative spokesman on education.
  The Conservative Party has fought a bitter rearguard action against the introduction of comprehensive education throughout the country. In my city there was bitter opposition to even one comprehensive school even though having one school in a city could not be described as going comprehensive. When the suggestion was made from the Labour side that an area of the city should be used for a pilot scheme the Conservatives refused and suggested instead that one school should be used as an experiment. When the Labour Party suggested the introduction of a full system of comprehensive education the Tories made counter-proposals suggesting pilot schemes. The argument now is about the denominational schools going comprehensive in the city and I suppose that the Conservatives will fight that too.
  One reason for the motion is a suspicion—not confined to the Opposition—of the right hon. Lady's views about education. The White Paper has added to that suspicion. How does the right
  1730
  hon. Lady see secondary education in 1981? There is no word about it in the White Paper. Does she see a gradual elimination of the grammar schools, as the Prime Minister saw before 1970 and as her predecessor saw long before that? We need more information about her views and the Conservative Party's views on the future of secondary education in the next 10 years.
  There is no longer an educational argument about comprehensive schools. That argument is hardly debated now in educational circles. It is accepted that the comprehensive system is the best one. The argument now is whether comprehensive schools are truly comprehensive or whether some have the tripartite system built into them. People who believe in the tripartite system do so only so long as their own children pass the examination to go to a grammar school. In my experience a great many people who believed in the tripartite system contracted out when their children failed to get to a grammar school.
  The hon. Member for Bodmin talked about politics and education, and that is perhaps a topical subject. Politicians have done a great deal for education, and the fact that education is discussed as a political argument is of importance. The great events of education have been the Education Acts from 1870 onwards. They have had a tremendous influence, often for great good, on the education of our children and on further education. As politicians, hon. Members on both sides of the House can be proud that we have provided a great deal of initiative, which has not come from educational circles, in making progress in education. Where does the Conservative Party stand now on comprehensive schools?
  9.2 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Fry: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) for allowing me sufficient time to make a brief contribution to the debate. I shall not follow his argument, except to say that I am surprised that any hon. Gentleman on the Opposition benches should talk about party conference decisions. In view of recent history, hon. Gentlemen opposite should be silent about them.
  The hon. Member for Manchester Gorton asked what kind of education system

  1731
  we saw for 1981. What I do not want is a slavish system of comprehensive schools. I hope that we shall have plenty of good comprehensive schools and that we shall still have an independent sector, and that the direct grant schools and some excellent grammar schools will survive. It would be disastrous if educational theory, as it has in previous years, favours a single system which may be very expensive and out of which it is difficult to contract. The Opposition motion perpetuates the myth that there is only one system of education worth considering—the comprehensive system. This confidence trick that has been perpetrated on the British public will, before long, be pierced.
  In my constituency there is a debate about the future of the secondary schools. Recently, the county council wisely decided to wait until the new authority was elected before making any reforms. The usual campaign has developed on the grounds that the development of the children will be retarded, the parents are up in arms and the teachers' organisations are disgusted that there is to be no change. They are the usual arguments put forward by the Labour Party and those who support it.
  Let us examine what it would mean to the parents in my constituency if the secondary school, which has hardly any O-level courses, were turned into a comprehensive school. What kind of fairness of opportunity is that? A schoolmaster in my home town brought his daughter to me saying, "Can you possibly get my child into another school in the area, because I do not like the standard of the secondary modern school to which she is zoned?" Obviously, I shall not name it. Yet the present system better serves the more able children in that community than the scheme before them. Would hon. Members opposite like their children to go to a school where there are not proper O level courses, let alone A level courses?
  Another school in my constituency, which has recently turned comprehensive, is supposed to offer ideal opportunities. The headmaster admits to me that he cannot provide A-level courses. The children will have to go elsewhere because he has not the staff or the facilities. That is the danger of too rapid a change to a comprehensive system.
  1732
  There has already been an interesting move towards more and more young students leaving school at 16 and going into colleges of further education to take A-level courses. That is a trend which will continue, but it raises a further problem. What about the people who will teach in the comprehensive schools? Shall we get the top quality teachers to go to what will be an 11-to-16 school? Will they not want to go to schools where their abilities are stretched by the brighter pupils? Will these teachers opt out of the school system and teach in further education colleges?
  One question has not been answered by the Opposition. If we adopt a comprehensive system too rapidly, is there not a danger that those who can afford it will go and live within the catchment area of the neighbouring school? Is there not the danger that that school, which has been previously a selective school, will retain its existing staff and will therefore be considered the best school in the area? There is the further danger that the staff will be dissipated and spread thinly throughout the area.
  I also believe that the argument is tending to be sterile and that the motion perpetuates sterile argument. It seems that the Labour Party will continue arguing until it has its own way. That diverts attention from the real needs of education. What we want is a system that will attract and obtain first-rate teachers so that they can teach in decent classrooms with classes of a reasonable size. That situation should exist throughout the country so that we can extend schooling for all our children.
  My right hon. Friend has done more since June 1970 than many Secretaries of State for Education and Science, who could create nothing more than confusion in the years between 1964 and 1970. I shall have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Government Amendment.
  9.8 p.m.
  Mr. Carol Mather: Section 68 has been criticised by hon. Members on the Opposition side and I should like to explain briefly the situation which arose in my constituency when my right hon. Friend made use of the section. I refer to Rydens school, which was a bilateral school and was to become comprehensive.

  1733
  There was no question of stopping the school becoming a comprehensive school. The only thing that was stopped and the only thing that was the subject of disagreement under Section 68 was the fact that a ring fence catchment area with clear demarcation lines was put round the school in an otherwise completely open area where free choice had existed. The school was established in this catchment before the rest of the area became comprehensive. That was the plan of the Surrey County Council. Parents were put in an invidious position. Those who were one side of the boundary had to go to Rydens comprehensive school—they were prevented from having the right of free choice whereas those who were on the other side of the boundary—that could be the other side of the road—had that choice. Many parents objected to this arrangement. I received letters from parents who were most upset about the position in which they had been placed.
  May I give two examples of what happened. One example involved a Roman Catholic who had two children. The brightest of them was not able to seek a place outside the catchment area on the ground of ability, whereas the less able child was able to do so on the ground of attendance at a religious school of denominational choice. The second example involved a family with two girls The abler was not able to seek a place outside the catchment area, but the less able child was able to go to a single sex school outside. Having made these few brief points, I wish to conclude.
  9.10 p.m.
  Miss Joan Lestor: The Secretary of State quoted a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition a few days ago, a speech with which I entirely agree. Therefore, I feel it only right to quote a speech made by the Prime Minister in June 1967 when addressing the Conservative National Advisory Committee on Education. He said:
  "I want to make it clear that we accept the trend of educational opinion against selection at 11-plus. By 'selection', I mean, the process of classifying children according to their IQ and separating them into different types of schools at too early an age."
  The right hon. Gentleman went on:
  "There has to be selection by grouping or ability at some stage if we are to do justice
  1734
  to children's differing needs and abilities. It has never been a Conservative principle in order to achieve this that children have to be segregated into different institutions."
  The Prime Minister in that speech did not go far enough for me, but I am sure that he went a little too far for the right hon. Lady. I hope that in his reply the Under-Secretary of State will tell the House how he reconciles those words with the policies carried out by the Government on secondary education.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on his maiden speech. Any hon. Member who joins the educational lobby is indeed welcome in this House, and the hon. Gentleman's speech was moderate, clear and brief. I look forward to hearing him again in education debates.
  The right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Education and Science got a little angry about some of the accusations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I think that she misunderstood some of his comments. Our charge against her is not that she has refused to approve some schemes for schools to go comprehensive, but that her lack of any cohesive policy has frustrated and inhibited a full system of comprehensive education. She appears to have no rules or criteria by which to judge the schemes and no view on 11-plus examinations. At no time in her speech did she defend comprehensive education. I know that she is in favour of some comprehensive schools, but there is a difference between somebody being in favour of certain comprehensive schools and somebody who is dedicated to a system of comprehensive education. One is not the same as the other. I should be very interested to know whether the Under-Secretary will make it perfectly clear whether his party intends to go ahead with the development of comprehensive education in this country, or whether it intends to go ahead with approving some comprehensive schools but not approving some other types of comprehensive education. That is the kernel of the matter.
  As I understand it, at present about 32 per cent. of all maintained secondary schools in this country are designated as comprehensive. Some of these will be comprehensive schools and some will be included in comprehensive systems of

  1735
  education. Those of us who believe in a complete comprehensive system feel that we have a very long way to go before we get there. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) said, the crux of the matter is whether the Government intend to go ahead with the development of a comprehensive system of education.
  This debate, which has been very interesting, is not an esoteric debate about which scheme in comprehensive education is best. To suppose that it is is to miss the main point of the motion. That is why I was sorry that the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes), with whom I have often agreed on certain aspects of education, did not, in fact, defend the comprehensive principle. She says—and I believe her—that she supports it. Had she done so, she might have educated some of her hon. Friends to a general belief in a comprehensive system.
  The issue has been admirably demonstrated by my hon. Friends when they have given examples of the frustration of the various schemes put up by certain local education authorities. This is quite right. This is a suspicion on the Opposition side of the House. It is more than a suspicion, perhaps.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Opposition are a suspicious lot.
  Miss Lestor: Of course we are a suspicious lot. We have sat here for two and a half years. I am a much more suspicious Member of Parliament than I was before the Conservative Party came to power. Let us have nothing more of that from the Government side of the House.
  The suspicion is that the right hon. Lady and her supporters are not in favour of adequate secondary education for all children in that they want to retain certain of the grammar schools and certain of the direct-grant schools. Once they are retained—I see that hon. Members are nodding—one is not in favour of a fully comprehensive system of education.
  I find it hard to believe that the right hon. Lady does not have strong views on the 11-plus examination. I find it hard to believe, too, some of the things she has said to various audiencies up and down the country.
  1736
  The Government cannot have it all ways. On the one hand, they cannot, through the right hon. Lady and others at party political gatherings, take credit for the preservation of grammar schools and then, when confronted with critical and progressive audiences, switch the emphasis of the argument to show how many comprehensive schools and comprehensive schemes have been approved. The two do not go together. Moreover, the Government cannot exalt local authority autonomy when it happens to coincide with their own views and abandon it for the view that the Minister and others know best when they find that their views—and particularly the views of the right hon. Lady—are not acceptable to people at large.
  Mr. Redmond: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Lestor: The Under-Secretary and I have already knocked off about six minutes of our time in order to allow other hon. Members to speak here. However, I will give way.
  Mr. Redmond: If the hon. Lady says that the present Secretary of State has given no local authority autonomy, how does she explain the fact that Bolton education authority was not allowed even to start a school under the previous Government because it was not comprehensive?
  Miss Lestor: I shall deal with that point. But what I am saying is that the present Government, when it suits them, have argued for local authority autonomy and have exalted that, saying that it is a great thing; but that is until it happens to conflict with a particular view they hold about a particular scheme at a certain time, whether that happens to be the Housing Finance Act or something else. It depends on the issue. That is what I am saying about local authority autonomy. It is the Government who defend it and say that they are in favour of it and use it if and when it happens to support their views.
  I believe that the right hon. Lady and the Government in general recognise that the argument against comprehensive education has been lost. I sometimes wish that in these debates we could stop arguing about comprehensive education

  1737
  as such and the reasons for it and discuss more the content of education and what we want in an education system. However, we are constantly driven back to discussing the principle of comprehensive education, as many hon. Members have done this evening, because they are aware that although the argument may have been lost, there is still a long way to go before the whole principle of comprehensive education reaches fruition and that much can be frustrated on the way.
  I believe that the country and, oddly enough, the Government recognise that the argument about the preservation of privilege and elitism in education has also been lost. [Interruption.] I believe that that argument has been lost. I hope that the noises I hear from the Government benches mean that hon. Members opposite are agreeing with me. Let us hope that the argument about elitism in education has been lost. If hon. Gentlemen agree with that statement, let us examine what they have said and ensure that nothing in our education system enhances elitism in education.
  Unlike the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer), who talked about nineteenth century education, I believe that the preservation and the upholding of elitism in education is typical of nineteenth century education. It is part and parcel of it. We must look into this very carefully indeed.
  We on the Opposition side of the House suspect that certain schemes are not approved because they are not good schemes. That is all right. However, we believe that certain schemes are not allowed and that money is withheld for the development of secondary reorganisation and secondary school building to preserve privilege and to frustrate the development of a comprehensive system of education. The right hon. Lady and her supporters know very well that if they gave money for secondary reorganisation or for secondary school building, many staunch supporters of the Conservative Party would want to use that money for the enhancement of comprehensive education.
  The right hon. Lady and many of her hon. Friends, when speaking to critical educationist audiences, boast about the number of comprehensive schools
  1738
  approved and say that only 90 or so grammar schools have been retained.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Less than 90.
  Miss Lestor: I do not mind. Less than 90. This is not comparing like with like. The retention of the grammar school has meant the retention of selection in the areas concerned and the total disruption of local education authority plans for the development of non-selection secondary education. The Government cannot say "We have approved so many hundreds or thousands of comprehensive schools and retained only a certain number of grammar schools", because the retention of the grammar school and the direct grant school is a contradiction of the whole comprehensive principle. It means retaining selection because there may be a grammar school in the area.
  Mr. Laurance Reed Mr. Laurance Reed (Bolton, East) Rose——
  Miss Lestor: I will not give way. I have already been over-generous in allowing hon. Members opposite to have 5¾ minutes of my time. I do not intend to give them any more.
  I believe that this whole process of retaining grammar and direct grant schools is part of the exercise to frustrate the full development of comprehensive education. Several hon. Members on the Government side who have spoken this evening have not denied that. If they want comprehensive schools and grammar schools and direct grant schools as well, they do not want the fully comprehensive system of education which my hon. Friends and I want.
  I come to what was said by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West. I have a great affection for West Lewisham, as I once failed only narrowly to win it from someone who was a Conservative Member for a little while. The hon. Gentleman said that there had been a lack of consultation in Lewisham over the schemes. The Labour Party in Lewisham has always fought its elections on the basis of comprehensive education. Three out of four of the MPs for the area are Labour and support comprehensive education. Even the Conservative Member for the area, the hon. Gentleman, supports comprehensive education. He has said so. All the GLC councillors for

  1739
  Lewisham are Labour, and 56 of the 60 local councillors are Labour. Therefore, the issue on comprehensive education is not whether the area should go comprehensive but what scheme is best. That is exactly what the consultation has been about.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the early years of a child's life have a great influence on what happens to it later in the education system. That is why I have always been such a strong advocate of nursery education, and I am delighted that we are to have a little more of it.
  I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is very important that we should try to iron out inequalities as early as possible. But that does not mean that we enhance a secondary system of education that perpetuates inequalities. The hon. Gentleman's very language frightens me to death. He talks about grammar school types, certain levels of creaming off, intelligence, and not being able to get a certain type of intake into comprehensive schools because a number of children with high IQs have moved out of the area—[Interruption.]—If I have misrepresented the hon. Gentleman, I am happy to give way, but I took down what he said.
  Mr. Selwyn Gummer: I was quoting words used by officers of the Inner London Education Authority, who used the expression, "Those who have been called in the past the grammar school intake." I used the phrase in order not to make any of the mistakes of which the hon. Lady has accused me. I said that the parents of children at the schools concerned are not in favour of the policies of the ILEA, nor are the teachers in most of the schools concerned. In those circumstances, consultation which does not take into account their views is not consultation.
  Miss Lestor: We shall see. I return to what the hon. Gentleman said about a grammar school intake. He has now said that he was quoting the words of an officer, but he was not quoting them with disapproval. We were all under the impression that he agreed with them. Did not he agree? Did not he say that there were not enough to go round?
  The essence of the argument against selection at 11 is that it is not possible
  1740
  to talk about grammar school and secondary modern types, to have a system of measuring intelligence at 11, because the results will not be accurate. That is why we are opposed to measuring IQs and deciding which children are grammar school types and so designating them to a certain type of school.
  That is why when we on this side say that we are suspicious about the future development of comprehensives we listen carefully to what supporters of the Secretary of State say. They say that they want to retain selection and different types of secondary schools. The only way in which to decide which type of secondary school a child goes to is to give it a test or apply an assessment, which in our view bears little relation to what would be the child's performance if it were given a free and open chance in a school not hidebound by rigid ideas.
  We have heard several references to the need for good schools to be preserved. A number of hon. Members opposite have used the phrase from time to time. They say that it is right that good schools should be preserved. Usually they mean grammar schools or direct-grant schools. However, we need a definition of a "good" school. We want to know whether schemes have been approved only when schools are being abolished or amalgamated which are less than good. I very much hope not. But no one has ever defined a "good" school.
  The right hon. Lady says that she has an open mind about 11-plus examinations, that she is in favour of comprehensive schools but that she is not in favour of a complete comprehensive system of education. She asks those who believe in the retention of grammar schools to be vocal in their interests. However she does not ask people who believe in a comprehensive system of education to be equally vocal. If this is a matter which must be left to individuals to decide, why does not the right hon. Lady ask them to be just as vocal?
  It is high time that the Government told us the sort of education system in which they believe so that we know exactly where we are. At present they do not set any educational end goal, and they have no long-term strategy. This attitude cannot be allowed to continue

  1741
  indefinitely because it is unfair to thousands of children. No one can ignore the educational chaos which is resulting from this lack of policy.
  We who oppose selection argue that one of the worst elements of the tripartite system was that grammar school availability differed between 12 per cent. and 45 per cent. throughout the country and that a child's chance of getting to a grammar school and his chance of success was linked to where his parents lived as well as to the middle-class bias in selection. The development of comprehensive education was introduced to end this and other features of the selective system—but not if the Government can help it.
  A child may be part of a good comprehensive scheme with no selection, he may go to a comprehensive in an area with selection, he may go to a secondary modern school with much the same situation as before, or he may go to a grammar school. It will depend on the luck of the education draw, and this is defended on the ground of educational freedom for parents. But that freedom has always been limited to a minority of people. The vast majority of working-class children in an area where there is still selection are discriminated against as a result and thousands lose out in the education draw.
  We recognise the educational waste and lack of opportunity which results from such a policy. We believe in freedom in education. But the freedom in which we believe in relation to choice is delaying having to make decisions about children for as long as possible and not sending them to schools which set out simply to fulfil the prophecies that we have made about them by our biased judgments.
  This debate has demonstrated a number of matters. One is that the country recognises the failure of a system of education which perpetuates selection and yet talks about a comprehensive system. We need to go on to talk about the content and philosophy of education and some of its values.
  The debate has also shown what most educationists of any worth have demonstrated for a long time. It is that the educational tide is moving relentlessly forward in favour of the comprehensive
  1742
  system. The right hon. Lady may see herself as stemming that tide if she can. However she will find that Queen Canute is no more effective than was the male of the species of that name. She persists in saying that she has no strong views on the subject. If she continues to do that she is abdicating her responsibility to thousands of children who deserve a fair chance in education and who have not received it under the old tripartite system of education. Anyone who abdicates responsibility to thousands of children ought to abdicate her office as well.
  9.35 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): My first and most pleasant task this evening is to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on his most notable and elegant maiden speech. I hope we shall hear very many more speeches on education from him. He has, as he has told us, the qualifications and the expertise which fit him to speak on this subject. He is the governor of a school and he is the father, he has told us, of two children—in other words, he is putting my principles into practice.
  I was also glad that the hon. Member paid a tribute to his predecessor, whose friendship I was privileged to enjoy. I remember that the last melancholy service I performed on his behalf, the day after my appointment to office, was to attend his funeral. None of us will ever forget that craggy face, that entrancing wit and that wonderfully sardonic sense of humour, which was always funny and diverting and never wounding or malicious. He was, in fact, a great House of Commons man. I do not think we can pay any higher tribute than that, and certainly Charles Curran would not have wanted any other.
  Despite the narrowness of the Opposition's motion, which has sought to confine the debate within very narrow limits, we have had a wide-ranging, interesting, informative and valuable debate. I have certainly learned a number of things. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery), who in a splendid, knockabout speech let us into the secrets of the environs and infighting of Dudley. Certainly I never

  1743
  expected to have that particular knowledge. We also had the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert), who raised the question whether there would be an early decision on the proposals for reorganisaton in Dudley. I can tell him tonight that the Department will press on as rapidly as possible in considering the proposals.
  We are grateful for this debate because it has given my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the best chance she has had for years to explain her policies on comprehension and to demolish the calumnies and the canards which hon. Members on the Opposition side have tried to direct at her in the past. She has been able to expose how little there is that is constructive in current Opposition thinking on education. The speech which my right hon. Friend made presented in full her policy on comprehension, which is reasonable, pragmatic and based on common sense.
  This is an opportunity which we are grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for supplying, particularly in Opposition time. We are grateful to him for this ecumenical opening to his period "in office". His speech hardly came up to expectations. So much of it was devoted to attempting to throw missiles and brickbats at my right hon. Friend. Although he scraped the bottom of his barrel he could find no mud to throw. His speech represented a crude effort to drive a wedge between the views of Lord Boyle, the former Minister of Education, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Lord Boyle was a most distinguished Minister of Education—
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: Bring back Boyle.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: However, even Lord Boyle is not infallible. Who is nowadays? For the purpose of making mischief, and by carefully selected quotations, the hon. Gentleman sought to show that there was a difference of policy between the two. I took the opportunity to read through the last debate when Lord Boyle spoke on comprehension and his policy and basic principles were exactly the same as those enunciated by my right hon. Friend today.
  Mr. Marks: As regards the disagreement between Lord Boyle and the Secretary of State, is the hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Boyle was asked whether he would withdraw circular 10/65 if he came to office and he said "No"? The first thing the Secretary of State did, on 30th June 1970, was to withdraw that circular.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not wish to enter into an exegesis of that nature. I am referring to the speech which Lord Boyle made from this Dispatch Box which in all basic principles was in accord with that made by my right hon. Friend.
  This debate has centred on the single issue of comprehension. As the Government's amendment makes plain, this is an issue which can be considered only in the light of secondary education as a whole. It is true of education, as of all social policies, that it is a matter of priorities, because despite the vast expenditure on education—we are now spending considerably more on education than on defence—the needs cannot wholly be met. We could spend the entire Budget on education and still not meet those needs. It is a question of priorities. I think it has been the view of the country as a whole that primary schools should come first. Now that we have improved the position in the primary schools we can move to improve the position in the secondary schools.
  Mr. William Hamilton: What a confession the hon. Gentleman will have to make.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: When we look at the capital investment programme we can see that the comments of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) were totally misplaced. The substantial progress which has been achieved in secondary school development is due to the rate at which we have been able to make resources available for building. Both parties can take credit for this it is not a partisan point. In the four years from 1966–67 to 1969–70 a total of £293 million was programmed for secondary school building. In the next four years the total resources, including the allocation for the raising of the school leaving age, will amount to £473 million.
  Those programmes have been high because of the continuing and rapid growth

  1745
  in the secondary school population. The population will soon begin to fall sharply, however, and programmes to provide additional secondary school places will not need to be as large. That is the explanation of the falling curve; it is not the sinister plot which the hon. Member for Sparkbrook has adumbrated. We are now able to start a replacement programme of the worst secondary school buildings and the school building programme for 1975–76 and 1976–77 will be increased by £10 million and will form the first stages in a rising and systematic secondary school improvement programme.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Chicken feed.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: The lion. Lady says "chicken feed". It may be chicken feed, but it is four times as much chicken feed as the Labour Government were proposing to spend in 1970–71.
  I wish to deal with two points that were raised by the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormond). One relates to cost limits. We are faced, as any Department is faced and as local authorities are faced, with the problems arising from inflation of costs. But I can say to the hon. Gentleman that we are prepared to help or try to help an individual local education authority in any special problem it may have.
  If I may conveniently deal at this stage with the other point raised by the hon. Member, he was concerned at the withdrawal of the manual of guidance on choice of schools and asked whether it was still in circulation. In fact, it is not. It was first issued in 1950 and was revised in 1960. It is really an elaborate circular intended to explain the situation to local authorities and it is now more a matter of historical than current interest. If, however, the hon. Gentleman wishes, we can arrange for a copy to be lent to him from the Department's library.
  Mr. Dormand: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman but I already have a copy. He is not dealing with the point I raised; he is avoiding it, perhaps deliberately. The point I raised in connection with the manual of guidance was whether its withdrawal was in any way
  1746
  connected with comprehensive education. The hon. Gentleman has failed to answer that question. Could we have it clearly stated now that that is at least one of the reasons why it was withdrawn?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: No, it has nothing to do with that at all. It was merely that it had become out of date and after the first revision in 1960 it was not thought worthwhile to go to the expense of revising it again. That was purely an administrative decision and had nothing to do with policy on comprehensive education.
  There are two other factors against the background of which we have to consider in a general context the problem of comprehension. One is the raising of the school leaving age, the achievement of one of the primary aims of the Education Act, 1944 which the party opposite postponed and failed to do when they panicked in 1968 and which it has fallen to the present Government to implement; and secondly the supply of teachers which has so greatly improved. That is the background against which we have to consider comprehension.
  Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Pancras, North)Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Pancras, North) rose——
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: What are the issues and the facts on comprehension? The hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough challenged me to make known my own views on comprehension and asked me to speak on behalf of my right hon. Friend, my party and the Government and on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. All those things I am pleased to do. Our policy on comprehension is perfectly clear. We accept comprehension. We believe that comprehension will become eventually the dominant part of the secondary system. But what we reject and what we will not have is universal compulsory comprehension imposed without any consideration of the educational needs, local wishes or the wishes of parents. That we absolutely reject.
  Mr. Stallard Mr. Stallard rose——
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot give way. I am sorry, I have not the time.
  The difference between the parties is between those who make a fetish of comprehension and those who believe that it

  1747
  should be a principal component in a balanced use of resources. Hon. Members on this side of the House are as concerned as hon. Members opposite about waste of talent and the need to avoid that oppressive sense of failure which is so bad for young children. But we believe that there are other means of avoiding that rather than the insensitive and dictatorial imposition of compulsory comprehension.
  Hon. Members opposite claim too much for comprehension. We on this side prefer to look at the facts. There are tremendous problems arising out of the comprehensive system. There is the question of size of school, to which my right. hon. Friend referred. There are the problems of the neighbourhood school, for one can be trapped even more in a poor area in a comprehensive school than in a mixed ability secondary modern or direct grant school.
  One can have just as much a sense of failure if one is caught in the lower stream of a 12-form comprehensive school as if one is in a secondary modern school in a poor area.
  If one looks at the facts of the situation, they are that my right hon. Friend has approved 96 per cent. of the projects which have come up to her for reorganisation, so if there is a case for censuring her it should not come from hon. Members opposite. If anyone is entitled to criticise her it is my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) because she has approved too much comprehension rather than too little.
  My right hon. Friend has been accused of delay. There is no evidence at all of an undue delay in deciding these proposals. Complicated proposals need careful consideration and when they are issues as important as this it would he monstrous to take decisions hastily when what is important is not to get a quick decision but to get the right decision. It is up to local education authorities to provide contingency plans and to put in their proposals in good time, which some local authorities, alas, have failed to do.
  In the curious speech of the hon. Member for Sparkbrook perhaps the most bizarre accusation he made was against my right hon. Friend for not having given a date in relation to the
  1748
  proposals for Birmingham when it was only a fortnight ago—on 14th January—that the closing date was reached for objections to be put in. The proposals concern 92 schools in the city with five sets of notices, and 80,000 local government electors have protested. No proposals have yet come for the Church of England schools and only eight out of the 18 Roman Catholic schools have put in their views. So it is quite right that my right hon. Friend cannot give and should not give a date. What this proves is that in this case, as in all the other cases she has considered, she is giving conscientious and thorough consideration to every fact.
  What, therefore, is there left of the spurious case which the Opposition have put up? The truth came out in the declaration by the hon. Member for Sparkbrook when he said that a Labour Government would abolish the procedures of Section 13 if they ever returned to office. There we see the real intention of the Opposition, because Section 13 was put in as a safeguarding of parental rights. This safeguard has been used in only a minority of cases, it is true but, like every other constitutional protection of rights, one must judge it not by the number of times it is brought into operation but by the existence of that section, so that all the time it is operating in advance to make sure that local authorities respect the rights of minorities, and sometimes even majorities, which are involved.
  As for Section 68, which has been mentioned in this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather), in the Rydens School case, where a ghetto was being established which would deny children their rights, my right hon. Friend would have deserved censure if she had not exercised her right to intervene, not because she did intervene. If those rights were swept away the Opposition would be opening the way for a complete educational dictatorship when the checks and balances which preserve the rights of parents would be swept away. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, in a felicitous phrase, hailed my right hon. Friend as a champion of parents. The parents of this country are grateful to her because she has defended their rights of choice.
  Summing up this wide-ranging debate, what is it basically about? It is a debate

  1749
  between those who regard education as a means of social engineering, a means of transforming society into an egalitarian model—[Interruption.]—yes, because that is exactly what hon. Members opposite believe in—and those on this side of the House who believe that education should be directed towards individual children to release their talents to do the best for themselves and to respect the rights of parents, who have not divested themselves of their rights but have merely delegated them to teachers to exercise for them. It is between those who want to impose a universal compulsory system of education irrespective of the situation and who make an idol out of comprehension, and those on this side who welcome comprehension certainly, but say that it must be allowed a natural growth, that it must not be forced, that it has to be grafted on to the stem of a living system of education which has been built up over a great many years.
  We on this side of the House will never countenance the destruction of well-established schools which command the esteem and respect of their locality in favour of what Sir Alec Clegg has called—a horrible word for a horrible idea—"agglomeration". What we want is not merely comprehensive schools, but a comprehensive system of education. What it comes down to ultimately is a question of choice and we on this side of the House believe in retaining and creating diversity
  and difference, which is the prerequisite of exercising any choice.
  We are glad that the Leader of the Labour Party has announced his recent conversion to choice but he was carried away by rhetoric, which was perhaps more suitable to the Aims of Industry than to a leader of Socialism in this country, when he talked about our being "drilled, dragooned and distracted". I am the last person to despise a conversion, even if it be on a political deathbed, but one should have some sense of balance and some sense of proportion. If choice is to be the watchword of the Labour Party, why should we not have it in education too?
  If hon. Members opposite say there is not enough choice, that is no reason for extinguishing such choice as there already is. Our educational system is one of our most precious assets. We are at the top of the educational league in Europe and the world. That place will be kept by our White Paper on education, and when this petty motion and its progenitors have long been forgotten that White Paper will have its place in educational history and the name always associated with that White Paper and held in honour will be the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 263.

  Division No. 46.]

  AYES

  [10.0p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Brfnton, Sir Tatton

  Crowder, F. P.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)

  d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

  Astor, John

  Buck, Antony

  Dean, Paul

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Awdry, Daniel

  Burden, F. A.

  Dixon, Piers

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray & Nairn)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Carlisle, Mark

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Batsford, Brian

  Cary Sir Robert

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Bell, Ronald

  Channon, Paul

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c' tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Benyon, W.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Emery, Peter Eyre Reginald

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Churchill, W. S.

  Farr, John

  Biffen, John

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Blaker, Peter

  Cooke, Robert

  Fidler, Michael

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Coombs, Derek

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Body, Richard

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Cordle, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bowden, Andrew

  Cormack, Patrick

  Fortescue, Tim

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Costain, A. P.

  Fox, Marcus

  Brewis, John

  Crouch, David

  Foster, Sir John

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Fry, Peter

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Gardner, Edward

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Gilmour, Sir John (File, E.)

  Loveridge, John

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Luce, R. N.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Rost, Peter

  Goodhart, Philip

  MacArthur, Ian

  Royle, Anthony

  Goodhew, Victor

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Gorst, John

  McLaren, Martin

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Gower, Raymond

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Scott, Nicholas

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Gray, Hamish

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Green, Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Grieve, Percy

  McNair-Wilsor, Patrick (New Forest)

  Shersby, Michael

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maddan, Martin

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Grylls, Michael

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Marten, Neil

  Soref, Harold

  Gurden, Harold

  Mather, Carol

  Speed, Keith

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Maude, Angus

  Spence, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Sproat, Iain

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mawby, Ray

  Stainton, Keith

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)

  Stokes John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Hay, John

  Moate, Roger

  Sutcliffe, John

  Haynoe, Barney

  Molyneaux, James

  Tapsell, Peter

  Heseltine, Michael

  Money, Ernie

  Hicks, Robert

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Higgins, Terence L,

  Monro, Hector

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Holland, Philip

  Morrison, Charles

  Temple, John M.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Mudd, David

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Hordern, Peter

  Murton, Oscar

  Thomas, John (Stradling (Monmouth)

  Hornby, Richard

  Neave, Airey

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Tilney, John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Normanton, Tom

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Nott, John

  Trew, Peter

  Hunt, John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Osborn, John

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  James, David

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Waddington, David

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Jessel, Toby

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Walters, Dennis

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Peel, Sir John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Percival, Ian

  Warren, Kenneth

  Jopling, Michael

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Kimball, Marcus

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Woodnutt, Mark

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Worsley, Marcus

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Raison, Timothy

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Kirk, Peter

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Younger, Hn. George

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Knox, David

  Redmond, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Lambton, Lord

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Lamont, Norman

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Mr. Walter Clegg.

  Lane, David

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Bradley, Tom

  Albu, Austen

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Baxter, William

  Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F' bury)

  Ashley, Jack

  Bishop, E. S.

  Buchan, Norman

  Ashton, Joe

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Booth, Albert

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Barnes, Michael

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  1752

  1753

  Cant, R. B.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Oswald, Thomas

  Carmichael, Nell

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfleld)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Padley, Walter

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Paget, R. T.

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Hunter, Adam

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Janner, Greville

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Coleman, Donald

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pendry, Tom

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  John, Brynmor

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Johnson, Carol (Lewishem, S.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Prescott, John

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Richard, Ivor

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kelley, Richard

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Kerr, Russell

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Deakins, Eric

  Lambie, David

  Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&R'dnor)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lamond, James

  Roper, John

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Latham, Arthur

  Rose, Paul B.

  Dempsey, James

  Lawson, George

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Doig, Peter

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rowlands, Ted

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Sandelson, Neville

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Leonard, Dick

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Sillars, James

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Silverman, Julius

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ellis Tom

  McBride, Neil

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  English, Michael

  McElhone, Frank

  Spearing, Nigel

  Evans, Fred

  McGuire, Michael

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Ewing, Harry

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stallard, A. W.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mackie, John

  Steel, David

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B' ham, Lady wood)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Fitch. Alan (Wigan)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Foley, Maurice

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Foot, Michael

  Marks, Kenneth

  Swain, Thomas

  Ford, Ben

  Marquand, David

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

  Forrester, John

  Marsden, F.

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Tinn, James

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Tomney, Frank

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Tuck, Raphael

  Garrett, W. E.

  Meacher, Michael

  Urwin, T. W.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Varley, Eric G.

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Mendelson, John

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  Golding, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Millan, Bruce

  Wallace, George

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Watkins, David

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Milne, Edward

  Weltzman, David

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Molloy, William

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hamling, William

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Whitlock, William

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Rt. Hn John (Aberavon)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Harper, Joseph

  Moyle, Roland

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Murray, Ronald King

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Oakes, Gordon

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Ogden, Eric

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Woof, Robert

  Hilton, W. S.

  O'Malley, Brian

  Horam, John

  Oram, Bert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Orbach, Maurice

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Orme, Stanley

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Main Question, as amended, Put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 263.

  Division No. 47.]

  AYES

  [10.15 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Foster, Sir John

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Fox, Marcus

  Loveridge, John

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Fraser. Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'ftord & Stone)

  Luce, R. N.

  Astor, John

  Fry, Peter

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gardner, Edward

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McLaren, Martin

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Gllmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Gilmour, Sir John (File. E.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

  Batsford, Brian

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J B.

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Bell, Ronald

  Goodhart, Philip

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maddan, Martin

  Benyon, W.

  Gorst, John

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Gower, Raymond

  Marten, Neil

  Biffen, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Mather, Carol

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gray, Hamish

  Maude, Angus

  Blaker, Peter

  Green, Alan

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Grieve, Percy

  Mawby, Ray

  Body, Richard

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maxwell-Myslop R. J.

  Boscawen, Hon. Robert

  Grylls, Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gurden, Harold

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Brewis, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hall-Davies, A. G. F.

  Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire, W)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Moate, Roger

  Bryan, sir Paul

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Molyneaux, James

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Money, Ernie

  Buck, Antony

  Hastings, Stephen

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Monro, Hector

  Burden, F. A.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hay, John

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nalrn)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morrison, Charles

  Carlisle, Mark

  Heseltine, Michael

  Mudd, David

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hicks, Robert

  Murton, Oscar

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Neave, Airey

  Channon, Paul

  Hiley, Joseph

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Holland, Philip

  Normanton, Tom

  Churchill, W. S.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Nott, John

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hordern, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hornby, Richard

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Cooke, Robert

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Coombs, Derek

  Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Osborn, John

  Cooper, A E.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Cordle John

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Hunt, John

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Costain, A.P.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Crouch, David

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Peel, Sir John

  Crowder, F. P.

  James, David

  Percival, Ian

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Jessel, Toby

  Pink, R. Bonner

  d'Avigdor-Goidsmid, Maj. -Gen. Jack

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Dean, Paul

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Jopling, Michael

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Dixon, Piers

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Raison, Timothy

  du Cann, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Redmond, Robert

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, N.)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Emery, Peter

  Kirk, Peter

  Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Eyre, Reginald

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Farr, John

  Knox, David

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Fell, Anthony

  Lambton, Lord

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Lamont, Norman

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Fidler, Michael

  Lane, David

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Rost, Peter

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Waddington, David

  Royle, Anthony

  Stokes, John

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Sutcliffe, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Scott, Nicholas

  Tapsell, Peter

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Shersby, Michael

  Tebbit, Norman

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Temple, John M.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Soref, Harold

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Speed, Keith

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Spence, John

  Tilney, John

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Sproat, Iain

  Tralford, Dr. Anthony

  Younger, Hn. George

  Stainton, Keith

  Trew, Peter

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Mr. Walter Clegg.

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  John, Brynmor

  Albu, Austen

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Johnson. Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Dunn, James A.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Ashley, Jack

  Eadie, Alex

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Ashton, Joe

  Edelman, Maurica

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Barnes, Michael

  Ellis, Tom

  Kelley, Richard

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  English, Michael

  Kerr, Russell

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Evans, Fred

  Kinnock, Neil

  Baxter, William

  Ewing, Harry

  Lambie, David

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lamborn, Harry

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Lamond, James

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

  Latham, Arthur

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lawson, George

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Booth, Albert

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Foley, Maurice

  Leonard, Dick

  Bradley, Tom

  Foot, Michael

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Ford, Ben

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Forrester, John

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Buchan, Norman

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  McBride, Neil

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Guiding, John

  McCartney, Hugh

  Cant, R. B.

  Gourlay, Harry

  McElhone, Frank

  Carmichael, Neil

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McGuire, Michael

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mackie, John

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  McMillan. Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hamling, William

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Coleman Donald

  Hardy, Peter

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Harper, Joseph

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Marquand, David

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hattersley, Roy

  Marsden, F.

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

  Heffer, Eric S

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Horam, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Davidson, Arthur

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mendelson, John

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mikardo, Ian

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Millan, Bruce

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Milne, Edward

  Deakins, Eric

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hunter, Adam

  Money, William

  Delargy, Hugh

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Janner, Greville

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Dempsey, James

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Doig, Peter

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Moyle, Roland

  1758

  1759

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Swain, Thomas

  Murray, Ronald King

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Ogden, Eric

  Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&R'dnor)

  Tinn, James

  O'Hatloran, Michael

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Tomney, Frank

  O'Malley, Brian

  Roper, John

  Tuck, Raphael

  Oram, Bert

  Rose, Paul B.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Orme, Stanley

  Rowlands, Ted

  Walden, Brian (B'mham, All Saints)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Wallace, George

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Watkins, David

  Padley, Walter

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Weitzman, David

  Paget, R. T.

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Palmer, Arthur

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Sllkin, Hn. S. C (Dulwich)

  White, James (Glasgow. Pollok)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Sillars, James

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Silverman, Julius

  Whitlock, William

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Skinner, Dennis

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Prescott, John

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Steel, David

  Woof, Robert

  Probert, Arthur

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Richard, Ivor

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Mr James Hamilton

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Government's policies for Secondary Education, the importance attached by the Secretary of State to educational considerations, local needs and
  1760
  wishes, and the wise use of resources, in the exercise of her powers to decide individual proposals under section 13 of the Education Act 1944 (as amended), and the Government's determintion to have regard to the wishes of parents about the education of their children.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  VALUE ADDED TAX
  10.27 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): I beg to move,
  That the Value Added Tax (Cars) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1970), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st December, be approved.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the second motion:
  That the Value Added Tax (Works of Art, Antiques and Scientific Collections) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1971), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st December, be approved.
  Mr. Higgins: It would, Mr. Speaker, be convenient to take also the other order on value added tax.
  May I first speak briefly about the order concerning motor cars. It is a composite order which applies to motor cars three separate provisions of the VAT legislation contained in the Finance Act 1972. Under the powers conferred by Section 3(6) of that Act, the deduction of input tax on motor cars acquired by a taxable person for use in his business is disallowed; under Section 6 tax is applied to the "self-supply" of certain cars, and, under Section 3(6) and Section 14 provision is made to relieve second-hand cars from the full tax and instead to tax them "on the margin", that is to say, the difference between their buying and selling prices.
  In order to give traders as much advance notice as possible, two orders
  1762
  were made last year in respect of the non-deduction of input tax and the self-supply of motor cars. As it will be convenient, however, for those in the trade and their legal advisers to have all the provisions relating to cars in one order, the earlier orders are revoked and the substance of them is included in this order. I thought that it might be helpful to make the position clear regarding earlier orders.
  On the restriction of deduction of input tax all countries with a value added tax have found it necessary to restrict the right to claim credit for input tax in the case of certain goods and services which are likely to be used for both business and private purposes.
  Business cars are extensively used for private purposes, and it is desirable to prevent such use free of tax to avoid inequity of treatment between individual taxpayers, erosion of the revenue and distortion of trade due to the tax incentive given to the private use of business cars. The problem has been overcome by disallowing the whole of the input tax on the purchase of business cars.
  On self-supply, Article 5 is required solely as a complementary provision to Article 4. Under Article 4 input tax is made non-deductible on cars acquired by taxable persons for use in their business. But Article 4 does not apply to new cars held in stock for resale by manufacturers and dealers. These traders could therefore take tax-free cars from stock for their own use without incurring any tax charge. This would clearly be discriminatory and inequitable. The article therefore imposes a self-supply tax charge on any such cars taken from stock for a registered trader's own use. This charge then becomes non-deductible under the provisions of Article 4. There could also be scope for tax avoidance if a registered trader bought a non-car—a van without side windows—for his business, on which he could claim a deduction of tax, and then converted it into a car for his own use, by making it a van with side windows, for use in his business. This is conversion by a registered trader of any vehicle which is not a car into a car. I thought it might be helpful to make that absolutely clear.
  I turn finally on this order to the provision of relief for used cars. The House will be familiar with the discussions we

  1763
  had last year on this subject. I will make clear the conditions for obtaining relief. All used cars, except those which a car manufacturer has used solely for research and development, qualify for relief since, by virtue of the earlier provisions of this order, no deduction of input tax can be claimed on a car which is used otherwise than under the special provision for research and development cars. When relief is claimed the supplier must not show a separate amount as tax on the invoice since the buyer will not be entitled to deduction of any input tax. The relief is subject to the keeping of special records.
  I turn to the nature of the relief. Instead of charging tax on the full value of the used car, tax will be chargeable only on the excess, if any, of the seller's price over his buying price—that is, the added value or margin. If there is no excess, no tax will be chargeable. But no refund of tax can be claimed if the sale was at a loss. Provision is made for determining the appropriate values to calculate the margin where the car was imported.
  The second order is concerned with works of art, antiques and scientific collections. I need not weary the House with the discussions that took place last year on this matter during proceedings on the Finance Bill. This order is also made under Section 14 of the Finance Act 1972. Its effect is to apply VAT in respect of a specified coverage of works of art, on the dealer's margin instead of on the full proceeds of sale.
  The House will recall the fairly extensive debates that we had last year both in Committee, when my right hon. Friend undertook to look into the matter, and on Report, when I was able to announce in principle that such a scheme would be introduced. We have since had numerous discussions with the trade, and the order has been produced as a result of the undertakings that we gave last year and the subsequent discussions.
  I should make one initial point which has not been clear to those concerned with the coverage position. The margin scheme is optional. It will be a matter for the individual taxable person to decide whether it is worth his while in any case to comply with the additional
  1764
  accounting requirements which the scheme entails. It will be open to a dealer to use the scheme for some items and not for others.
  I said on Report last year that the coverage is based upon, but not identical to, Chapter 99 of the Customs and Excise Tariff, which covers essentially paintings, engravings, sculptures, antiques over 100 years old and certain collections and collectors' pieces.
  As to imports, importance is attached by the trade to the free movement of works into the country so that the international market based on London should not be jeopardised. The House will be pleased to see that it has been possible to meet the trade on this. The order provides for relief from VAT at import for the works of art and so on covered by the order, restricted to works of art acquired from the artist or his estate before 1st April 1973. This is to avoid discriminating against United Kingdom artists. In short, it will continue to be possible for an overseas resident to send a work to London for sale without incurring VAT. This has been welcomed by the trade and it is reasonable to suppose, given the response of hon. Members on both sides last year, that it will also be welcomed by the House.
  The order applies to second-hand works of art and so on which have been sold at least once before 1st April 1973, or at least once after that date by a seller who did not charge value added tax. To take advantage of the scheme sellers will have to maintain a stock book allocating to each item a unique reference and maintaining its identity until it is sold. Tax will fall on the difference between the taxable person's buying and selling price, which will be regarded as tax-inclusive. Taxable persons will not be able to issue tax invoices when selling items under the scheme.
  I hope that this summarises the main points arising on the orders. I shall do my best to answer any points hon. Members may wish to put to me.
  10.37 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: As one who took part in the discussions last summer, may I confirm that in the discussions with the trade the trade has

  1765
  indicated that the present arrangement is wholly to its satisfaction?
  May I also confirm my impression that the order in no way discriminates against the living artist? The Financial Secretary will remember the discussions about the position of the living artist. Will he confirm that the living artist is in no way disadvantaged? Thirdly, what precisely was meant by the phrase "additional accounting requirements"?
  I have one question on the first order. In our constituency work we hear complaints from time to time about the definition of what is and is not a business car. Most of the complaints may well be without foundation, but we all know that there are complaints that So-and-so has a car on business expenses but uses it for his private purposes. Is the definition of "business purposes" to the Treasury's satisfaction?
  10.39 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: The order applying to antiques was produced only recently. There is a fair amount of anxiety in the trade that it has been left for a long time before all the details could be known. It is a very complicated process. Can my hon. Friend briefly comment on that?
  10.40 p.m.
  Dr. John Gilbert: I will take the orders in the sequence which the Financial Secretary has dealt with them.
  We entirely accept the arguments put forward about the self-supply provisions. The Financial Secretary tended to lose us in a metaphysical discussion about when a car was not a car and how one turned what was not a car into a car. One of these days we might get him to give us a definition of what is a car. I predict that it will not be long before he comes here and has the same sort of problem changing what is not a taxi into a taxi or back again. We had similar problems last year, and I am afraid that we have not seen the end of them in this tax which is supposed to be so free from anomalies.
  We had a full discussion last year on the treatment of second-hand cars, and I do not want to add anything to what the Financial Secretary has said. This is acceptable to us. I am interested in getting information from him about the
  1766
  disallowance of input tax on new cars acquired for use by persons in their business. Why is a distinction being drawn between bought cars and rented cars? Why is the tax being disallowed solely on the purchase of cars whereas the great fleets of hire cars will apparently still be able to have the input tax deducted as a business expense?
  It will not come as news to the hon. Gentleman that more and more large firms lease their cars and trucks—these things that might not be cars and will be cars and these things that are cars already. This is an enormous loophole which makes nonsense of the disallowance on the acquisition of new cars. Any firm in its right mind will go out and make sure that it does not buy any cars for its own use but merely leases them.
  I support the question asked about the second order by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about the way in which the living artist is being treated. Works of art by such artists are taxed at the standard rate—I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for nodding—on the full value of the work at its selling price. It seems that there is discrimination in favour of the foreign artist, at least with respect to works of art which are imported having been acquired from that artist before 1st April 1973. I should refine that and say discrimination not in favour of a foreign artist but in favour of any artist who executed his work abroad before 1st April 1973. This seems an unimportant anomaly but it is one requiring explanation.
  Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that items that have not been sold at least once before 1st April 1973 will attract VAT on the full selling price?
  10.44 p.m.
  Mr. Higgins: I will seek to reply to the points which have been raised. I take first that made by the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) about the initial situation. Normally the VAT credit mechanism operates and it flows forward. The provisions in the order create a situation where, if it is wished to operate an optional scheme thereafter, in, say, the antique trade and the dealer so opts, he will be charged only on the margin.
  I deal now with the living artist. Hon. Members will remember that when we debated this matter upstairs in Committee

  1767
  on the Finance Bill, there were before us two separate issues. One related to the living artist and the other to the subsequent sale of works of art. An additional argument was that sale should be subject to a margin scheme. It will not be in order for us tonight to debate the topic of the living artist, since we debated that matter at great length during the Finance Bill proceedings. I must confess that that was one of the most enjoyable debates of the Committee stage. Reference to those proceedings will show that the various points were covered in some detail on that occasion.
  I was asked about the reaction of the trade, and I must point out that we have gone to great lengths on this and on other issues relating to VAT to consult the trade. That is why the order is in this form. Although no doubt it will be said, as it is always said on these occasions, that we should have gone further in one direction or another, I think it can be said that these proposals have had the broad support of the trade.
  I have already described the additional accounting requirements. It is essentially a question of identifying individual items. If any members of the trade have problems or are not sure of the precise interpretation, the best course is to consult local VAT offices whose officials will be glad to go into matters in detail. The House will appreciate that, while waiting for this order to be approved by the House, local VAT officers have been somewhat inhibited in their actions. Therefore, anybody with VAT problems should now consult those officers and we shall be issuing a notice as soon as it can be printed.
  The hon. Member for Dudley asked for a definition of "motor car". The definition used for purchase tax purposes has been generally satisfactory and is used as the basis of definition in this order. There are some differences in the terms of definition in the corresponding purchase tax group but they have only a marginal effect on the situation. Incidentally, the purchase tax provisions include horse-drawn as well as motor vehicles, whereas in the present order we have a reference to vehicles
  "of a kind normally used on public roads"
  instead of a reference to "road vehicles." These are minor changes which largely
  1768
  reflect our experience of working with purchase tax. There has certainly been no broad problem of definition.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked whether there was any discrimination between purchasing, hiring or renting a car. The order involves no discrimination between the outright purchase or renting of a car for business purposes. The input tax on the car is blocked. The tax on subsequent charge for hiring or renting the car is deductible. There is no element of double disallowance, which I think was the point at the back of the hon. Gentleman's mind. There is no element of discrimination, and I hope I have put his mind at rest.
  Dr. Gilbert: We were concerned not so much about double disallowance but about deduction of input tax where cars were hired as distinct from purchase tax. As I read Article 4 of the order, tax shall not be deducted except where the supply is a letting or hire. Surely where there is letting or hiring now, tax must be deducted. Is not that the meaning of the provision?
  Mr. Higgins: Perhaps I may try an alternative form of words. That course is sometimes useful to the House. It is alleged that the tax on fleets of hire cars will be deductible. That is not so. The tax will be non-deductible when a car is bought by a firm for subsequent hiring out on rental. Therefore, there is no loophole. Tax will be blocked on all cars used on the road whether on hire or on outright purchase.
  The question was also raised about whether the order covers all cars used for business or private use. The answer is "Yes". All cars bought by a firm for any use will be tax blocked. Perhaps the problem is arising because the order is not being read as a whole. It covers three separate points and it is necessary to relate the various parts of the order. The effect of the order is as I have described it to the House.
  Mr. Brian Walden: My hon. Friends and I have obviously discussed the order but I am still not clear. Maybe we are under an illusion but I do not think so. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Explanatory Note. The first sentence says:

  1769
  "This Order disallows deduction of input tax on new motor cars acquired by taxable persons."
  That is clear enough. The second sentence says:
  "The disallowance does not apply.…"
  It does not apply to a number of things—for example, cars for sale and other things
  "or to the charge for the hiring of a car."
  Why is the input tax disallowed for the purchase of a new car but not disallowed for the purchase of hiring a car? My hon. Friends and I do not understand that.
  Mr. Higgins: The purchase of hiring a car?
  Mr. Waldren: I withdraw those words. Let me rephrase it. Why is the input lax disallowed for the purchase of a new car but not disallowed for the hiring of a car? What is the principle involved in that?
  Mr. Higgins: I am seeking to understand the point which the hon. Gentleman has made. I was under the impression that I had already answered it in the form of words I first used and again in another form of words. It has always been a problem when dealing with these matters to find the exact form of words in order to elucidate the matter. Perhaps I might try again. The tax will be non-deductible when the car is bought by a firm straight, for whatever purpose, for private use within a firm or otherwise. So much is clear.
  Mr. Joel Barnett: Surely, when a car is bought for the purpose of resale by a dealer, the dealer is liable for input?
  Mr. Higgins: Let us not complicate the issue. If the hon. Gentleman looks at my original remarks he will find that that point is covered. I have already said that the order will cover all cars used for business or private purposes. All cars bought by a firm for any use, business or private, will be tax blocked. So far it is common ground.
  I understand that it is suggested that fleets of hire cars will be tax-deductible. However, tax will be non-deductible when the car is bought by a firm for
  1770
  subsequent hiring out on rental. Therefore, there is not a loophole. The tax will be blocked on all cars used on the road whether on hire or on outright purchase. I hope that that has made the position clear. I hesitate to try again in another form of words for the fourth time. We are not in Committee, but if hon. Members are still in some doubt about it I shall be happy to discuss the matter with them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. We must remember that we have abolished the Committee of Supply and that we are in the House of Commons. This is not a Committee.
  Mr. Higgins: I think that when hon. Gentlemen study what I have said they will find that I have dealt with the matter. We are not in Committee, and it is difficult for the debate not to become disorderly if we go over the same ground more than three times.
  Mr. Barnett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. There will be VAT on the rental element. When a car is rented to a firm, there will be VAT on the rental price. That is allowable as an input. In those circumstances, surely there must be an element in the rental price relating to the depreciation of the vehicle. Rental is not the purely profit part. It is on the basis of profit plus depreciation of the vehicle. In that sense, surely a person gets an allowance for input of the cost of a car—the depreciation element in it—when he hires a car as opposed to when he sells it.
  Mr. Higgins: I understand the point. There is no anomaly. The position is that the normal workings of the credit mechanism apply in the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman has outlined. The exact basis on which the price is calculated is a flatter for the person hiring the vehicle. It is for him to decide what accounting basis to adopt. That is not something which, even in theory, we need go into tonight.
  The position with regard to the purchase of a car, whether by a firm hiring a car or otherwise, is the same in both instances. Therefore, I do not believe that there is an anomaly. I suspect that this is a fifth form of words. I think hon. Gentlemen will find the position to be as I have described it, but if they

  1771
  care to pursue the matter with me individually I shall be happy to discuss it as I am anxious to clear up any misunderstandings that may still exist in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. Cormack: There is one point which applies to both orders. If either a car dealer or an antiques dealer has a great deal of restoring work to do on an item before he sells it, presumably that can be allowed against his profit. In other words, if he makes a profit of £100 but has spent £50 on restoring the item, that can be taken into account.
  Mr. Higgins: That raises a more complex point. I think that my hon. Friend's interest is in antiques rather than in cars. The matter that was raised earlier by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) on the question of cars will obviously turn on the normal operations of the firm hiring the car. Certain inputs will come into operation, to which the usual rules will apply.
  The situation with regard to the art market is as I outlined in my opening remarks, and I think that the order makes the position clear. It is the case that the margin is the selling price minus the buying price, with no allowance for repairs and restoration. That is to say, it is charged on the margin itself. That is essentially the position which has been discussed with the trade and I believe that the trade is now familiar with it. If any trader has problems no doubt he will wish to approach his local VAT office, which will be very glad to go into the matter in as much depth as he wishes.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: No doubt the local VAT office will be helpful and friendly but perhaps my hon. Friend w ill say something here because his words might have a little more force. Obviously we do not want to expose the Revenue to a possible "racket", that the trader says it cost him the whole of his margin to restore the article and there is therefore no profit. We must guard against the situation where a dealer purchases particularly a picture but it may be a piece of furniture or any work of art, but because he is not allowed to charge any of the restoration against that margin he will do a quick clean-up
  1772
  and polish job which will be bad for the work of art.
  I am not a tax expert but I do not want to see anything in the tax system which will be a disincentive to do the job properly. Bad restoration may not be possible to be put right later and it sometimes does permanent damage. There are inducements in the other direction. The fact that books are zero-rated and prints are mentioned in the order will be an incentive not to split books up to sell them as prints, and that is a good thing.
  This is a difficult matter and we always knew it would be. In the order we have made it quite clear to anyone from abroad who wants to use the international art market based on London that there is no fear of VAT having a deleterious effect on his transaction. We do not want the international art market to be chased away from London because of anything we might do.
  Mr. Higgins: My hon. Friend's intervention was as courteous as it was long. I can confirm that I agree—[Interruption.] With great respect, we are not in Committee. I cannot keep standing up and sitting down indefinitely and it is therefore necessary for me to keep giving way. I in no way detract from my hon. Friend's remarks but I confirm that the provisions of the order are designed specifically to ensure—I must get the expression right because my hon. Friend has corrected me twice—that the international art market based on London will not be put at a disadvantage in its competitive position in international markets.
  I think that I answered the specific question which my hon. Friend raised when I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack). The issue is clear from a study of Article 4 which defines the margin as the difference between the acquisition price and the selling price. The margin will thus include the cost of any restoration and so on effective between the acquisition and the sale. Any tax incurred by the seller in having such work done would be deductible input tax. I believe that makes the position clear.
  I think I am right in saying that I have covered all the various points raised in the debate.
  Mr. Dalyell Mr. Dalyell indicated dissent.
  Mr. Higgins: I always hesitate to say that because the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) always remembers one which I have forgotten. But I think I am right in saying that I covered even the initial point he made, which is apparently, the one he thinks I have not covered.
  Mr. Dalyell: It was the question of business abuse, but I do not want to labour it too long.
  Mr. Higgins: I think I have made the position clear. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about whether there is business abuse of cars. If he gives the matter thought, he will appreciate that this does not arise in the context we are discussing here because, as I have indicated, the input tax is applied to all cars which are bought by businesses for whatever purpose. Therefore, in this, context, the possibility of abuse does not exist. That is the answer. I am now reasonably sure that I have answered all the points raised, none of them more than three or four times. That being so, I hope that the House will feel able to give approval to the orders.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Value Added Tax (Cars) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1970), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st December, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Value Added Tax (Works of Art, Antiques and Scientific Collections) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1971), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st December, be approved.—[Mr. Higgins.]

  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

  TELEPHONE TAPPING
  11.6 p.m.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: This debate arises out of the controversy which surrounded the leakage from the Department of the Environment of a document which was ultimately published in the Sunday Times. As a result of
  1774
  complaints by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), which he aired in a debate last night, the attention of the Press was drawn to the question of telephone tapping.
  I do not want to go into aspects of the affair of the missing document or even of my hon. Friend's telephone being tapped. What I am concerned about is the subsequent publicity, which included an article in the Daily Mail, which suggested that in the past year 1,250 telephone tap warrants had been issued by the Home Secretary in relation to applications by the Metropolitan Police alone.
  Because of widespread anxiety about this matter, and in view of the fact that no previous figures had been given since 1958, the Secretary of State himself, on 22nd December last, in a Written Answer to the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), said:
  "I think it right to add, in view of concern which has been expressed about the interception of telephone calls, that the procedures for authorising interception which were described in the report of the Birkett Committee in 1957 are scrupulously followed."
  He added that the Secretary of State considers only those applications
  ".in connection with serious crime, which continues to be defined and interpreted on the strict and limited terms set out by the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd December 1972; Vol. 848, c. 494.]
  I therefore turned back to the report of the Birkett Committee—Cmnd. 283—and looked up what it said about the conditions under which warrants are authorised by the Home Office. What that Committee said was that the Home Office practice—which it approved—was set out in a letter in September 1951, which said that warrants would be issued only in the case of a crime where the offence was really serious. It also specified that:
  "Normal methods must have been tried and failed, or must, from the nature of things, be unlikely to succeed if tried"
  and there must be good reason to think that an interception would result in a conviction.
  It went on to say that for the purpose of the warrants, serious crime was taken by the Home Office to mean an offence where a man with no previous conviction could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to three years' imprisonment. I am very glad that it is the Minister of

  1775
  State who is going to reply to this debate because, as a former practising barrister, he will know that that is a very rare state of affairs indeed. It is not an average burglary; it is not even the average "mugging" case: it is a very serious case where a man with no previous conviction could reasonably be expected to receive three years' imprisonment. Therefore, it is not every case where a warrant could even be considered.
  Last year, which was a year of very considerable crime in this country, only 40,000 cases were dealt with in the higher courts. That means that if the Daily Mail figures are correct warrants were issued in one in 30 cases. The situation is really very much worse than that. A great percentage of the cases which are dealt with in the higher courts are cases where one would not in any case consider a telephone tapping—cases like the average family murder, cases of obscenity, cases of the kind which are classified in the statistics as theft. The average kind of case where this kind of action might be relevant would really come only in class 2 of the criminal statistics, which are regarded as burglary and other similar crimes, where the total proportion dealt with in the higher courts last year was about 16,000. In about one in 10 or 11 cases where it would be relevant a warrant was issued by the Home Secretary to the Metropolitan Police alone.
  We do not know whether these figures would be greatly increased if the figures for the whole of the country had been included. I do not know whether the Daily Mail figures are correct. The purpose of this Adjournment debate is to get some confirmation of that. But I suspect that the Home Office may choose to stand upon the last part of the Home Secretary's answer on 22nd December, part of which I have already quoted, when he said that it would, as the Birkett Committee had said, be against the public interest either to publish statistics about the extent of interception or to say whether interception had been used in any particular investigation.
  It is correct that the Birkett Committee did say that, but I question the wisdom of taking that kind of attitude if the growth in telephone tapping is anything like as great as has been suggested. It cannot be said that merely by giving
  1776
  the overall figures one warns off somebody of the ilk of the Krays or the Richardsons, or, indeed, Russian secret agents. The total volume of telephone taps would not do any more than indicate that there is a widespread use of this authority. It is that that I want to find out.
  If the figure is as the Birkett Committee suggested, between 1938 and 1956 an average of 130, perhaps there is no reason for qualm. But if it has grown, as the Daily Mail suggests, by 1,000 per cent. since that time—and, indeed, according to the Daily Mail, has doubled only in the last two years under this Government—clearly the Home Secretary has allowed this exercise of police authority to grow to an alarming degree.
  It cannot really be quite justified, as the Birkett Committee suggested, on the basis that the Secretary of State himself considers each one and is, therefore, the best safeguard of the citizen's right, because if 1,200 or more a year are being issued, and if one allows only 10 minutes of the Home Secretary's time to consider the warrant, that is about 200 hours' work a year for the Home Secretary in issuing warrants. The right hon. Gentleman is a hard-working Minister, but that is a considerable proportion of his working time. The fact is that he could not possibly give his time to considering whether a warrant was justified in individual cases if that volume of cases was coming before him.
  In the interest of genuine public discussion of the matter, which is of considerable public importance, it is time the Government gave us some official figures about the issue of warrants. I do not think that could do any harm at all, except perhaps to the image of the Government in showing that they allow this kind of untrammelled abuse of power.
  Can it do any harm that warrants are issued at this kind of level? I think it can. The Birkett Committee said that it did not really matter to the decent-living citizen if his telephone was tapped because the information was not divulged to anyone who was not in authority and, therefore, would not cause suffering to a great many people. However, there is a feeling of genuine disquiet about the possibility of telephones being tapped. My attention is increasingly being drawn

  1777
  to this by organisations in this country with an interest in matters of apartheid.
  A number of organisations complain to me that their telephones are tapped, and they believe that it is on the authority of the Home Secretary—official tapping in conjunction with the security service. The number of complaints is increasing enormously. I have referred a number of them to the Secretary of State and others to the Prime Minister, and on each occasion I get the reply that there has been no tapping.
  Whether or not that is true, the fact that a lot of honest citizens conducting activities which are perfectly lawful in this country and genuinely concerned about oppression in South Africa feel that that is possible in this country is an indication of how widespread are the fears about telephone tapping.
  It would help a lot if the Minister were able to deny the Daily Mail figures and give actual figures over a reasonable period, because that would do something to minimise the widespread disquiet.
  I do not believe that telephones should ever be tapped, except when there are overwhelming reasons on grounds of very serious crime or of a real threat to the security of the country, because unreasonable intrusion into the privacy of individual telephones should be avoided.
  The only reason a private conversation of this nature can be interfered with is because of the monopoly right of the Government to run the Post Office. I do not think that that right gives the State any more power over the individual than is absolutely necessary for the functioning of civilised society in this country.
  Unless a line is drawn now, there is a danger that this kind of practice will continue to increase.
  11.19 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr Mark Carlisle): The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) has tonight raised a matter about which the House understandably has shown great concern in the past and no doubt will continue to show great circumspection in the future. I am grateful to him for raising the matter tonight if for no other reason than to give me the opportunity to dispel some of what I might describe
  1778
  as the somewhat alarming remarks he made towards the end of his speech, and to lay down quite clearly the approach of the Home Secretary and the Government towards the question of telephone tapping.
  I accept at once that it is not easy, against our tradition of personal freedom, to accept that it may be necessary for the State, for whatever reasons, to intercept private conversations between one citizen and another. But, judging from the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I think he will agree that in certain circumstances no doubt it may be justified.
  The hon. Gentleman reminded us that it is now some years since the authorised interception of communications, including telephone calls, was the subject of an exhaustive inquiry by a committee of Privy Councillors appointed under the distinguished chairmanship of the then Sir Norman Birkett. That committee published its report in 1957 and since then successive Governments, of both political persuasions, have made it clear that the principles and procedures set out in the report have been scrupulously observed. I welcome the opportunity to repeat that assurance.
  It is indeed a matter for some encouragement that the committee's conclusions were clear and in such a form that the public at large can be assured that only in the most serious and essential cases will the interception of communications be authorised. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the present position.
  The Birkett Committee referred to two areas in which a warrant for the interception of communications might properly be authorised. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned one of them, and that was the detection of serious crime. The other was the safeguarding of the security of the State. As the hon. Gentleman has very helpfully pointed out, the committee further set out with some clarity what was meant by "serious crime". As the hon. Gentleman remarked, the committee said that it meant those offences
  "for which a man with no previous record could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to three years' imprisonment, or offences of lesser gravity in which a large number of people were involved."

  1779
  In addition, it is right to say that the committee recognised that there was a large area of organised crime to be found in attempts to defraud the Customs or the Revenue. The committee said that while violence might not be used in frauds of that kind, very large sums of money might be involved. In the view of the Birkett Committee, the definition of "serious crime" should also include cases which involved a
  "substantial and continuing fraud which would seriously damage the revenue or the economy of the country if it went unchecked."
  That was the definition of "serious crime" as given by that committee as one of the justifications for telephone tapping on the authorisation of the Home Secretary.
  The other reason, as I have said, was on the basis of the safeguarding of the security of the State. Concerning that, the Birkett Committee set out the criteria to be used before warrants were issued by the security service in the following terms. First, there must be a major subversive or espionage activity that is likely to endanger the national interest. Secondly, the material likely to be obtained by interception must be of direct use in compiling the information that is necessary for the security service in carrying out tasks laid upon it by the State.
  In connection with crime the Birkett Committee also drew attention to two further checks as well as its definition of serious crime. The hon. Gentleman rightly reminded us of those. They were that in the committee's view it should be used only when normal methods of investigation had been tried and had failed or, in the nature of things, were unlikely to succeed if tried and, further, there must be a good reason to think that interception would result in a conviction.
  Warrants are issued only over the hand of the Secretary of State. In the case of England and Wales they are normally signed by the Home Secretary. The requirement is that they are over the hand of the Secretary of State, but in the absence of the Home Secretary another Secretary of State is entitled to sign the warrant. Warrants which operate in Northern Ireland or Scotland are signed by the relevant Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or for Scotland. There
  1780
  is moreover a regular review of the warrants in operation at any one time with the purpose of ensuring that no warrant continues in operation for longer than is required for the purpose for which it was authorised.
  Since the Birkett Committee reported, the Government have, as I have attempted to make clear, adhered strictly to the procedure laid down. This has been stated in Parliament on many occasions, most recently by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in a Written Answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) on 22nd December, as follows:
  "the procedures for authorising interception which were described in the report of the Birkett Committee in 1957 are scrupulously followed. This means that police requests for interception would be authorised only by me, or exceptionally, in my absence, by another Secretary of State, and that they would be considered only in connection with serious crime, which continues to be defined and interpreted on the strict and limited terms set out by the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd December 1972; Vol. 848, c. 495.]
  The answer by my right hon. Friend plainly had in mind a case which had arisen in England and Wales, but the same statement could equally be made in respect of Northern Ireland or Scotland, except that in those parts of the United Kingdom warrants would be authorised by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or for Scotland.
  Mr. Lyon: As I indicated, the principles are plain. What gives rise to concern is how the principles are applied. That can be decided only if we know something about it. If the Daily Mail figures are correct, the principles are being misapplied.
  Mr. Carlisle: I have only seven minutes left in which to deliver half of my speech. I was about to come on to the figures. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept from what I have said already not only that the principles are plain but that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has specifically stated, as has been stated on many occasions, that the principles are being scrupulously adhered to, in exactly the same way as they have been under all Governments of different political complexions since the Birkett Committee's Report.

  1781
  I apologise for keeping so much to the words before me, but this is an important subject as the hon. Member has said. I do not think that people would dissent from those general principles. I have referred to them in order to put into perspective what appears from time to time to be a mood of unjustified apprehension on the part of some members of the public lest the belief came about that the power to intercept communications was in some underhand manner being extended. I can assure the House that that is not so.
  Having said that and having given that assurance, I must nevertheless, despite what the hon. Member said—and I shall say something about the Daily Mail—restate what has been said on many occasions: that it is not in the national interest to give details of the way in which warrants are issued or the exact extent to which the power is used. As the hon. Member said, certain figures were given in the Birkett Report itself, but it was recognised at that time that it was a once-for-all exercise. The Birkett Committee itself in recommendation 165 said that it was against the public interest for the Secretary of State to give figures of the extent of the interception of communications.
  Any information about the operation of this power is bound to be of some value to those whose activities are under surveillance. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), I am convinced that it is right to maintain the position enunciated by the Birkett Committee and reaffirmed on 17th November 1966 by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), that it has been and should continue to be the established practice not to give information on this subject.
  But, despite having said that, in view of the questions that the hon. Member has asked and sticking as I do to the view that has always been taken about publication of the numbers, I can and do confirm what was said on behalf of the Home Office with regard to the allegations which were recently made in newspapers—and the hon. Member referred to the Daily Mail—as to the number of warrants in operation. I say
  1782
  with the complete authority of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the numbers quoted in the article were ludicrously high. Equally, just as one cannot deal with the actual numbers, it is not possible to confirm or deny allegations that any interception has been authorised in a particular case.
  Some hon. Members will have the experience, which certainly has been brought home to me as a Minister, of a constituent, perhaps an elderly lady, often of impeccable character, who becomes greatly disturbed or concerned by suspicions, which common sense suggests must be completely unfounded, that his or her telephone is being tapped. Any Member of Parliament in that position who has written, as Members of Parliament have from time to time written, will I am sure feel frustrated by the fact that my right hon. Friend feels quite unable to say whether or not those fears are indeed unfounded.
  It is clear, however, that if such allegations of any nature were ever denied, inferences would then be drawn in cases where no denial was forthcoming, which would frustrate the purpose of such operations. For those reasons, I fear that there is no alternative to maintaining the established rules of silence about individual cases.
  I was slightly surprised by what the hon. Member said about official care in relation to people or emphasis on a foreign country. Obviously I have made it clear in what I have said with regard to individual cases, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept what I have said about the circumstances in which any tap is ever authorised.
  I repeat that all the matters of this nature which are raised are subject to the personal consideration of the Secretary of State and no interception of a telephone is authorised without his authority. Moreover, that authority is exercised within closely defined limits as set out in the Birkett Report. There has been no relaxation of the criteria laid down by that committee and followed by successive administrations since then.
  I hope, therefore, that what I have said——
  Mr. Lyon Mr. Lyon rose——
  Mr. Carlisle: —I should like to complete this, and I have only 30 seconds left

  1783
  —will serve to dispel any doubts that may have been aroused by recent speculation on this subject. I do not believe that it was right for the House to attempt to press me further on details which might put at risk the success of operations which are in the national interest.
  Mr. Lyon: To dispel doubts, can the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm whether, in defining security, the phrase is ever used to cover the security of any other State apart from our own?
  Mr. Carlisle: At this moment I can only reply to that by the definition of security as laid down by the Birkett
  1784
  Committee and assure the hon. Gentleman that those terms are scrupulously abided by. As I have made absolutely clear, this is a matter wholly for the Secretary of State, and I think I must stick to what I have said, that security, is defined entirely——
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-four minutes to Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Disturbances
  Prison Disturbances
  Convicted Persons (Interpreters' Fees)
  Convicted Persons (Interpreters' Fees)
  Police (Recruitment)
  Police (Recruitment)
  Dangerous Substances (Road Transport)
  Dangerous Substances (Road Transport)
  Hexachlorophane
  Hexachlorophane
  Marriage Bureaux
  Marriage Bureaux
  United Kingdom Passport Holders (Patriality)
  United Kingdom Passport Holders (Patriality)
  Trevor Jones
  Trevor Jones
  Au Pairs (Convention)
  Au Pairs (Convention)
  Capital Punishment
  Capital Punishment
  Prison Officers' Association
  Prison Officers' Association
  Probation Service (Pay)
  Probation Service (Pay)
  Charities
  Charities
  Air Rifles
  Air Rifles
  Mugging
  Mugging
  Mr. L. W. Bailey
  Mr. L. W. Bailey
  United Kingdom Patrials
  United Kingdom Patrials
  Returning Officers
  Returning Officers
  Colonel Nguyen Van Ve
  Colonel Nguyen Van Ve
  Alimony
  Alimony
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Terrorists (Detention)
  Terrorists (Detention)
  Security
  Security
  Rent and Rates
  Rent and Rates
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
  Teachers (London Allowance)
  Teachers (London Allowance)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Charities (Deeds of Covenant)
  Charities (Deeds of Covenant)
  Dockers (Severance Payments)
  Dockers (Severance Payments)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Strategic Arms Limitation Talks
  Strategic Arms Limitation Talks
  Concorde (Luanda Airport)
  Concorde (Luanda Airport)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Ugandan Students
  Ugandan Students
  Seychelles
  Seychelles
  Animals (Export)
  Animals (Export)
EMPLOYMENT
  National Holidays
  National Holidays
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Thorpe Marsh Power Station (Fatalities)
  Thorpe Marsh Power Station (Fatalities)
  Dismissal (Industrial Tribunal Awards)
  Dismissal (Industrial Tribunal Awards)
  Training (Northern Region)
  Training (Northern Region)
  Dock Workers
  Dock Workers
ENVIRONMENT
  Motorways (Fog Regulations)
  Motorways (Fog Regulations)
  Football League Clubs
  Football League Clubs
  Mid-Hampshire Railway
  Mid-Hampshire Railway
  M6-M61 Link
  M6-M61 Link
  Ringway 3 (Orpington)
  Ringway 3 (Orpington)
  Palace of Westminster (Visitors)
  Palace of Westminster (Visitors)
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  A46 (Newark)
  A46 (Newark)
  House Purchase
  House Purchase
  Heavy Goods Vehicle Driving Licences
  Heavy Goods Vehicle Driving Licences
  A45 (Ryton Bridge Flyover)
  A45 (Ryton Bridge Flyover)
  International Exhibition Centre Inquiry (Northolt)
  International Exhibition Centre Inquiry (Northolt)
  Maplin
  Maplin
  Advanced Passenger Train
  Advanced Passenger Train
  Councillors (Allowances)
  Councillors (Allowances)
  Joint Committees (Press Admission)
  Joint Committees (Press Admission)
DEFENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  South Africa (Military Vehicles)
  South Africa (Military Vehicles)
  Fuse Requirements (Leitch Report)
  Fuse Requirements (Leitch Report)
  LANCASHIRE
  LANCASHIRE
  COUNTER-INFLATION
  COUNTER-INFLATION
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
  PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
  PITCAIRN ISLANDS
  PITCAIRN ISLANDS
ENVIRONMENT
  Drainage Rate (Nottinghamshire)
  Drainage Rate (Nottinghamshire)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Animals (Export)
  Animals (Export)
  Poultry Industry (Imported Feedstuffs)
  Poultry Industry (Imported Feedstuffs)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Foodstuffs (Date Stamping)
  Foodstuffs (Date Stamping)
  Agricultural Rents
  Agricultural Rents
  Bacon and Pigmeat
  Bacon and Pigmeat
  Cereals
  Cereals
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Television Coverage
  Television Coverage
SCOTLAND
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  House Prices
  House Prices
  Murder (Penalty)
  Murder (Penalty)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pensions and Benefits
  Pensions and Benefits
  Coronary Emergency Units
  Coronary Emergency Units
  Industrial Disputes (Payment of Benefit)
  Industrial Disputes (Payment of Benefit)
  Benefit Payments (Giro)
  Benefit Payments (Giro)
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Supplementary Benefit (Heating)
  Supplementary Benefit (Heating)
  Population (London and Bristol)
  Population (London and Bristol)
  St. Helens Hospital, Barnsley
  St. Helens Hospital, Barnsley
  Supplementary Benefit (Irish Citizens)
  Supplementary Benefit (Irish Citizens)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Wigan (Unemployment)
  Wigan (Unemployment)
  Electricity Generating Capacity
  Electricity Generating Capacity
  Exports (USA and Japan)
  Exports (USA and Japan)
  Maplin
  Maplin
  London-Manchester Air Services
  London-Manchester Air Services
  Aero-Engines (Bird-Strike)
  Aero-Engines (Bird-Strike)
  Civil Airlines
  Civil Airlines
  Airports Policy
  Airports Policy
  Aircraft Movements
  Aircraft Movements
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Medicinal Products (Origin Marking)
  Medicinal Products (Origin Marking)
  Shipbuilding (Assistance)
  Shipbuilding (Assistance)
  Mergers and Takeovers
  Mergers and Takeovers
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Livestock Exports
  Livestock Exports
WALES
  Hospital Pharmaceutical Service
  Hospital Pharmaceutical Service
  Regional Pharmacist
  Regional Pharmacist
  Employment
  Employment
  Housing Land
  Housing Land

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth):
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL'S POWERS
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what regulations govern the practice of medicine in the United Kingdom; what powers the General Medical Council has in this respect, and from what legislation these powers derive.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, the practice of medicine in the United Kingdom is governed by the Medical Acts 1956 to 1969 and certain other legislation. The General Medical Council is an independent body exercising powers conferred on it by the Medical Acts. Its general duty is to keep and publish the Register of duly qualified doctors, to regulate the standard of qualifications conferring the right to registration and to take disciplinary action against any registered doctors who may appear, by reason of their misconduct, to be unfit to remain on the Register.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I wonder whether I may ask him one further question. Is the payment of a registration fee a part of the conditions upon which a doctor may be placed on the Register and therefore allowed to practise his or her profession?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords, the General Medical Council has the power to charge a fee for registration, and therefore it has the power to de-register if the fee is not paid.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the existing legislation will have to be amended as a consequence of our entry into the E.E.C. to make it possible for Continental doctors, whose standards may not be exactly equivalent to United Kingdom standards, to come into this country?
LORD ABERDARE: No, my Lords, not as the situation is at the moment. If there were to be any move towards facilitating the exchange of doctors it would have to be put into effect by directive, and although a directive has I believe been considered, it would of course require our assent before it became effective.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there has been consultation in the Colleges on the difference between European qualifications and ours? Is it not a fact that many members of the professional classes, such as doctors and accountants, who are not up to what is referred to as the European standard may not be allowed to practise?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am aware of the feelings the noble Lord has mentioned, but I can only repeat that any qualifications that were recognised in one country or another within the Community would have to be the subject of regulations made by the Council of the Community.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would not the Minister have another look at this question of the registration fee? Is he aware that concern is felt among ordinary trade unionists that the Medical Council have powers that might almost be referred to as those of a kangaroo court, whereas anything that is done in this particular direction within ordinary normal trade union life is subject to, and would probably be referred to, the N.I.R.C.? There appears to be a wide difference between the professional classes and ordinary trade unionists. Is it not possible to have another look at this matter?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, a Committee of Inquiry is in process of being set up—I announced the terms of reference before Christmas—to consider what changes need to be made in the existing

697
provisions for the regulation of the medical profession and so on, and the Chairman of this Inquiry will be the Vice Chancellor of Bristol University, Dr. Merrison.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, will this subject be covered by that Committee?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the terms of reference are very wide; the Committee will be considering the whole question.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as the only appeal from the General Medical Council is to the Privy Council, would not appeal prove prohibitive to the average doctor?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the General Medical Council is largely run by the profession itself. It is a professional body. I can only say that this Inquiry is now being set up, and all these matters can best be considered by the Inquiry.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I was asking about an appeal. The only appeal for a doctor against a decision of the General Medical Council, which, after all, determines his whole livelihood and his whole future, is to the Privy Council, and I am asking whether the cost of such an appeal would not prove prohibitive to the average doctor.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am only saying that this is the situation. I am not quite sure whether it is right that it would prove prohibitive. I can certainly tell the noble Baroness that there will be an Inquiry into all these matters.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, to clear my mind may I ask one final question? Is it a fact that the non-payment of registration fee by a medical practitioner will result in his being struck off the Medical Register?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords; that is a fact.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is not this the only profession in the country—indeed, I should think the only field of work—in which a sum of money determines whether an individual is fit to follow his profession?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the General Medical Council has been in existence for a great many years. It is responsible for doing much useful work in ensuring that doctors who treat the public are properly qualified. It has certain powers and it is acting under its legislative powers.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as this is so important, I am sure that the House will forgive me if I put a question to the noble Lord. Is not this a most unusual situation which has never arisen in this country before: that while an individual may be brilliant in his profession, may have a high moral standard, may have treated many patients successfully, and there is no reason why he should be regarded as unworthy person, because he does not pay £5 his services are denied to the country?
LORD ABERDARE: Well, my Lords, this is the fact; this is legislation which has been in force for a very long time. The noble Baroness may think it wrong. I can only tell her that most of the doctors have now paid their fees, and of those that have been struck off for nonpayment of fees none so far has been employed in the National Health Service.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that from the point of view of patients, at a time when there is a shortage of doctors, it cannot be considered a desirable state of affairs that on a technicality of this kind well-qualified doctors should be denied the possibility of serving the patients who wish to use them?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not think it is a technicality. If there is a body which regulates professional work and is responsible for the qualifications of the doctors, and is very largely manned by members of the profession, I think it is only reasonable to expect the doctors to carry out the law as it stands and pay whatever the General Medical Council may establish in the way of fees. But all this may change when we have received the report of the Committee of Inquiry.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister one more supplementary question? Why is it that out of 48 members of the General

699
Medical Council there are only two women?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am not responsible for the appointment of the General Medical Council.

E.E.C. AND COMMONWEALTH TRADE CO-OPERATION
3.10 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions have been reached regarding trade co-operation between the European Community and India and Asian Commonwealth nations.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK): My Lords, under the Declaration of Intent to the developing independent Commonwealth countries in Asia, the enlarged E.E.C. expressed its willingness, from January 1, 1973, to examine any trade problems that may arise with a view to seeking solutions. The Council of Ministers has already agreed that a Commercial Co-operation Agreement should be negotiated with India. The other countries concerned have also set up a dialogue with the Commission.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming that reply— and I was asking for information generally—may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government will consider, when these matters have been discussed, the possibility that it may be to the detriment of India and Commonwealth countries in Asia that there are very exceptional arrangements as between France and ex-French colonies in the North of Africa which have close economic arrangements with France.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I have no doubt that that is one of the matters that will be considered.

ROAD DEVELOPMENTS IN WEST DORSET
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the progress now being made in the construction of road links between South-East England and the West, they regard the further development of a Folkestone-Honiton trunk road through West Dorset as really necessary.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the length of the Folkestone-Honiton trunk road in West Dorset was not included in the 3,500-mile network of trunk routes which was announced in June, 1971. Traffic conditions along the route are, however, kept under review and particular improvements are prepared as the need arises.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, arising out of that Answer, may I ask a supplementary question? I gather that the continuation of the proposed trunk road is not going forward. Why is it proposed that there should be a further major road development, which goes right through West Dorset, in order to bypass Bridport?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I merely said that it was not part of the comprehensive trunk network. We have comprehensive plans for individual improvements where they are needed, and Bridport is one of those places. We know that there are some local objections, and if a statutory objection were to be made we should need to hold an inquiry.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, is it not true that there are other roads that either bypass Bridport or do not bypass Bridport which are in fact sufficient for the kind of traffic that they have to carry?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the A.35, which is the road to which the noble Baroness is referring, carries a certain amount of traffic, and it is considered by the experts that an improvement is needed.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, who are the experts?
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that two experts who have a considerable knowledge of traffic conditions in that area have described this road to bypass Bridport as being a "sledgehammer to crack a nut"? Further, would the Minister confirm or deny that local experts have presented an alternative scheme which is acceptable to people in that area, and that the road engineers have stated that they are willing to seriously consider such scheme if the present scheme 7 is turned down?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, no official suggestion of alternative routes has been made to us at the moment. If one of the local authorities wishes to make a suggestion there can be an inquiry. With regard to the expert who referred to it as a "sledgehammer crushing a nut" (I think that was in a Sunday Times article), the estimated cost for that bypass was double what we estimated it might be.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I do not know whether this comes within the original Question, but can the noble Lord say whether any progress is being made on the Southampton bypass?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think that that is another Question.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my question as to who are the experts. Are they other than the Dorset County Council?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, no; the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry have their own experts.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, is this East/ West trunk road a necessity for national defence?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I do not think that this is a point that has been considered by me personally, or by anyone in the Department.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us who is the
702
nut that the sledgehammer is supposed to crack?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if this is a proposal to spend money on a road which people do not want, could the money be transferred to the Scottish Office and used on the A.90?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think that the people who do not want it are local inhabitants, who are probably not the majority using that road.
LORD HUGHES: But they would not require a visa to use the road.

MENTAL HOSPITAL PATIENTS AND OUTSIDE WORK
3.16 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the experiment in operation in the Elms Ward at the Purdown Mental Hospital, Bristol, where a number of male patients are engaged in gainful occupation outside the hospital, is being encouraged by the Health Ministry and whether similar experiments will be adopted in other mental hospitals.
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords. It is our policy to encourage hospital authorities to develop well-planned schemes which will provide suitable training and occupation for patients in mental hospitals or assist their rehabilitation. A number of schemes involving local industry are already in existence, and we very much hope the practice will spread.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, after that encouraging reply, may I ask the Minister this question? Is he aware that the consultant psychiatrist at this particular hospital has stated that there are more than 100 patients who would qualify for gainful occupation outside the unit of the hospital, but the obstacle in the way is the lack of education on the part of the public, who regard persons who are mentally disturbed as unsuitable to mix with the community outside? Would the Government take note of that and use whatever publicity is available to them in

703
order to encourage people outside these hospitals to assist the persons concerned? May I ask further whether it is possible for somebody from his Department—I would not dare to ask the Minister himself—to visit this unit in order to witness the experiment, which is a very valuable one indeed?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am extremely glad to know that the noble Lord is taking such an interest in health matters, and I am grateful to him for having drawn attention to this particular development at this hospital. It is not quite such an experiment, I venture to suggest, as he says; it is taking place in many of our mental hospitals and is one which we fully support. I recognise, as he says, that there is often a certain public anxiety, particularly when it comes to putting a training centre or a hostel in an ordinary community; but where they have been established the local community usually take them to heart very helpfully. As for visiting hospitals, I will certainly take note of what the noble Lord said. I hope that he will continue to visit many more hospitals.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that to the best of our knowledge most hospitals for the mentally handicapped do all they can to find jobs outside the hospital for patients? In the group of which I am chairman, where most patients are of low grade, having I.Q.s of 50 or below, there are employed outside the hospital nine girls with wages ranging from £10 to £13 a week, and six men with wages ranging from £15 to £23. We are always looking for new jobs. According to the amount of wages a scale of charges is made, but the hospital cannot take more than £6.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am well aware that the noble Lord is chairman of a very excellent group of hospitals, and it reinforces the point that I was making to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that this excellent development is going on throughout the country.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, in order to remove any possibility of misunderstanding, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that my visit to this particular institution was unofficial and completely voluntary?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very glad to know that the noble Lord did not receive a coffee pot.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a great many patients from that particular group of hospitals have been working outside the hospital for a very long time? The one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is only one of the group of Stoke Park Hospitals, which I know very well. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is referring to 100 patients from the Stoke Park Hospital group, who are earning about £30,000 a year. I should just like to bring that to the attention of the Minister.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many hospitals are partaking in similar schemes of this kind?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend exactly how many hospitals are involved. I can tell her that in 1970 2·8 per cent. of the patients in hospitals for the mentally handicapped, and 2 per cent. of those in hospitals for the mentally ill, were working outside the hospitals in open employment.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, can the noble Lord say to what extent there is consultation between his Department and the Department of Employment? So much depends upon the money that they are prepared to spend on rehabilitation units for people of this kind.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, there is very close consultation with the Department of Employment.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us appreciate very much the attitude of the trade union movement towards a better understanding of patients who require jobs for their rehabilitation? This House and the other place appreciate the attitude which the trade union movement has shown towards a better understanding of these patients, thus eradicating the fear about them which we used to have in days gone by.
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords. I am glad to acknowledge that.

CONCORDE: CANCELLATION OF AMERICAN OPTIONS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Her Majesty's Government Private notice.
The Question is as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the cancellation of the options on Concorde by Pan-American and T.W.A?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, wit the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. That will be followed by a statement to be made by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I have promised the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, that I shall be as brief as I can, and I shall follow that intention. In the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, very considerable changes were made in the law of succession. These changes have, I believe, worked well and they have been well received. The purpose of this Bill is to amend Sections 8 and 9 of the 1964 Act, and it has no other purpose. The reason why that is necessary is that, in place of the traditional rights of "terce" and "courtesy", there were established "prior rights", to assure the position of the surviving spouse in marriage; and, as these were expressed in terms of money they have inevitably been eroded by the influence of inflation. It is to restore the former position that this Bill is presented to the House.
These rights arise only in cases of intestacy, and in such cases, under the principal Act of 1964, the surviving spouse was entitled to the matrimonial house up to the value of £15,000. He or she was also entitled to £5,000 of plenishings. Over and above this, if there was
706
issue he or she was entitled to £2,500, and if there was no issue to £5,000. If one calculates the influence of inflation over the intervening period—and I shall be very happy to go into the figures, if necessary—the value of property since 1964 has risen by about 100 per cent. Accordingly, in the Bill the value of the matrimonial house is now put up to the sum of £30,000, which just about restores the position of the surviving spouse to what it was in 1964. In regard to the plenishings and the sum payable from the general estate, I think the figures in the retail price index are about right and they point to a figure of 60 per cent. in this case. Accordingly, the plenishings which can be retained in intestacy by the surviving spouse go up from £5,000 to £8,000, while the payment from the general estate in the event of issue will increase from £2,500 to £4,000, and, where there is no issue, from £5,000 to £8,000. This puts the surviving spouse in a comparable position to what he or she was in in 1964.
The Bill also looks to the future and provides for the Secretary of State to have power to make increases in these cash amounts, as and when it may seem necessary. It is suggested that he should do so by laying before this House a draft Statutory Instrument, which after the normal period of 40 days will be made in the normal form. I think that this is a wise provision for the future, because I am afraid that none of us can be assured that the present value of money will remain steady. This is very similar to the procedure which has already been adopted for England, and only last July the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor laid a Statutory Instrument which had the effect of raising what are called statutory legacies in England, to a figure more in line with the current value of money. I think that this is a desirable amendment to the principal Act, which I commend to the House. However, it is not intended to relieve anyone from taking proper legal advice when that is found necessary, and it would be quite wrong to think that the Bill would avoid one's taking that line. Conditions vary with almost everyone, and it is important that they should be examined both under the terms of this Bill and under the general conditions of succession. I think that this Bill is essential if prior rights

707
are to be maintained at their 1964 level. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, I rise on this side of the House simply to say that we welcome the Bill which the noble Earl has introduced. We think that the figures included in it restore the position to what it was when the principal Act was passed. But, more than that, we are grateful to the noble Earl for including in the Bill provision for making changes in the future by Statutory Instrument, which will prevent further Bills having to be introduced to meet new circumstances. For all those reasons, we are grateful to the noble Earl and are delighted to support the Bill.
3.18 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD POLWARTH): My Lords when my noble friend Lord Selkirk was elected a Scottish Representative Peer at the same election as myself —I think 27 years ago—the gain of your Lordships' House was at the same time a loss to the Scottish Bar, where he had practised before the war with distinction. That he has not lost his skill in advocacy and explanation is clear from the way in which he has commended to your Lordships this small measure concerning what, to a layman is a very complicated branch of law. At least, it is a little less complicated than it was in the days of my own apprenticeship, when we had to know these legal rights by heart: we have at least, in the 1964 Act, got rid of the mysterious rights of "terce" and "courtesy", even if we are left with jus relictae, jus relicti and legitim.
As my noble friend has said, it is a limited measure but it is none the less valuable for that. It does not change in any way the legal standing of surviving spouses. It seeks only to bring up to date the provisions which were enacted in 1964; and to ensure that, if the amended figures proposed here need to be adjusted in future to take account of further changes in the value of money or property, this can be done more readily and conveniently by Statutory Instrument.
So on behalf of the Government I welcome this useful measure and commend it to your Lordships.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, for the welcome that he has given to this Bill, and may I also thank the Government for the assistance with which they have provided me? Perhaps I should add that the Scottish Law Commission are taking a general look at the effect of the 1964 Act. That has now been in operation for eight years and it is wise and proper that they should do so, and we wait with interest to hear what comments they have to make.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS BILL [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I have not asked anybody to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill, but I think that the list of speakers shows that the Bill has raised considerable interest in your Lordships' House. The subject is a somewhat complex one, however, and I hope, therefore, that the House will allow me some indulgence if I make a speech rather longer, perhaps, than is normal on the Second Reading of a Private Member's Bill.
It was in December, 1970, that the Howard League for Penal Reform, Justice and NACRO—the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders—appointed a committee, of which I had the honour to be chairman, to consider a problem of old convictions. I say on purpose "a problem of old convictions" because there are others. We were not proposing to concern ourselves with what are sometimes rather loosely called hardened professional criminals; and we were not concerning ourselves with any conviction which had led to a sentence of more than two years' imprisonment. We were not concerning ourselves in other words with those with whom the Criminal Law Revision Committee are particularly concerned. Nor were we concerning ourselves with another group where there is an equal problem, and that is that rather large group, which is a great trouble to society, made up of people who seem to go in and come out of prison over a

709
considerable time. There is a problem there, because the files of all three societies contain many cases of men who, on coming out of prison, manage to get employment and do all right until the police come round and tell the employers and who are then given their cards. The reason why we are not dealing with those people is because theirs is a separate problem.
The group with which we are alone concerned is a different group, but a large one. It is made up of men and women —primarily, of course, men—who get into trouble during adolescence and who then reach a stage when they marry, settle down and lead regular lives. They in fact become rehabilitated personally; and, as I shall have occasion later to point out, the risk, after a certain time, of their ever again getting into serious trouble is not only no more than but is slightly less than that of people who have never been in trouble of any kind before. The question is whether, where such men have done everything they can to rehabilitate themselves but still find that at any time their lives may be shattered by a very old conviction—perhaps after 10, 20 or 30 years—it would not be to the interests of society that society itself should complete the period of rehabilitation.
My Lords, such men in fact get into difficulties in many different ways: obviously, in relation to employment and obtaining professional qualifications. I believe that even a conviction at the age of 12 is a fatal bar throughout life to being employed by a body like the Post Office. Then, insurance. If such a man is doing well and has saved a little money, he may want to start a business. When he goes to a solicitor he is bound to be told that it is very unlikely that he will be able to obtain any of the normal business insurances. The reason is that if such men as these disclose their conviction the risk is not accepted and they do not get a policy, and if they do not disclose their conviction and the insurers find out, then, for however long premiums have been paid, if a loss arises the insurers do not pay. Many people think that if you have a proposal form containing a lot of questions, so long as you answer the questions honestly and truthfully that is enough. But that is not the law of insurance. The law of insurance is that, what
710
ever questions are asked, there is a duty on anybody proposing for insurance to give the insurers any facts which a prudent insurer would consider relevant on the question either of whether he should issue a policy or, if so, at what premium.
My experience in these cases, and I think the experience of all those in the law, is that once the insurance company has called an insurance broker to say, "Whatever you may think of this old conviction yourself, it is a fact which a prudent insurer would take into account, either for the purpose of deciding whether to accept the policy or at what premium. It is impossible to call evidence to the contrary, because obviously it is no good calling anybody except from the insurance world. I remember two cases in one year which I decided, sitting as an arbitrator. They were both cases in which a director of a company, to the knowledge of other directors, had had some conviction or other. A loss had occurred—there was no suggestion that it was not an honest loss; it was a burglary, or something of that sort—and in each case evidence was called that a prudent insurer would have taken those convictions into account. In one, I remember, the company was the father's company. The father owned all the shares, and he made his two sons managing directors of the company to give them a start in life. The company proceeded in an honest and proper way for a period of years, and then they had a burglary of about £40,000. It transpired that one of these two sons, when he was at Cambridge—I think it was on Boat Race Night—had what I thought was some rather minor conviction; and at the time of the burglary he was on holiday in South Africa. But, of course, I had to decide the case according to law, and I had to find for the insurers.
Then there is a particular form of policy which very much affects employment. It is fidelity bond insurance of the block bonding type. It is insurance against defalcation by, or dishonesty of, employees, but is on the footing that every employee has to be included—and this applies to employees who have no opportunity of stealing either goods or, still less, money. But as the insurers insist on this policy applying to all the employees, virtually anybody who has a

711
conviction, particularly for dishonesty, cannot get employment in any capacity at all.
The next risk is that of getting involved in any way in a law case. By an Act of Parliament, anyone who is called as a witness in any case, whether criminal or civil, can be asked about every conviction, however old, that he has ever had, and however, to the layman, irrelevant. This is with a view to persuading the jury that because he has had convictions he is not to be believed upon his oath. The files contain many cases of that kind; and the risk is of getting involved in almost any way. "Matthew" (of course, we have not used their right names; the facts are right, but we have changed their names) was convicted in 1949 for a series of thefts. He later settled down, and in 1961 married a woman with strong religious beliefs. They opened a boarding-house in a seaside town, and later turned it into a convalescent home for old people. Everyone agreed that it was very well run and efficiently staffed. He became a much-respected member of the community, doing public work and helping people in trouble. Through carelessness he exceeded the number of patients permitted without a licence. He was taken to court, and his record was exposed. He had to abandon all the fruits of his new life, leave the town and change his name. "James" had some early convictions for dishonesty. He then settled down, and ran a respectable business in his local town. Eleven years after his last conviction he brought an action in the local county court to recover a civil debt, and found himself cross-examined by the defendant's counsel about his old convictions.
Paradoxically, the better you do in the worse difficulty you may be. If you do well, you may be pressed to enter public life; but there, of course, there is a risk that either a political opponent or a newspaper may dig out your old conviction. Those of us who know some of these people know that mostly they do not go to parties and do not like meeting large numbers of people because they are always afraid of running into somebody who knows about their trouble in early life. Equally perilous, of course, is almost any contact with the police.
712
When "Charles" was a young man he was convicted of a sex offence. Later he married and settled down. He did well in business, and became a respectable and respected member of his community. Twenty years after his conviction he was found guilty of a minor motoring offence, and his old conviction was read out in court and was reported in the local Press. When "George" was convicted of having no "L" plates on his motor-cycle, the court was told that several years before he had been convicted of indecent exposure.
Another risk arises because on a criminal conviction the man's fingerprints and photographs will be taken and will be on the police records. These photographs are put to people to see whether they can identify a particular culprit. There is one case where a man with a minor conviction at the age of 18 and who has since become a respected T.V. executive was in this way identified by a witness and as a result was convicted of a robbery in a neighbourhood that he had not been in for ten years. Fortunately, he was acquitted on appeal, but meanwhile he had served nine months; and in that sort of case no compensation is available from public funds.
I confess that we had been considering these problems weekly for quite a considerable time when, for the first time, it occurred to one of us to say, "I wonder how many people we are talking about." We found that we did not know. We asked one of our members, a Queen's Counsel, an acknowledged authority on criminal statistics, to find out. He said he had done his best but was quite unable to find out how many people who had been convicted, particularly of the more serious offences, then go straight for five, seven or ten years. We asked the Home Office. They said, "We do not know." They said that it was an interesting point, that they would rather like to know and that they would ask the statistical branch to do a special survey. They had to go back some years because they wanted to know what had happened afterwards. They took 1957 as an average year and they took 4,000 males convicted on indictment as a random sample, which they said was quite sufficient.
They found this. Of first offenders, 64 per cent. had gone straight for 5 years and 60 per cent. had gone straight for

713
10 years. Of those convicted before, 33 per cent. had gone straight for 5 years and 30 per cent. for 10 years. They said that the important things which seemed to follow are these. First, 9 out of 10 of those going straight for 5 years, go straight for 10 years. Secondly, the number who go wrong after 10 years is infinitesimal. In fact, they said, it is slightly smaller than the number of those who never have been convicted of any offence before, and probably this is because they have learned their lesson. Finally, they said, "We can fairly assess the total number of these people in the community and it is about 1 million"— which, I must say, surprised us very much. They said that for various reasons that is probably an underestimate. They said they had only taken males and that women are much more likely to stay out of trouble later on than are men.
I should have thought that it must be a disincentive to those who have been convicted to know that no matter what they do, no matter how honestly they act or how hard they work, there never comes a time when a conviction can be lived down. Conversely, I should have thought that it would be an incentive to a man to know that if he goes straight for five years, or whatever the period may be, he will be all right. The problem is not lessened by the number of new laws which are constantly being made. Taking indictable offences and the more serious summary offences, by the age of 60 about 31 per cent. of the population have been convicted. Nor is it made easier by the degree to which personal information can now be stored on credit data banks and in computers; nor by the inquiry agents, some of whom advertise that they can get you anybody's criminal record for £5 or £7. I will come back to that later.
My Lords, this country is the only member of the Council of Europe which has no rehabilitation law; so we made a considerable study of the laws of other countries, and particularly the rehabilitation laws of Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.—and I shall come back to that.
Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill set out the substance of our proposals: that if a man is convicted and has served a sentence or complied with an order in a case in which a rehabilitation period
714
applies and he has not, with certain exceptions, been again convicted during the rehabilitation period, then he shall be treated as a rehabilitated person and the conviction treated as spent. Clause 2 explains what this means; namely, that with certain exceptions he will be treated in law as if there had been no such offence or conviction, and, again with certain exceptions, no evidence to prove either would be admissible.
There are two other features of our proposals which I think I should mention at once. The rehabilitation periods that we propose are these: where a man has not had a custodial sentence, five years; where he has had a custodial sentence of lip to six months at magistrates' court level, seven years; where the sentence was from six months up to but not exceeding two years, ten years. We had a number of letters saying that these periods were really too long and that they ought to be three years, five years and seven years. We gave close attention to these matters and we have two answers. First, we realise that these periods will bear more hardly on the young. For that reason, we propose that in the case of those from 12 to 17 years of age, the period shall be halved. Secondly, if in practice the period should be thought to be wrong, or it is thought that this age is too low or too high, we propose in Clause 3 that the Home Secretary should have the power by Order in Council subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure of both Houses to alter either the period or the age limit.
May I digress before coming on to further details of the Bill?—because, while I have had considerable support from all parts of the House, I have had three letters which raise exactly the same point. They say, in effect, "Certainly this is a thing which ought to be remedied and in principle we agree with you; but it seems to us that what you are in fact doing is authorising a man to tell a lie. Can that be right?" May I now deal with that point? There are only four ways which have ever been tried or suggested for remedying this wrong. The first is to have a tribunal or board to which the rehabilitated person can apply for what in one country is called a pardon. This does not seem to work, probably because, first, the last thing in the world which a rehabilitated person

715
wants to do is himself to drag up that episode from 20 years earlier. He is living among people, none of whom knows about his past; and he hopes that nobody will. The cases can be heard in camera but they have to be listed; and in the case of anybody who is reasonably well known, the Press would find out. Secondly, not unreasonably, the first thing the tribunal or board does is to send the police along to see the man's employer and neighbours to find out whether he is leading an honest life. Thirdly, if I am wrong in thinking that they would not wish to take advantage of this, one reflects that there are 1 million people in this position—and I do not know where is the board or tribunal to deal with that.
A feature of a number of foreign countries as part of their rehabilitation law is that the record itself is cancelled physically. Although this is fairly general on the Continent, we were much opposed to that idea, for these reasons. First, in one of those very rare cases of a man going straight for, say, 10 years but who again gets into serious trouble and is convicted on indictment, is it not in the interests of society, and possibly of himself, that the judge should have access to the full record? If it is said: "Well, that is rather hard on him, but what he has done shows that he was not, after all, a rehabilitated person", I say that this Bill is only concerned with those who are in fact rehabilitated.
The second reason concerns the police. I should be the last to deny that the extent to which the police go talking to other people about people's records is perhaps excessive—the degree of traffic between the police, for example, and security officers of big companies and so on. This is a separate problem. The police are responsible for detecting crime. Surely, the police ought to be allowed to know who has done what. If you once literally remove the record, of course they will not. Then there are research bodies like the Home Office Research Unit and the Cambridge Institute of Criminology who seek to derive conclusions from the statistics. But once you falsify the statistics, once you obliterate the record, obviously their work will be of less value. Then there are public authorities which are charged with the surveillance of areas of known social risk: schoolmasters who interfere
716
with small boys and indeed the whole field of child care. There is also the man who wants a licence to operate a casino, where there may be a security risk. At the moment, this field is dealt with by the Home Secretary, because the police act on his authority. If he authorises anybody to convey, for example, information of this kind to a professional association, he is answerable for that in Parliament; and in the Bill we do not propose to disturb this. But for all those reasons we were strongly opposed to any obliteration of the record.
The third alternative is to pass a law making it a criminal offence to ask anybody a question about convictions except to ask: "Have you ever been convicted of an offence which has not been rehabilitated?" We considered this in depth, but we came to the conclusion that in fact no such law could be enforced. In the first place, this is a free country, and if we are for the first time to make it possible to send an Englishman to prison for asking questions, I should think people would wonder what the country was coming to. There would of course be arguments as to how far you were at liberty to depart from the exact wording of the Statute in question. We could not really envisage a prosecution. Normally, the one man who would know would be the rehabilitated offender, if he is asked, "What convictions have you had?" instead of being asked the statutory question. Again, he is not going to prosecute, because the last thing he wants to do is to take any form of legal proceedings which are going to raise the whole of his past. And, of course, there would obviously be many ways round it. No doubt those who had not committed any offence would say: "No; I have never been convicted of anything in my life". And those who simply said, "No" at once would of course be suspect. So, although at first sight the idea might have some attraction, we felt that it was quite impracticable.
One is left therefore with our proposal; and its justification is this. If an offence has happened, nothing can make it unhappen Any remedy therefore will probably have some degree of artificiality. The thing is to choose that which has the least artificiality. Both the conviction and the sentence are creations of the law. Is not this therefore a case in which the law ought to take the lead, put a term to that which it has created

717
and say: "In these conditions, and after such and such periods, the effect of this is to end."? There is nothing very new in this. We are quite used to Acts of Parliament which, usually for some good social or other reason, say that A is to be deemed to be B. Of course it is not B; it is A. But we are still a law-abiding country, and if the law is that A is to be deemed to be B, most people will accept it.
The way in which we have tried to do this, by saying something is to be inadmissible in evidence, is also very familiar to our law. Hearsay evidence may be true, but because it is so difficult to check we do not allow it to be given. It is a truth on which evidence cannot be given. And there are a lot of presumptions of various kinds. A tenant cannot be allowed to dispute the title of his landlord. The licensee of a patent is not allowed to prove that the patent is invalid. If one thinks of one's driving licence, it may have been littered with endorsements for exceeding the speed limit, but if you can keep straight for three years you are entitled to a clean licence, which foxes the policeman. If he knew that you had exceeded the speed limit several times already, and you have just done it again, he would issue a summons; but, faced with a clean licence, he does not know, and he gives you a caution—except that if one has been convicted of driving a car under the influence of drink or drugs then the period is ten years. It is not of course a true analogy because the conviction remains, but it is subject to the same principle.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble and learned friend? He knows that I am very sympathetic to his Bill, but a crucial point for many of us is this very point. He has said that the law frequently says that A can be deemed to be B. But, as I understand Clause 2, it does not say that; it merely says that it will not be a criminal offence to say that A is B—or have I misunderstood?
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, it is not that it is a criminal offence. The main provision is that no evidence will be admissible. It will not be for the man himself to say what the law is now saying; namely, that this conviction is to be treated as if it had never taken place and
718
accordingly no evidence in any court will be admissible to prove it. This is in fact the most common method which other countries have used. Here I must confess that all my life I have been resistant to the argument that I have so often heard in the field of law reform: that something that works perfectly well in most other countries could not possibly work properly here, because they are foreigners. Of course there are differences between countries. Of course it does not follow that if something works well in the field of law in other countries it would necessarily work well here. But this is a point which I think should be considered.
In the law of Germany, for example, criminal records record losses of civil rights as well as sentences, and access to the record is first restricted after five years for lesser cases and ten years in others, and the entry is cancelled after ten years. Once the entry is cancelled, a person is in general entitled to state, even in court, that he has no convictions. French law is the same. The conviction is not mentioned in extracts from the criminal records and a legal fiction—that is what they call it; une fiction légale—is created that the reinstated person has not been convicted. And there, as here, I understand, it applies in all courts. It used to be, and I think still is, in France a ground for divorce that the spouse has been convicted of certain criminal offences. If evidence is taken of the criminal offence and of the conviction, that is a ground for divorce. But if the spouse waits until the rehabilitation period has expired, then she cannot proceed on it, because the conviction in law has ceased to exist.
There is a wide, very disparate group of countries which have almost the same law; namely, Austria, Egypt, Italy, Japan and Ethiopia. In case the House may be interested to hear this, I may tell your Lordships that Article 245 of the Ethiopian Penal Code says:
"Reinstatement, since it cancels the sentence, shall produce the following effects:

"(a) relieves the person concerned of any disabilities which are attached to the sentence;

"(b) the sentence shall be deleted from his police record and for the future be presumed to be non-existent;

"(c) a reproach referring to an old conviction made either by ill-will or any other reason shall come under the provisions of criminal law regarding defamation, and the

719
defences based on justification or public interest shall not be admissible."

As I say, it is substantially the same in Austria, Egypt, Italy and Japan.
I now turn to the Bill. Clause 3 may look complicated, because if it is to be said that the man has not had a custodial sentence, you then have to say how detention orders, borstal orders, probation orders and absolute and conditional discharge orders are to be dealt with. Subsection (4) refers to statutory disqualifications which are to remain as they are—certainly disqualifications in other Acts. Most of them do not apply because they do not last for more than five years, but there are exceptions—for example, people who hold public house licences and who, if convicted of offences against our drinking laws cannot hold a licence during that period. We propose that such things as these should remain as they are. Subsection (8) raises the question of a young man convicted of something quite serious, for which he goes to prison for a year, so that he has a rehabilitation period of 10 years. For nine and a half years he leads an unblemished life and then is convicted and fined £2 for parking his car in the wrong place. The question is: does he then go back to square one? We thought that if the conviction is one on indictment the answer should be, Yes; if the conviction is one of those many cases which are indictable—that is to say, can be tried either on indictment or before the justices again, Yes; but if it is a purely summary offence, No. I hope that the House may think that that is the right balance.
Clause 4 was not in the Bill as originally drafted. The Home Office asked whether it would not be difficult for those people, and others too, to know what the rehabilitation period is in a particular case. Therefore we have inserted Clause 4, which provides that a court shall give everyone a certificate in the form set out in the Schedule, from which it will be plain what the application of this Act is to a particular case. Even if it is not practicable to do this in every single case, we feel that it would be of value if it could be done in most cases.
Clause 5(1) defines convictions for the purpose of the Act. Subsection (2) completely foxed the Home Office, and per-
720
haps I had better say a word in explanation. What it says is:
"No order made by any court in respect of any person who has not been found guilty of an offence shall, after the commencement of this Act, be given in evidence as a previous conviction of that person upon his subsequent conviction of any offence."
Your Lordships may ask how, if he is not found guilty, can it be included in his list of previous convictions? My committee had no qualifications in particular for expressing moral views: that is entirely a matter for Parliament. What they were qualified on was experience, and particularly from the Bench, because the members included three justices of the peace, a barrister, a solicitor, the Secretary of the Howard League, the Secretary of Justice, a deputy Crown Court judge and two serving London stipendiary magistrates—men who know criminals, crime, the work of the courts and the police. If a child is deserted by its parents, it is the practice in many parts of the country to say that it is in need of care and protection and the child is then committed to the care of the local authority. This fact is always included in the previous convictions list. This seems to all of us wrong. We thought that it ought to be stopped, and that is the object of this subsection.
Subsection (3) specifies the four important cases in which, although a man has gone straight for the relevant number of years, and although he is a rehabilitated person, all his old convictions can still be brought up against him. The first case is if he is thereafter convicted on indictment. I believe that is right, because it shows he is one of those very rare cases who have not been rehabilitated after all. And not only does this apply if he is tried on indictment, but if he is sent up for sentence by the magistrates' court, because that also means that he has done something seriously wrong. Subsection (3)(b) I regret—we all make mistakes ! The Home Office said, "You have not allowed for the increasing way in which old convictions are going to be slung about when the Criminal Law Revision Committee gets to work." I thought it was rather unusual to anticipate legislation, particularly when many people hope that some of the recommendations will never be part of our law. But one always tries to meet Home Office points, so we have expressly said in (b) that this

721
is subject to any changes which our law may make in the future. I do not think it does anything or that it is necessary, because naturally this Bill must be subject to later legislation. But that is the origin of it.
On adoption, we thought that the public would expect that a man applying for an adoption order should disclose his whole life. I do not know whether I agree, but there are usually applications, certainly in the county court, which are heard in private. However, I sympathise with the employer or the insurer who says: "Look at these two men: this man has been convicted of an offence of dishonesty. It is true that it happened when he was a boy and he has gone straight for 10 years, but still he is a risk in comparison with this other man, who has led an absolutely blameless life ". I sympathise with that, but of course they do not know what you know and I know and the Home Office know: that the rehabilitated man is less likely to get into any serious trouble in the future than the man who has never been in trouble at all; and I should think it very doubtful whether a court, when considering adoption, would pay any attention to a 21 year old juvenile offence. I think they are very much more likely to say that if this father adopts sons, then he is going to be more careful to see that they do not get into trouble than the ordinary father, because he knows what it is going to cost them and how long it is going to last. However, on the whole the Committee thought that exception should be given. The fourth exception, of course, concerns the consent of the rehabilitated person.
Clause 6 deals with defamation. Here one has to strike a balance, as always, between society and the individual. We all felt that the employer or ex-employer should not have to prove justification. Anyone who is in a position of either absolute or qualified privilege should retain it. Sometimes a man who gives a reference is sued for defamation. He never has to say, "Well, I am going to prove that what I said is true", because he has this other simpler defence of saying, "I was simply saying what I honestly believe". We felt that an ex-employer, asked for a reference, would be in an impossible position, and
722
although this would be less protection to the rehabilitated person than would the contrary, one has, as I say, to take all aspects into account. We felt that the ex-employer giving a reference ought to be able to retain his qualified privilege. Then we dealt with things in Law Reports, textbooks and innocent republications there defined.
Clause 7 deals with police records. This is a difficult problem. The police are subject to the Official Secrets Acts so, strictly speaking, it is a breach of the Official Secrets Acts for the police to disclose criminal records unless they are authorised to do so. I have asked the noble Viscount to give consideration to this question because, as I have told him, I am not sure what the position is. He probably has not yet had time to consider it. My recollection is that about a year ago in the other place somebody made a fuss because the Home Secretary had authorised the police to give the criminal record of a doctor to the General Medical Council. That only surprised me because I thought it was so well known that the police, on the authority of the Home Secretary, always sent convictions of professional men to their professional organisation. Mr. Maudling said that he would reconsider the whole question, particularly whether the man, who I understand, is not usually told, should be told when that is done, and in effect what people should be involved.
It is so easy to forget a question, or to miss something, as I did the other day on the Administration of Justice Bill. I do not recollect having seen anything about that matter since, and perhaps the Minister could assist us. What the Bill proposes in this respect is to leave things exactly where they are. There are these highly sensitive areas, but it may be quite right to do this; the Secretary of State, after all, is responsible to Parliament for the way in which he exercises this discretion. I think the matter goes rather far sometimes. It may be all right, I do not know, if a foreign national is convicted of something, to tell his embassy, or if a Commonwealth citizen is concerned, to tell his High Commissioner. But there arose a case where a young man had committed several offences. He was a first offender and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment. That was a long time ago, and probably that would not

723
be done now. When he came out of prison he got a job as a shop assistant and he worked very hard. He obtained "O" levels and "A" levels. He qualified for university and obtained a degree. He had a professional qualification.
Some 14 years after the juvenile episode he accepted an appointment as a teacher in his own speciality in a Commonwealth university. There was no question on the application form about convictions. He sold his house; he and his wife gave up their jobs; they took their boys away from school and the family pets were disposed of. Four days before he was due to sail, the university cancelled the appointment because the High Commissioner had asked the Criminal Record Office and they told him about the conviction 14 years previously. As it was a breach of contract the university had to refund the passage money and expenses, but there he was without a house 'or job. It took six years before he got back in the same position. This is perhaps going rather too far, but it is a case—and I am not criticising the Home Secretary—for a really good look at who ought to be included on the list of people to whom the contents of the Criminal Record Office are divulged, and how old the convictions should be.
Those are authorised disclosures. I am afraid that there are unauthorised disclosures, and these are of two kinds. One is when it is done voluntarily. Five years ago there were over a hundred detective agencies in London alone, many of them run by ex-police officers. They have friends in the C.R.O., and I am afraid that a certain amount of unauthorised information is passed on. Having mentioned inquiry agents, may I at once say that I have read of a case pending in the newspapers. I know nothing of the agency concerned, and nothing I say is intended to apply to them.
The other class of case is where it is done by fraud, and this happens, too. The ex-policeman in the inquiry agent's office knows the situation, rings up the C.R.O. and says, "This is Camberwell Police Station, we have a man who has been brought in". The C.R.O. is given the name and address of the man and, believing the telephone call to come from the police station, they give the information.
724
We thought that this ought to be stopped. We thought that the first difficulty was that nobody wanted to prosecute under the Official Secrets Act. It is a sledgehammer which is unpopular with everybody. We thought that a police officer who voluntarily disclosed unauthorised information ought to be subject to a specific offence punishable by a fine up to £100. An inquiry agent who obtains information by fraud ought to be liable to fines up to £400, or six months in prison.
My Lords, it only remains for me to thank the Home Office, who I know have taken a lot of trouble with this Bill, leading insurers with whom I have discussed it, chief constables and judges with whom I have discussed it. I should add that the Bill applies to Scotland. We thought that it was a pity that so many Bills apply to England and Wales, leaving Scotland to tag along three or four years later. We saw no reason why, if it was right for England and Wales, it was not right for Scotland. We consulted our Scottish legal friends, and we hope and believe that we are right.
I should like to thank those who have supported the Bill. It has had a very good Press, particularly a good legal Press. The Confederation of British Industry has appointed a special six-man committee to go into every aspect of the Bill from the employer's point of view. I have seen them, and they have unanimously recommended to their Council that the Bill should not be opposed. I am equally grateful to the most reverend Primate, who referred the Bill to his Committee for Moral Responsibility, of which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield is chairman. He is unfortunately unable to be here, but the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York is familiar with their views. I should like to acknowledge my personal indebtedness to the then Lord Chief Justice, the late Lord Parker of Waddington, with whom I was in touch during our deliberations and who, when I sent him the report, wrote to me and said:
"If I may say so, I think that the report is excellent and arrives at a proper balance between the interests of the individual and the interests of the public. Moreover, the idea behind it is not only more appropriate to our system, but is far better than that adopted by other countries. As at present advised, I should support a Bill carrying out the recommendations in the report, though it may be

725
that I would seek to change it in some respects of detail."
He then very kindly made a suggestion about how hospital orders should be treated, which I need hardly say I adopted.
There is one case in our report that I know myself. She is called "Joan" in the report, though that is not her name. In 1929, Joan, then eighteen, was convicted of soliciting. A few years later she married and has ever since led the life of a good citizen. Two of her three children married, and she now has four grandchildren. Neither her husband nor her children know of her conviction. She has always known that if, for any reason, she became newsworthy any newspaper could publish the information. Since it were true she would have no remedy or redress. No newspaper has yet done so, although other people in a similar position have not been so fortunate. She has lived her whole life under this shadow and even now, at the age of 62, it is something which she knows may explode under her feet at any time. I think that this is wrong; society ought to do something at some time during the lives of these people—and there are a million of them—to relieve them of this heavy burden. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(Lord Gardiner)

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT: UNITED STATES AIRLINES' DECISION
4.19 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, it may be convenient if, with the leave of the House, I now reply to a Private Notice Question put earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. My honourable friend the Minister for Aerospace has just answered a similar Question in another place, and I will use the same words. He said:
"I very much regret that Pan American Airways and Trans World Airways have felt unable to purchase Concorde at present. Both have, however, indicated that they will maintain an interest in the future of the programme, and be open to further discussions with the manufacturers. I
726
very much hope that both airlines will decide at a later date to order Concorde.
"The manufacturers are now engaged in an active sales campaign and are in detailed negotiations with a number of other airlines. The British and French Governments will continue to give the manufacturers every support in these negotiations."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for making that Statement on a matter in which there is considerable public interest. First, as I have done before, I must declare an interest with B.A.C.; but because of that interest I say the more confidently that those associated with this great project, and all those who wish it well, will approve the indication in this Statement of the Government's position, and especially when they say that they are giving continuing support to the manufacturers in negotiations that are now continuing. It is right to make clear that it is options and not orders that have been cancelled, and it would he quite wrong to allow this action by companies with temporary financial difficulties to determine the future of this great Anglo-French effort. I hope the noble Lord will agree that this undoubted disappointment should also be regarded as a challenge, and that he can make this the occasion when there is a decisive shift in initiative, so far as technical innovation is concerned, from the United States to Europe.
Finally, may I, as one who has always been in favour of the most open of open Governments, ask whether the noble Lord will agree with me when I say that the maximum public support for this project will be ensured if the maximum of facts are known by the public? In that light, would he therefore at this time consider very sympathetically the Amendment put down by the Opposition in another place to the Concorde Bill, asking for a Select Committee to look into the matter?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I do not know whether I have the position right, but am I to understand that the Government are going to proceed with the production of Concorde irrespective of whether or not orders are forthcoming? If not, have they any plans for employ-

727
ing in alternative schemes workers now engaged on the Concorde project who may become redundant?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for what he has said. I am sure that what he has said reflects the view of the House as a whole. I quite agree with him that this is a disappointment, and at the same time a challenge. He asked whether maximum public support would be better obtained through the publication of facts, and, to that end, that a Select Committee be set up. The House will probably be aware that on December 11 last the idea of a Select Committee was turned down in another place. But, having said that, I would put it to the House that what has to be considered is whether or not setting up a Select Committee at this time would make it easier to carry out negotiations and to make sales of Concorde. This is the main consideration that is before us, but I will certainly convey to my honourable friend what the noble Lord has said.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked two questions—an "either/or", really. We are certainly going to proceed with production. There are 16 production aircraft at present being manufactured. Five letters of intent have been put in, and 33 options are still outstanding. With the nine firm orders already received—that is to say, those from British Overseas Airways Corporation and the French—that makes a total of 47 in all. The noble Lord was right also to put the alternative: if we did not go on with it, what would the effect be? There are 24.000 people employed at the present time in this country in connection with Concorde.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his remarks are very reassuring and this is not the time for the Government to lose their nerve? Would he take into account that, though the United States are not proceeding with their own supersonic transport, the Soviet Russians are, with the T.U. 144, and that Britain and France and the E.E.C. cannot be left out of what is an international race, having gone so far? Nevertheless, is my noble friend aware that many figures are bandied around about the economics and the performance
728
of Concorde? If he does not set up a Select Committee, could some Green Paper be published by an independent body giving the economics of the aircraft, once and for all to "kill" those who try to knock Concorde?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I can assure your Lordships that the Government have no intention of losing their nerve. Certainly nothing has been said in this House to-day which would in any way tend to shake their nerve. My noble friend is of course entirely right about the Russian T.U. 144, which will be coming into production in 1975. We believe that we have a better plane than they are producing, and we believe it is certainly the intention of B.O.A.C. and the French at the same time to be the first, or, rather, equal first, in flying international services with a supersonic type of aircraft. If I may answer the other question about the Green Paper, again I will put this to my honourable friend. I fully agree it is important that the public should be apprised of the facts.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that this decision by Pan Am and T.W.A. was not taken in any way on the technical merits of this aircraft, which have been superb, but was taken as a result of the fact that these two U.S. airlines and other airlines over-ordered in anticipation of a growing number of air travellers which has not in fact been realised? They therefore find themselves with too many aircraft, too few customers, and an adverse profit position. This is the reason why they have deferred any final decision on Concorde. Will my noble friend bear in mind that I endorse what has been said and that I feel that more information should be made available? I cannot help coming down against having a Select Committee, because one has to remember that a large amount of evidence would be given to that Select Committee. There is a strong anti-Concorde lobby, which seems to be very vociferous in our media, particularly on television, and I can see selective quotations appearing from that Select Committee which could be used against Concorde and might make the sale of this successful aircraft difficult for those who were driving ahead with a really worthwhile project. Lastly, would my noble

729
friend bear in mind that, although the Atlantic route is important—it is a Blue Riband route—those of us who have to travel to the Far East, to Japan, and particularly to Australia, are longing for the day when we can travel in Concorde and not take 36 exhausting hours over the journey as at present?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend on the matter of the Atlantic route's being by no means the only route that is to be flown. The Far East route is in some ways easier than the other; and of course, being further off, it is in some ways all the more important. As for the reasons on the part of these two airlines for deferring purchase, it is for them to give the reasons, and not for me. Some of us will of course have read the morning papers, but I should prefer not to comment further. As to the idea of a Select Committee, again the factors which the noble Lord has mentioned will be among those that will be taken into account by my honourable friend.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that there is some commercial jealousy in the world of our great achievement in this supersonic aircraft, and that therefore it would be complete and absolute madness to cancel it? This puts us years ahead of the Americans in supersonic travel. I should like to support my noble friend behind me, Lord Orr-Ewing, and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, opposite. I support them most strongly in what they have said.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, again, I cannot go into the psychological motives of others. But, apart from that, I entirely agree with my noble friend.

NORTHERN IRELAND: SECTARIAN MURDERS
4.30 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to repeat a Statement which has just been made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in another place. The Statement is as follows:
730
"Following the spate of sectarian killings towards the end of last year a Joint Task Force of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Military Police was set up in December to investigate and prevent sectarian murders. In the first three weeks of January there was a marked decline in the number of murders and of murder attempts. Two people were murdered in this period, one Catholic and one Protestant. Bad as this was, it was a marked improvement, and much of the credit should be given to the Task Force, which was responsible for the arrest of three men who have been charged with three murders committed last year.
"However, there has now been a fresh and appalling wave of murders. During the last four days five people have been murdered, one of them a mere boy, and there have also been cases of attempted murder. And now this morning at about 8 o'clock a grenade was thrown in Kingsway Park on the East side of Belfast at a bus which was carrying men to their work in Dundonald. One man was killed and nine others injured, of whom three are still in hospital.
"On behalf of Her Majesty's Government I would like to express deep regret and extend our sympathy to the families of those killed and injured in these recent bestial incidents. Every effort is being made by the security forces to apprehend those responsible for these crimes. Since January 1, sixteen people have been charged with ten murders. A massive security operation has been carried out to-day by the security forces in the area in which the bus was attacked, and is still going on."
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement, and I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is unable to be present. I should like first to echo the sympathy expressed to the families for what the noble Viscount has rightly described as "bestial incidents". It is almost impossible to imagine what sort of people could commit these recent crimes.
We have consistently supported the Secretary of State, and indeed all those

731
forces of law and order in Northern Ireland. There are just a few questions that I should like to ask. First, how far have the U.D.A., as well as the U.D.F., possibly some connection with these killings? We have heard the statement made recently by Mr. Heron, that they would no longer seek to control these assassination attempts; and of course against this background there is a suspicion that these forces may be going more extremist. It is not for me to interpret, and I recognise that the Government may feel hesitant in doing so. None the less, I think it is right to say that there has been some acceptance of responsibility for bombing, although I think that it is the U.D.F. who have in fact done it. No doubt the Government are looking closely to see whether there is a link of this kind. On the other side, it is noteworthy that some of those who sympathise with the Nationalist forces—the Social Democratic and Labour Party—have now been asking for firmer action against such assassinations. I could only wish that they had all given firmer support to the security forces on other occasions. It is as a consequence of this appalling train of events that these things have occurred.
There are two other questions that I should like to ask. First, would not the Government, who are in grave difficulties in this matter, as we all appreciate, do better to get on and publish the White Paper at this moment? Almost any new movement might perhaps change the atmosphere, although I appreciate that the Government may think that it might change it for the worse. But they have to face this at some stage. Then there is the suggestion that even legally held weapons ought to be called in, even if subsequently they have to be reissued to those who need them. My Lords, I think there is little that we in this House can do, beyond expressing sympathy and hoping that the security forces are successful in their efforts. And it is to be noted that a number of prosecutions for murder are taking place.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, since the people in Northern Ireland seem to be reverting in considerable numbers to the level of the beast, might not the Government perhaps now consider the introduction of some kind of martial law
732
whereby anyone found in possession of an unauthorised lethal weapon would be automatically condemned to a long spell of imprisonment? Secondly, can the Minister say how many of the fifteen people charged with nine murders recently are Catholic and how many are Protestant?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for echoing what I believe to be the reaction of the whole House to these recent events and sharing the sympathy of us all with those who have been deprived of their relatives.
As to the noble Lord's particular questions, I am a little hesitant to go far into the question of the involvement of some of the Protestant organisations. For one thing, I personally do not know at first hand what the situation is, although it is perfectly true that recently a very large number of articles of ammunition and weapons and explosives have been found in Protestant areas. In precisely whose hands, or the hands of what organisation they are, I do not know. We, of course, keep permanently under supervision and under control the situation as regards both the Protestants and the Catholics, and there is no differentiation between the care with which we investigate offences against the one as opposed to the other sort of community. This fact cannot be stressed too much.
As for the White Paper, I know that this is urgently under preparation at the moment. I am afraid that I do not know when it is going to be published, but the question of legally held weapons is one that has been raised from time to time and I know how concerned people are. My right honourable friend is also very concerned about this matter, and he has in the forefront of his mind the question of deciding what should be done(and, if anything, when) on the question of calling them in. But I do not think he has yet made any decision. If he does, we shall soon hear about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked about martial law. I do not think one needs martial law in Northern Ireland to attract a pretty severe sentence for carrying illegal weapons. I should have thought that, without any question, anybody found with weapons in the sort of

733
circumstances that the noble Lord had in mind would very soon find himself serving an extremely long term of imprisonment or suffering some other form of penalty. With regard to the numbers of Catholics and Protestants, the figures that I have show that there were 15 Protestants charged with the murder of 7 Roman Catholics and 2 Protestants in January and December. What the religion of the 16th was I am not sure, but 15 were Protestants.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, would my noble friend ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to have conveyed to the task force to which he referred, and to the security forces generally, the very warm appreciation of their efforts of both Houses of Parliament and our constant support in what they are trying to do?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it must be a very great comfort to the security forces in Northern Ireland—and I do not mean just the task force which is mentioned in this Statement but also the Army, the Special Branch and the police, and all those concerned—that they should have the consistent support and congratulation of my noble friend Lord Oakshott and many other noble Lords in this House and of Members in another place, and I shall gladly do what he asks.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, may I ask the Minister a question arising out of his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton? I know that I am treading on very delicate ground, but can he assure the House that, or ask his noble friend Lord Windlesham whether, the information in the possession of the Special Branch in Northern Ireland about the activities and organisation of the Ulster Volunteer Force is approximately—and I mean only approximately—as good as that on the I.R.A.? I ask this question because my colleagues and I in 1969 were not satisfied on that point.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the question of the calibre of information about any particular sector of the population in Northern Ireland is rather a delicate one. I entirely understand the anxiety that lies behind the noble Lord's question. I would rather not say anything about it, but I will
734
certainly pass on to my noble friend Lord Windlesham the fact that the noble Lord has raised this matter specifically in the House this afternoon.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, can the noble Lord say in respect of how many sectarian murders someone has been charged during the last two or three months? This is the point that particularly worries people. They do not hear —and perhaps it is their fault—how many people are identified.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, 130 people have been murdered and so far 24 people have been charged since last May, including the 16 I mentioned earlier. But some of those charged are alleged to have been involved in more than one of the murders. So we are beginning to get results; and the results have greatly increased in the last two months.

REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS BILL [H.L.]
4.43 p.m.
Second Reading debate continued.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, after listen-to a grave and tragic report of the kind we have just heard from the noble Viscount, it is always a little difficult to revert to the more pedestrian business on which we were engaged. But possibly my intervention, being very brief, will be of some assistance to the noble Viscount in allowing him a short interval of time as he moves from one subject to another.
I shall be very brief because I am a wholehearted supporter of this Bill and I do not think that the House will be very much concerned to listen to somebody who is such a wholehearted supporter but will no doubt be waiting, first of all to know what the attitude of the Government is towards this Bill and, secondly, to hear the criticisms—if there are going to be any—which will be developed later in the debate.
There are just three things which I should like to say. The first is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in concluding his presentation of the Bill expressed his thanks to all those who were associated with him and to all those who had given him and his Committee

735
assistance in the preparation of the report and of the Bill. I am sure that it will be the wish of the House that the first person speaking after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, should say on behalf of all of us—and I certainly say it for myself—how very grateful we are to him, and to the Committee over which he presided, and which prepared the report which is the basis of this Bill, because, in my humble estimation, this is a major contribution in the field of penal reform. I do not know which to admire more: the good sense and compassion which have inspired this Bill, or the ingenuity of the solution at which they have arrived.
I do not think that there will be very much argument in this House, or anywhere else, about the need for something to be done to deal with the present situation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, referred us to some of those shocking examples which appear in the report of the way in which people commit an offence and are convicted, very often in early youth, then rebuild their lives and, some long time afterwards—it may be years or even decades afterwards—suddenly, possibly by pure accident, the ancient conviction comes to light and may result in public ruin and domestic disaster. As I say, I do not believe that anybody is going to dispute the need for reform, and I suggest that it should be borne in mind. Here I refer to the last example which the noble and learned Lord gave us, of the woman who was convicted of soliciting and has had that fact hanging over her head all these years. The tragedy involved in these cases is not much less for the people who take their secret to the grave, because they live their lives day in, day out, year in, year out, with this shadow over them, never knowing when the bomb that they are carrying about with them is going to explode. Those people live lives of prolonged tragedy and uncertainty. They are the people for whom this Bill also provides, because the object of this Bill is to de-fuse the bomb with the passage of time.
Therefore, I doubt very much whether there will be much argument about the need for something to be done. Where I believe we shall have some dissension or dispute is on whether the method which
736
has been evolved by this Committee and by the noble and learned Lord is indeed the best solution to the problem. My own view, for what it is worth, is that the solution which has been arrived at is at the same time ingenious; it will he effective to achieve the purpose which the sponsors of the Bill have in mind, and—this is the point which I want to emphasise in particular—it seems to me that the solution which has been put forward, the proposal that has been made for trying to cope with this situation, is one which does not in any way conflict with the principles and practices which are part of our legal system and which have been part of our legal system for centuries past.
What is proposed by this Bill—putting it in a couple of sentences—is not (and the noble and learned Lord gave us the reasons for this) that the fact of the conviction should be expunged from the record. What is proposed is simply that after the passage of the rehabilitation period, which may be appropriate to any particular offender, he should be protected by a curtain of silence. It is not an attempt, as the noble and learned Lord said, to make something "unhappen". It is not an attempt to alter the unalterable or deny the undeniable, but simply an attempt to provide that a fact shall not be admissible in evidence simply because it is true.
It does not seem to me that this is in any way repugnant to the practices of our legal system in the past. The noble and learned Lord referred, for example, to the rule of evidence by which we do not admit hearsay evidence. There are various other forms of evidence which are inadmissible, however true they may be. It is inadmissible to put in irrelevant evidence, however true it may be. It is prohibited in the discretion of the judge to admit evidence whose prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. And, of course, as we all know, in the generality of cases in criminal trials it is not permissible to give any evidence of the accused man's previous convictions. However true all these things may be, we say, "No, it is not right that they should be put forward".
May I consider what is the reason, the philosophy, behind it? I suggest it is this: it is a recognition that if you admit anything in evidence simply because it is

737
true then in fact you may be led into grievous error. Not only may it be a grave injustice to the individual himself, but the court which admits such evidence, simply because it is true, may be leading itself into mistake and error. It is, of course, important and salutary that people should not tell lies, but I suggest that it is also important and salutary that people should not tell unnecessary truths. We are all familiar with the concept of the injurious falsehood. One of the concepts which is embedded in our legal system, with which we are perhaps not so familiar, is the concept of the injurious veracity. The virtue of this Bill is that, as it seems to us, it puts forward a solution to this problem which is wholly consistent with the practices and principles of the laws of evidence in this land as they have been for a long time. For these reasons, and for many others, it is my earnest hope, and I think it is a hope which is shared by a majority of my colleagues on these Benches, that the noble and learned Lord will add still further to his distinguished record in the field of law reform by eventually carrying this Bill on to the Statute Book.
4.52 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I must apologise that before the debate is through I shall have to leave the House for an engagement long entered into before this Motion came up. I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for allowing me to take his place in the order of speakers. We are indeed grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and his colleagues for the Living it Down report and for the work that has gone into the drawing up of this Bill, a Bill which I am sure will elicit a large measure of support from a great number of people on both sides of the House. It has been said that a man's real punishment begins when he comes out of prison, and that has all too frequently been the case in years gone by. I think we are agreed that there should be a time when the stigma is removed and when the bogey is no longer likely to emerge from the cupboard and damn the man's life for the future. How many men there must be who have come out from supportive hostels—and may the number of such hostels increase!—and who have found work and begun a good career,
738
only to have that work snatched from them because their fellow employees have refused to work with them because of their past record and have forced their dismissal. An offence has been dragged up and the man's good record has been ruined.
There are certain points which I hope will be looked at perhaps comparatively minor compared with the main drift of this excellent Bill. No one sentenced to a term of over two years' imprisonment can benefit from its provisions. It may be thought that that is a little severe, and perhaps that the periods of rehabilitation are a trifle long. I hope that both those points will be looked at again. May there not be cases, especially among the younger prisoners, where so long a period may lead to the very thing we want to avoid, namely, recidivism? True that between the years of 12 and 17 the period is to be halved, but the formation of character goes on well past the 17th year, and one wonders whether possibly that period ought to be extended at least a little. Shortening the period of rehabilitation would indeed have to be hedged around with caution in order to protect the public, but I think this would not be impossible.
It was some sixty years ago that the Home Secretary of the day pleaded—and I quote his words—for
"… tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerative processes for the convicted criminal against the State."
These processes, he declared, required an attitude of what he called unfailing faith that there is a treasure, if only you can find it, in the heart of every man. And they are the symbols which, in the treatment of crime and criminals, mark and measure the stored up strength of a nation and are sign and proof of the living virtue in it. The "Home Secretary of the day" was one called Winston Churchill.
My Lords, it seems to me that a very significant aspect of this Bill is that it expresses a sensible concern to further the efforts already being made in encouraging those who have paid the price of their crime to re-establish themselves as responsible and useful citizens. It would, I think, if passed, promote a new social climate in which the returning offender may come to feel that the community is

739
more friendly and encouraging than suspicious and hostile towards his efforts to make good. It is bound to have some effect for good, even during the years of the rehabilitation period, and in that it will tend to make vindictive and self-righteous people think twice before they deliberately impede the man's progress towards rehabilitation.
If the passing of this Bill did something to reduce the recidivism which clogs up our prisons and reduces the effectiveness of their training programme, it would be infinitely worth while for that alone. Indeed, it could be a kind of posthumous fulfilment of the work of men like the late Lord Stonham, who campaigned to reduce the appalling total of human waste represented by recidivism. And I think it would also underline the emphatic insistence of the report of the Working Party so ably presided over by the late Lady Reading, which insisted that the essential point to get across to the public is that the vast majority of offenders are not dangerous criminals but individuals who are handicapped by their inadequacy. To go on treating them as second-class citizens who can have their future dragged from under their feet at any time by their past serves only to make our social problems, which are intractable enough already, even more intractable.
The basic need is for a social framework of positive and stable relationships which will encourage such men and women to make good. This Bill at least recognises their reversionary rights to the society against which they have offended, and it is, I believe, another step forward towards a social climate in which the caring community can develop its capacity to cope with a problem which has hitherto outstripped social attitudes which have not yet come into line with our deeper new social awareness.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has already mentioned the point about which some of us still feel an element of unease. It was put crudely in an article in a Sunday newspaper last weekend, the writer of which gave a very appreciative review of the Bill before your Lordships. The article began:
"At least a million people in Britain will be encouraged to lie about their criminal records with the full approval of the law."
That was putting it very bluntly. To
740
this, I suppose, members of the Committee which wrote Living it Down, and were behind the drawing up of this Bill would reply that in law such statements will be true. But I think there will continue to be very many—and they will include those whom this Bill is aimed to help—who think that a lie is a lie, whatever the law says about it.
One hopes that reform would proceed by making it an offence to ask questions in a form other than that to which a person could give a truthful answer without his disclosing his criminal record. I speak as a layman in these affairs, but would it not be possible to put such a question as, "Have you ever been convicted of an offence which, in the past, has not been rehabilitated?", and insist that the answer be a monosyllabic "Yes" or "No", with no qualification at all, such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, hinted might have to be made, or would be made, by one who had never previously been rehabilitated? However, these are minor matters. They are warts which I think could be cured by a bit of careful surgery. The main tenor of the Bill seems to me to be an admirable one, and it is much to be hoped that it will be given the overwhelming approval of your Lordships' House.
5.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it is very easy for me—and I shall be genuine in so doing—to echo the sentiments expressed by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who underlined the good that this Bill will do to those who, having run foul of the law, have suffered either a prison sentence or some other penalty, but have now lived it down. It is a just tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and his colleagues on the Committee, who produced first of all the report and now, after a great deal of work, the draft Bill, that there should be so much interest in your Lordships' House this afternoon and so long a list of speakers. It is the sort of Bill in which this House excels, and I think that we shall debate it with very great advantage this afternoon, and on future occasions as well.
I want to make some comments on what is in the Bill, and I have also, I am

741
bound to say, some criticisms to make. It would be irresponsible of me if I did not draw attention to some of the by-products of the Bill. I do not do so in any sense hostile to the noble and learned Lord, but I want to try to demonstrate to him—and perhaps to some others who may not have thought of all these points—that there are other aspects of these proposals which do not appear in his report. It may just be that even his great legal brain has not thought of them; but they are matters which we should consider at the same time as we are dealing with the more general issues that have been covered in the speeches—not so much of his own speech, because the was a resumé of the report—but of other noble Lords who have already spoken. If, as the debate goes on, there are other individual cases of the sort that the noble and learned Lord mentioned that we ought to try to deal with, I shall be just as interested in them as I was in the ones at the beginning of Living it Down.
I should not be surprised if, at the end of this evening, the broad principle of the Bill were accepted by everybody who speaks in the debate this afternoon. Of course this is only one of the methods whereby we can deal with the matter. We have to decide whether the legislative approach adopted in the Bill is justified in principle, and in terms of the restraints that it places on other people in other circumstances, and whether it is likely to be workable and effective. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, says that it is ingenious. I wonder quite how effective it is, and whether it does not have some unforeseen by-products. Before I continue with that theme I must echo my own sense of slight doubt about something the most reverend Primate has already mentioned: this idea of the authorised untruth. It may be the best of the four choices open to the noble and learned Lord, but it is not altogether palatable to everybody. After all, the Bill itself talks about the oath: the oath is to tell the whole truth. As I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, it is that the whole truth may, on some occasions, be the unnecessarily whole truth. But "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," has been the basis of the oath in the courts for a very long time in this country, and one
742
becomes a little hesitant in overturning that principle.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, would the noble Viscount allow me to interrupt for a moment? Would he not agree that the fault may be with the oath? We call upon people to swear an oath saying that they will tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", and before they have gone very far in giving their evidence we tell them, "You cannot tell us that, because although it is true you are not permitted to do so under the laws of evidence."
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, if I am tempted into the hearsay analogy, I am bound to say that I have some doubts about the complete propriety of that analogy with the solution that is put forward in this Bill. I do not want to get involved in this aspect. I make my point: I do not think that everybody likes the authorised lie—and we should face up to that straight away—but it may be the best method we have so far of dealing with the issue.
Let me first deal with the certificates—that is Clause 4 and the Schedule. It is a little hard, perhaps, on the noble and learned Lord, if he put this in at the behest of the Home Office because we did not see how it was going to work, that he should now receive the next passage of my speech in return. I am sorry about it, but there it is. What one has to do if one can is to devise a method which is suitable for this country. I am fascinated about the law of Ethiopia, and I am equally pleased to know what happens in the courts where the law is derived from Roman law, such as France and probably Austria. But, my Lords, we are not, in this country, dealing with a situation where a criminal conviction carries with it a loss of civil rights as a matter of course. This is the reason why, in most of the Roman law countries, there is some method, whereby, after a time, a man gets his civil rights back and is allowed to vote again and do whatever it is that he was precluded by the conviction from doing. This is the essence of the process of rehabilitation; and although it may have some very useful by-products in other respects as well, it does not apply here because we do not have that system.

743
Without going further into foreign law, I will merely point out that we must have a system that works well for our own country.
The system here is the certificate; that is what the noble and learned Lord suggests. It is intended to have evidential value, but the principal piece of evidence that it carries is of course the one thing that the Bill is setting out to obliterate. It draws attention to the very offence from which the person is to be rehabilitated. Therefore, although I appreciate that it is the best that has so far been produced, it has exactly the opposite effect of what one would hope if it is ever to be produced in any circumstances at all. Either it is produced to show that the man is not rehabilitated, in which case he is no better off, or he produces it and in doing so draws attention to the very offence that he is wishing to get away from.
There are further points than that. One of the points made is that after the certificate has been given in respect of one conviction, there shall not be another one afterwards; or, alternatively, if there were conditions such as the payment of a fine those conditions shall have been fulfilled. Most fines are paid eventually, but they may not be paid in accordance with the order of the court, and one does not know exactly how anybody is to find out whether the full requirements of the sentencing court have been fulfilled. One certainly cannot see from the certificate itself whether there has been a supervening conviction which cancels out the effect of the original certificate and starts the process over again. So, certificate or no certificate, the offender, and anybody else who wants to know whether a stale conviction can be safely disregarded and is indeed obliterated, has one source to go back to; that is, the court records. These will have to be kept very accurately and with a great deal of cross-referencing for many years—for ten years in the case of the longest rehabilitation sentence—and where different courts are concerned they will have to cross-check with each other.
I must suggest to the House that this will mean a good deal in terms of manpower and extra work for the staff of the Crown Courts and the magistrates' courts.
744
The number of people found guilty of criminal offences, both indictable and non-indictable, in 1971 was 1,687,980. That does not mean that they were necessarily all different people, because there may have been several offences in the same case. One could deduct perhaps 3,000 for long sentences not covered by the Bill, but I should have thought that somewhere in the region of 1 million certificates would have had to be issued in 1971 under the Bill. I do not think the noble and learned Lord has consulted the staff of the courts about this point. I do not think he had time and I do not blame him for not doing so; we have not yet done so either. But it is a formidable job that we are putting on them and, at the end of the day, I wonder what use this certificate, if it has been kept, will be except to draw attention to the very thing we want to forget. There is one other technical point about the certificates. The Bill does not deal with what happens on an appeal, and this is something which would also have to be put right.
I should like to look away from the criminal law for a moment at a field that has only been touched on in the Bill and in the speeches so far, and that is the by-product effect of the Bill on the civil law. Like the noble and learned Lord who prefaces his report with some case histories, I should like to give some examples to the House of what could happen under this Bill. I do not think these are ridiculous cases. I have rejected the ones which are so farfetched and so rare as not to be on the cards at all. May I take the example of a road accident involving a young man of seventeen and his motor-cycle, which I regret to say is a fairly common occurrence, in the course of which he seriously injures somebody else, and that other person's injuries are of the sort that take a long time to recover from? As the noble and learned Lord will know very well, in these circumstances a civil action for damages is very often not brought until very near the end of the limitation period, in order that the final outcome of the injuries can be examined. It is no use starting an action too early, because if the damages are assessed before the final outcome of the medical reports you either give too much or too little, owing to the fact that you have not reached the end of the illness.

745
In the case I have mentioned, the young man was fined for the offence which caused the accident. After 2½ years he becomes rehabilitated under this Bill, because he is under 18. The result is that all the evidence tending to prove that he is other than innocent of careless or dangerous driving is precluded from admission in any court, and that includes the civil court. That means that the person who was injured must make certain that his or her civil action for damages for negligence is brought to court before the 2½ years are up, because otherwise the measurements which the policeman took on the road cannot be mentioned, and any evidence connecting the young man with carelessness cannot be mentioned, because they will tend to show that he has been guilty of an offence and such evidence is made inadmissible under the Bill. On the other hand, if the action is started so that it is heard within the 2½ years, you may be in exactly the position that I have mentioned; that you have not yet reached the stage of knowing the final outcome of the injury, and the case ought not really to be tried at that stage.
Then one comes to divorce. The noble and learned Lord mentioned divorce in France. There are some circumstances, which I shall not go into in detail, where wives—or indeed husbands—who wished to base divorce petitions upon criminal incidents in which their spouses had taken part could get into difficulties. The most obvious one relates to an offence for which the other party was put on probation, but since I disagree so fundamentally with the length of time of rehabilitation after probation, I shall leave that out because that could be cured. But may I put one point on divorce to the noble and learned Lord? Everybody now knows that the divorce itself does not turn any more on fault, on guilt or on innocence. But these matters of responsibility for the breakdown are relevant in sorting out the money and property, because although it is behind the scenes it is part of the divorce hearing and the court will wish to go into the full history of the marriage; to try to see how much money each of the two parties should have and how it should be shared out; to go into the question of who should have the children and so on.
746
Are we to prevent the courts from knowing that the reason why the parties originally separated was because the husband went to prison; or the reason why the wife had to sell all the furniture was because the husband was in prison and she had no other money to live on? After certain periods in prison, and after a rehabilitation period, the registrar or the judge would be precluded from hearing any evidence at all on this point, or any evidence to suggest that the husband did anything to the wife, such as beating her up, for which he got a prison sentence. So we could have a very strange state of affairs and a very unfair settlement of the matrimonial property. This is a matter which needs seriously to be looked at, because although it has nothing to do with crime itself it could lead to great unfairness and hardship in another field.
Insurance was considered by the Committee, and the noble and learned Lord said that he has discussed this Bill with leading insurers. But let me tell the House how it will work. Let us suppose that a company had a block fidelity bond insurance with an insurance company, and there was an employee who stole, say, £200 in 1963 and was sent to prison for two years. He came out and in due course, in 1973, got another job with another company which had a block fidelity bond insurance with the same insurance company. Unfortunately, and perhaps as a great exception, in due course he stole from the second company. Now he told his second employer that he had no previous criminal convictions, and he was entitled to do so because, under the Bill, he was rehabilitated, it being more than 10 years. The company therefore claimed on its policy, but the insurance company knew from its own records and from the previous case that this man had a record, and it therefore sought to repudiate, saying, "The company has failed to tell us something which is material"—and under the law it is for the insurance company to show that something material has not been disclosed. Under the Bill they could not do so, because if they were sued for the money under the insurance policy they could not bring evidence to show that that employee had previously been convicted of dishonesty.
I do not know whether the insurance companies have realised that this is the

747
situation, and I do not know whether they are convinced by the noble and learned Lord's statistics, on which, I am bound to say, I place a little less faith, because I have not seen how they break down as between different sorts of offences— and this is relevant in this connection. I do not know whether the insurance companies realise the risks they are taking and what the effects would be on their premiums. But let me say this. Suppose we take the very same case but assume that on the first occasion the employee was not sent to prison but was fined. Then, of course, the rehabilitation period is five years. There is nothing whatever, even in the statistics that have been produced, such as they are, which suggest that he is not a risk again in five years. But, equally, if he does offend again, the insurance company will not be able to find out and the employers will not be able to find out, and the insurance company will not be able to avoid payment on that policy even though they know that that man has been previously convicted of dishonesty. My Lords, I wonder whether the insurance world has fully grasped the details of this.
Of course, to take it further still, we get the ridiculous situation—and I shall come back to this—where if, on the first occasion, instead of being prosecuted and either fined or sent to prison, the employee had simply been sacked, then the insurance company could find out and could act upon the matter, because they could discover from the employer and there would be no rehabilitation period and no bar on the use of this information for ever afterwards. But I shall come back to this in connection with references, because there I think it is even more important.
In defamation, which has also been mentioned, we have a main pivot of the Bill, because it is upon the frightening effect of possible defamation suits that I think many of the changes in the public attitude which the noble and learned Lord wants will turn. In this country, defamation traditionally carries with it the defence that what was said is true. This is the defence of justification. Of course, I hope that private people and newspapers will not go "muck-raking", but let us just consider people's position in the field of defamation. I have already
748
explained that under the certification procedure it will not be very easy to know when a person is definitely rehabilitated from an offence. It will not be very easy for the neighbour next door. He will not go round searching in court records and asking earnestly of the courts to see whether something which he knows has happened to his neighbour has now been cleared from the books. Suppose that he does not do so and that in the course of an argument he says that his neighbour is a very bad driver, and the reason why he thinks this is because a few years ago his neighbour was convicted of dangerous driving and fined. It may be perfectly true that he was fined for dangerous driving; but unfortunately for the man who says it, the offence occurred more than five years earlier. When the neighbour sues the man for slander, he no longer has any defence at all, because he cannot tell the truth about that conviction. Perhaps it serves him right; but, on the other hand, it is not easy for him to know when the five-year period from the conviction is up, and when it is absolutely dangerous to make any further reference to it. One day it is safe: the next day it is a bomb under his path.
But I am much more concerned with the question of references. Despite the fact that I am still not very happy with the drafting of Clause 6(1) (because I am not quite certain what the words in brackets mean), I know that the noble and learned Lord wants references to be retained so that employers can say in honesty what they know in circumstances where it is their duty to pass on even disagreeable information about former employees. But let us look at the situation at the present moment. An employer, in a reference about a former employee, tells the truth. Let us again take the case of the man convicted of dangerous driving. If he is sued by the employee in defamation, he has at the moment two defences. First, he can say that it is true, anyway. That is an absolute defence, and that is an end of it. The other thing he can do is to rely on qualified privilege. Qualified privilege arises (I am not very good at the law of defamation) where the two people between whom the communication has passed are in a position of trust, the one against the other; they are privileged in what they say so long as the person making the allegation is not

749
actuated by malice. So the person who gives the reference has a second defence. He can say that it is true, and he can also say, "This is a matter of qualified privilege, and all I have to say here is that I believed it to be true." The only way the person who says that he has been libelled or slandered can get round that is to claim that the man who made the statement was actuated by malice. Suppose that, in the simple case that I have instanced, qualified privilege was involved, and that the employer who gave the reference says, "I believed it to be true". "Why did you believe it to be true?", asks the other side; and he replies, "Because it is true—and I can prove the conviction." That is the present situation if malice is alleged.
Now look at it under the Bill. The first defence, that of simple truth, has gone, and only the defence of qualified privilege remains. Let us see what the employee who was guilty of dangerous driving, who did not get the job because of the bad reference and who brought the action for defamation will say. He will sue for defamation; the defence will be qualified privilege, and he will say in his reply that it was malicious. The referee, the person who made the reference, says as his part of the case, "I believed it to be true"; the person on whom the reference is given says, "You are just being malicious", and the person who gave the reference says, "No, I am not; I believed it to be true". Then, when pressed, he says, "I cannot tell you why I believed it to be true, but I just believed it to be true". The reason why he cannot tell why he believed it to be true is because under this Bill he is debarred from mentioning the conviction.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, with respect, and if the noble Viscount will allow me to interrupt, is not the reason why he believed it to be true the reason which he will give—"I read in a newspaper that he had been convicted", or, "Because Snooks, who is an honest man as far as I know, told me he had been"? There is nothing to stop him from saying that.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think there is, my Lords, because to say, "I read in a newspaper that he had been convicted" is evidence tending to show that he is other than an innocent man,
750
and it conflicts with Clause 2. If that is what the noble and learned Lord wishes, then I am much happier. If he is allowed to say, "Oh!, but I read about it in the newspaper", that is fair enough. But as the Bill stands he cannot say anything that tends to show that that employee is other than innocent of dangerous or careless driving. That is the way the thing stands at the moment, and I am not sure how he is going to establish that he believed it.
At the end of all this, as the Bill stands, I wonder what the honest employer will say to himself. I think he may say, "These references are storing up trouble for me; I will play safe; I will not say anything about that careless or dangerous driving, after all". Will that not, in the end, be contrary to the sort of thing that we want when references are given from one employer to another?
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount a question on that point? It has become a very exaggerated picture. If you are asked to give information about a lorry driver and he had been convicted for dangerous driving, the shortest period in which this can arise is five years. Most drivers do not stay with the same firm for five years, and even if one did and he had driven perfectly ever since it would be an odd employer who made that point. I think it is an exaggerated case and wants toning down a little.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, my difficulty is that in order to try to explain the law of defamation and of qualified privilege in a form comprehensible to me I have to take it very gently. I am sure that noble Lords are much better off in that respect, but I find it difficult. Therefore, I may have oversimplified and emphasised the situation; but I know that this is something the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, wants to preserve and therefore I am going through the mechanics to see why there may be difficulties about it under the Bill as drafted. I hope that I have the law right.
Talking about references, I should like to say a word about Clause 7, because this is another area where I know the noble and learned Lord has sought to put in safeguards, and I am not sure they

751
are all there. Certainly he sought to protect many areas of national security and Government Departments and things of that nature, but I wonder whether Clause 7(4)(c) is as tight as it should be. Noble Lords will remember that when we were dealing with the Criminal Justice Bill one matter we talked about (and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, was very keen on this) was a register of people who had been convicted of sexual offences, who should not be employed in schools or in certain sorts of hospital. There was no doubt in the House that everybody wanted to make sure that this did not happen. I feel sure that there should be a register and that even if people had been rehabilitated this is something which employing authorities should know about. I do not think the noble and learned Lord will dissent from that.
What is the defence available to the person who gives the information to the hospital authorities, the hospital management committee or the local education authority? The hospital management committee or the local education authority are not a court, not the police, not a Government Department. I am not certain whether the Secretary of State would duly authorise everybody—and this is under Clause 4(c). And if the authority was given, could it be said to be for the maintenance of law and order? It is for the protection of people in the school or patients in the hospital. It is not for the rehabilitated person.
If that is so, we have a gaping hole in the drafting of the Bill which is doing something that the noble and learned Lord would not wish to see. And what about the professional organisations? Incidentally, I should tell the noble and learned Lord that that exercise is still going on. There were quite a lot of professional organisations, quite a lot of people, including the police who would like to get into the act and who may or may not be able to, and in the way things have been going in the past consultations have had to take place between one person to another person in order to get everybody to agree. It is actively under way but it is not yet finished.
Let us look inside the professional organisations. I suspect that the Bar Council, the Law Society and the medical
752
authorities keep a list of naughty lawyers and bad doctors who have committed criminal offences. They take account and are probably told by the court of the criminal offences so that they can take their own disciplinary action. What happens if they use it? They have—I should have thought this was inescapable in the case of those who under the present system are supplied with information by the police—indirect access to official records and information contained in it. That is under Clause 7(2). In other words, they have the information about the conviction. They make use of it. The Church, I suspect, come in this category. I do not suppose the ecclesiastical authorities wish altogether to disregard serious offences committed by vicars or curates when they are coming to consider their further promotion.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, the Church has her own special provision for this kind of thing. If a man is convicted of a very serious offence, on that conviction being reported to the ecclesiastical authorities by the secular court the clergyman in question is declared to be prohibited from holding office in the Church for the rest of his life or until the Archbishop withdraws it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I thought that there was something like that, but I suspect that there are offences lesser than those which lead to such dire results. Nevertheless, it is something the Church will wish to bear in mind.
These professional bodies— perhaps the Church is not the right one to choose, but the Law Society, the Bar Council and the medical authorities come into this category—are in due course bound to pass this information on to somebody. What happens if the barrister is reinstated and does very well and later some question of a judicial appointment comes up? It may be that he has lived it down, but they must he at liberty, if necessary, to tell the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about it. But if they do so, as I read Clause 7, they commit a criminal offence, punishable on indictment to a fairly substantial term of imprisonment and a fine. In the case of the professional bodies I do not think that this is right. The noble and learned Lord may like to consider whether Clause

753
7(2) does not also catch the employer giving a reference; because he has had, surely, on the words of it, indirect access to the information contained in the official record if he even reads about the event in the newspapers and then passes it on. I believe that he could be in danger of committing a criminal offence if he passes on the information at all.
Another category I am very worried about is the whole range of social workers. There are case conferences about problem families. May I take again what is perhaps an exaggerated example, to give the idea? Dad is in for his third term of imprisonment; Mum is on probation for the second time for shoplifting: little Willie has a care order and two of the elder siblings have been in trouble with the law at one time or another. We have a situation here where another of them, perhaps, is due to be considered for parole. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, wants a good idea of what the release plan is to be for this person.
Over a period of time those social workers build up their knowledge of this family; they contribute to it; it is in the hands of a probation officer very often for some purposes, but it could go around the children's department and many other people in the social work department. How are they to know when the various offences have been rehabilitated? Are they to go dashing to and from the courts to find out when a 5-year or a 7-year or a 10-year period has run out? Anyway, ought they not to be able to talk among themselves about and present to people like the Parole Board a complete history of this family, so that those who are making delicate decisions, such as an the matter of parole, have the full knowledge they ought to have—not for any evil purpose but simply in order to help and certainly to know whether this is a supported family into which somebody can go back? If they mention any of these things to anybody, or even to each other, as I understand it, they are committing a criminal offence under Clause 7(2). I am sure that the noble and learned Lord does not want that to happen.
I am sorry that I have been so long, my Lords, but I have a good precedent this afternoon. I am coming to an end. I think there are further problems about sentencing. I have already said that I have a great deal of sympathy about the
754
quoting of stale offences in public. I wonder to what extent this is done. There are of course cases which have been quoted. But I remember from my somewhat rare expeditions to quarter sessions, what happened when I used to prosecute what were usually "guilty" pleas. When it came to the police officer being in the witness box and the antecedent history having to be read out, if I did not do it myself the learned chairman or deputy chairman usually said: "I think we will start with that one in 1964, Lord Colville", and we skipped all those going back into the dim and distant past.
This, as I understand it, is commonplace in crime courts to-day. Some magistrates' courts may not be quite so good about it, but what we in the Home Office have just done is to issue a circular about it. In fact, it was the Magistrates' Association who approached us in the first place. They expressed anxiety about this and asked whether we could help them to devise some procedure which would avoid citing old and irrelevant convictions. It was in fact quite a difficult process to come to agreement on it. But what we are inviting in the circular, which has already been issued, is that magistrates should follow the practice of the Crown Court, where a list of convictions is supplied to the court and the court selects those which are irrelevant and those which should be cited in open court. The different circumstances in magistrates' courts may not produce universal application of this process, but we believe that it is going in the right way: and it is something positive that can be done by administrative means—indeed, we have done it already.
My Lords, in this Bill there are some things as to the correctness of which I am not sure. Is it right that the magistrates' courts should themselves be kept in the dark about all the past history of the man in the dock before them, as opposed to telling the public about it? Is it right that the magistrates should not have the full antecedent history? Should they be different from the Crown Courts in this respect? Under the Bill, that is the position. Then, as has been mentioned already, they have power to send a person for sentence to the Crown Court either for borstal training, under Section 28, or for some other sentence under Section 29 (incidentally, Section 28 is not in the Bill, and I think it should be),

755
if they feel that because of that person's character and antecedents the sentence which he deserves is a larger one than they themselves can give. If the magistrates have not the full antecedent history, how can they know about the character and the seriousness of the offence? After all, to take a borstal case, a young offender under 17 is rehabilitated from convictions leading to fines in two and a half years; but these might be very relevant even on a later borstal sentence. Yet under the Bill as it stands, the magistrates are not allowed to see them.
But the worst point of all, I think, relates to probation. Under Clause 3(3) no reference to a probation order may be made after it has terminated, provided that it was satisfactorily concluded: it may never be referred to again. Once more I come back to the Criminal Justice Act of last summer. Did not virtually every noble Lord who spoke on social inquiry reports say that the courts should have these reports in as many cases as possible before sentencing people appearing before them? I think there was an Amendment to make that compulsory in every case. What is the use of putting a social inquiry report before magistrates when it is not allowed to mention the way in which somebody has behaved on a probation order that has just been completed? The probation officer, under the Bill as it stands, cannot say how the person responded, because he is not allowed to mention to the magistrates the fact that there was a probation order at all. But, ludicrously enough, if the case is in the Crown Court it may be mentioned. If it is a case where the magistrates have committed for sentence, it means that we have an expurgated social inquiry report before the magistrates, and a new one for the Crown Court which for the first time exposes the former probation order and how the man or woman responded to it.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, is the noble Viscount correct? As I read it (I may be wrong about this, not being a lawyer), the probation officer would be precluded from mentioning it if the person had completed his or her probation period satisfactorily without any breach and had been free of any further charge for the length of time that he was on probation. Is that not so?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That is right.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: So if the person had been on probation for two or three years, and had kept clear for two or three years after the offence, it could not be mentioned. The noble Viscount is objecting to that, I believe.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, I am indeed; because perhaps the very next day, by ill-chance, he comes back and the magistrates cannot know that he has been on probation yet alone how he has responded to it. It was all very well when probation started—and the noble Lord quoted from Section 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 in his Report. In those days probation was on trial—it was perhaps for the young and less serious offences. But now we are all trying to use it in every case where it is possible for quite serious matters—matters which might, but for some extenuating circumstances, have led to a prison sentence. Yet we have an instant cut-off and no method whereby the magistrates can see whether or not it has been an effective way of dealing with the man. I am sure that that is wrong. I am also sure that the equivalent provision under conditional discharge is wrong, because we have an instant cut-off here. If the man satisfactorily fulfils the period of the, as it were, binding-over, if he commits an offence again in the eleventh month of a year's conditional discharge he can be taken back to the magistrates' court and dealt with for both offences. If he does it in the thirteenth month, he can be dealt with only for the offence that he last committed, and the magistrates are not allowed to know that he was conditionally bound over and that expired exactly one month before.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords. I wonder whether the noble Viscount has considered this in relation to probation, because, after all, this committee of stipendiary magistrates sentences people every day of the week. Is it not right that if a man is put on probation for two years, and he completes his two years without further offence, what he is told is: "If you behave properly, do what the probation officer says and get into no further trouble during these two years, you will never hear of this offence again."?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes.
LORD GARDINER: If after the two years he does something wrong, the first thing that happens is that his old conviction is raked up against him. The exact opposite of what he has been told. We thought that put it right.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is a matter which we shall plainly have to argue about, because I think we should have a longer period in the case of probation orders, and possibly conditional discharges as well, because they are sometimes the result of quite serious offences which under this Bill would, if they have been dealt with by way of a fine, have carried a 5-year rehabilitation period. If they are dealt with by a probation order, they carry two years, or perhaps three years at the outside, and the magistrates cannot know afterwards that any such thing was ever in existence. What happens if it is the same magistrates' court and they remember perfectly well anyway, I do not know. We have not had the reaction in Scotland as yet; I do not know what this means.
Foreign convictions worry me a little. There are Admiralty cases and arbitration cases relating to foreign ships. What happens if the master of a Greek or Liberian tanker has been convicted in his own country for an offence relating to matters that arose out of the collision and has now under the Bill been rehabilitated? Are we not going to find the courts and the arbitrators in this country precluded from knowing any piece of evidence relating to that collision which might have a bearing on showing that that man was guilty of criminal negligence in the Greek court or the Liberian court? That is the way that the Bill would work at the moment, I think, in relation to foreign convictions: and it is not very easy.
The Bill is completely silent on appeals. If a convicted person wins his appeal and has his conviction quashed, he is presumably regarded as never having been convicted, so that anybody can talk for ever about the original conviction, the facts that surround it and all the other concomitant matters. There is no rehabilitation period at all, even if he got off on a technicality. I do not
758
think that reflects the spirit of the noble and learned Lord's Bill, and it may be something he would care to consider—though how to deal with it is a very difficult matter, and one for which I have no solution. I looked at the cases at the beginning of Living it Down. Two of them, I think, are specifically helped by the Bill: three of them would be helped as well by our circular as by the Bill. There are some aspects of one or two of the other ones which in some circumstances might be helped by the Bill but in others might not.
I am afraid that, wearisome though this analysis has been and very lengthy, it has led me to the conclusion that we have not solved, even with this Bill, all the problems. We have created a great many others—of which I have given some examples, though by no means the whole list—particularly if we are going to insist on the present provisions about probation orders, because we shall get into serious trouble in the divorce courts if we do that. I left out specific instances relying on probation. I know that the noble and learned Lord would like to consider with great care these points—and no doubt any others that I give to him privately—because I put them forward in all honesty in an attempt to show that there are many difficulties that we have not so far considered, mainly in the civil law.
My Lords, I hope that the House will consider these matters again. I am certainly not going to suggest that we should vote against the Bill to-night, but I believe that we have a long way to go before this is a satisfactory piece of legislation—and I am not absolutely certain that this Bill is ever going to be the vehicle for it. But I do not want to abandon hope. I hope that we shall go on with this debate and that we shall be able to make some constructive amendments during subsequent stages.
5.52 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, not only for the clarity of his speech but for the fact that he just managed to miss cutting the 50 minute line.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, so did the noble and learned Lord.
LORD SHACKLETON: I know, my Lords; and I wonder at times how it is possible for us in this House to find the time to deal with these highly technical measures. I rise now to speak very briefly because I hope—encouraged by what the noble Viscount has said—that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. I think we can all take it as proved by my noble and learned friend's speech that grave mischief is caused to individuals in the present situation and that people are suffering very grave hardship which we would not think it right for them to suffer. I believe his eloquent speech has very clearly made the case on that point. Therefore, the first question is whether satisfactory legislation can be produced to deal with this situation.
I have listened very carefully to what the noble Viscount has said, and some of the points he has raised have bothered me personally. I have been in correspondence with my noble and learned friend about this very interesting document, in regard to which I had a number of reservations on technical and practical grounds. I should like to mention very briefly some of the points that still bother me, but all against the background that I believe it is right that this Bill should have a Second Reading to-day and should be examined in Committee and, if necessary (though my noble and learned friend may not perhaps welcome this course) be examined by Select Committee. This Bill, if I may say so, is a very much better and much more practical Bill than the Anti-Discrimination Bill to which we gave a Second Reading, and which I supported in principle and indeed urged should go to the Select Committee. Thanks to the efforts of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, it is likely now to emerge as a satisfactory measure.
Briefly, my first point of anxiety concerns Clause 2. I really am bothered that it should so appear to a layman, although I am encouraged to believe that there are some lawyers who are also bothered by Clause 2(a) which says:
"any statement made by him … shall not render the maker guilty of any offence"—
that is, in denying that there was a conviction. I find it risky in the extreme always to argue legal matters with such brilliant colleagues but I do not, any more than the noble Viscount, find the
760
analogy drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in relation to hearsay evidence to be a valid one. Nor was I happy about my noble and learned friend's statement that it is perfectly reasonable to say that something in an Act of Parliament can be deemed to be such, when it is not in fact said in this particular subsection. This has worried me most about the Bill; nevertheless, I believe the difficulty can be overcome.
My noble and learned friend referred to the fact that in France they acknowledge it as a legal fiction. I would hesitate to start looking at French law, but I see no reason why it should not be possible to find a phrase which, instead of saying
"any statement made by him … shall not render the maker guilty of any offence …",
says that
"any statement shall be deemed to have the meaning …
or possibly better still:
"any question in regard to this matter shall be deemed to have the meaning as in the subsection above."
It seems to me there is here a real problem, not only to me personally but perhaps also to lawyers. It may be that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, shares my view on this matter. I believe there may be a real difficulty to individuals who may be very honourable people and who, having had such a conviction, would find it intolerable to have to say in court or anywhere else that they had not been convicted, simply because the law says that, as I understand it, they would not be guilty of an offence in so doing. I do not believe it to be impossible to redraft this clause in a way which would not create this particular difficulty.
I make these criticisms because I am most anxious to see this Bill, amended as necessary, become law. Therefore I should like to mention two other areas of criticism. I am also worried about certificates being automatically sent. Surely it would be possible to amend that provision so that people could apply for a certificate if they so wanted. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but it appears that there is an obligation to deliver a certificate; it arrives in a special envelope which somehow becomes recognisable—though of course it might be possible to disguise it as an income tax return. Frankly, I would rather not have it automatically

761
given. This again is the sort of Committee point which can be dealt with later.
I come now to the area in which I have had some experience, namely, references. I have been responsible for giving or handling references of more people than practically any noble Lord in this House. This is because in my personnel management days in a large organisation I had to operate this system over the whole organisation. I believe there is scope for some legal inquiry of the kind that Justice has carried out as to how references are given. I believe that most people attempt to give references in a responsible way, but the recklessness with which some references are given and the fact that they are not available to the individual about whom they are written is, to my mind, a very serious handicap and I am coming on now to explain why I am not entirely happy about this part of the Bill.
My organisation used to issue references under specific rules. We never volunteered information for which we were not asked. We never concealed that somebody had been convicted; we always said that the reference could be shown to the recipient, and we always refused to take information by telephone. The art of reference examination covers not only the details of the information given, but the completeness of the career check. Time and again one found, in looking into somebody who was being considered for a very sensitive job, like a security post, for which a responsible employer might well ask for almost a lifelong reference —certainly 10 years—that almost immediately there was a glaring gap. How does the individual explain this away? I hope that Justice, or someone, will look at this particular system. None the less, I am worried about the action of a responsible employer anxious to be honest and to do his duty, but doing so against the background of certain of the provisions of this Bill.
Access to the Criminal Record Office has been all too easy. My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner exercised some caution in not revealing the extent to which access has been had to that Office. This is a disgrace. I find it difficult to see how information, which properly should be made available to certain employers, is to be sifted or judged. We
762
can talk about the public authority, but what about the private authority? I am not sure whether I want the private authority to have access to the Criminal Record Office. A school, or an employer who employs a large number of young girls, does not want somebody who has had a previous conviction of a sexual kind. The position of the employer needs further examination, and I hope that this can be dealt with in Committee.
If I may hazard one suggestion to the noble Viscount, he has listed a number of areas where it appears to him that this Bill creates difficulties, and particularly in civil cases. He produced some powerful arguments, and I will wait with interest to see how some of my legal friends deal with them. It is surely not beyond the bounds of possibility to draft a clause which would make it possible within defined and appropriate examples—the noble Viscount certainly gave some, and I cannot believe that the categories are inexhaustible—where it was necessary to give this information. I have a difficulty regarding Clause 2; the conviction is not expunged under this Bill; it remains for ever in the records, and it may have to be referred to, for instance, when a person applies for a visa to the United States, or is at a foreign port. Would it be possible to define those areas where this could not be regarded as a spent conviction?
This is not the first Bill that has come before your Lordships' House that has had, as I hope it will have to-day, a Second Reading, and which has finally become Statute Law. Although many of the earlier Bills have not had quite the legal distinction that has gone into the drafting of this particular Bill, none the less I believe that we ought not as a House to reject this Bill, but that we should seek seriously to meet the arguments which the noble Viscount has put forward. It will almost certainly be better to do this in Committee than go into great detail during the Second Reading, unless we are going to be here all night. I suspect—and I apologise for this—that some of us will have to be absent for some of the time. Therefore, whether it be in this Session or in another Session, we shall get an Act of Parliament which will deal with a mischief that is causing great anxiety, and sometimes the grossest injustice and hardship, to individuals.

763
Therefore I shall certainly support the Bill.
6.7 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the best way I can help this Bill forward is by speaking very shortly. All I had intended to say was that I agreed with every word my noble and learned friend said, and leave it there; but as I disagreed with so many words that the noble Viscount on the Front Bench opposite said, I must say a little more. We had 47 fascinating minutes of trees, and two minutes of wood. This is a very important point. The Second Reading is supposed to be concerned with principle. Is there anybody in this House who differs with the principle contained in this Bill? Even the noble Viscount does not do so. We need to find a way of putting the intentions of this Bill into practice. That is easily said but difficult to do. If the noble Viscount thinks that I, as a layman am going to take him on point by point, I would remind him that we have some of the most expensive counsel and solicitors in the world on our side of the House. I shall leave it to them to deal with detail.
This Bill is trying to do something which everybody with any knowledge whatever of the penal field thinks ought to be done, which will relieve a good deal of hardship, and which, at any price, must not be allowed to disappear. The noble Viscount knows that I respect him and his views—we have often discussed things before. I do not wish to be personal, but I think he spoke as though he had spent two or three days working out a brief on how to destroy this Bill. That is absolutely the wrong attitude. The noble Viscount ought to have come to the House and said: "This is a Bill that we should all like to see go through. I do not think that it is right as it stands; there are many problems and I will help you sort them out in Committee." If his team of research workers, and his own extraordinary, brain, can be devoted between now and Committee to finding ways round the problems that he has posed, he will be doing the House and the nation a much greater service than by opposing the Bill.
I do not object to him showing us the difficulties in the Bill; but we heard some
764
exaggerated language, such as "a bomb in your path". I thought that was overdoing it a bit. It was an advocate's speech, and I am deliberately complaining about it.
This is a Bill which we have to get through Parliament. If it is wrong in certain ways, let us employ the lawyers—this is, after all, what they are for—to find a way of doing what we want. This is what you do when you go to a solicitor. You usually have to tell him how to do it, but even so this is the normal practice. And with the talent we have here, I think it is absurd for me to start telling the House how to do it. But I shall not be content—nor will anybody, I think, on this side of the House—if we fail in the end to find a way of doing what my noble and learned friend, and so many of us, wish to see done.
6.10 p.m.
LORD BALLANTRAE: My Lords, it takes a great deal of nerve for a layman to take on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and risk breaking a lance with him; and my only qualification for doing so is this. I am a member of the Committee on Defamation set up in 1971 by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Faulks, to go into the whole question of the law of defamation and how it can be amended. Much of what we are discussing this afternoon comes very much under this heading. All of us on the Committee have studied, read, discussed, and I think I can say sympathised with, Living it Down—a most persuasive pamphlet, with those eight heartrending cases quoted early on, some of which the noble and learned Lord has resurrected for us this afternoon. By the fact of his courtesy we were able to see an early draft of his Bill. The Bill in its present form we have not yet had a chance to discuss in our Committee, but we have all seen it. We hope to be able to report before the end of this year, anyway. Some of us are more optimistic than others about how early in the year. Of course, everything that has been said to-day, and what may be said later on, will be taken into account by our Chairman, my colleagues and myself, and will be studied very carefully. I think all my colleagues would agree with me in saying that I hope very much that no attempt

765
will be made to deal with the law of defamation—that very tangled area of the law—piecemeal.
So far I am pretty sure I have been saying what my colleagues would approve of. Now I launch out on my own, speaking entirely for myself, though I think that some of my colleagues would agree with most of what I am going to say. Personally, I am nervous of the idea of creating a whole category of people about whom we cannot tell the truth, whether it is in the public interest or in the interest of the individual. We are all concerned with the hardships which have been so eloquently described by most speakers to-day, and which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, did not gloss over in any way. But to take just one minor point—or perhaps a major one—the task of historians, of biographers, let alone journalists, would be made incredibly difficult if this Bill were to pass in anything like its present form. Also, I feel there is a great danger that in its eagerness to protect the deserving it may result in protecting a great many undeserving, and protecting them in their self-imposed task of fleecing all the rest of us.
There are several anomalies about the Bill—I say this with great respect. Here is one; and I think the point has been hinted at before, if not made. Although the Bill protects the convicted, it does not protect the unconvicted. One case particularly springs to my mind: I am not going to mention the name again, but your Lordships will know whom I mean. I recall the career of a distinguished politician which crashed about 10 years ago. That man has lived it down; one might say that he has lived it down nobly. He was convicted of nothing, and the story can be raked up again and again, and is raked up again and again; in fact it was raked up again by the B.B.C. three weeks ago. Of the other people in that case, a young woman was found guilty of perjury; a man, who afterwards took his own life, was found guilty of living on immoral earnings. Because they had been convicted they would have protection under this Bill. This seems to be an anomaly, and I do not know how on earth one would set about curing it.
Quickly let me take two hypothetical cases. Again, the noble Viscount touched
766
on something very like it. X is employed by a company. He embezzles. The company has mercy and does not prosecute. As I understand it, you and I can go around saying "You know about X …" till the cows come home. But Y belongs to a less merciful company. He embezzles; they prosecute and he is convicted. He is completely protected from anything we might say.
Let me take a third case, in my own experience—and a very sad one. A nation-wide association of youth clubs was looking for a new secretary. Among the applicants was a man whom I will call Z. I was asked if I knew Z. I did know Z. I also knew that he had had a conviction 10 years earlier for an offence of indecency against a male. Now what could I say morally? It was not the right job for him; he was not the right man for the job. But because he had been convicted, as I understand it, he would have protection under this Bill as it stands, and if I had said what I knew I should have been liable. I do not think I could have pleaded qualified privilege. Frankly, I am not very good at understanding Bills: I find them as difficult to understand as the Athanasian Creed. But I find that even my legal friends tell me that some of Clause 6 of this Bill is incomprehensible to them.
To sum up, my Lords, I recognise that this Bill, like the pamphlet, is inspired by the highest motives, and motives with which one must sympathise. Secondly, I think that if it were to pass into law in anything like its present form it would complicate still further this highly complicated law of libel which my colleagues and I were appointed to try to simplify. Thirdly, I repeat that although many deserving people would benefit from it, I am nervous about how many others who do not deserve to might benefit from it—people who would regard it as a mere cover for further misbehaviour. Finally, let me say again what I have said already. I believe that this part of the defamation law ought not to be treated in isolation, and I would ask your Lordships to have patience with our committee who are working very hard and earnestly to produce a really worthwhile report which would be a solid foundation for a new law of defamation.
6.18 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF HERTFORD: My Lords, every now and then there comes before your Lordships' House a measure which is so obviously right, so clearly just and so extremely necessary that one's first reaction is one of amazement that this is not already the established law. This, I feel, is such a Bill. I am quite sure that it is essential and long overdue. Until I heard the noble Viscount I also thought that it was a relatively short and simple Bill and one that was easy to understand, and I did not suppose that it would be unduly controversial. I feel that its merits are enormous and far outweigh any difficulties that it may create. If this Bill becomes law, a dark shadow will be lifted from the lives of perhaps a million people. My Lords, we do not every day have the opportunity to help so many.
I have the honour to be the Chairman of the New Bridge, a voluntary society founded by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the official title of which is an Association of Friends of the Discharged Prisoner. In that capacity I of course welcome the Bill. But I must say that I am a little disappointed by the proposed periods of rehabilitation shown in Clause 3 of the Bill. Many of us who are concerned with the care and resettlement of offenders would like to see some hope held out to ex-prisoners who have been sentenced to more than two years. The periods of five, seven and 10 years suggested here seem considerably longer than is either necessary or desirable. A great many of the prisoners and ex-prisoners who come to the New Bridge for help have been sentenced to more than two years, and of course nearly all of them have only just left prison. To these people this Bill brings no immediate benefit. Their punishment will continue long after the sentence of the court has been served.
It would seem right to offer some hope of eventual rehabilitation, even to the more serious offenders. No doubt these details can be discussed at a later stage. I certainly do not want to say or do anything to delay the passing of such a useful Bill as this one. It is perhaps surprising to find such a very conservative measure coming from the noble and
768
learned Lord opposite. If he feels that nothing more radical is likely to be accepted by this Parliament, then of course I must bow to his wisdom and experience. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will give your approval to this excellent Bill and that its passing will not be long delayed.
6.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it is most agreeable to follow the noble Marquess, Lord Hertford, who at the moment is probably doing more for ex-prisoners than anyone, unless it be the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, who was kind enough to mention me. I wish to speak briefly in strong support of this measure. Indeed, I cannot imagine a measure of penal reform introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, which I would not wish to support. I might even feel inclined to "sign on the dotted line", which perhaps is dangerous, even in his case, but naturally anything coming from him has a first claim on my allegiance. He has powerful support for the Bill, both in this House and in the preparation of it. So as far as I am concerned it comes with every advantage on its side.
I do not think this is quite such an easy matter as perhaps even some noble Lords who were speaking in favour of the Bill might suppose. I do not think that it is quite so easy that we can say, "Here is an obvious principle of which we are in favour and it is just a question of the lawyers working out the details". I believe that some of the points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, are fundamental points which force one to ask oneself—to use the language of the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae—how far one is ready to have information of a certain kind suppressed and how far that is interference with human knowledge, which is usually regarded as a dangerous process. One has to face that fact and to make up one's own mind, not in a mood of sentiment, although sentiment is a fairly good guide, but to make up one's mind whether, on balance, one is in favour of a measure of this kind, and for my part the arguments for it are far stronger than any possible difficulties. I will not go into detail now. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and my noble friend Lord Shackleton, raised a number

769
of points which will clearly have to be answered. I would call them Committee points, and in that sense they can be answered during the Committee stage of the Bill. But they are points which one could not ignore and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, would not wish to ignore them.
I also wish to support what has been said by the noble Marquess, Lord Hertford, and I can assure the House that we have not been in any sort of collusion. This is not some New Bridge conspiracy. I did not know what the noble Marquess was going to say, although perhaps I might have guessed if I had been intelligent. I agree that this is a good Bill, but of course it does not go far enough. I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Hertford, that no one is more imaginative or in that sense more radical in these matters than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner; and if he thinks this is as far as we can get on this occasion then it is extremely likely that he is right. But to say, as is said here, that no one who has served more than two years in prison is to receive any benefit at all under the Bill as it stands is to rule out completely a great many people who are in need of redemption and are in need of encouragement. All the language about "the shadow", which is good and eloquent language, applies to them, and indeed in a sense it applies to them more than to anyone else because the shadow is darker and deeper.
So I would not like anyone to suppose that this Bill goes far enough. But to be fair, one must point out that it lies within the power of the Secretary of State to extend the period, and so far as I am concerned I hope that he will not delay very long and that pressure will be brought to bear on him to extend the period. I agree absolutely with the principle which I have enunciated many times, that no human being is irredeemable, and I shall not be satisfied until this measure goes a great deal further and holds out hope even to the worst criminals. Nevertheless, I hope that this Bill will obtain a Second Reading and that it will not run into the kind of troubles at the Committee stage which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, seems to envisage. I hope that it will go on the Statute Book and I am sure it will be a blessing.
6.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, moved the Second Reading of this Bill with an eloquence and clarity which one expects from him. It may suprise him to know that I completely support the object which he seeks to achieve, and I hope that whatever I may say after that he will recognise that his objective in this Bill is one that I wholeheartedly support, because I think it is wrong that a man who has been convicted a long time ago should have his career prospects wrecked many years later by the disclosure of his past conviction.
The noble and learned Lord told us that there were something like a million people who have not had a further conviction in the space of ten years after their first conviction. It is very gratifying to know that. One does not know, of course, how many of those have met with the kind of difficulties of which the noble and learned Lord gave us an illustration. One would hope not very many. But be it a small number or a large one I think we should do what we can to remedy that situation.
Where I part company with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is in thinking that this Bill, as it stands, provides the right solution to the problem. I must confess that in the light of the criticisms made of it by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Cuirass, in a speech which I thought was excellent in its clarity and also which condensed into a very small compass some difficult and intricate subjects and in which he could not justly be accused of advocating any particular course—it certainly was not an advocate's speech, nor, so far as I could judge, was he guilty of the slightest exaggeration—and in the light of the criticisms which have been made from other quarters I myself venture to doubt whether it is possible within the framework of this Bill to construct in a Committee stage the sort of measure which should go out from this House.
The first matter which I find it really impossible to accept is that to which the most reverend Primate drew attention, but it seemed to me that he did not really attach quite so much importance to it, as I do, because he spoke about it as being "one of the warts on the Bill". Here I refer

771
to the provision of which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, spoke—the provision legalising perjury, because that is what it does. Clause 2(a) provides that a man who has been convicted of a crime and who has gone through the rehabilitation period, or anyone else who speaks of that crime and who gives evidence on oath, shall not be liable to any penalty if he gives a false answer in relation to the question whether such a crime has been committed. To me such a proposal is wholly novel, wholly wrong and quite impossible to justify.
Having said that, as I am in favour of the object of the Bill, I have been giving some thought to the possible ways by which that situation can he avoided. I believe that it can be avoided but it means a radical alteration of this Bill and acceptance of one of the alternatives of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner—which, for reasons I did not find wholly convincing, in his speech he rejected: that is, (and it would also be far simpler) to provide that after the lapse of a certain length of time, without any conviction occurring within that period, the conviction (be it five, ten or 15 years ago) shall be deemed never to have occurred and should be treated as a nullity. It seems to me that if you so provide, and after that conviction has been wiped out by Act of Parliament, a person asked about his previous convictions can, if he is asked "How many convictions have you had?" in the light of the fact that he has had one conviction which has gone, say "I have none." But that result may need to be subject to the further qualification that you cancel those convictions for all purposes except proceedings in criminal courts. I do not see why there should be that exception. I am very doubtful whether it is really necessary to provide that judges dealing with these cases should be given particulars of convictions which have taken place perhaps 10 years before when there has been no conviction in the intervening period. I do not believe that people faced with the task of sentencing will pay any attention to a sentence passed so long ago; they will be inclined to treat that man, despite his previous conviction, as a first offender. So far as actual sentencing in the criminal court is concerned, and provided that the period
772
of rehabilitation was long enough, I doubt that it would matter at all if the cancellation affected convictions put before criminal courts for the purpose of sentence.
I shall not deal with social inquiry reports and matters of that kind. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, dealt with those very fully and met a great many of the difficulties. Nor shall I deal with the periods of rehabilitation proposed. Of course, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has said, this Bill covers a rather narrow field, namely, only those sentences of up to two years in prison. I feel that I should ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, to consider the disparity between the periods to be undergone for rehabilitation. It seems to me that a five-year period of rehabilitation when the sentence does not exceed six months imprisonment, and seven years for a sentence of two years imprisonment, shows a certain lack of proportion.
Having spoken about what I feel to be one of the major defects of this Bill, namely, the statutory perjury which it proposes, I come to one or two matters which I hope the noble and learned Lord will have a look at before the Committee stage. One of the difficulties about the operation of this Bill is that no one, apart from the convicted person who may get a certificate, will probably be able to find out whether or not he has been rehabilitated; and whether the period has elapsed. How will the ordinary member of the public know that? The period may be extended. If the man commits a further offence during the period, the period is prolonged. In that connection I feel that the Bill is a little harsh. The Bill says that the second offence must be of an indictable character. Supposing it is. Supposing it is dangerous driving in the fourth year of a rehabilitation period that will expire in five years. Is it right that that shall extend the rehabilitation period of a conviction for theft four years or so before?
I feel that more thought—and I say this with the greatest respect—ought to go into this measure. I should like to see the kind of offence which will extend the rehabilitation period to be one either of dishonesty, or of violence, or of a sexual character, or something of that kind. I would exclude indictable offences

773
such as dangerous driving from having that operation and those consequences. When one comes to the position of the ordinary person, it will be very difficult for him or her to tell, or remember, whether or not the rehabilitation period of a particular person is over. It is one thing if that conviction is talked about or published years after the event in the Press only to effect sales, but an entirely different matter when particulars are given because someone wants a reference. I am glad to know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, wants fully protected references given in good faith.
I do not think it is possible to deal with the defamation provisions—if you are going to have this Bill—only after receiving the report of the Committee on the Laws of Libel of which the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, is such a distinguished member. That is a committee before which I had the pleasure of giving evidence, and they gave me a very rough time. But that is by the way. If you are going to have this particular scheme you must have some provision for dealing with defamation, and I do not think that this one will do.
I admit that I am puzzled in my mind as to what is a satisfactory alternative. The man who perchance says, "So and so has been convicted", after he has been rehabilitated, will be liable in damages. He will have no defence of justification, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said. He will not say, "I am not liable to pay you anything because what I said was true." That defence is taken away by Clause 6. But it is said that he can have the defence of absolute privilege or of qualified privilege. Qualified privilege will arise, as the noble Lord said, where he has spoken without malice; and where there is that plea the question of malice will arise, and he will say, as the noble Lord said, "I honestly believe what I said." Is he to say, as I gathered from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, that he was to say, and could say in answer to that point: "I honestly believed that because I read it in a newspaper"? That is only another way of saying, "I honestly believed it because I knew it to be true." If that can be said on a plea of qualified privilege, what nonsense it makes of not being able to say it unless you plead qualified privilege.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, would the noble and learned Viscount consider whether there is any difference in this case between what we propose and the present law? The present employer is given a reference and is always told by his lawyers: "You need not plead justification; all you have to show is that you honestly believed it to be true, and if you are asked why, you can say so." All we are proposing is that this law should stay the same.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I do not believe that the Bill does that. The Bill says that you cannot give any evidence tending to show that a person has been convicted; and if that is so you cannot go on to say, "I honestly believed it because I knew he was convicted." That seems to be a nonsense. I believe that a better approach would be to pursue what I call the cancellation approach, giving limited use, despite the cancellation for certain purposes—but not many—for statistics, research and that kind of thing where the use will not gain publicity but dealing specifically with the reference question and dealing with it as a separate subject.
I believe one can produce a workable and satisfactory Bill. I am very doubtful indeed whether it can be done by amendment of this present measure. Supporting the noble and learned Lord, as I do, in his objective—and I hope he will accept that I do support it—I hope that he will give serious consideration to the question thrown out by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that this Bill should be considered by a Select Committee in an endeavour—everyone here has spoken in favour of the principle—to find a more workable solution than this Bill provides.
May I say, in conclusion, that I hope the noble Lord will forgive me because I have another engagement, and I am sorry to say that I shall not be here for his reply. I think this is the first time I have ever said that. If he says nothing in reply to what I have said, I will understand.
6.41 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I rise to add my support to the Bill presented by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner. I hope the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down will not think me impertinent if I say how

775
much I myself appreciate his sympathetic and understanding approach to this Bill. It may be a bad Bill—I would not know; I am concerned only with what it seeks to achieve. I hope that noble and learned Lords like the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and other distinguished lawyers in this House will give their time and attention to converting it perhaps into a workable Bill, so that the principle behind it does in fact come into being.
In my opinion, it is very appropriate that a Bill of this kind should start in your Lordships' House. In the years that I have been a Member of this House many goods Bills have emanated from here and have become Acts of Parliament. I need not go into them. But perhaps this House has been more far-seeing than another place when it comes to measures for the welfare and the happiness of people generally. It is for that reason that I hope this Bill will not be referred to a Select Committee, because I think that would limit the number of people who, like myself, would wish to participate in it. Even though we could not do it on a legal level, we could perhaps make some contribution at a sociological level. Having said that, I must say that the noble Viscount, the Minister, depressed me. There has been no collusion between my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and myself; we have not discussed the Bill. I had hoped that after the noble Viscount had, quite rightly, pointed out the pitfalls and set out very clearly, as he always does, what this House ought to be directing its attention to, he would have finished by saying that he and his Department would direct all their energies towards improving the Bill and making its purpose feasible.
If I were asked why I support the Bill, I should reply that it is for a very simple reason. For many years, as your Lordships know, I have been interested, concerned and involved in the Probation Service. I have sat regularly for something like 26 years as a lay magistrate, and have had the privilege of sitting in the last year fairly regularly in a Crown Court. This means that I, along with other Members of your Lordships' House, have had direct contact over the years with a good many delinquents. I know
776
what society has tried to do for them. I know what Governments have tried to do for them, and we who are working in the field of the ex-offenders are very grateful to this Government for what they have done in the last few years and for the money they have provided for these things to be done. We are most grateful. I know that my noble friend Lord Donaldson feels precisely as I do about this.
We are doing a great deal by way of social rehabilitation. Is it not time that we began to direct some of our energies, some of our thoughts, towards providing opportunities for legal rehabilitation? I do not want to go into the disadvantages that ex-offenders are under, because this aspect has been adequately covered by my noble and learned friend. I do not suppose many people outside will believe that some offenders go on offending because they believe they cannot live down the past. But they do. Many feel they cannot live down the past, so why bother; and so they go on and on. This may be true of only a very small percentage, but this attitude of mind does exist. Many of these people live in fear of their past coming to the surface, and of much that they have done being undone. I feel that, having done so much on the social side, we ought now to be concentrating on providing opportunities for legal rehabilitation.
At this stage I do not think I am competent to enter into the field of discussion with regard to the various matters which the noble Viscount the Minister has raised. I hope that we can do this in Committee, and that the Government will come forward with sufficient Amendments to make this Bill workable. I believe it is of supreme importance that, however inadequate or deficient this Bill may appear to be to those who are better able to make a judgment, it will be made workable, because it is in the interests of the community that we should do so. I think we ought to give people an opportunity of living down their past, of being able to wipe it out completely and entirely. I am sure that this is the sort of step that we ought to take at the earliest possible opportunity.
6.48 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken I think

777
said precisely what needs to be said about this Bill, because he emphisised the realities of it in contradistinction to the technicalities. This is a humane and coinpassonate measure that we ought to try to enact if we possibly can. It has be-en my experience that if you want to make some progressive move you nearly always encounter formidable procedural difficulties. I do not think we ought to be deterred by procedural difficulties from achieving the objectives of this Bill, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, if I may say so, has so convincingly presented in point of principle.
When I heard about the Bill and looked at the text, it was quite clear that there were considerable difficulties, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, has presented them with great skill and ability, even with a faint gusto, if I may say so. But I am sure that that does not mean that he is not strongly in support of the measure. There are difficulties, and I think it must be very encouraging to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, to have heard assent on almost all sides to the principle—because we all accept the principle—and I am sure that if we put our heads together we cannot fail to achieve a measure that will make this modest change in our criminal jurisprudence.
I believe that one of the major defects of the Bill is that it has been too conscious of the technical problems. My own view is that it might well be that in the end it will be necessary to exclude altogether from the Bill considerations such as defamation; and even to exclude from it any penalty for the unauthorised disclosure of a conviction. I would venture to suggest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, that there is an objection in principle to imposing a penalty because someone has disclosed the fact that another person has a conviction. I think the objection in principle is to making the appearance of the conviction seem even worse than it is. If it becomes a dark secret that people may not speak about except under the threat of possible prosecution and very dire penalties, I am not sure that in a way we do not make it worse in the sense that we convey to the minds of people that there is something rather awful about this conviction that makes it necessary to bring the man
778
to the Old Bailey if he is foolhardy enough to disclose it.
A point that I would venture to suggest the noble and learned Lord might consider at the Committee stage, is that really it is not necessary to impose penalties but that what one really wants in essence is that a man should not be obliged himself to have to disclose the fact that he has a conviction, and that the record of the conviction should no longer be extant. This would achieve everything that is really required.
I have a feeling that when we come to the question of defamation, and how one seeks to defend an action where someone alleges that a conviction has taken place, we shall be pursuing the most difficult course and end up with the most complicated legislation, and not really have achieved a great deal. Hence I believe that what we want to achieve in this Bill can certainly be achieved by ordinary Committee processes.
It is a very short Bill, and I do not think that it is necessary for us to make quite such a mouthful of it as to send it to a Select Committee. I am quite sure that appropriate Amendments, which might even involve the substitution of totally new clauses, can be dealt with in Committee, and that we shall be able to bring about a modest measure of social reform about which we shall all be very contented. I see that there is no longer a Bishop on the Bench, but may I say that in this way we shall demonstrate that the quality of mercy can exist on this earth as well as in heaven.
6.52 p.m.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, I rise to speak now and not in the place shown on the list of speakers, at the request of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, who had not expected to be back in his seat in time. I understand that I am in order by agreement between the Whips on both sides of the House.
As one who had no legal training—and this, I have no doubt, is well known to your Lordships—I confess that the first time that I heard of a principle and a system by which a citizen could be spared from the prejudice arising out of his criminal background was during a visit to Israel in 1970, when I met Professor Feller, of the Hebrew University in

779
Jerusalem, who told me of his own researches into this subject in countries on the Continent of Europe. He very kindly sent me a copy of his treatise which was, unfortunately for me, in Hebrew, so I promptly sent it on to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who no doubt had no difficulty at all with the language. Had I known of his interest, I would have sent it to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, instead.
I rise, like all other noble Lords whom I have heard to-day, to say that I support this Bill in principle, although as a result of earlier speeches I am now wiser than I was about some of the snags which have emerged. May I make two brief observations, the first of which has been made already, but I should like to add weight to it? From a background of reading thousands of dossiers of the cases of prisoners for parole in the past five and a half years, I believe that the two-year sentence, beyond which this Bill does not propose to allow for rehabilitation, is too short. It could be extended to 30 months, or anything short of three years, in my opinion, without detriment. It is possibly of interest to know that there are in our prisons at the moment over a thousand prisoners serving a sentence of over two years and under three years, and when one adds up the total it would no doubt add considerably to the million citizens who have served sentences of two years or less mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner.
From my experience reading these cases, offences commanding a sentence of three years are of the same order of seriousness as those of two years. The three-year sentence is the divide which we, on the Parole Board, have seen for some time, broadly speaking, as the divide between the more serious offences and the less serious ones. Of course I am talking strictly in the context of the consideration of a person for parole. Sentences within this rather wider bracket, in my experience, normally represent much the same order of seriousness as those of two years. They also reflect the considerable variation in sentencing by the courts, and they often include a breached suspended sentence which, I think many of your Lordships will agree has not always in the past been wisely imposed. Sometimes such sentences
780
have been imposed unfairly, in terms of the stress to which they have subjected offenders; nor has proper support been given to them to stand up to that trial. I should like to see this somewhat bolder approach. I should like to see a 10-year gap, following a sentence of under three years, as causing a criminal record to be "spent". I hope that some Amendment to this effect may be made to the Bill when it goes into Committee.
I should like also to be reassured on one point. In the document, Living it Down, at pages 11 and 12, Lord Gardiner's Committee have not followed the Continental practice of expunging or cancelling, or destroying, the record—and the noble and learned Lord referred in his speech to this aspect. Does this mean that under the terms of this Bill the record will be available to the Parole Board and the local review committees when we are considering prisoners for parole, even though that criminal record has been spent? There is no mention of this point in Clause 5(3) of the Bill, but I certainly think that that record should be available to us. This is a slightly different point from the one made by the Minister when he was speaking about the home surroundings, although I agree with what he then said.
Substantial gaps in recorded offences are normally, and naturally, viewed by ourselves as a factor in a prisoner's favour when we are deciding on parole, and this is especially the case when we are looking at the record of a recidivist, where particular credit may be due to an inadequate and insecure offender for keeping out of trouble even for a year or two. I have in mind one or two people now serving their sentence in the community on parole for very long periods. Considerable risk was taken in granting them parole, but so far they are holding out and have not got into trouble again. One would like to think that we have gives, them credit for the gaps in their back ground. Of course there are some cases in which we are sceptical about the reality of those gaps, because, as everybody knows, not all offences are uncovered and brought to the courts.
I have made this point to allay any fear that the availability of a prisoner's con: victions to the Parole Board, despite a successful rehabilitation period, might pre-

781
judice a man's chance of parole. It would not—with one possible exception, which I mention simply to stress the need for the Board and the local review committees to have the full record, no matter what the interval of time is. This exception is that of the sexual offender. Of course I am not thinking of the sort of woman referred to by the noble and learned Lord, who was guilty of soliciting in the distant past: I am thinking of the sexual offender who uses some violence, and particularly the sexual offender against children. It may be significant, in the case of a prisoner serving currently a prison sentence for such an offence, to note that even as long ago as 11 years or more there was a previous and similar offence, or perhaps more than one offence. I am pretty sure that my eminent psychiatrist colleagues on the Board would support me in saying this. Certainly it is my experience over the past several years that this is something we must take into account before we decide whether it is appropriate to parole a person. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, would support me on this point, and consider amending the Bill in this sense. In all other respects, I support the principle of the Bill as strongly as any of your Lordships who have spoken so far.
6.59 p.m.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, we have had a very interesting and informative debate this afternoon on the Second Reading of this Bill. Like many other noble Lords, I feel that great credit is due to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for introducing it into your Lordships' House, and I owe him my apologies for not having replied to a letter received from him concerning this Bill. In apologising to the noble and learned Lord, I can only say that inadvertently his letter came to hand only two days ago. So in an attempt to make amends, I thought I should make a special effort to speak this evening.
This is a subject which interests me a great deal. It is not a Party issue, but it is an important issue concerning humanity. In this country, due to the research of Justice, the Howard League for Penal Reform and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, it would appear that at last we have guidelines for this Bill, which suggests legislation whereby we can-
782
and, I would add, should—accept back into the community a person who, despite a conviction, goes straight for a number of years. I understand that at the present time the United Kingdom is the only member country of the Council of Europe which has no legislation on the Statute Book to help the citizens whom we are discussing this evening. I hope I use the term "citizens" forcefully. In my opinion—and I trust that it is also the opinion of many of your Lordships—the citizens whom we are trying to help by this Bill have, through living down a previous conviction, earned the right to be fully accepted into the community again. I submit that it is inhuman if we do not legislate for this.
Are we in your Lordships' House to turn our hacks on them? No, my Lords; it would be unthinkable. I would go so far as to suggest that we in this House would be failing in our duty if we did not legislate to help these people to regain their full rights as citizens, when, through their own efforts over a period of from five to ten years, they have lived down their conviction. I agree with Clause 3, which lays down different rehabilitation periods geared to the original sentence imposed, but I would beg your Lordships to give these people a chance of having the slate wiped clean, which I think is the main intention of the Bill. Is it right that we, a progressive country, should be one of the very few who do not have rehabilitation laws to expunge from the record the first offence of a juvenile, or for that matter of an adult, or second offence by either a juvenile or an adult?
My Lords, the hour is late and we have had many interesting and informative speeches, especially from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who introduced this Bill so lucidly. So may I say in conclusion that my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross quite correctly criticised some of the drafting and content of the Bill, and I am in agreement with him on some of his points. But I hope that both noble and learned Lords can get together to perfect this Bill, which I consider can, in its right form, relieve great hardship and prove to be one which can be of great benefit to the cause of humanity. I therefore hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
7.4 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, in rising most enthusiastically to support the principle of this Bill and to advocate its Second Reading, I remind myself that this is an attempt to put into legal constitutional form an article of moral philosophy. Therefore, it surprises me a little that more has not been said about the nature of that rehabilitation for which this Bill seeks to provide the appropriate measures. It was adverted to, of course, by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, and there was a penultimate aspiration about it in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. But if we believe that there must be a place in all penal administration for the process of reformation, then we are committed to the subsequent principle that there must be a place for forgiveness; and forgiveness is a process by which the past is, if not obliterated, disregarded as having no further impact upon either the present or the future in the life of the man who is forgiven. This Bill is an exercise in both justification by faith and justification by works, and it seems to me to be much better able to deal with this problem than some of the ecclesiastics have been. But it certainly means that the beginning of a new life must be the ending, in principle, of that life which has preceded it.
It occurs to me that a number of the very real problems which arise in the implementation of the principle behind this Bill are problems which arise precisely because the concept of real forgiveness is a much more absolute concept than perhaps we are inclined to think. I would say, with some diffidence, that Charles Wesley has said this very well in a hymn in which he records the words:
"He breaks the power of cancelled sin and sets the prisoner free."
There is a manifest difference between the august author of that blessing and the authors of this Bill, but nevertheless it contains two principles which are identical. One is that a sin can be cancelled, a crime can be cancelled, but unless the prisoner thereafter is free then the impact of that crime continues. This has been referred to again and again in your Lordships' debate to-day, and is a very real and an absolutely vital element in our consideration.
784
I hope, therefore, that the real concept of the new beginning will be regarded as the primary objective of such a Bill as this, and that the various practical difficulties which arise will not be considered sufficient to relegate this Bill to any kind of dustbin because it is inefficient. I think it is inefficient in many respects, but your Lordships are embarking upon a principle which, in fullness, has not yet been appreciated, which is a very radical and, from the standpoint of moral philosophy, completely new idea, as represented, I suppose, in British law, of what we regard as the new beginning and of how we regard the total ending of the processes and the impact of punishment, which after expiation and reformation, and indeed penitence, makes a new man. This has an immediate impact upon the concept of forgiveness for those whose prison sentences have not been as much as two years, when the same principle is denied under the Bill to those whose offences have attracted longer sentences. This is a very dangerous thing to do, and I hope very much that we shall not divide miscreants into those whose sins can be forgiven and those who have committed unforgivable sins.
I am sure that this is a matter which can be resolved in the processes of debate and in Committee. But it would be disastrous if we endeavoured to drive a wedge between those who find available to themselves this kind of reparation and opportunity, and those who, because their sentences are longer though their crimes may not have been more grievous, are denied this opportunity. Furthermore, if we consider this concept of forgiveness and the beginning of a new life in such a way as to regard the prisoner or ex-prisoner or ex-convict as now blameless—and this is the only kind of word which can really fit the case—. then I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, was right in suggesting that it will not be beyond the wit of this House to devise words which can express the difference between the fact that a man has in the past committed errors, sins or crimes and has justly been punished for them, and the fact that he must now be regarded as a new man and that the past must not be held up against him.

785
I am sure that there is a real importance in one other matter—and because the hour is late I shall talk about only one other matter—and that is the question of certification; the idea that a man who is convicted of a crime and is about to serve or is in the process of serving his sentence will be furnished with a document. The noble Viscount the Minister referred to this as something of evidential value. I think the value of it is much more personal and much more psychological than evidential. In my experience as a prison chaplain, I have come across how little heed is paid to verbal assurances, and how much even a very small piece of paper can be treasured. I should like to see this document set out in the most impressive style, because I am completely satisfied that in many cases it will be a source of comfort, inspiration and incentive to those who can take it out of their pocket from time to time and look at it.
I should like it supplemented—and I think this is very important—by a certificate at the end of that process. If I may delay your Lordships a little, I remember one occasion when, in the open air, I was talking about this and that, and a man in the crowd said, "The trouble with you parsons is that you are all mad". I resisted that, but he went on and finally said, "If you are not mad, can you prove you are not mad?" I found that a bit "dodgy", and hoping to play for time I said, "Can you prove that you are not mad?" He said, "I can", and he did: he produced his discharge certificate from a mental institution. That is not entirely apposite, but I thought I would drag it in. At least it confirms in my own experience the value of the definite statement which can be read again and again and is not merely of oral tradition, which, as everyone with any historical background knows, is extremly dangerous.
I believe that this Bill is a very good Bill in its intention. I think it strikes new ground. I think that theologically, as well as in general terms of moral philosophy, it is compatible with what Christians ought to believe. I think it has many difficulties; and I have listened with great care to the presentation of the technical disadvantages or difficulties within it. But I am sure that it ought to have a Second Reading; and I would
786
echo words that have already been said, that within that Second Reading it is possible, if we hold fast to the principle of the Bill, to work out the various processes by which it will become effective and, I believe, of great value in the community.
7.13 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, let me say at once that the expression of opinion which has just been given vent to by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, as to what is a Christian outlook is certainly a Jewish outlook as well, and I strongly commend what he has said to the consideration of those who are still left in the House and to those who may read it to-morrow. I think the position as it stands at present is really an alarming one. It is high time that this matter was dealt with; and in my view my noble and learned friend has rendered a great service to us and to the country by having introduced this Bill and by having preceded the introduction by going very carefully, as is obvious from the report which has been issued by his Committee, into the circumstances relating to the matter and the method of dealing with it. I would say to the House that we are very considerably indebted to my noble and learned friend, whose advice in other respects many of us have sought, at very much greater expense than has been placed upon the shoulders of this House. When a situation perhaps as significant as this has arisen, we have relied on his judgment and his manner of handling the matter in the definite certainty that he has given the fullest consideration to the points involved.
I am satisfied that this Bill forms the basis of what we need, and I sincerely hope that not only shall we give it a Second Reading but that we shall give it enthusiastically, so that in the end, when it has passed through its Committee stage, we may have a Bill which will please, I hope, all the Members of this House. The idea that a sentence, once having been imposed on an individual, remains with him, as it were, from the moment of sentence "until death us do part", has to be destroyed. Once a man has in fact served his sentence and has satisfied all the needs of society in respect of the crime which he has committed, he is entitled to live in a free world, free from what has been hanging over his head. In

787
my view, the success of the three periods of rehabilitation—that is, in custody, during after-care and when free in the world—depends on one essential factor: the finding of work for the ex-offender. In this respect, of course, the Bill has a very important part to play. But I go further. In my opinion we should have a provision—I do not think it will be very acceptable to the Government; perhaps it may be a far-reaching idea—that would enable the Government of the day actively to help in the rehabilitation.
One of the chief drawbacks to employers offering work to ex-offenders is the difficulty of their not being able to be covered by a fidelity bond. Many employers would gladly employ such people if the Government or some responsible body would bond the offender. If it could possibly be done, I should like to see inserted in this Bill a clause empowering the Government to bond such offenders as, after proper inquiry, they can find reason to believe will not be recidivist. I should like the Government to say that they would then bond such persons. Let me give, as an example of such a provision, the case of a man who went to a Bridgehead House which, as your Lordships know very well, is a place which provides a home for ex-prisoners, enabling them to live in proper circumstances while they seek to go to work. This man had a wife and two children, to whom he was hoping to return when he had established himself in a job. He gained a post as a salesman and was doing well until he was asked to take out a fidelity bond. This he could not secure owing to his past record, and after nine days he was dismissed. That was in June, 1972: and he has been unemployed since, with his family on social security. He has now changed his name by deed poll to try to overcome the difficulty, but, of course, everybody in this House knows that this kind of thing can be held against him.
When I was listening to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Colville, I thought he was finding every conceivable reason why the Bill should not be given its Second Reading while at the same time commending it to the attention of the House. Of course there are difficulties. We are changing from one set of ideas to another; and since we are looking for a
788
way in which to give an individual a chance in life, a chance to which, as I have said before, he is entitled, having paid the penalty and having fulfilled the obligations placed upon him, there are bound to be difficulties the nature of which has been raised. I am sure they can be overcome. All other Governments have overcome them. I am sure I am quite wrong but I thought the noble Viscount was talking as though he had no knowledge of the fact that legislation in this respect had been passed in so many countries—and certainly, I believe, in the countries that we are going to have close connections with and are already having close connections with in Europe. Nobody has suggested that these provisions have failed hi their objective.
I was going to suggest to the noble Viscount if he had been here, that he might go into some of the provisions which are in legislation in these countries. One noble Lord mentioned Germany. The question of a man stating in court that he has no convictions has, in fact, been passed into legislative being in Germany. It happens to be in the provisions operating in Germany and, I believe, in France. Rehabilitation wipes out all the convictions and all punitive incapabilities. The conviction is not mentioned in extracts from the criminal records, and (here I quote):
"legal fiction is created that the reinstituted person has not been convicted".
It worked in France. I know that we are not the same as the French. We may differ in our outlook from some of the countries that pass these laws; but they cannot all be wrong and we be right. In the course of the Committee proceedings we ought to investigate what they have been doing and see whether what apparently has been successful in those countries should not be brought into use in the Bill itself. I am glad the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, has come back. I appeal—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords. I apologise to the noble Lord. I was talking to a very important member of the team behind the Bill. I was not wasting my time.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I do not for a moment blame the noble Viscount; he has been here throughout the proceedings. With his, if I may say so, brilliant

789
approach to matters (and I have had occasion to sit under him in Committee; so I know), I hope that he will find it possible (either himself or together with his very useful helpers) to devise an appropriate method of dealing with the points he raised. Perhaps he will go into the provisions of the Acts which are in existence in the other countries and see why they work—because they do. There is no suggestion here that what the other countries have been doing has gone wrong. Therefore, there must be a method of meeting many of the points he raised. I hope he will give enthusiastic support to the Bill because I believe that a question of time is involved here. It is high time and very important that we should deal with this problem.
I am going to make another suggestion which I hope will not upset even my noble and learned friend. I am not happy at all about the two-year limit. I hope it will extend to those who have served sentences for more than two years. I cannot see why there should be a two-year limit. In this connection I would draw the attention of my noble friend to the Criminal Justice Act 1961. Section 3 reads:
"Without prejudice to any other enactment prohibiting or restricting the imposition of imprisonment on persons of any age, a sentence of imprisonment shall not be passed by any court on a person within the limits of age which qualify for a sentence of borstal training except—

(a) for a term not exceeding six months or

(b) (where the court has power to pass such a sentence) for a term of not less than three years."

In a case like this the two-year limit would act very heavily against a person; because apparently the court has no alternative but to impose either a six-months sentence or a three-year sentence. This may be a very exceptional case, but I came across it in the course of my inquiries. I think it is interesting and one that we should consider.
Under that section young people so sentenced would automatically be outside the provisions of this Bill. It may be that the limitation is a concession to public opinion. We know that there are certain views held by a large number of the people on how crime should be dealt with. I remember the great fight on the question of the death penalty. I hope it is not a concession to them. I think we
790
ought to consider the limitation. The Living it Down Report suggests that rehabilitation following sentences of over two years might be possible by application after the period prescribed. I would strongly commend that that possibility be considered carefully.
Clause 6(2)(b)(i) could defeat the objects of the Bill. Names can be mentioned in textbooks or articles for educational, scientific or professional purposes. I should like to see this altered so that professional articles and textbooks could mention the date and the court but not the name of the convicted person, once he has been rehabilitated. I do not know whether that is a practical suggestion, but I think it ought to be considered. Reprints after the date of the rehabilitation would require to have the name deleted. That would solve some of the problems about referring to previous cases.
I should like next to refer to the form of the certificate. In the Schedule, paragraph 6, referring to reconviction, says:
"If you have been convicted before, and a similar certificate was given to you, then you will become a rehabilitated person…"—
This is a technical point. I hope your Lordships will not mind my referring to it—
"both in respect of that other conviction and your conviction to-day on the later of the two dates given in paragraph 3 of the two certificates, but only if you fulfil the conditions set out in both certificates."
Paragraph 3 says that certain conditions must be fulfilled in order to be rehabilitated. These include paragraph 4(b), which gives the condition
"that you do not commit any other offence on or before the date given in paragraph 3…"
Paragraph 6 says that a person must fulfil the conditions set out in both certificates. This, in my view, cancels out the provisions of paragraph 4. I make this technical point in conclusion, and I hope that the House will consider this a matter of extreme urgency.
I practised as a solicitor in the courts many years ago, and in a solicitor's office one really gets to know what people think. In my experience in the courts there must have been a considerable number of people who, if a law of this description had been in force, would never have gone back to crime and who were forced back to it simply because the world would

791
not accept them. I think we have to provide an opportunity for them to be re-accepted into society. It will save them and their families, and taking the example I have already mentioned, it will save the State a considerable amount of money by preventing them from becoming charges on various national funds. This is a human Bill that is needed. It may have faults, but whatever the faults are, I think we can rectify them, and I hope that your Lordships will give it a warm welcome on Second Reading.
7.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I want to speak to-night for three reasons: first of all, because this is a good Bill; secondly because on the parts that I know something about, those relating to juveniles, I feel even greater enthusiasm for the Bill; and thirdly, because I have a private duty to perform. I will not speak in general support of the Bill because I strongly dislike repeating other men's speeches, but on the subject of juveniles I think I have something that I should add. If a juvenile comes before the court and is convicted, it is of course partly his fault: but in these days, to a large extent, it is very much more the fault of his family, and maybe of their advisers. It is a common practice in these days, which I strongly support, not to bring a juvenile before the court except for some special purpose, and there are many juveniles who, although they have committed precisely the same offences as those who are brought before the court, are not brought before the court and therefore are not convicted. So that a juvenile's conviction is not necessarily very much related to what he has done, but much more related to his background, his family and perhaps their advisers.
My Lords, in the course of my seven years at a children's club I have seen many children go before the court, and a few I have had to send there myself. A great many, thank God!, I have managed to save from going to court. But I have one particular case in mind which occurred fairly recently. Two boys took a boat without the owner's consent—the offence, as we all know, under the Theft Act, of taking and using a vehicle. They had confessed to two different sets of people; there was full identification, and
792
no doubt at all about the offence. I wrote to the parents. The mother appeared with one boy. The matter was admitted, with the consent of the parents; it was dealt with out of court, and the court never heard the boy's name.
That afternoon the father of the other boy appeared, with the boy. Regrettably, he was a father of the type that one finds occasionally, who was quite convinced that his boy always told him the truth—and I rather suspect the reason why the boy did not tell him the truth was because lie would be far too severely dealt with if he did. The father refused to hear any evidence, even plain evidence, which was a matter of geography which he could have investigated simply by looking at it. The father was convinced that his son was innocent. and nothing could be done about it. For that reason, we could not even use the admirable provisions that now exist by which a boy can be warned by the police. Unfortunately, this course cannot be adopted without an admission of guilt, and of course the parents' consent. In this case even that admirable and useful power was denied to us. Short of letting the boy go, nothing could be done but to put him in front of the court. This was done; the evidence was quite clear, and the boy was convicted. It was a minor offence—although a little more important than it looks, because if a boat is left adrift it can become a killer of small children—and the boy was convicted through no fault of his. I only hope that the most careful provisions will appear in this Bill to make sure that that kind of conviction is removed from the boy's record at a very early date. I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, can tell me whether a police warning can be struck off—or perhaps it does not appear.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I do not think it appears.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, that is better still. Hearing that, and with that one point which I wish to bring out, that is all I wish to say about this Bill. However, I should like to tell your Lordships that I intend to send a copy of my speech to the father of that boy, because I feel that I got him convicted. In that I did my duty, but I should not consider that I had done my whole duty

793
if I did not do my utmost to get that conviction removed from the boy's record at the earliest possible moment.
7.38 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE); My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, garners in the sheaves of almost universal acclamation with which his efforts this afternoon have been greeted, perhaps he would listen with compassion to one or two rather critical things that I should like to say so that he may take them into account. No one who has read the Justice pamphlet or heard the noble and learned Lord this afternoon—and I have done both—would doubt that he has a very real problem here, and one which needs tackling constructively There are a number of different points that he has made, I think of varying importance, but certainly which might yield varying results. The first is the sentencing problem. I think everybody would be agreed that when a man comes up for sentence it is abominable for many irrelevant and past convictions to be read out against him. The only point about that I would make, quite briefly, is that that could be dealt with much more simply than by this Bill by simply prohibiting it administratively. That, at any rate, is the purpose of the circular to which my noble friend Lord Colville referred. I am bound to say that I am surprised that this has not been done before. I am equally doubtful as to how great an evil the evil is, because my experience has been rather similar to his namely, that judges and magistrates have the wisdom and humanity to prevent an error of that kind being made, unless a very inexperienced police constable happens to be giving the antecedents.
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord has made what I think is an absolutely valid point—the pamphlet makes it at somewhat greater length—about cross-examination as to credit in civil proceedings. I want to say straight away that I believe judges and advocates are much too lax about this matter. Judges ought to be much more stern in dealing with cross-examination as to credit, and advocates ought to be much more restrained and careful about the use of what I might call discreditable incidents they may
794
happen to know about the opposing party. There is less justification than ever for reckless cross-examination of this kind now that the main body of civil proceedings is tried by a judge alone—and the judges are usually wise enough to disregard certain matters. However, damage might be done outside the court if cross-examination is permitted.
The only two points I make about that is, first, that this could be done entirely without legislation—that is, by a greater degree of self-discipline on the part of the Bar and a greater degree of severity on the part of the Bench against members of the Bar who forget their duties and responsibilities. Secondly, it is not by any means confined to previous convictions. I should like to return to this because it leads me very much to the heart of the matter of the mischief to be discussed, which is living down disreputable incidents in one's past. The truth is that this is not confined to previous convictions. It can be a finding of guilt of some kind in a civil proceeding; it can be a finding of guilt in a matrimonial court or affiliation proceedings, or it can be something disreputable which did not ultimately result in any proceedings of any kind.
I think that most of us in this House would agree that it is abominable to rake up incidents out of anybody's past, whether there are convictions or not. I want the noble and learned Lord who proposed the Second Reading to bear that in mind when I come to say what I have to say, because my view is that there ought to be some legal protection against the resurrection of disreputable incidents after a certain time, whether there are convictions or not. It may be that it ought to be made a summary offence to publish episodes, true or false, of events coming out of the past. It may be, again, that it ought to be a tort, yielding an action for damages; or both of them. But the fact is that, for reasons which are perfectly intelligible if one reads the pamphlet but the logic of which is not absolutely plain to me, the sponsors of this Bill have made two classes of humanity: those who have been convicted of a crime and who are put in a privileged position, because their past may not be resurrected (although they are, of the two classes, probably the less meritorious), and those

795
who have not been convicted of a crime and who are given absolutely no protection at all. I think that is a serious criticism of this approach to this Bill.
That brings me to one or two of the broader criticisms that I should like to make. The noble and learned Viscount Lord Dilhorne, from the Cross-Benches touched on this point, which was also touched upon by the noble Leader of the Opposition: that the method adopted by this Bill is not to expunge the events by a legal fiction of saying that it cannot be used for certain purposes. It is to license the person affected to tell a lie about it and to prohibit anybody else from telling the truth about it. I believe that is much more serious than people might think at first sight. I believe that it diminishes the value of truth-telling as a vital moral principle in the community. And though I would not necessarily by any means oppose such a proposal if it were the only way of setting about it, I am not wholly satisfied that it is the only way of setting about it, for the kind of reason given by the noble and learned Viscount from the Cross-Benches.
Moreover, I think it is at least arguable that if you choose to set about it in this particular way—that is to say, licensing untruthfulness on the part of the former criminal and prohibiting truthfulness on the part of everybody else—you do (and this was a point of detailed criticism put forward by my noble friend from the Front Bench earlier) perhaps give rise to a greater number of anomalies and injustices, spread over quite a wide range of largely unforeseen contingencies, than you save by prohibiting the disclosure of truth in certain circumstances.
The other thing I would say about this Bill—and I would echo what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said on this, although he was an enthusiastic supporter of the Bill—is that to my mind, it tends to be much too complicated. It complicates the law instead of simplifying it. I am not at all sure that that is a good thing. The complications into which we have had to go this evening indicate to me that there may be a basic vice about this Bill. Here I would say a word to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. When he was discussing earlier in this Session the proposals
796
of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, he made what may or may not have been a valid point in favour of the Law Commission—the immensely wide range of consultation which he recommended as a necessary preliminary to law reform. I wonder myself whether the process of consultation in regard to this matter has gone quite far enough, because clearly a very wide range of potential commercial and other interests are involved. There is the whole of matrimonial law and the whole of defamation law. It so happens that this is the one field into which I have been able to make an inquiry, and the Defamation Committee have grave reservations about Clause 6. Then, of course, there is the whole field of insurance and employment. These things require very careful consideration. I wonder whether there has been enough.
The fact of the matter is that, for reasons for which this House is in no way responsible, it is quite unlikely that this Bill will, with the best will in the world and with all the enthusiasm it has engendered, reach the Statute Book this Session. I therefore wonder whether it might not be a good thing to consider seriously the suggestion made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that the matter might be referred to a Select Committee or that in some other way a more detailed examination of its proposals might be possible. It is easy to say, with the noble Lord, Lord Janner, that this is an extremely important matter, although it refers to a state of affairs which has existed for a very long time; but I believe that if we are to do a legislative job here, we ought to make sure that it is a good one. With that word of caution, I leave the field to the noble and learned Lord. He has every reason to congratulate himself on the result of this evening's debate. I do not wish in any way to delay or obstruct the passage of this measure, if and in so far as on reflection it receives the good will and approval of the House; but I think that, standing where I do in the Office which I hold, I ought to utter cautionary words where cautionary words may improve the situation. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord will not take it amiss that I have said these very few words in criticism of what he has proposed.
7.49 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have been good enough to take part in the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill—one of the largest number of speakers that I remember. There has not been a single speaker who has opposed the Second Reading of the Bill. It never occurred to me that the Bill was likely to be properly drafted—very few Private Members' Bills are—and I am very grateful that a great number of points have been taken. To those who have been good enough to stay to the end of the debate, may I say that we shall take all these points into account, the ones, for example, made by my noble friend Lord St. Davids, with his great knowledge of boys, and the point made by my noble friend Lord Janner, about the two years in the Schedule.
If I may mention one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the position is that criminal records come under the Official Secrets Acts; therefore, those who maintain the records have no right to divulge them to anybody without authority. The normal source of their authority is the Home Secretary, and while the noble Viscount could answer this point better than I, I simply cannot conceive of any Home Secretary who would not allow both the Parole Board and the local committees full access to all information, whether the person concerned is rehabilitated or not. It is, I am afraid, the fact that sometimes the police reveal things in a sense rather off their own bat. I will read, even at this hour, a very nice letter from a boy (I am indulging myself really in referring to it). It is an example of an unauthorised disclosure. It was a letter written to the son of my noble friend Lord Janner, who, as you know, is a Labour Member in another place. The boy wrote:
"Dear Mr Janner,
I see you want ideas for new laws. I am 15 and have a good idea. My Dad is a good kind man and votes labour too. He has worked in his job for 17 years.
Two months ago some goods was stolen from a shop near to us. A policeman came round in plain clothes and asked everybody questions. My Dad was being questioned downstairs and the policeman said, 'We know you have a record and been in trouble You was in trouble in 1954'. My Dad said, Yes I was only bound over for a year'. We all heard
798
it and Mum cried and we was all upset. But it was not my Dad who done it and two other men was fined…
I think you should change the law so as if a person lives a good life for some years these things should be forgotten and taken off the records. I won't give my address as we have had enough worry and we have all forgiven Dad. I was not born then anyway."
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have made such helpful comments and raised a number of very clear Committee points. When we reach the Committee stage I shall rely particularly on my noble friend Lord Shackleton, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, as well as the Home Office, for their assistance.
I will confess quite frankly that something we never considered is the Liberian tanker in Greek waters. Some of these points may be matters of opinion. The Committee would probably still feel, rightly or wrongly, that if you say to a man, I am giving you a chance, putting you on probation. Do what you are told for two years and there will be no trouble; you will never hear of this offence again", it is not right if, after the two years he does offend again, then the first thing he gets is the old conviction thrown at his throat—the conviction he was told by the judges he would never hear about again.
The defamation position has been somewhat exaggerated. One of the very few branches of the law that I know anything about is the law of defamation. There was a time when I was in danger of being thought of as a libel specialist. This is always fatal at the Bar, as the noble Viscount knows. It is not uncommon in a libel action for somebody who has given a reference, to plead justification; but he is under no obligation to do so. If he has not pleaded justification he cannot say, "Yes, this man was convicted". But, having qualified privilege, he is entitled to say, "I believe what I said was true, and I will tell you why". However, all these fascinating points can be considered on Committee, and I shall rely very much on the kindness and help of those who have promised to help. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was right in saying that with good will on everybody's part we shall get the Bill right.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SUPPLY OF GOODS (IMPLIED TERMS) BILL [H.L.]
7.55 p.m.
THE EARL of LIMERICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Earl of Limerick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 4 [Exemption clauses]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 46 and insert—
Exclusion of implied terms and conditions
(". For section 55 of the principal Act (exclusion of implied terms and conditions) there shall be substituted the following section:—
"55.—(1) Where any right, duty or liability would arise under a contract of sale of goods by implication of law, it may be negatived or varied by express agreement, or by the course of dealing between the parties, or by usage if the usage is such as to bind both parties to the contract, but the foregoing provision shall have effect subject to the following provisions of this section.
(2) An express condition or warranty does not negative a condition or warranty implied by this Act unless inconsistent therewith.
(3) In the case of a contract of sale of goods, any term of that or any other contract exempting from all or any of the provisions of se-etion 12 of this Act shall be void.
(4) In the case of a contract of sale of goods, any term of that or any other contract exempting from all or any of the provisions of section 13, 14 or 15 of this Act shall be void in the case of a consumer sale and shall, in any other case, not be enforceable to the extent that it is shown that it would not be fair or reasonable to allow reliance on the term.
(5) In determining for the purposes of subsection (4) above whether or not reliance on any such term would be fair or reasonable regard shall be had to all the circumstances of the case and in particular to the following matters—

(a) the strength of the bargaining positions of the seller and buyer relative to each other, taking into account, among other things, the availability of suitable alternative products and sources of supply;

(b) whether the buyer received an inducement to agree to the term or in accepting it had an opportunity of buying the goods or suitable alternatives without it from any source of supply;

(c) whether the buyer knew or ought reasonably to have known of the existence
800
and extent of the term (having regard, among other things, to any custom of the trade and any previous course of dealing between the parties);

(d) Where the term exempts from all or any of the provisions of section 13, 14 or 15 of this Act if some condition is not complied with, whether it was reasonable at the time of the contract to expect that compliance with that condition would be practicable;

(e) whether the goods were manufactured, processed or adapted to the special order of the buyer.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I hope not to take too long on this Amendment. I suggest that it might be desirable to consider Amendment No. 5 at the same time. Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 follow from the changes it is proposed to make by Amendments Nos. 1 and 5. Therefore they ought to be considered as consequential. If I may now speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 5 with that premise, Amendment No. 1 relates to the sale of goods and the other Amendment to hire purchase. It has been our intention throughout that the provisions of the Bill relating to hire purchase agreements should follow as closely as possible those applicable to the sale of goods. The first thing we have done in this Amendment, following a suggestion by the Law Society, is to restate in Clause 4(1) what is in fact the existing Section 55 of the Sale of Goods Act. This has the effect of bringing together in Clause 4 all the provisions relating to exclusion clauses in contracts for the sale of goods. As originally drafted, users of the Bill would have found it necessary to refer to both the Sale of Goods Act and the Bill for these provisions. This will no longer be necessary. No change of meaning or intention has so far been introduced, and I regard this as basically a consolidating Amendment.
I should point out a minor difference, The words, "contract of sale of goods" appears in the fifth line of the Amendment, whereas the comparable words in the old Section 55 were simply, "contract of sale". This makes no difference to the construction of the clause. Subsections (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 4 have been largely re-drafted. Many of the changes involve no alteration of meaning or intention: taken with the new subsection 4(9A), which is the subject of Amendment No. 3, they simplify and clarify this part of the Bill. But there

801
are two important changes to which I now refer. The first is in the words, "any term of that or any other contract" in Clause 4(3) and 4(4). The change will prevent potential evasion of the ban on exclusion clauses in consumer sales by an ingenious method first drawn to our attention by Mr. John Whitmore of Leicester University, to whom we are much indebted. As the Bill now stands, evasion of the ban would be possible through collateral contracts. The wording now proposed, "any term of that or any other contract" will make this impossible. I could explain this in greater detail, if pressed, but I hope that I may be excused at this hour from doing so.
The second and the more important of the changes introduced by these Amendments is to the so-called guide-lines, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, will remember the debate that we had in Committee about this, in which I promised to take back the then proposals in the Bill and discuss them with my friend Sir Geoffrey Howe. The general contest was between the proposals of the Bill, which were short and simple, and the more elaborate guidelines designed by the Report of the Law Commission of which the noble and learned Lord expressed his approval. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel that in these Amendments we have gone a long way to give satisfaction to his point of view. No doubt he will wish to offer comments and criticisms on what we have done.
Obviously, there is an almost infinite scope for discussion. We had a number of suggestions from the Law Society which we discussed last time, and there is in fact no limit to the number of factors which might be taken into account. It is, I think, common ground that the guidelines simply draw attention to those factors which will generally be the most important, not only for the courts to consider in disputed cases but also as a guide to buyers and sellers in drawing up their contracts. With this in mind, the redrafted guidelines have been based more closely on the Law Commission's proposals than the original text of the Bill.
If I may go very rapidly through them, without dealing with them in too much detail, Guideline A, to be found in the new subsection (5) of Clause 4, can be
802
equated with the original Law Commission's A. The differences between the two relate mainly to the need to focus on the relative bargaining position of the two parties. We would see it as perhaps an odd way of looking at a contract to refer, as the Law Commission's proposal appears to refer, to the bargaining position of the buyer relative to other suppliers; and we believe that reference should be made to the availability of alternative products which may be just as important as alternative sources of supply of the same product.
Guideline B is analogous to the Law Commission's Guideline D. It does however make it clear that it covers cases where the buyer adopts the active role of seeking, as distinct from the passive role suggested by being offered, an inducement to accept an exclusion clause. The new version also draws attention to an additional factor which we believe may be of considerable significance; namely, whether in accepting an exclusion clause the buyer had freedom of choice. This of course is the substance of Guideline B of the Bill.
Guideline C in the Amendment brings together the substance of the two Guidelines B and C in the Law Commission's Report. We think it overcomes two deficiencies in the Law Commission's wording. The Law Commission's B, for instance, might allow an unscrupulous buyer to agree deliberately to an ambiguous term in order to be able to rely on its ambiguity later. In our view, it is necessary to provide only for the case where the buyer did not know, and could not reasonably have known, of the scope of the term. Similarly, the Law Commission's Guideline C does not allow for cases where no steps need be taken to bring the terms to the buyer's attention. This might apply, for example, when the buyer and seller have been dealing with each other for a number of years. Again, the important test is whether the buyer knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the existence of the term.
Guideline D in the Amendment is of course the same as Law Commission's Guideline E, with the element of retrospection omitted. We continue to take the view that whether it is reasonable to allow reliance on a term of a contract should be decided in the light of the

803
circumstances at the time of formation of the contract. To take account of later events for this purpose could be equivalent to changing the rules in the middle of the game. It is also to be noticed that Guideline D in the Amendment relates only to the implied terms in Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the principal Act. Section 12 is not included because of course it will not be possible to exclude undertakings as to title in any contract.
Guideline E is the same as the Law Commission's Guideline F and is unchanged. As I said at the Committee stage, we have not really been able to make sense of Law Commission's Guideline G. I hope, my Lords, that having indulged in what I am afraid is a rather technical explanation, the House will come to the conclusion that the Government have redeemed the undertaking I gave in the Committee stage and have applied their minds to an improvement which will meet some of the doubts expressed by the noble and learned Lord and others, and that we have genuinely sought a satisfactory answer to the questions which were discussed then. My Lords. I beg to move.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for what he has been good enough to say. I think that on the Committee stage of the Bill the only non-Government Amendment proposed was the one that I moved, in effect to replace for the guidelines in the Bill the Law Commission's guidelines; and the noble and learned Lord was good enough to say that he would consider it with the Minister. He has redeemed that promise and has now virtually accepted the guidelines of the Law Commission, subject to one or two points of terminology—which is always in question—and except also for the question whether something should be judged as at the time of the contract or later. That again is a matter of opinion.
Curiously enough, when it comes to A, the Law Commission ended their A after "sources of supply at the time of the contract"; but this draft does not. But when it comes to considering whether a term could practically be complied with, they are insisting on the time of the contract instead of at the time of the hearing. As to what the court is trying
804
to do at the hearing—to decide whether in the circumstances it would be fair or reasonable to allow the trader to rely on the term—I should still have thought that that was best judged at that time, But this is entirely a matter of opinion. Broadly speaking, the noble and learned Lord has been as good as his word: he has discussed it again with the Minister, and I think has in substance accepted the Amendments which I then moved. Accordingly, I am grateful to him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, this is no more than a drafting Amendment. The existing wording could conceivably be taken to mean that the provisions referred to are those which are common to Sections 13, 14 and 15 collectively, and this small change makes it clear that for this purpose the reference is to each of these sections separately. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5 line 4, leave out ("sections 13 to") and insert ("section 13, 14 or").—(The Earl of Limerick.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 is consequential. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 15, at end insert—
("(9A) Any reference in this section to a term exempting from all or any of the provisions of any section of this Act is a reference to a term which purports to exclude or restrict, or has the effect of excluding or restricting, the operation of all or any of the provisions of that section, or the exercise of a right conferred by any provision of that section, or any liability of the seller for breach of a condition or warranty implied by any provision of that section.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I am just a little curious about this numbering. May I say just a few words? This Amendment I think is not quite consequential: it has been mentioned in connection with Amendment No. 7. These Amendments, again, do not in any way alter the provisions of the Bill, but allow Clauses 4 and 12 to be much more succinctly stated. What has been done is to take out a common factor from Clause 4, subsections (3), (4) and (5),

805
namely, the exemption term, to define this in the Amendment and give it effect for the purposes of the relevant clause. I feel that the House will welcome the brevity and increased clarity with which it is thus possible to express the provisions of these subsections. A similar course has been followed in relation to Amendment No. 7 which relates to the parallel Clause 12, dealing with hire purchase agreements. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Interpretation]:
8.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK THE EARL OF LIMERICK moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 42, after ("other") insert ("relevant").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment and Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 have a common purpose and it may be convenient to consider them together. All three arise from a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in Committee. I am sorry that the noble Lord is unable to be present, but I appreciate his courtesy in sending me an apology and explanation of his absence. As at present drafted, the Bill prescribes that among the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether goods are fit for the purpose are
"the price (if relevant) and all the other circumstances".
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, pointed out that there was some inconsistency of approach in this. By this Amendment we make it clear, for the sake of consistency, that other circumstances are to be taken into account only if they also are relevant. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Exemption Clauses]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, subject to my noble friend's better opinion this Amendment is the same as Amendment No. 1, relating to Hire Purchase. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 10 and insert—
("(2) A term of a hire purchase agreement or any other agreement exempting from all or
806
any of the provisions of section 8 above shall be void.
(3) A term of a hire purchase agreement or any other agreement exempting from all or any of the provisions of section 9, 10 or 11 above shall be void in the case of a consumer agreement and shall, in any other case, not be enforceable to the extent that it is shown that it would not be fair or reasonable to allow reliance on the term.
(4) In determining for the purpose of subsection (3) above whether or not reliance on any such term would be fair or reasonable regard shall be had to all the circumstances of the case and in particular to the followirg matters—

(a) the strength of the bargaining positions of the owner and hirer relative to each other, taking into account, among other things, the availability of suitable alternative products and sources of supply

(b) whether the hirer received an inducement to agree to the term or in accepting it had an opportunity of acquiring the goods or suitable alternatives without it from any source of supply;

(c) whether the hirer knew or ought reasonably to have known of the existence and extent of the term (having regard, among other things, to any custom of the trade and any previous course of dealing between the parties);

(d) where the term exempts from all or any of the provisions of section 9, 10 or 11 above if some condition is not complied with, whether it was reasonable at the time of the agreement to expect that compliance with that condition would be practicable;

(e) whether the goods were manufactured, processed or adapted to the special order of the hirer.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am told that this is a drafting Amendment similar to Amendment No. 2. The revised wording now explicitly states that the provisions referred to are those of Section 9, Section 10 or Section 11 of the Act. I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 6, leave out ("sections 9 to") and insert ("section 9, 10 or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, we discussed this Amendment with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 18, at end insert—
("(8A) Any reference in this section to a term exempting from all or any of the provisions of any section of this Act is a reference

807
to a term which purports to exclude or restrict, or has the effect of excluding or restricting, the operation of all or any of the provisions of that section, or the exercise of a right conferred by any provision of that section, or any liability of the owner for breach of a condition or warranty implied by any provision of that section").—(The Earl of Limerick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Supplementary]:
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 arises from an undertaking which I gave in Committee to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. Its purpose is simply to give an indication of where in the Bill the definition of a "consumer sale" is to be found. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 11, leave out ("this Act") and insert ("section 4 above").—(The Earl of Limerick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, we discussed this Amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 28, at end insert ("relevant").—(The Earl of Limerick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Terms to be implied on redemption of trading stamps for goods]:
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, again this Amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 40, after ("other") insert ("relevant").—(The Earl of Limerick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Short title, citation, interpretation, commencement, repeal and saving]:
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, this is essentially a drafting Amendment. The addition of Section 29(3)(c) to those parts of the Hire Purchase Acts to be repealed is consequential upon the repeal of Section 19 of each of those Acts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 16, leave out from ("20") to ("the") in line 18 and insert ("and 29(3)(c) of each of the following Acts, that is to say, the Hire-Purchase Act 1965, the Hire-Purchase (Scotland) Act 1965 and").—(The Earl of Limerick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

HOUSING (AMENDMENT) BILL
8.15 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, it would perhaps be helpful to noble Lords if I were to begin by outlining the main purposes of this small but important Bill before turning to examine some of the broader housing policy considerations upon which the Bill has a bearing. There are two purposes to the Bill. The first, set out in Clause 1, is the proposal to extend to June 23, 1974, the availability of a higher rate of grant and Government contribution towards house improvement and general area improvement within the development and intermediate areas. This extra help, originally provided under the Housing Act 1971, would otherwise terminate in June, 1973. This Bill therefore proposes an extension of the availability of these higher grants by a further year.
Clause 1 also extends the 1971 Act very slightly in scope. For example, under the 1971 Act local authorities are not able to receive the higher 90 per cent. contribution from the Government towards a grant to a private owner if that grant does not amount to three-quarters of the approved expense of the work. This provision was originally designed to encourage local authorities to be generous, but in practice it has been found to give rise to some anomalies in cases where owners applied for grant-aid towards expensive and ambitious improvement schemes. In such cases local authorities, for perfectly good and sensible reasons, having decided not to make a case for special treatment but having restricted grants to the normal maximum, then find that they are penalised by not receiving a 90 per cent. Government contribution but only 75 per cent. This Bill proposes to remedy this administrative defect by allowing a 90 per cent. Government contribution on all grants approved at the normal maximum figure, whether or not that maximum amounts to three-quarters of the

809
approved expense of the work. This concession is to be made retrospective to August 4, 1972, when the Government's intention was first announced.
The provisions of this Bill will help to keep up the momentum of improving living conditions in those areas where the tendency has been for the harsher economic climate to hold back progress. I believe that the extra year provided by this proposed legislation will take us a good deal further towards our ultimate aim of providing every family in the country with a decent home.
The second purpose of this Bill is to give the Secretary of State power to allow or to require local authorities to attach conditions to the sale of council houses for a longer pre-emption than the five years which is the limit imposed under existing legislation. This proposal is set out in Clause 2. Clause 2 will enable local authorities in areas where there have been exceptional rises in council house prices to offer discounts of up to 30 per cent., instead of the normal 20 per cent., if they wish to do so, coupled with the imposition of pre-emption conditions for eight years, instead of the normal five. In 1967 the Labour Government introduced the idea of allowing local authorities the discretion of giving discounts of up to 20 per cent. on council house sales in areas of special housing scarcity. Many local authorities since then have availed themselves of this facility, creating the new restricted market value by the imposition of the conditions restricting re-sale for a period of five years. That period is the present legal maximum for which such conditions may be imposed. When, therefore, it was felt right to grant the request of several local authorities in recent months to grant discounts of up to 30 per cent., legislation became necessary for authorising longer pre-emption periods.
The Government's policy is clear. Many tenants of council houses want to buy the homes in which they live. We believe they should be given the chance to buy and that the ability to give them this provides local authorities with a unique opportunity to encourage owner occupation for many people who do not want to move and could not otherwise afford to buy. Tenants' wishes in this matter should be taken into account by local authorities. Of course they should also see to the
810
needs of people waiting for houses to rent, and the way to do that is to provide more accommodation. Stopping sales does not help them. We believe that as time goes on local authorities will become increasingly aware of the extent of the demand from their tenants to buy, and more and more authorities will decide to adopt positive sales policies. We want local authorities to use their discretion in this matter voluntarily and in response to local demand. I trust that noble Lords in all parts of the House will feel able to give this measure their unqualified support.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
8.20 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, for his explanation of the Bill before us. The Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr. Paul Channon, speaking in the other place on November 28 last year, paid a very deserved tribute to the Housing Act 1969, for which my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale was responsible. I think it proper that his constructive enterprise should be remembered to-day, for it is following the initiative of what the Minister, Mr. Channon, stated was a "radical and imaginative measure" that the 1971 Act was enacted. I would in turn acknowledge the value of the later measure. The 1971 Act was aimed at securing an acceleration in the rate of improvement of houses in development and intermediate areas by way of improving the rate of grant and Government contributions. The ambition of the Government appears to have been to break the back of the problem by June, 1973, and some £46 million was provided for that purpose. Whatever speeding up was achieved has been most welcome, but quite clearly more remains to be done; hence this present Bill, which extends by one year the period for which the higher grants will be available.
It might have been useful if we had been given some indication of the size of the problem remaining because, having regard to the size of the problem yet to be tackled in the light of the rate of progress experienced, one wonders whether one year's extension will be adequate. If two years were allowed, as they were, for the expenditure of some

811
£46 million, by what reckoning do the Government anticipate that in an additional year £41 million, as provided in this Bill, can be successfully employed? If the Minister says that the limited extension of one year is to secure speed in the rate of improvement, then I should like to ask whether the Government are being realistic. I ask that question against the background of the question which I have just put to the Minister: what is the size of the problem remaining, and has there been any recognition that the problem will inevitably grow with the passage of time?
There are a number of other questions that arise in one's mind about the use of grants and the rate of take-up. We have all heard or read of houses being bought, improved by the assistance of grant aid, and then sold at a grossly increased price. Indeed, this matter was referred to yesterday, and because it was referred to at some length I shall not take up your Lordships' time this evening. I wonder what is being done to ensure that local authorities use their powers to deal with any abuse such as was referred to in the debate yesterday afternoon. The matter is one of considerable concern for, as the Minister, Mr. Channon, showed in the other place, he is aware of the problem and of the social implications that follow from what is taking place in this regard.
On the matter of the rate of take-up (and here again the Minister showed some awareness) the percentage of grants that went to landlords of privately owned houses, as I understand what he said in the other place, was only some 20 per cent.: indeed, he gave figures which suggested a fall from 21 per cent. for the first six months of 1972 to 19 per cent. in the third quarter. Without much doubt, this is the sector which most stands in need of improvement. They will be the properties which can all too soon deteriorate below any reasonable standard and become unfit for human habitation. What impetus will the Government provide for an effort commensurate with the need in this particular field? The examples of local authorities and housing associations are on record and prompt me to mention the attractions of public ownership of these rented properties—perhaps by way of municipalisation. In
812
those cases where the landlord is unable or fails to bring about the improvements which this Bill is aimed at securing, or to maintain properties at reasonable levels, we certainly need a new approach. I suggest that serious consideration should be given to the municipalisation of these properties as desirable social policy.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, whether grants on the scale on which they are being made available for development in the intermediate areas will be made in the areas of housing stress—because the problem is a considerable one. I ask that because I believe it ought to be made clear, not only for the benefit of landlords but also for the benefit of tenants, whether Government grants will extend to and include such matters as electrical re-wiring.
The second part of the Bill, as the noble Lord has said, makes provision to enable conditions imposed by local authorities in England and Wales on the sale of their houses to be applied for a longer period than the existing five years. I have nothing to say against the principle of home ownership. I own the house in which I live, as I suppose do many of your Lordships. But, despite that fact, I view housing as a social service, and in the case of a very substantial section of the community their housing needs can best be met by renting; indeed, for a great many it is the only possibility. Not only is it the only possibility, but it is also the only sensible solution. In the overwhelming majority of cases, provision for those who need houses to rent, on the scale required, can best be made by public enterprise, by local authorities —who might, incidentally, build more for sale to those who want to buy than at present they are doing.
I appreciate that the idea of the sale of council houses rejoices the hearts of the Front Bench opposite. It is a political gimmick that stirs the enthusiasm of those who so dislike public enterprise, and particularly successful public enterprise. But the sale of council houses does nothing to add to, and will not add a single house to, the stock of housing. I have refreshed my memory as to the terms of a circular sent out in 1967 by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Circular 24/67. Again I think these were the years when my noble

813
friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale was at the Ministry. If I may, very briefly, I will quote what that circular had to say on this particular topic of the sale of council houses:
"The Ministers take the view that, in areas where there is still an unsatisfied demand for houses to let at moderate rents, they"—
that is to say, the councils—
"should not sell their existing houses except where there are special reasons in the case of a particular property. To do so would postpone the time when an adequate supply of rented housing becomes available; and could mean that families on the waiting list, who are among the most inadequately housed, would have to wait longer for a vacancy. Moreover, the sale of a substantial number of the older houses and their replacement by new houses to let could have the effect of unnecessarily increasing the rents of the remaining houses or of putting extra charges on the general ratepayers, or both."
The Housing Finance Act is going to do enough damage in the matter of rents, and the rating revaluation may well have a very damaging effect additionally in some parts of the country.
The circular continues:
"Local authority tenants who wish to move to a private house can be given every encouragement and assistant to do so. The authority can then relet to a family in need.
"The principal consideration is that the sale of existing council houses reduces the stock of houses that can be let at moderate rents.…Any reduction in the stock of rented houses both reduces the chances of families on the waiting list and restricts the opportunities for transfer and exchange among tenants. Thus a valuable element of flexibility in the management of the council's housing stock is diminished."
I thought if I read what the circular said the issue would he put more succinctly to the House than I might have done by using my own words to cover the matter. Nothing has occurred since to alter or to detract from the soundness of that advice given there. My noble friend was right then, and what was said then remains valid now. I have to say that the circular sent out in June of last year added nothing of value, as it added nothing to the stock of houses available for living in.
The Government do not seem to be doing too well in this matter of housing provision. As I understand from yesterday's Press, fewer new houses were available last year than at any time in the
814
past nine years. The number of council houses slumped by nearly 25 per cent., to 1961 levels. These are the houses that the Government want to see increasingly sold. For the first year since 1963 the total figures have dropped below 350,000—down to 319,100. I remember when we were sitting on that side what was said from the Benches behind me when the present Conservative leaders were in Opposition. They chided and derided us for what we achieved in the field of housing construction. Here we are to-day at a point when we have gone back to before 1963.
On slum clearance, despite their declared intention of clearing slums by 1980, the programme shows a drop of from more than 70,000 in 1970 to just over 66,000 in 1972, the lowest figure for five years. All this against a background of soaring resale prices. The figures issued by the Nationwide Building Society are startling, indeed, alarming, as to the increases that have been taking place in these last 12 months. When we are told that perhaps the percentage increase has not been as great as it has been in other years when it has been extraordinarily high, I ask: percentage of what—the enhanced price that followed the other very substantial percentage increases?
We talk about home ownership. Let us consider the issue of land prices. We are told that the average price for an acre of building land throughout the country is running at about £25,000, varying from less than £10,000 in Yorkshire to, in the county where I live, Surrey, £100,000 an acre. These are figures that give some indication of the background against which the Government want to encourage local authorities to sell council houses, despite the very heavy lists in so many areas of applicants for houses.
We shall not oppose this Bill; indeed, we welcome the extended period as far as the grants are concerned. The second Part we note, but hope, perhaps with little expectation of realisation, that the Government will, however reluctantly, realise the error of Mr. Julian Amery's ways when he was in charge, as revealed by his endeavours in 1972, as they have lived to learn the folly of so many of their other policies. Meantime, we shall do nothing to delay the passage of the Bill.
8.37 p.m.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I welcome this Bill for two reasons. I am sure it will help forward the work of improvement which is so badly needed particularly in the development and intermediate areas, and it will also do something to tidy up and improve the arrangements for the sale of council houses.
I would, however, like to raise two particular points. One is a general point and concerns the effect on prices of the system of improvement grants. The other is more specific and concerns housing associations. The existence of the present system of improvement grants has had, I believe, a definite effect on the demand for unimproved properties, and as a result prices for these have risen. Vendors have found that they can add perhaps up to £1,000, and maybe a little more in development areas, to the price of an unimproved property without in any way affecting the net cost of the finished article to the person who purchases and improves. This would appear to convey a benefit to the previous owner, and to reduce, and perhaps even eliminate, the benefit to the purchaser and improver.
I think this cannot have been intended when the system of improvement grants was brought in in the first place, and later on was improved and extended in several ways. I understand that a general review of improvement policy is being carried out at the moment within the Department of the Environment, and I hope that, as a result of that review, new and better incentives will be worked out which will encourage improvement without inflating the prices of unimproved properties.
For consideration I would put forward the idea that a fiscal incentive might replace the present cash grants. This kind of incentive already exists in the case of the improvements that are made to agricultural workers' houses. In this particular instance, the whole of the cost of improvement of such a house is eligible for tax relief, but the tax relief is spread out over a period of 10 years. If this system of tax relief could be adapted and extended to cover improvements to all dwelling houses, I believe that there would be an incentive to improve and that there would be less of an inflationary effect on the prices to be obtained for
816
unimproved old houses. It might well be considered whether the period for the tax relief could be shortened from 10 years to perhaps five years in cases where the income of the person carrying out the improvements is sufficient to absorb the relief.
Now I come to the much more urgent, immediate and specific point relating to housing associations. Under Section 21 of the Housing Act, 1969, associations are able to receive Exchequer contributions instead of the ordinary cash improvement grant, and in many cases this is very much to their advantage. In August 1969 a ceiling was fixed for these Exchequer contributions in the sum of£2,500. That was almost immediately after the Bill became an Act. This ceiling has been overtaken by the rise in house prices and the equally serious rise in building costs. Fortunately, the Secretary of State has discretion to vary this ceiling. I believe that he should vary it, and that he should raise it to at least£3,500 in the development and intermediate areas. A higher ceiling will probably be needed in other areas because higher costs obtain there. If nothing is done, I fear that what will happen is that the work of improvement by housing associations will simply grind to a halt. The reason for this is that there is an accidental relationship between the "fair rents", which housing associations are now obliged to charge—and the ceiling for Exchequer contributions in respect of acquisition and improvement. Unless the ceiling is roughly equal to the total capital cost of the improved dwelling, associations charging fair rents are virtually certain to make a loss, to incur a deficit, and that deficit will go on for a period of up to 20 years unless the fair rents increase very rapidly in the meanwhile.
Housing associations are improving properties in the inner city ring—otherwise known as the "twilight zone". They are providing rented dwellings, they are increasing the range of choice available to people who need houses, and they are intentionally choosing as tenants persons and families who are in great housing need at this moment. Therefore, if this work that they are doing is considered to be valuable, I urge the Secretary of State to raise the ceiling which I have mentioned immediately, and not to wait until the

817
general review of improvement policy has been completed.
8.45 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this Bill applies to Scotland as well as to the rest of the country, and I take advantage of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, is not in his place to say a few words without necessarily adding to the total of what otherwise might have been said. I want to emphasise how much I am in agreement with what my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy has said about the adequacy of the period of one year's extension. I have no knowledge of the situation this side of the Border, but I am quite certain, both from my present knowledge and the knowledge which I acquired during the time when I had responsibility for these matters in the Scottish Office, that there remains far too much to be possibly undertaken in the period of another year.
I welcome what the Government did when they extended the grant to 90 per cent., and there is no doubt that it has increased very considerably the improvements which are taking place, but even if that accelerated rate continues for the period of the year which is being added, it will still leave a great deal to be done. We have more and more come to the point where it is obvious that what is being done in a particular Bill will not see the end of the matter of giving the Minister, or Ministers, power to extend by Order being placed before Parliament in due course, and I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, that he convey to his right honourable friends the possibility that this course might be adopted in this measure. If, after all, it turns out that my noble friend and I are wrong and the problem is solved in a year, then no Order may be introduced; but if the Government find that they can add to the good they are doing by extending the provisions for the further period, then it enables that to be done in the simplest possible way.
The second point I wished to make, also briefly, concerned the way in which people are using grants for the wrong purpose—by which I mean the extent to which people are buying properties, and sometimes using rather disreputable methods of getting the existing occupiers
818
out, so that they may pocket the whole, or a very large part, of the grant on the sale of the improved house. Until last year the position in Scotland was different from that in England and Wales, in that there was a condition attached to the grant that the whole, or part of the grant, would be repayable if the house was sold within a period of five years. That was not the position in England and Wales. I understand that this was largely because of the fact that it was so easy for people to get round it by giving long leases rather than freehold sales, and apparently it did not count as a sale if this was done. I regret that the Secretary of State for Scotland decided to follow the English example and removed that condition.
What is happening in Scotland—and I see no reason why it should not happen on this side of the Border also—is that a number of local authorities, even though they are anxious to have the maximum amount of improvements, are refusing to give grants to those who are obviously developing for the purpose of pocketing an extra profit, but are confining their grants to owner-occupiers or to owners of properties who are to continue to rent the improved property. Very largely, of course, the second category is being undertaken by the housing associations, who often acquire the property for the purpose of improvement and then subsequent letting.
I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, that even at this late stage the Government should either consider reinserting a period during which the grant may be repaid in whole or in part, or alternatively, if it were possible to do it by administrative action, advising local authorities not to make grants payable to speculative developers, but rather to confine them to those who are going to continue to rent properties or who are going to occupy the property themselves after the improvement has taken place.
That is all that I had intended to say, but the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hyton, make me feel that I must add two further points. First of all, I agree with him wholeheartedly about the need to help the housing associations. I think that the ceiling is now completely out of date. After all, there was a wage award which took effect in June of this year,

819
which immediately added 30 per cent. to housebuilding costs; and I know from my own business experience—certainly in Scotland—that that was the equivalent of a 23 per cent. overall increase in the cost of building. The cost of some of the materials has gone up and imported timber, for instance, which is not affected by the freeze, has gone up by 20 or 25 per cent. in the last few weeks. So there is an urgent need for an increase in the ceiling.
However, I do not find myself able to go along with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in suggesting that grants should be replaced by fiscal incentives. They would undoubtedly make it very difficult for many owner-occupiers to carry out improvements, because they would not be able to lay their hands on the necessary money to enable work to go ahead. I know that this can be a great difficulty, and one of the stumbling blocks which was removed in the last Government's legislation was when we enabled the cost of necessary repairs to be reckoned for grant purposes, in addition to the actual improvement. Sometimes an improvement could not take place without essential repairs being carried out, and if an owner had to find money for that from his own resources the work could not go ahead. Therefore, a system of financial incentives might mean that, at the end of the day, an owner would have to find someone to lend him the money to go ahead, and he could not always rely on the local authority to do that. Although fiscal incentives would be a useful way of ensuring that money was being used in the right way, a better alternative is to restore the former situation so that if somebody attempts to profit from doing a job he should be required over a period to repay either the whole or a part of the grant.
8.53 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate ranging widely over the housing field. This small Bill does not range quite so widely as one might have imagined from listening to some of the speeches. As we know, its purpose is simply to extend the higher grant limit for one year, and to enable councils to sell houses more cheaply. Noble Lords have spoken of the necessity to
820
extend the time limit. The original objective was to get a short, sharp stimulus to house improvements in the assisted areas, and it has become clear from the results that we have achieved what we were aiming at. We should not have been able to achieve it in a two-year period, but there is no reason to go beyond the proposed year. Everyone knows that not all the problems will have been solved by 1974, and that not all houses will have been improved by then.
What we expected was that the rate of improvement in the assisted areas would be brought up to the level achieved in the rest of the country, and in that we have succeeded; in fact, the figures have now overtaken those for the rest of the country. So what we have done has generated a good head of steam, and we hope that there will be enough momentum to keep a high level of improvement work going after June, 1974. After all, we are not withdrawing grants, which will remain at the 50 per cent. level of the rest of the country, and local authorities will be able to qualify for additional help under the terms of the Housing Finance Act. We see no reason why local authorities in the assisted areas should not have made very major inroads into their problems within the time available. Indeed, we know that several authorities in the North-East and the North-West plan to have improved all their council houses needing such treatment by June, 1974.
As to the period beyond that, I would remind your Lordships that last November the Minister for Housing and Construction announced that we had embarked on a comprehensive policy review of improvement grants. The aim of that review is to consider ways of concentrating our efforts and resources increasingly on those parts of the country where areas of sub-standard housing still remain. At this moment, we are receiving from local authorities statements of their remaining problems, and we shall take these into account in the policy review. I think we have already received 70 per cent. of the returns requested from local authorities. I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the fact that the figures to which I am referring cover England and Wales, and I do not have the Scottish ones in my head. This review will examine ways of concentrating our efforts

821
and resources more specifically on those parts of the country where areas needing improvement will still exist after 1974. This has been a three-stage exercise.
The review will also consider the question of abuses of improvement grants. I shall come back to that point in a moment, because I know that noble Lords generally are worried about this point. The adequacy of the existing cash grant limits is something that will be looked at and, if necessary, may well receive action. Anything else at which we think we should take a fresh look in the light of experience gained and information coining in will also be dealt with. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, asked whether the problem of repairs, including re-wiring, could be dealt with; and that is one of the points which will be looked at in the overall review.
On housing stress, I have said that we recognise the need to do more here. We have not overlooked the needs of people living in sub-standard houses in London and in the inner Midlands. Their problems will of course be considered in the comprehensive policy review of housing and related matters, which has now been embarked upon.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, can lie tell us when we are likely to get the result of this review, because the problem is a very large one and daily becomes more urgent?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a specific date, but I can assure him that the present Minister for Housing and Construction is not a person who likes to let the grass grow under his feet.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that we need an improvement to Mr. Julian Amery?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I am not saying that, my Lords. I bow to no one in my admiration for Mr. Julian Amery; and Mr. Paul Channon, also, is very much a "live wire" and is very keen to finish the policy review as soon as possible. I can promise the noble Lord that things are moving in the Department. Speculation is something
822
which worries the Party of the noble Lords opposite—
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, does it not worry the Government?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, bad speculation is never to be encouraged. We do not aim to have speculation, and if there is a little of it it is not the fault of the Government: it is very difficult to get everything perfect in this world.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, was correct in saying that owner-occupiers and local authorities have been getting 80 per cent. of these grants in England and Wales. The figures for Scotland are similar, though I cannot give the exact figures. The Sunday newspaper which stated in October, 1972, that only 50 per cent. of all improvement grants awarded in England and Wales go to London, was incorrect. The proportion of grants given to people who could be speculators is very small indeed, and I do not think they are a major problem. Our problem is to get the houses improved. If you take the overall picture you see that we are getting these houses improved.
I should like to inform your Lordships that in the year 1972 some 368,000 housing improvements grants were approved. This is the highest total there has ever been. Going slightly wide of the field (because noble Lords opposite went slightly wide), in 1972 there were also some 350,000 starts made in the housing field—I am talking now about the whole of Great Britain. That makes a total figure for house improvement approvals and house starts in 1972 of 718.000. That is a figure which has never been equalled in this country previously.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I think the noble Lord did not take the point I was trying to make with regard to landlords taking up grants. I think I used the figures that were employed in the other place by his noble friend Mr. Channon and by members of the Opposition speaking in Committee. I was referring to the failure of landlords to take up grants. There is—and, again, this was referred to in the other place; and it seems to me we have had no clear indication that we are going to have anything done about it—the owner of one

823
or two houses who is relatively poor and does not feel he can afford to make any kind of contribution at all. What is going to be done? I do not think we can ride off by claiming that some record achievements are to anybody's credit in this field. There is so much to be done.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. If he can help the Government to draw the attention of landlords to getting their properties improved, we shall be as pleased as the noble Lord himself. We shall do everything we can to encourage landlords, tenants and owner-occupiers. We want everybody to persuade other people. There would be no happier people in the country than myself and my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction if we could do this. But the starts are coming along, and the housing improvement grants are going up. Councils are taking advantage of grants; and I think that as landlords see the effect of houses being improved, with massive Government help, they will probably take the hint and do it, too, while the going is good. As we know, there is not a great deal of time to get the higher grants.
If I may now come to the second Part of this Bill, the sale of council houses was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. The noble Lord said, in effect, that the sale of houses was not going to help towards a solution of the housing problem in this country; that was the gist of his message. We all know that there is a difference of philosophy between the Parties here, but we feel that if our policies are taken together they make a sort of grand strategy for housing in this country. The sale of council houses is just one integral part of the encouragement of owner-occupation. This, my Lords, is no Party issue; we all believe in owner-occupation. It has been one of the greatest attractions in social democracy for a long time. A property-owning democracy is something we have all been taught since Burke started discussing the matter. The aspiration of council tenants to own their houses represents a very significant aspect of local housing need which can be realised without any disadvantage to those waiting for council houses to rent.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, if I may say so with respect, that is just not true. May I put it to the noble Lord in this way? The Government are seeking to sell off houses at up to 30 per cent. below what should be the market value, knowing full well that the local authority cannot buy land at the price of the land on which the old house stands and cannot build at the price which the old house cost.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be patient I shall be answering his questions. We point out that if a tenant wants to own his house but cannot buy it from the council, he will not leave that council house; he will stay as a tenant. So you are not helping the people on the waiting list one bit. If he cannot buy it, he is still the same man occupying the house. There is also, as is obvious, no Government restriction on the number of new houses which a local authority may build to let to meet local housing needs. This is what local authorities should do. I know there are still cases where, as the noble Lord says, there are great problems; but selling to tenants will not hinder or help this problem one little bit—and it is certainly not, as the noble Lord said it was, a gimmick.
There is just one more point on houses for sale. Last year, of the 350,000 starts I mentioned, 227,000 were in the private sector. This is the third highest number since the war and the highest since 1967. In the previous year, 1970, influenced by the previous Administration, the number was 170,000; so that is a figure which is going up. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned the impact of grants on resale values. There is no certainty of anyone receiving the grant. Most improvement is still non-grant-aided. People naturally go about making their houses more comfortable to live in. Therefore there is great difficulty about the taxation proposals. But I was interested in the noble Lord's view and will bear it in mind in relation to the policy review.
The Department is conscious of the difficulties being met by the voluntary housing movement as regards the cost of improvement and conversion in assisted areas and elsewhere. Up to the beginning of last year this was not a major problem,

825
but recent cost movements have been rapid. We accept this. Cost trends have been to some extent the penalty of success. The rate of improvement in development and intermediate areas increased dramatically. The actual rate of increase in 1972 was 154 per cent. up on 1971 in terms of grant approvals. Not unnaturally, this led to pressures on local builders which caused prices to move up sharply. One of the objects of this Bill is to reduce that by allowing more time for work to be done, which should mean that building costs during the corning year will moderate. Nevertheless, I admit that the housing associations will be placed in a particular difficulty because the cost ceiling set by the Governament in 1969 is now proving to be too low to cope with 1973 prices.
This is a matter which we are examining urgently as part of our comprehensive policy review. It would not have been sensible, or advantageous to the voluntary movements, for the Minister for Housing and Construction to deal with the problems of the housing associations outside the scope of this full review; because to reach a clear judgment on the way in which the improvement policy may develop it is essential to consider the very important contribution which the voluntary movement can and will make. I must ask the noble Lord to contain his patience a little longer, but I would say that my right honourable friend has on a number of occasions made it clear that if a housing association has on any particular occasion got into difficulties because of cost, and if the local authorities in the area will support the housing association, the Ministers will give the most sympathetic consideration to an application for a higher grant in that particular case. But it must have local authority support. I think that is a very generous gesture on the part of the Minister and shows that before policies can be established he will consider each case on its merits.
The housing field is so wide and this Bill so narrow that I do not think that at this late hour I should go on. So, confident that noble Lords on both sides of the House share the view, despite minor points, that this Bill is essentially a good one, I commend it to your Lordships.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not think we should leave it without two notes of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton. He read the speeches as if he had written them himself and, what is more, read them as if he believed them.
On Question, Bill read 2ª and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GUARDIANSHIP BILL [H.L.]
9.11 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law of England and Wales as to the guardianship of minors so as to make the rights of a mother equal to those of a father, and so as to make further provision with respect to applications and orders under section 9 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 and with respect to the powers of a guardian under that Act in relation to the minor's property, and to amend section 4(2) of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960; to make provision in relation to like matters for Scotland; and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

  SCOTTISH MARRIAGE LAW
  SCOTTISH MARRIAGE LAW
  IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND WORK PERMITS
  IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND WORK PERMITS