Sitting of 12 November 1975

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Mr. Speaker: With the agreement of the House, and in accordance with present practice, I propose to call the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means to move together all nine of his motions for unopposed return.
Return respecting application of Standing Order No. 30 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1974–75 (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:—

1

2

3

4

5

6

Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

Question before House or Committee when claimed

Whether in House or Committee

Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.

and (2) in the Standing Commitees under the following heads:—

1

2

3

4

5

Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

Question before Committee when claimed

Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the hair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.

—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.

PRAYERS

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Return ordered,
  Return of the number of Instruments considered in Session 1974–75 by the Joint Committee and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments respectively pursuant to their orders of reference, showing in each case the numbers of Instruments subject to the different forms of Parliamentary procedure and of those within the committees' orders of reference for which no Parliamentary procedure is prescribed by statute, and the numbers drawn to the special attention of the House or of both Houses distinguishing the ground in the committees' orders of reference upon which such attention was invited; and of the numbers of Instruments considered by a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments and by the House respectively, in session 1974–75 showing the number where the question on the proceedings relating thereto was put forthwith under

MOTIONS FOR UNOPPOSED RETURNS

  ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER NO. 9
  Return ordered,
  Return of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing the specific and important matter and the result of any Division taken thereon, during Session 1974–75.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER NO. 30)
  Return ordered,
  Standing Order No. 73A(5).—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS
  Return ordered,
  Return of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into this House and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1974–75:
  Of all Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1974–75 were reported on by Committees on Opposed Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the Sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat;

  1501
  the number of days on which each selected Member served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills of which the preambles were reported to have been proved; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:
  Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1974–75 were referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:
  And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which were referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  PUBLIC BILLS
  Return ordered,
  Return of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1974–75 showing:

  (1) the number which received the Royal Assent, and

  (2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent, indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this House but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but Amendments not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament, or the stages which such Bills had reached by the time of the Prorogation or Dissolution.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  SELECT COMMITTEES
  Return ordered,
  Return of the Select Committees appointed in Session 1974–75 with the Sub-Committees appointed by them; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each met, and the number of days each Member attended; the number of meetings held by each Select Committee and Sub-Committee, and the number of meetings each Member attended; the total expenses of the attendances of witnesses at each Select Committee and Sub-Committee; and the total number of Members who served on Select Committees; together with so much of the same information as is relevant to the Chairmen's Panel and the Court of Referees.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE AND BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
  Return ordered,
  Return of (1) the days on which the House sat in Session 1974–75, stating for each day the day of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of business; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  STANDING COMMITTEES
  Return ordered,
  Return for Session 1974–75, of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills, Estimates, Matters and Statutory Instruments considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of sittings of each Committee and the titles of all Bills, Estimates, Matters and Statutory Instruments considered by a Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing in the case of each Bill, Estimate, Matter and Statutory Instrument, the particular Committee by whom it was considered, the number of sittings at which it was considered and the number of Members present at each of those sittings.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDERS
  Return ordered,
  Return of the number of Special Procedure Orders presented in Session 1974–75; the number withdrawn; the number against which Petitions or copies of Petitions were deposited; the number of Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively considered by the Chairmen; the number of such Petitions certified by the Chairmen as proper to be received, and the number certified by them as being petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively; the number referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses; the number reported with Amendments by a Joint Committee, and the number in relation to which a Joint Committee reported that the Order be not approved; and the number of Bills introduced for the confirmation of Special Procedure Orders:
  Of Special Procedure Orders which, in Session 1974–75, were referred to a Joint Committee, together with the names of the Commons Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each such Member attended.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Fishing
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the fishing industry.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The decline in the number of days spent at sea in total catch, gross earnings, and average prices appears to be levelling off, although there are naturally seasonal and local variations in this trend. Average prices for the main species at the major ports of Aberdeen and Peter-head rose between July and September, and were higher than in the same months of 1974. The factors affecting the inshore industry and the deep-sea industry are similar.
    Mr. Sproat: Despite the appreciable gloss that the Secretary of State is attempting to put on the situation, is he not aware that there is great and growing uncertainty in the fishing industry about limits, EEC policy and what will happen when the subsidies come to an end, because we suspect there will be even more tie-ups? Does the Secretary of State realise that his right hon. Friends are using the word "restructuring" very frequently and that it is sending shivers down the collective spine of the fishing industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean on what exactly is the Government's plan for the fishing industry and especially on what size fleet they want?
    Mr. Ross: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the question of limits is not purely for the British Government. It is a matter for the Law of the Sea Conference and the EEC. Until these matters are decided, we cannot make sensible decisions about the restructuring of the fleet. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are matters even more complicated than that. I understand that a meeting is taking place in London in respect of the fishing in the north-east Atlantic. That will be of great importance to certain sections of our fishing industry, for it will be dealing
    1504
    with where the fish are and the whole subject of conservation. The hon. Gentleman over-simplifies the position when he suggests that somehow or other we can produce solutions just like that.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I accept that the situation is not simple. However, does my right hon. Friend accept that sooner or later—sooner would be preferable—we should have a White Paper on the future of the fishing industry and setting out the industry's problems in a comprehensive manner? We could then proceed towards a comprehensive solution.
    Mr. Ross: Yes, it is worth considering that. There will certainly be statements and debates on this matter, but we shall need to reach decisions on issues arising from the international negotiations now taking place. Indeed, some of those negotiations are very serious.
    Mr. Watt: Does the Minister agree that one of the most urgent needs is for conservation of fishing stocks? Can he assure the House that he and his colleagues will be taking a firm line at the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Conference?
    Mr. Ross: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I met representatives of the Scottish fishing industry a fortnight or three weeks ago. They stressed what the hon. Gentleman has said about conservation. Their view, probably understandably, was that we were good in all aspects of conservation, including our gear and where we fished, but other people were not quite so good.
    Mr. Sillars: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the additional concern in the industry about reports of a new dispute with Iceland? Will my right hon. Friend comment on those reports?
    Mr. Ross: I understand that there have been some reports today. It is important to bear in mind that negotiations are in progress for a new agreement with Iceland and that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be going to Iceland this weekend. I hope that there will not be a dispute, but the Government are taking precautionary measures to ensure that British vessels can be protected if that should become necessary. These measures have already been widely reported.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In the light of the industry's demands, stated from both sides of the House, that the Government sit down with the industry and work out a long-term policy, and given that the Minister has said today that he is not prepared at this stage to do that, surely it would have been prudent to continue the assistance to the industry during the period of uncertainty until the new policy was worked out. Why have the Government taken this decision in advance of covering the grants to the industry as from 31st December this year?
    Mr. Ross: I do not want to remind the hon. Gentleman of who stopped the grants to the industry, because he should know something about that. When certain circumstances arose concerning costs, especially fuel costs, the Government introduced grants on a temporary basis to allow the industry to become accustomed to the new circumstances. That was for a certain period, and we have continued it for a further six months. I think that the hon. Gentleman was unfair about what we have already done for the industry.

    Mary Erskine School
    Mr. Robin F. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has reached a decision on the application by Lothian Regional Council for borrowing consent to purchase Mary Erskine School.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an up-to-date statement on his negotiations with the Lothian Regional Council and the Merchant Company regarding the future of the Mary Erskine School.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): I am still considering a request from the regional council for an increase in its capital investment allocation to enable it to make this purchase, but I am not yet ready to announce a decision.
    Mr. Cook: Is my hon. Friend aware that if a decision is not reached in the next month, there will be serious difficulties for the regional council in making preparations for the autumn 1976 intake? Will he bear in mind that many who
    1506
    welcomed the policy when it was announced last spring nevertheless said that there would be clear capital consequences for Edinburgh? Will he also bear in mind that those who wish the policy well and want it to succeed hope that the money necessary to make it work will be made available?
    Mr. McElhone: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's concern in this matter. Substantial extra public expenditure will be involved if the proposal to acquire the school is accepted. That decision cannot be taken lightly. Relevant factors, such as the probable number of pupils transferring to the public sector, the distribution of those pupils, and the capacity of existing school provision, need careful assessment. However, I shall make a decision as soon as possible.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will the Minister do everything within his power to try to end the uncertainty being experienced by pupils, teachers, and parents connected with this school, which is in my constituency? Will he bear in mind that if the £2,750,000 for the purchase of Mary Erskine School has to be taken out of the financial allocation already made for education provision for Edinburgh, there will be intense resentment throughout the capital and it will be regarded as being very unfair?
    Mr. McElhone: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter. Indeed, he has sent me a letter and consulted me about it. The buying of the Mary Erskine School has implications for other grant-aided schools in Scotland. Apart from the £2·75 million which is involved, an extra £600,000 will be required for its conversion to a co-education school.
    Mr. Reid: In the negotiations for grant-aided schools, will the Minister take steps to ensure that parents with children currently attending or about to attend such schools are consulted before any final decision is reached? Does he agree that too many negotiations to date, with special reference to Dollar Academy, have been conducted behind closed doors?
    Mr. McElhone: That is a different question. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on that matter, I shall attempt to answer it.
    Mr. Rifkind: Is the Minister aware that the acquisition of this school by the regional council, although welcome, will not provide a single additional school place in Edinburgh? Does he accept that it would be more sensible, in the interests of education in the east of Scotland, for the Government to cease their petty, puny and pathetic persecution of grant-aided schools and to concentrate on the requirements necessary to improve education in Scotland?
    Mr. McElhone: No, Sir.

    Steel Houses
    Mr. Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to advise local authorities on the treatment required to make wind and water-tight Weir steel houses which have deteriorated.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): My Department has written to the seven district councils which own houses of this type advising them on remedial measures and improvements.
    Mr. Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman accept my congratulations on providing a more positive answer to a Question than I have been receiving of late from the Scottish Office? Will he also accept the thanks of an elderly couple, over 80 years of age, who live at Kildrochat, near Stranraer, who for several years have had to put up with rain leaking in every time it rains, and it rains quite often in Galloway? Will he take steps to help the Wigtown District Council to carry out these repairs?
    Mr. Brown: I know that houses usually leak only when it rains. It is so unusual to receive congratulations from the Scottish National Party that I am a bit taken aback. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had asked the appropriate Questions in the past, they would have received just as helpful replies. I am never sure in which particular area they are playing at community politics.
    There is a real problem here. We have written to all the district authorities. We can give them technical advice. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the SSHA, which owns the bulk of the Weir houses, has a programme going which could take care of all of them.
    Mr. Monro: Will the Minister congratulate the SNP on returning to the House of Commons after being wind and water-tight and tucked up in bed last night and not involved in the debate? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this is a serious problem for those who have lived in these houses for a long period? Steel houses are now becoming very expensive to heat, with the cost of electricity and other fuels, and any help he can give to district authorities will be warmly welcomed.
    Mr. Brown: I meant to refer to the SNP not doing very well today despite having been in bed all night. It will be very expensive to make the houses conform to modern standards. Some inside improvements—in kitchens, toilets, and so on—will cost between £8,000 and £9,000. I should imagine that, subject to technical advice, improvement of the outer walls will help to reduce the need for expensive heating.

    Housing (Troon)
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he instructed officials at the Scottish Development Department to inform Kyle and Carrick District Council that future housing needs in Troon be met by Irvine Development Corporation.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The district council has merely been asked to provide information supporting the need for 120 houses which it proposes to build in Troon.
    Mr. Lambie: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that many people in Ayrshire are beginning to wonder who is running the Scottish Office and its policies—civil servants or Ministers? Does my hon. Friend realise that Irvine Development Corporation has a statutory duty to provide houses only for incoming workers and that district councils have a statutory duty to build houses for local people? Will my hon. Friend guarantee that an immediate go-ahead will be given for the 124 houses at Logan Drive, Troon, for local Troon people?
    Mr. Brown: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend by replying to this Question, because I know that he likes to have a bash at the Secretary of State for Scotland.

    1509
    There will be no difficulty about giving approval to the proposals from the Cunninghame District Council, provided that the price is right and that normal contractual procedures have been followed. But there is a real problem here regarding the Irvine Development Corporation and the Cunninghame District Council. I hope that my hon. Friend will use his undoubted creative talents to have a constructive dialogue with the new town corporation and the Cunninghame District Council.
    Mr. Sillars: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are talking about Kyle and Carrick District Council, not Cunninghame District Council? Can be explain why, if people from Troon are to be housed in the Irvine New Town area, Troon should not be placed in Cunninghame District Council?
    Mr. Brown: I recollect that matter being discussed at great length and my hon. Friend getting into trouble about his suggestions about it. I referred to Cunninghame because Irvine New Town is within the Cunninghame district, but obviously I should have included Kyle and Carrick. If it includes anybody else, I hope that they will have a constructive dialogue with all concerned.

    Police
    Mr. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on police recruitment in Scotland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): Substantial net gains in police strength have been recorded in the first three quarters of 1975. Although special factors have been at work in this period, the general trend is strongly upwards and I regard that as most satisfactory.
    Mr. Robertson: Would my hon. Friend care to publish those figures? I think that all of us would be interested. Will he assure the House that present establishments will be maintained and that he will review establishments with a view to increasing the numbers of policemen? Undoubtedly the one fact that stands out is that there are not enough policemen to cope with the problems with which they are supposed to deal.
    Mr. Ewing: I think the House will be interested to know that the net gain over the period that I have discussed was 448 officers. This is the biggest increase since records were first kept, and I agree with my hon. Friend that this reflects great credit on the present administration—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) wants to try to protect his inefficiency when he was responsible for the job which I now do, I shall be interested to hear his defence.
    The review of establishments was started in 1971, and in the course of it 1,899 police officer and 1,546 civilian posts were added. The review was completed in 1974, and against that background I am bound to tell my hon. Friend that I have no plans for a further review of establishments in Scottish police forces.
    Mr. Monro: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am disappointed that he will not further review the establishments of police forces, particularly of those forces that have to carry out exceptional tasks that are disportionate to the needs of the region? I am referring particularly to police traffic patrols on the A74. Will the hon. Gentleman consider giving special financial and establishment help to those forces that carry out this special work?
    Mr. Ewing: I think that it would have been more in keeping with the tone of the Question and Answer if the hon. Gentleman had given the Government thanks for the special assistance that we are giving to the Dumfries Constabulary in respect of the special tasks that it has to carry out. We have had an assurance that the tasks which have to be carried out in respect of the A74 are well within the capabilities of the force concerned. We have had no approaches on this matter.
    Mrs. Bain: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of the new recruits to police forces have been women, and what action he has taken to ensure that women are represented at all levels through the forces involved in law enforcement in Scotland?
    Mr. Ewing: I could not give the figures without notice, but when we talk about establishments we talk about male and

    1511
    female officers. There is no question of females being recruited specifically to take the place of male members of the establishment, or of males being recruited to take the place of females.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that I was informed only last week that there were not enough men on the ground to undertake the responsibility of dealing with a troublesome situation in my constituency? Can my hon. Friend say to what extent the approved establishment is under strength in the Strathclyde Region?
    Mr. Ewing: I could not give the figures for the Strathclyde Region, but it is fairly obvious to the House and to all concerned that the Strathclyde Region force is the one force in Scotland that is substantially under establishment. When I talk about its being under establishment, I should add that the figure for vacancies in Scotland is below 1,000 for the first time in the history of the police forces in Scotland, so the trend is moving in the right direction and Strathclyde is benefiting to the same extent as the other forces.

    Advance Factories
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make available grants to local authorities to adapt existing properties which are vacant as part of a local advance factory programme.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): There is no provision for grants to be paid to local authorities to build factories or adapt existing buildings in advance of specific demand. Regional development grants under Part I of the Industry Act 1972 can be paid when it is demonstrated that the premises qualify, but this can be determined only when an occupant has been found.
    Mr. Steel: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a gap here in our otherwise excellent provision for attracting new industry? Is he aware that in towns such as Selkirk and Hawick, where both people and buildings have been declared redundant, the quickest and cheapest way of attracting new employment is to adapt existing buildings where suitable? I think that some change in the legislation is required to enable
    1512
    that to happen, because it cannot be done at the moment.
    Mr. Millan: I doubt whether I agree that that is enough. I recollect that this matter was debated during the passage of the 1972 legislation. Other agencies are available to provide advance factories, and I have arranged for officials of my Department to discuss with local authorities concerned whether we can help them. I appreciate the points that the local authorities are making, and that what they would like to do is a good idea, but the legislation does not allow me to help in the way they wish.
    Mr. Canavan: In the next allocation of advance factories, will my right hon. Friend have regard to the needs of Kilsyth, where the unemployment percentage is among the highest in Scotland and where the local authority is doing everything possible to try to accommodate another advance factory?
    Mr. Millan: I shall have regard to the needs of Kilsyth and to those of a number of other areas about which I have received representations.

    Scottish Development Agency
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings the Board of the Scottish Development Agency will hold during any given year.
    Mr. William Ross: This will be for the Agency itself to determine.
    Mr. Crawford: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct the attention of the SDA Board to Chrysler and inform it that the SNP wishes totally to dissociate itself from the views of the Conservative Party on this matter as enunciated in the House yesterday by the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), who said that no help should be given to Chrysler? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the best ways to assist Chrysler in Scotland is to inject into the company two or three days' revenue from Scottish oil, worth £20 million, to enable it to introduce a new model at Linwood to safeguard jobs? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the SNP has discussed this subject with Chrysler shop stewards.
    Mr. Ross: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not his party's industrial

    1513
    adviser. The SDA is the subject of the Question. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill is to receive its Royal Assent this week. The hon. Gentleman supported the Conservative Party when we were discussing proposals by the House of Lords and that fact may have denied us the right to move in certain cases. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would dissociate himself from the statement made yesterday by his hon. Friend, which was rather narrow, mean and nasty. I have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister said yesterday on the subject of Chrysler.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: On the question of the work of the SDA, will my right hon Friend ensure that, notwithstanding that the average weekly wage in Scotland has exceeded the average weekly wage in the United Kingdom as a whole, the work of the Agency will proceed as he and the Government side of the House have planned and produce even more prosperity for Scotland?
    Mr. Ross: That is our intention. We think that the Agency will fill a gap and provide help to produce more jobs and modernise Scottish industry. We have serious problems. They may not all be tackled by the SDA, but there is no doubt that the Agency will be a valuable asset, and I very much regret that the actions of the Conservative Party prevented us from putting the measure on the statute book some time ago.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What matters to the SDA is the money that it has to spend. Now that the Bill is about to pass into law, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the budget of the Agency will be in the first year? Can he also say how much of this budget will be additional to what would have been spent anyway by his Department, by the Department of Industry and by local authorities in the normal course of carrying out their functions?
    Mr. Ross: Many of these things might have been relevant to the Bill. Details of the resources to be made available next year will be made known in the usual way through the public expenditure White Paper.

    Rate Support Grant
    Mr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will change the
    1514
    method of determining rate support grant in Scotland in order to ensure a fairer distribution for residents in the Highland Region.
    Mr. Millan: No, Sir. The distribution of grant is already fair to ratepayers in the Highlands.
    Mr. Gray: Will the Minister consider freezing the transitional formula for the allocation of rate support grant pending the report of the Layfield Committee? Is he aware that in the Highland Region there is a continuing fear of domination from the central belt of Scotland? Is he further aware that that fear has been highlighted by the most recent change in the rate support grant formula?
    Mr. Millan: The formula for 1976–77 is under consideration by the working party. As for the current year, although the Highland Region has the highest estimated expenditure per head of the eight regions—namely £165 per head—after specific and needs grant it will have the lowest rate burden per head, only £38, compared with the rest of Scotland where the figure is £66 per head. In face of that factor, I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman can claim that his region was dealt with unfairly in the current year.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: The Minister must know that the Highland Regional Council and the local authorities in the Highlands do not take his view that the new formula is fair. It is disingenuous to quote figures of individual rate burdens. Is not the problem in the large sparsely populated areas that there is a heavy demand on public services?
    Mr. Millan: I am talking about the net burden on the ratepayers. It is clear that this burden in the rural areas of Scotland is substantially less than the rate burden per head of ratepayers in urban areas. The purpose of the distribution formula, which last year did not work quite as effectively as I hoped it would, was to redress the balance in favour of urban areas. That will remain my view as to what should be done about the formula in 1976–77.
    Mr. Thompson: Is the Minister aware of the concern expressed in Dumfries and Galloway about the rate burden? What does he suggest I say to one constituent

    1515
    who is a forestry worker with a basic wage of £32 per week, who lives in a Forestry Commission tied house out in the country and who has seen his rates shoot up from £18 last year to £52 this year?
    Mr. Millan: Dumfries and Galloway do very well out of the distribution formula, and that region has one of the lowest rate burdens per head of population in Scotland. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there are low-paid workers in Scottish cities as well as in the rural areas.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Do not the complaints in rural areas about lack of services arise because in the past those areas were badly served by Tory Party councillors, whose main concern was not that of services, but of penny-pinching misery?
    Mr. Millan: That is true, and it is also true of some areas in the south-west of Scotland.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: What consideration has the Minister given to replacing the present rate system with one that will ensure a much fairer distribution of local government expenditure among the general population?
    Mr. Millan: A good deal more than the Conservative Government did—because they did nothing at all. We at least appointed the Layfield Committee.
    Mr. Gray: In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Ninewells Hospital, Dundee
    Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold a public inquiry to investigate the construction of Ninewells Hospital, Dundee.
    Mr. McElhone: I shall consider the need for any further inquiry when I have completed the review of the outcome of the 1974 arbitration award and related questions which were mentioned in the reply to the hon. Gentleman on 12th February.—[Vol. 886, c. 133.]
    Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister say how long the inter-departmental inquiry will take? Does he not realise that the 11-
    1516
    year building period has seen the costs of the hospital rise from £10·5 million to almost £25 million? Is it not a matter for considerable concern that the costing system within the Scottish Office allows such things to happen?
    Mr. McElhone: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not blaming me for that. I have been in my present office for only II weeks—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is enough."] It may well be enough, but I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about this project. The system under review raises complex, difficult, technical and legal questions. Furthermore, the Tayside Health Board does not yet have the final account for the scheme. Nevertheless, I do not intend to allow the Ninewells saga to drift on much longer. I have impressed on my Department and on the Tayside Health Board my determination that conclusions should be reached as a matter of urgency.
    Mr. Doigasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds were available in Dundee for surgical patients in National Health Service hospitals prior to the opening of Ninewells Hospital; and how many are available now.
    Mr. McElhone: The number of hospital beds in Dundee in all surgical specialties, other than obstetrics and paediatrics, was 401 on 30th September 1973 and, following the opening of Ninewells Hospital, 404 on 31st March 1975.
    Mr. Doig: Is that not a small increase following the completion of a large hospital? We find that we have only three more beds net in the city of Dundee following the building of a hospital the size of Ninewells. Is my hon. Friend further aware that people are being asked to come to the hospital for an operation, are then left to sit about all day, and at night are often sent home again because no beds are available? I could give the Minister a list of such complaints, but I hope that I have given him sufficient information to lead him to realise that there is a need to examine the matter further.
    Mr. McElhone: I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in the Ninewells scheme. In April 1976 another 17 surgery beds in the Dundee Royal Infirmary will be brought into operation. I shall take up with the Tayside Health Board the situation at Ninewells and people having to

    1517
    wait around. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that that board's area has 5·26 acute beds per thousand—the highest figure for the whole of Scotland. I have no doubt that this is due in some measure to the persistent and dedicated efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig).
    Mr. Crawford: Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to reconsider his decision to remove the eye unit from Bridge of Earn to the Ninewells hospital, since practically everybody in Perth is against the move?
    Mr. McElhone: I am not aware that everybody in Perth is against the move. I hope that a number of people in Perth will not be against moving the hon. Gentleman at the next election. If he tables a further Question on the matter or writes to me, I shall endeavour to answer him.

    Economic Prospects
    Mr. Alexander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement about the prospects for the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the outlook for the Scottish economy for the next year.
    Mr. William Ross: As I told the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) on 15th October, the Scottish economy cannot be insulated from the general fall in the level of economic activity being experienced in all parts of the United Kingdom. The measures announced on 24th September and 31st October, together with the new jobs created as a result of oil activity and the setting up of the Scottish Development Agency, should all play their part in strengthening investment and employment in Scotland.—[Vol. 897, c. 721–2.]
    Mr. Fletcher: In the case of the Chrysler company, on which the Minister is unable to comment further today, will he take an early opportunity to warn the Scottish TUC that serious attempts are being made to create strife and hatred among Chrysler workers in Britain as part of the SNP's attempt to break up the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Ross: I had something to say on these matters yesterday, and I very much deplore what was said by the SNP, as I am sure did most of the House.
    Mr. Henderson: Leaving aside the apparent coalition between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Conservative Front Bench spokesman, will the right hon. Gentleman suggest how I should explain to unemployed workers in Scotland why there is no appropriation made for them when they see Scottish oil flowing in from the Forties Field and a situation in which Scotland is virtually now self-sufficient in oil terms?
    Mr. Ross: I expected the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) to apologise for his party, which has told blatant lies about the situation in Scotland. I would remind him that 63,000 children left school at the last school leaving date and that just over 5,000 of those do not possess a job. However, that does not explain why the SNP representatives are telling the people of Scotland that there is no job for one in five of school leavers. It is time that they stopped misleading the public in Scotland and took a much more constructive view of the economy of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. David Steel: I wish to revert to my earlier comment that existing legislation does not allow Government assistance to be given to re-equip redundant factories. Will the Secretary of State give me a guarantee that if local authorities or firms come forward with sensible schemes that would be eligible for aid from the EEC Regional Fund, his Department will give them every assistance?
    Mr. Ross: I do not think that that is exactly the same thing. Projects have to be submitted, and are submitted at present, by local authorities to the EEC. It is for the EEC to judge priorities. At present we are encouraging local authorities to put schemes forward, we hope with considerable success, as we did with the advance factory programme, to which a fair amount of publicity has been given.
    Mr. Buchan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anger in Scotland because of attempts by the Scottish National Party to drive a wedge between the workers of Scotland and those of England over the Lin wood Factory? The workers in my constituency totally reject that party's narrow, chauvinistic attitude. Nevertheless,

    1519
    they expect the Government to take action to prevent this disaster from happening to Scotland and also to prevent its happening to the Midlands. Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the new developing industries in Scotland is at stake and that the money which is forthcoming should be used to acquire it in the interests of the nation?
    Mr. Ross: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, which he knows I share. British Leyland, which had a considerable stake in Scotland, was safeguarded by the Government. We took the same attitude towards Ferranti and safeguarded its position in Scotland. Members of the Scottish National Party are so narrow, mean and miserable in their outlook that I deplore the fact that they proclaim themselves to be Scots.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that as unemployment is bad and likely to get worse, he should be doing everything possible to attract new jobs to Scotland? Will he say what steps he has taken in recent months and weeks and what assurances he has obtained about the programme for the transfer of 7,000 Civil Service jobs to Glasgow? Is he aware of the joint agreed statements between Government Ministers and Sir William Gray, the former Lord Provost, that a site for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be decided in June and that recruitment will begin this year for the Ministry of Defence? Why is the programme slipping and what is the right hon. Gentleman doing about it?
    Mr. Ross: I should be grateful if detailed questions of that sort were tabled as Questions and were not wrapped up in a general question. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that one of the main events this week is the granting of the Royal Assent to the Scottish Development Agency Bill. That will help us considerably. We could have been helped more if the Opposition had not blocked the Bill when it went to the Scottish Grand Committee. The hon. Gentleman is rather belated in his sudden concern.
    During the past month there has been a considerable increase in inquiries for sites for quality jobs in Scotland, and that trend is continuing.
    Mr. Fairbairn: As the Secretary of State has raised once again the subject
    1520
    of the Scottish Development Agency, will he tell us from what part of Scottish industry the £3 million to be invested in it will come?
    Mr. Ross: It will come from the taxpayers of this country.

    Licensing Laws
    Mr. James Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he pro poses to begin discussions on the proposed reform of the licensing laws in Scotland, as indicated in his statement to the House on 28th October.
    Mr. William Ross: My Department wrote on 30th October to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) inviting their comments on the practical implications of my proposals.
    Mr. White: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether during consultations we can expect any legislation on this rather serious subject?
    Mr. Ross: We can expect legislation. I advise my hon. Friend to wait. He will not have to wait very long until the Gracious Speech.

    General Anaesthetics (Dentists)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report regarding the condition of equipment used for the administration of general anaesthetics in general dental practices in view of the findings of a recent inquiry arising out of a death.
    Mr. McElhone: No, Sir. I am aware of the recent tragic case to which my hon. Friend refers, but there is no reason to believe that this is a general problem. A dentist in general practice is required by his terms of service to furnish his surgery with suitable equipment and I am satisfied that dentists generally fulfil this requirement.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that the inquiry report established that this equipment was in a non-satisfactory condition? I have a letter from the dental officer of the area health board saying that that board has no responsibility to ensure that such equipment is kept in a proper condition. Is my hon. Friend aware that, following the report of this

    1521
    tragedy, the pathologist stated that it was dangerous to give a general anaesthetic to someone in an upright position? As the professionals seem to have different opinions on this matter, will he pursue it and clarify the situation for the benefit of all concerned?
    Mr. McElhone: My hon. Friend has made three points. The inquiry returned a formal verdict in this case. There are conflicting views within the profession about administering anaesthetics in different positions. Some of the problems associated with general anaesthesia and dental practice are at present being examined by a joint committee of the National Dental Consultative Committee and the Anaesthetic Sub-Committee of the National Medical Consultative Committee.
    It is for the area health board concerned to decide whether the circumstances in any particular case warrant reference to a service committee. I understand that in this case the matter has yet to be considered formally by the board. Therefore, I am not in a position to say what action, if any, it may decide to take. I shall write to my hon. Friend when I receive the information.

    Planning Applications
    Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the procedures for dealing with planning applications in Scotland.
    Mr. Millan: Existing procedures work satisfactorily for most planning applications. But I have asked my officials to explore afresh, with the new local authorities, the scope for further improvement.
    Mr. Johnston: I welcome the Minister's answer. Is he satisfied with the speed with which planning appeals are dealt with by the Scottish Office? Could the process be accelerated if, for example, more staff were employed?
    Mr. Millan: I doubt whether that would be the answer. I am not aware of any untoward delays in the Scottish Office in dealing with reports of planning inquiries. If delays take place at all, they occur at the time of the inquiry. Earlier this year we issued a circular about new, improved procedures of
    1522
    inquiry, which are now being put into effect. We are already reaping some benefit from that. A number of inquiries have continued for far too long and there have been delays in the reports, delays that are completely unjustified. However, I hope that the House will appreciate that once an inquiry is under way and a reporter has been appointed, it is not open to the Secretary of State—indeed, it would be improper for him—to try to influence the reporter in any way. In case I am misunderstood, I make it clear that I am not referring to any particular current inquiry.
    Mr. Gray: Will the Minister agree that an easy way round this would be to state a date by which the reporter of a public inquiry should report? Is he aware that apprehension over the inquiry at Nigg Bay concerning a refinery is causing considerable anxiety to the whole area?
    Mr. Millan: That was a 38-day inquiry. If we were to lay down in advance a time limit for an inquiry we should, in effect, be preventing people from giving evidence, including objectors. I would remind hon. Members of the Drumbuie inquiry and the kind of difficulties we should have experienced if we had attempted anything of that sort. That will give the hon. Gentleman some idea of the kind of problems we face.
    We are trying to complete these inquiries as quickly as possible, but we cannot do so simply at the expense of objectors and, for that matter, applicants. At the end of the day, we cannot dictate to reporters how they should go about their business. We have given guidance, which is already being followed and which is producing results. The time inquiries are taking is being reduced.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the difficulties of planning inquiries, large or small, is lack of finance? Will he look into the possibility of making available a fund for assistance to individuals to bring forward their appeals, possibly on the basis that it could be drawn upon after it had been certified that the appeal was not frivolous?
    Mr. Millan: There are great difficulties in that, as well. This has been considered very carefully by successive Governments. Whatever else it would do,

    1523
    providing finance for appellants would not reduce the length of time taken in reaching planning decisions. That is not the only consideration, and there are other difficulties.
    Mr. Henderson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is some concern about the lack of rights of people to object to planning applications? Is not he aware that many people find out only when it is too late that a planning application has been submitted in relation to a neighbouring property and may reduce the amenity and value of their own property, and that they have no position at law under the present planning legislation to complain or lodge objections? Is not this something that requires urgent attention and urgent legislation?
    Mr. Millan: If the hon. Gentleman has a particular point to raise on this matter—I think that I know the point to which he is referring—I should be grateful if he would write to me about it. However, this is largely a matter of legislation, and, of course, it would not reduce delays, whatever the rights of the matter. What we have been talking about with the authorities—and we shall be having a comprehensive review with them—is the management of planning business, so that the delays inherent in the system are not added to by delays that arise from inefficiency in handling applications. There has been some difficulty about getting this review started, because local authorities have had to have some time to organise themselves. But we are now looking at the matter with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY
  Mr. Robertsonasked the Lord Advocate when he next proposes to meet the Law Society to discuss the possible transfer of Scottish legal functions to the proposed Scottish Assembly.
  Mr. Gourlayasked the Lord Advocate what representations he has received regarding the transfer of legal functions to the proposed Scottish Assembly.
  Mr. Lambieasked the Lord Advocate what studies are being undertaken
  1524
  by his Department to facilitate the possible transfer of Scottish law functions to the proposed Scottish Assembly.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I have no immediate plans to meet the Law Society of Scotland to discuss a possible transfer of Scottish legal functions to the proposed Scottish Assembly, and I have received no representations on this subject. My contacts with the Law Society are, of course, extremely close, and when the White Paper on Devolution is published the Government will listen very carefully to any representations which it—or others—wishes to make with regard to the proposals contained in it. Meanwhile, my officials have, of course, been involved along with those of other Departments in the preparation of the Government's devolution proposals, including a consideration of the issues arising in relation to Scottish law functions.
  Mr. Robertson: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend consider that perhaps it would be as well if he were to take an early opportunity to dispel the rumours that he is less than lukewarm towards devolution?
  The Lord Advocate: I think that my hon. Friend knows better than his question suggests that I have been a supporter of the principle of reasonable devolution for Scotland for 25 years, and I remain of that view.
  Mr. Lambie: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance to the House that there will be no unholy alliance among the advocates and QCs in this House, such as himself and the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), so that when the legal powers are transferred to the Scottish Assembly their powers of patronage will not be continued under the new Assembly?
  The Lord Advocate: Every issue properly before the public on a matter of this kind must be openly and fully discussed. I should have thought it almost a contradiction in terms to suggest that there could be an unholy alliance between QCs.
  Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the transfer of legal functions to

  1525
  Scotland will not be used by the Government as an excuse for postponing much-needed law reform in Scotland on such subjects as divorce and licensing laws?
  The Lord Advocate: I certainly give that assurance, and I am grateful for the opportunity to reaffirm what I have said previously from this Dispatch Box: that although it would be wrong for the Government and the House to impose priorities on the new Assembly, I regard nothing as standing in the way of the Government's going ahead with law reform as fast as is reasonably possible.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: In view of the general unpopularity of the House of Lords on the Government Benches at present, will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider giving his support as Lord Advocate for proposals for the removal of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords in dealing with Scottish legal cases in view of the assimilation of the laws of Scotland which it has carried out for many years?
  The Lord Advocate: That is a matter that deserves more than an off-the-cuff reply, and I do not think that it arises out of the matter that was put to me. If the hon, Gentleman wishes to raise it, no doubt he will table a Question.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Lord Advocate record the appreciation of this House of the fact that the Scots have provided the best lawyers in the House of Lords, that they have done more than anyone else to fashion the law of England as well as the law of Scotland, and that none has a more glorious name in that connection than the late Lord Reid?
  The Lord Advocate: I certainly associate myself with the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman about the late Lord Reid. For the rest, the hon. and learned Gentleman has put the matter on record himself, and there is no need for me to add to it.
  Mr. Rifkind: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, notwithstanding devolution, there will continue to be a great degree of United Kingdom legislation that will also affect Scotland? Does he also, therefore, accept that, notwithstanding the Assembly, there will be a continuing need for a Scottish Law
  1526
  Officer in this House to advise the Government on the implications of Scottish legislation?
  The Lord Advocate: The hon. Gentleman is indulging in some very intelligent speculation, but I think that he must hold his patience until publication of the White Paper later this month.

  DISTRICT COURTS
  Mr. Canavanasked the Lord Advocate what are the responsibilities of his Department with regard to the operation of the district courts.
  The Lord Advocate: My Department is concerned solely with prosecution in the district courts.
  Mr. Canavan: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend have any responsibility, even in an advisory capacity, for the training of lay magistrates? Can he not ensure that lay magistrates are adequately trained and are also familiar with the social background of the accused people with whom they deal, particularly in view of the recent case at Kilsyth District Court where one of my constituents, a young boy of very modest means, was fined the incredible sum of £40 for the comparatively trivial offence of stealing 2 lb. of potatoes.
  The Lord Advocate: I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. However, he must know that if a convicted person feels that his sentence has been unduly harsh or oppressive he has a remedy and method of appeal to the Appeal Court, which may be able to grant him a remedy.
  Of course I have an interest in training, but that is different from a duty in regard to it. The training of justices is a duty placed upon the local justices committee and the arrangements for training have to be approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  LORD ADVOCATE (VISIT)
  Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Lord Advocate if he will pay an official visit to Glasgow.
  The Lord Advocate: I have no immediate plans to pay an official visit to Glasgow.
  Mr. Taylor: Has the Lord Advocate studied the reports of the tragic deaths of the Oswald family in my constituency? In view of the widespread suggestions that gas conversion may be linked in some way with these tragic deaths, does not he agree that there would be a case, which he alone can authorise, for a fatal accident inquiry, and, depending upon the results of that, possibly a public inquiry into the general implications of this tragedy?
  The Lord Advocate: It is true that the heating system in question was recently converted to the use of natural gas, that is, North Sea gas. As hon. Members will know, it is a regrettable fact that a police constable in the Strathclyde Police Force, Mr. Oswald, and his twin sons died in their home at Netherlee in Glasgow on 8th November 1975. A post mortem examination has shown that the cause of death in each case was carbon monoxide poisoning. Investigations are continuing. It would be premature to speculate on the exact cause of this unfortunate disaster, but I can state that I propose to direct that a fatal accident inquiry be held as soon as possible.

  SCOTTISH CRIMINAL JURIES
  Mr. Fairbairnasked the Lord Advocate whether he supports the recommendation of the Thomson Committee that Scottish criminal juries should be reduced to the size of English criminal juries.
  The Lord Advocate: The recommendation of the Thomson Committee that Scottish criminal juries should be reduced to 12 was associated with proposals that the three verdicts and the simple majority should be retained. This view was reached after hearing evidence from witnesses with great knowledge and experience in this field not all of whom agreed. Consultations with interested bodies and organisations will now be held, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I will reserve our own judgment on this point until these are completed.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Although I appreciate the Lord Advocate's answer, may I ask whether he is aware that it might appear to those of us who can count that a simple majority is difficult to achieved if there is an even number on the jury? Can
  1528
  the Lord Advocate give any sensible reason why we should depart from 15 on a jury, which has been such a successful number compared with 12 in England, which has proved infinitely less desirable?
  The Lord Advocate: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman regards a saving in public expenditure as a factor which should be taken into account, but I certainly do.
  As to his comments about arithmetic, I should have thought that he was as capable of doing arithmetic as any other person. It is surely obvious that if a jury is equally divided, there is no simple majority.
  Mr. Buchan: Would the Lord Advocate agree that there are aspects of this question which bear strongly on the freedom and liberty of the subject? Apart from any other inner discussion that the Lord Advocate may have with the legal profession, is it not surely necessary to have a very early meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee to discuss some of these wider implications?
  The Lord Advocate: I agree. It is right to say that the Thomson Committee was an extremely far-sighted committee and that many of its recommendations are controversial. I hope that there will be constructive controversy.

  "OLYMPIC ALLIANCE" (COLLISION)
  Mr. Peter Rees (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement about the collision in the Channel between a British frigate and a Panamanian oil tanker
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I understand that at 0039 hours this morning the "Olympic Alliance", a 220,000 deadweight tons oil tanker, registered in Liberia but owned by a Panamanian company, was in collision in fog with HMS "Achilles", a Royal Naval frigate. This occurred seven miles due north of Cap Griz Nez and about 13 miles from Dover. No casualties were reported among the crews, and the "Olympic Alliance" is now proceeding to Wilhelmshaven and the "Achilles" to Portsmouth or Plymouth according to the state of the weather and the damage to the ship.

  1529
  At 0130 hours this morning HM Coastguard at St. Margaret's Bay received a report from the "Olympic Alliance" of oil pollution and it was later estimated that a spillage of about 2,000 tons of oil had occurred. There is a possibility that it could reach our coasts. As soon as visibility allowed, at 0900 hours the tug "Diligent" fitted with spraying equipment left Dover and a naval reconnaissance aircraft was airborne. Three fishing vessels with spraying equipment are also operating. At the request of my Department, naval assistance is being provided this afternoon by RMAS "Kinloss" and HMS "Bildeston", and other vessels, including the specially equipped tug "Calshot" which sailed from Southampton at 5 a.m., will also be available this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Navy has flown this morning to the area to see for himself the extent of the problem.
  The latest report I have is that the present size of the slick is about two miles by one mile and the spraying vessels are having some success in breaking it up. Its present location is some 11 miles from Dover.
  The aim of the clearance operation is to break up the oil slick as much as possible today and then to concentrate on mopping up. I cannot give any timetable in view of the difficulties relating to visibility, the long hours of darkness and the busy shipping lanes in which the spraying vessels must operate, but I believe the operation is being carried out with the utmost efficiency.
  HM Coastguard at St. Margaret's Bay is in close touch with the French Maritime Headquarters at Cap Gris Nez and assistance will be sought from other Channel States if necessary.
  A naval inquiry will be held into the incident, and I understand that the French authorities will also investigate the incident. We are also in touch with the Liberian authorities.
  Mr. Rees: I am sure the House is grateful to the Minister for the information which he has just given. I should like to ask him three questions.
  First, is he satisfied with the co-ordination between his own Department, the Kent County Council which also has a
  1530
  great measure of responsibility, and the Dover District Council which is responsible for the foreshore? Secondly, is he satisfied that there is sufficient spray or detergent to break up the slick, and sufficient spray of a kind which will not completely devastate all marine life in the area? Finally, will the inquiry which is to be set up determine which party is to blame? Whoever should foot the bill, I think it should not be the ratepayers of East Kent.
  Mr. Davis: Before I answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's questions, I think I should say that I have some additional information over and above that which I have provided, which the House would want to hear. I have just received information that six vessels are now spraying, including the "Calshot" and the "Kinloss". Two other naval vessels are on the way, apart from those which I have mentioned, and three vessels from France will be provided tomorrow. As I have said, I think this indicates that the matter is receiving the utmost attention.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about co-ordination. I think that the measure of co-ordination that has been established between all those concerned is extremely good. I have no criticism to make of it.
  With regard to the sufficiency of the spray, I have already indicated the number of vessels that are engaged in the operation, and there will be more. I have no reason to believe that there is an insufficiency of spray, on the evidence that I have at present.
  On the question of possible injury to marine life, I am advised that the dispersant being used is of very low toxicity compared with that which was used in the "Torrey Canyon" incident. I do not believe there is a great deal of cause for concern on that score.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about compensation. I think that the arrangements which are made through the tanker owners' voluntary agreement concerning liability for oil pollution—known as TOVALOP—will provide the compensation to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers.
  Mr. Higgins: Can the Minister confirm that the radar surveillance scheme, which was introduced three years ago,

  1531
  was fully operational? If so, will there be a record of which vessel was contravening the separation scheme or crossing the separation zone? Was the radar on both vessels operating?
  May I ask whether it is the case that neither the amendments to the 1954 pollution convention nor the 1972 collision regulations have yet received sufficient signatories for them to become ratified? If that is so, can he say which countries have not yet signed?
  Thirdly, can the hon. Gentleman say whether the tanker is still leaking and whether there will be a Department of Trade inquiry, as well as simply an inquiry by the naval authorities which I understand him to say is to take place?
  Mr. Davis: On the question of radar surveillance, on the information that I have—the House will recognise that I cannot at the moment be in possession of all the information—I have no reason to believe that the surveillance was not operating efficiently. I understand that there is a record which will be made available to the investigations which are to be carried out.
  With regard to the IMCO convention, the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that there are more than 90 members of IMCO. An insufficient number have, in fact, signed and ratified and, of course, this is the reason why the regulations are not yet in operation. In fact, I made a speech about this at the recent IMCO conference, urging that it was necessary to embark upon the ratification of the convention as soon as possible.
  I have no information at present about whether the vessel is still leaking.
  On the question of the inquiry, the Department of Trade has no locus stand in the matter of an inquiry into this incident because it was not a British ship which was involved. The other vessel concerned was a Royal Navy vessel. It is, therefore, for the Ministry of Defence to carry out its inquiry. We shall co-operate with the Ministry, and the Ministry with us, in every possible way.
  Mr. Ogden: Can my hon. Friend say whether the point of departure or the destination of the Liberian tanker was a British port and, if so, will he ask the Ministry of Defence to make a careful
  1532
  inquiry into the standards of certification of the officers and the manning efficiency of the crew?
  Mr. Davis:I understand that there was no intention on the part of this vessel to enter a British port. I believe the "Olympic Alliance" was on its way to Wilhelmshaven, so the question my hon. Friend asks does not arise.
  Mr. Costain: When I spoke to the Director of Technical Services of Shep-way Council this morning he was very appreciative of the prompt action taken by the county council and other authorities to deal with the situation, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is some concern because of the weather forecast which predicts south-easterly gale force winds? This means that the oil may be washed up on the beaches of Folkestone and Hythe. Can he say whether the local authorities will be paid for any emergency operation and that it will not be done at the ratepayers' expense?
  Mr. Davis: I have already dealt with the last part of the hon. Member's question. I am grateful for the prompt action taken by all concerned, including the local authority. My information on weather conditions is not as up-to-date as the hon. Member's information. There has been a fairly light breeze, but visibility has been diminishing and this is adding to the difficulties of the operation.
  Mr. Aitken: In an oral Question on 23rd June this year, I urged the hon. Gentleman to tighten up the safety and seamanship regulations for tankers in the English Channel. In the light of this distressing episode, will he look again at his answers on that occasion? Is he aware that there is great anxiety among my constituents that the beaches of Broadstairs and Ramsgate may be polluted by the oil slick? Will he ensure that contingency plans are laid for a cleansing operation, particularly in relation to financial assistance to Thanet District Council and the Kent County Council? If the frigate turns out to have been at fault, will the Admiralty pay the cost of cleansing operations?
  Mr. Davis: This vessel was registered in Liberia and owned by a Panamanian company, so it is a little unlikely that my Department will be able to enforce safety

  1533
  and seamanship regulations. I understand the hon. Member's anxiety, but he should have gauged from my answers that we are doing our very best to prevent pollution. I hope that the oil will not reach the beaches. I have already answered the hon. Member's third point. The question of who was to blame for the collision is a matter to be determined by the inquiry. The hon. Member's last question should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
  Mr. Faulds: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the operation to contain the oil slick or break it up could not have started before 9 a.m.? He mentioned the bad visibility, but were there other factors in what seems to have been a somewhat tardy start to the operation?
  Mr. Davis: I have already indicated that visibility was the predominant factor and I have no reason to believe that there were any other factors operating. Those who have engaged in this operation will in due course make reports to us and the matter will be fully investigated. I hope the House will not seek to allocate blame at this stage.

  TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) if he has received a copy of this rather lengthy statement at a rather late moment.
  In particular, I should like to say a few words to the House in explanation of why it has not been possible to reach agreement between the two Houses.
  First, the Government have not been able to agree to the proposals put forward in another place because we considered that it was quite inappropriate to provide that breaches of the charter should be taken to the courts in the way suggested. That is our objection in principle. The fact that the particular proposal which the other House has put to us involves the use of a concept which was described by my noble Friend the
  1534
  Lord Chancellor as not only unusual but fraught with difficulty and obscurity has been a further complication. Lord Goodman yesterday described his own proposal as unquestionably uncertain, unquestionably obscure and unquestionably open to argument. It is that proposal which he asked us to put on the statute book.
  Secondly, I must make absolutely clear that we were unable to agree to the proposals put forward by another place because our aim has been to achieve, as quickly as possible, arrangements within the industry which would provide effective safeguards against any risks to the freedom of the Press which might be thought to be involved in the passing of the Bill. We therefore could not ignore the possible impact on the attitude of the parties within the industry of an insistence in advance that the charter should include a number of rights favoured especially by one side to the discussion. The majority in another place have, most unwisely, disregarded that risk altogether.
  I do not wish to make a detailed statement about all the issues which have arisen, but a large number of controversial and misleading comments have been made.
  First, it has been suggested that all the attempts at a compromise have come from Lord Goodman and his associates and that the Government have been obdurate. No one who has followed what actually occurred could believe that to be the case. I welcomed the idea of a charter when the possibility was first raised. I suggested when the House debated the issue on 12th February on the Report stage of the Bill that, if the parties wished to have it incorporated in some code of practice, the Government would certainly be prepared to consider it. We welcomed Lord Houghton's amendment immediately it was made.
  The matters which the charter should cover have been made more specific. The charter will now be relevant to all proceedings before courts or tribunals. The ground which the Secretary of State can cover if he has to make a charter without the agreement of the parties has been limited—a concession which Lord Goodman himself has described as substantial. The Government have genuinely sought a

  1535
  sensible settlement and I repudiate all Lord Goodman's statements to the contrary. He accused me in the House of Lords of bad faith, and I think that on reflection he will wish to withdraw any such accusation.
  It is particularly alleged that the Government withdrew a compromise offer at virtually the last minute yesterday and that we were very close to an agreement. This statement, repeated in The Times today, completely misrepresents the position. The Lord Privy Seal rightly and immediately made clear in another place that no firm proposal was made. Certainly exploratory discussions took place following a brief meeting between Ministers and Lord Goodman. A draft was drawn up in an attempt to see whether there was room for agreement on a provision about public policy which would meet both the Government and Lord Goodman. There was a good deal of discussion about alternatives, but in the end Lord Goodman rejected the Government's preferred version.
  However, it is quite wrong to see this as the only outstanding issue. At the meeting, Lord Goodman made it clear that there were a number of other issues on which he wished to insist and that the Government should make major changes. In particular he insisted, as he did in another place yesterday, that the provision relating to the coverage of the charter must contain a right of journalists not to be unreasonably expelled or excluded from a union. The Government do not think it necessary to set this out as something which must be included in the charter. Nothing in the Bill prevents the exercise of existing common law rights in this field.
  The Government believe that when Section 5 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act is repealed the TUC's proposed independent review committee will provide adequate machinery to deal with any cases which cannot be satisfactorily resolved within the machinery of individual unions. Moreover, the NUJ's own machinery means that no member can be expelled without the agreement of the national executive, and within the union there is also an appeals machinery. Nevertheless, this is the point on which Lord Goodman is now placing so much em-
  1536
  phasis and on which he was demanding a change even if some compromise had been possible on other issues, although it is a very different proposal from those put to me originally by the editors, which were about the position of editors in the closed shop.
  On the constitutional question, it is necessary to recall that this is the first time for many years—indeed, it is one of the rare occasions in several decades—when the House of Lords has gone to such lengths to frustrate the will of the House of Commons. Yet who will claim that this is the most controversial of all measures introduced in the period? The Bill is itself a repeal of the Industrial Relations Act of 1971, which was passed through this House under the guillotine and which now by general consent is necessarily to be repealed. Yet the House of Lords never invited the Commons to reconsider a single controversial provision of the 1971 Act.
  The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, by contrast, was passed through this House in all stages without any resort to the guillotine and with increasingly large majorities in a House of Commons where the Government command no such considerable majority of their own. And yet the House of Lords has intervened and used its residual power to prevent us placing on the statute book a measure for which we have a good majority in this House and on which we had a mandate at two elections.
  Mr. Churchill: Twenty-eight per cent.
  Mr. Foot: At a time when respect for Parliament and more especially this elected Chamber is of such supreme importance in overcoming our national problems, I believe that everyone in this House should join in condemning this challenge to democratic authority. Consequently, the Government have every intention of reintroducing this Bill in the next Session.
  Mr. Prior: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for saying that he gave me short notice of the statement. Perhaps that is the only thing in it for which I should be grateful. We find it a deeply disappointing statement but it lives up fully to the standard we now expect from the right hon. Gentleman. It is a classic example of misrepresentation and hypocrisy. I dare say that Lord Goodman will

  1537
  have something to say about that too. [HON. MEMBERS: So what?"]
  How dare the Labour Party seek to lecture us on respect for Parliament and the law? Is not the right hon. Gentleman once more putting Socialism before freedom? Is it not absurd for him to pose as the great conciliator when every concession has had to be wrung out of him by force of argument and under pressure from dissenting colleagues? [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] Where are all those Cabinet cowards of the cocktail set now? Where have they all disappeared to this afternoon? [An HON. MEMBER: "All the Conservative ones have gone home."] So would Labour Members if it were not for a three-line Whip, the Whip that we hope will throw out the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Is not this attempt to label—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will quieten down. The Minister has made a statement and he is entitled to be questioned on that statement. [Interruption.] Order. I do not need any assistance in making my rulings. The Minister is entitled to be questioned, but there is no entitlement for speeches to be made. Perhaps the time will come next Session when speeches will be appropriate, but for the moment we are having only a statement. The Minister must be questioned upon it, and I do not intend to allow such questions to go on for very long.
  Mr. Prior: Does not an attempt to label this as a challenge to democratic authority come ill from a Labour Government, above all on the issue involving the freedom of the Press? Even at this stage, will not the right hon. Gentleman agree to the Royal Commission looking at this issue so that he may come back to the House with a proper Bill which guarantees the freedom of the Press?
  Mr. Foot: The question about the Royal Commission has been answered on a number of occasions. Of course, the Government will take account of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Like you, Mr. Speaker, I had some difficulty in detecting any questions which might have been buried in the right hon. Gentleman's rhetoric. He said that he wondered why we should think that the rights of this House have something to do with democracy. I would have
  1538
  thought that this was one of the essential parts of democracy. I was trying to underline that we cannot tolerate the second Chamber being prepared to intervene against Labour Governments on these matters but never, even on far more controversial matters, against Conservative Governments.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Leaving aside the wider considerations of the future of the upper Chamber, is it not insufferable that amendments were made in the other place to a House of Commons Bill when they would not even have been in order in this House? If the other place does not put that right, we in this House must do something about it. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that the Government are not opposed to legislation on the freedom of the Press and that some such legislation will come along in the course of this Parliament?
  Mr. Foot: I am glad to reaffirm my hon. Friend's proposition. We shall send a Bill once more to the House of Lords, I hope very soon in the new Session, but of course we shall seek by whatever may be the best method to try to ensure that all the agreements we have made in this House concerning the freedom of the Press are included in that proposition.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us on the Opposition side find the hereditary principle of accession to the other place revolting? Will he none the less accept that until the Government do something about altering that method the second Chamber has a right to influence legislation? If he accepts that premise, may I appeal to him to hold meetings between now and the reintroduction of the Bill with responsible people in another place at least to try to find some compromise within the Bill?
  Mr. Foot: The Government have tried very hard to secure a settlement of this issue, and that is why I repudiate absolutely the case made in some quarters and repeated by Lord Goodman yesterday that I had not sought to do so. I doubt whether many hon. Members in this House would repeat Lord Goodman's accusations. Most of my hon. Friends who have differences of view on the issue will remember the lengthy discussions we had on the question.

  1539
  The proper place to settle these matters is the House of Commons. The House of Lords should take account of what is said in this place, particularly when it is emphasised and re-emphasised by votes here. My complaint is that at the end of all these votes and debates the other place has set out to frustrate the decision of the House of Commons. Whether that is done by hereditary peers or anyone else, it is objectionable to this House.
  Mr. Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, having regard to the way in which relationships between the Commons and the other place have progressed over the years, it is reprehensible that the leadership of a mere life peer in the House of Lords has led to the present situation? Does it not raise the question of the necessity for an inquiry by Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House to go into the ways and means by which such people get into the legislative process?
  Mr. Foot: That raises much wider questions, and I should not be tempted to follow my hon. Friend into pursuing them.
  Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Shirley Williams—statement.
  Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of points have arisen from the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but most important is what happens to workers' rights suspended as a result of the elimination of the 1971 Act. As I understand it, if the normal procedures are followed, it will be some considerable time—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with me. The hon. Gentleman is allowed to raise only matters of order over which I have some control under the Standing Orders of the House. If the hon. Gentleman is putting a question to the Minister, it is no longer in order and it is not a point of order.
  Mr. Atkinson: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that it has a great deal to do with you. [An hon. Member: "Sit down."] I shall wait for Mr. Speaker to tell me. I shall not sit down because a mediocrity on the Opposition Benches tells me.
  1540
  We on this side of the House are concerned about the suspension of trade unions' right to organise. What has happened in the House of Lords has stripped organised workers of basic rights. The normal procedures have been outraged and an important principle is at stake. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is intolerable. I must be allowed to listen to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Atkinson: How the whole matter is handled, Mr. Speaker, depends on you, as I tried to say in the points of order I raised this morning towards the end of yesterday's sitting, when again, as a result of an absolute abuse of parliamentary procedures by the House of Lords, we had to agree or reject amendments to a Bill which were clearly out of order because they would increase the cost of the legislation before the House of Commons. I understand that that is—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not rehash this morning's point of order. He was completely wrong. The amendment to which he referred was a Government amendment made in the House of Lords. It did not involve an additional charge. If the hon. Gentleman is good enough to read the Official Report, he will see how clearly that was stated. He was on a very bad point then. May I now hear the hon. Gentleman's present policy?
  Mr. Atkinson: We are discussing an extremely important point, Mr. Speaker. It cannot be dismissed in the hope that trade unions will remain in a state of suspended animation until the House of Commons can return to the business in 12 months' time. Workers are stripped of their organisational rights as long as the passage of the Bill is prevented by the House of Lords, and that is not good enough.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman makes this point. I fully realise the importance which he attaches to it. But it is not within my power to allow a debate on it today. This is a matter of argument on the substance. It has nothing to do with the rules of order. It may be a very important point, but it is not one for me.
  Mr. Atkinson: Can you advise the House, Mr. Speaker, as to the procedures that are now involved? How can we as Back Benchers protect the people whom we represent by using legitimate procedures of the House of Commons to get the Bill back on to our Order Paper? My right hon. Friend says that he is frustrated to the extent that he can no longer bring back the Bill. We have got rid of the other legislation, and now I understand that we must wait until about next November before we can yet again talk about trade union rights. Can you advise Back Benchers, Mr. Speaker, on the best way in which they can protect the rights of those whom we are sent here to represent? If you are now saying that there is no way in which we can legitimately raise these issues in the House, we shall have to take extraordinary measures to reinstate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised a perfectly—[Interruption.] Order. May we stop this shouting across the Chamber.
  Mr. Heffer: An hon. Gentleman opposite started it.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not care who started it. The hon. Gentleman is continuing it.
  The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) is on a perfectly fair point. I think that it is unwise for the Chair to give too much advice too often. But if I were in the hon. Gentleman's place, I should make a great big row about his point as soon as the House meets again, which will be in a very short time. That is the time to do it. We shall be here again—all being well, and not knowing quite what will happen during the next few days—this day week. That is the time for the hon. Gentleman to start to raise his point. He must do it loud and strong, and no doubt he will.
  Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. You can rest assured that your advice will be taken.
  Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that there are great constraints upon your time and that you cannot call every hon. Member who rises in the hope of asking a Minister a question on a statement. Nevertheless, the reason for our being in this situation
  1542
  is the abuse of this House by a bunch of unelected busybodies in the other place.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall not allow that kind of reference to the other place. It has a long tradition. It exists with its present powers by virtue of an Act of Parliament passed by a Labour Government in my early days as a Member. It has those powers. Whether that is right or wrong is not a matter on which I should express an opinion, but I will not have that kind of expression used.
  Mr. Cryer: In view of the grave constitutional crisis which now faces Parliament, Mr. Speaker, could you endeavour during the period of the Prorogation to consult my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about examining the serious constitutional nature of the position whereby the Lords has defied the Commons yet again, with a view to introducing into this Chamber as soon as possible after 19th November a short, sharp Bill by which we can abolish the House of Lords?
  Mr. Speaker: If I had the power to introduce into this Chamber short, sharp Bills, many people might be very surprised. Mrs. Shirley Williams—statement.
  Mr. Kinnock: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully acknowledge your position as not only the guardian of the rights of Back Benchers but the custodian of certain traditions in the Palace of Westminster and the relationship between the two Houses. As someone acutely aware of the moods of people outside the House, however, as well as the rights of Members, I am concerned about the suspension of the rights of many people. The very least that we should be allowed is to refer to the way in which those rights have been suspended.
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman tries to catch my eye during the debate on the Address, he may or may not succeed.
  Mr. Heffer: On a totally new point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, through you, ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when, after we return next Wednesday, we can get a clear statement from the Government saying when this constitutional position will be cleared up? I understand the deep feelings of

  1543
  my hon. Friends, which I totally share, but we cannot solve the problem here and now. Therefore, while my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is present, I believe that we could at least have an indication of how soon the matter will be cleared up and the Bill can be put on to the statute book.
  Mr. Speaker: No doubt the Leader of the House will have heard that point. I do not think that this is an appropriate occasion for him to answer it.

  HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE (PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS)
  The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about a settlement which has been reached between the Government and the Hoffman-La Roche Group concerning its ethical pharmaceutical products, including librium and valium, the prices of which have since April 1973 been controlled by Order.
  The House will recall that following a report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which was a landmark in the history of monopoly policy, the then Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for East Surrey (Sir G. Howe), made a statement on 12th April 1973 accepting the Commission's recommendations and announcing the making of an Order reducing the price of librium to 40 per cent; of the 1970 price and the price of valium to 25 per cent. of the 1970 price.
  Under the procedures of another place the Roche Company applied to the Special Orders Committee for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the Order. This application was rejected and the Order was approved by Parliament. Subsequently the Company started proceedings in the High Court against the Government and the Commission, alleging unfairness and breach of natural justice and applying to have the Order declared void.
  In April 1974 out-of-court negotiations began about the price of the drugs in question to see whether a settlement could be reached. It was desirable to bring Roche back into the Voluntary Price Regulation Scheme of the DHSS
  1544
  as early as possible. During the course of the negotiations we obtained from the Company a great deal more information than it had given to the Monopolies Commission. I am glad to inform the House that agreement has now been reached as a result of which:
  First, the Company will repay to the Government the sum of approximately £3¾ million, in addition to the payments made earlier in respect of the years 1967–69; the figure of £3¾ million is an overall settlement which takes account of excessive profits over the period 1st January 1970 to 23rd April 1973, the date of the coming into force of the Order. In respect of that period the sum is £12 million, but we for our part have accepted that since the Monopolies Commission reported the Order prices have become unduly low and that under normal VPRS guidelines an offset of £8·25 million is due to the Company. The figures on both sides include interest payments;
  Second, the Company will come back into the VPRS for all its ethical pharmaceutical products;
  Third, the Company has accepted that the new prices of librium and valium will be put at approximately half the 1970 level, which was the base line from which the Monopolies Commission inquiry started, and that it will settle with the DHSS price changes for its other medicines within the provisions of the VPRS; the new prices of librium and valium will be less than half those ruling anywhere in the rest of the world;
  Fourth, the Company has informed us that it intends to continue its research and investment in the United Kingdom and that it plans to spend several million pounds on improved research, production and administration facilities both at Welwyn Garden City and at Dairy, Ayrshire, and thus continue its valuable contribution to medicine. It is also considering a further major expansion at Dairy of its vitamin and chemical production facilities for Europe and other world markets.
  Fifth, the Company has undertaken to withdraw its legal action against the Crown and the Monopolies Commission together with any allegations of impropriety.
  This agreement is clearly incompatible with the continuance in force of the 1973

  1545
  Order and consequently is subject to its effective revocation.
  I believe this to be a satisfactory resolution of our differences with the Hoffman-La Roche Group of companies, and under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act I am therefore publishing the statutory notice of my intention to make an Order to revoke the 1973 Order.
  In conclusion, I wish to pay a particular tribute to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for the important work which it has done in this case. I believe the solution will be in the interest of the public both here and abroad.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Will the right hon. Lady accept that my right hon. and hon. Friends will want to be associated with the tribute which she has paid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Will she also accept that we want to associate with that tribute my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), who played an important role in bringing about the report and the subsequent agreement? Will the right hon. Lady further accept that we welcome the fact that the negotiations have finally been concluded and that the result of them would appear to be highly satisfactory both in respect of the sums that are to be repaid and with regard to the Company's compliance with VPRS in future?
  Will the right hon. Lady confirm that in accepting the agreement with the Company she will not in any way preclude our position in respect of the Directorate of Competition in the EEC Commission, which is presently investigating the Company in relation to any proposals that it may make in future which we would like to implement in respect of the Company, particularly as wider application of the Commission's competitive policy will help to safeguard consumers and reinforce and extend the benefits of our monopoly legislation?
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: I am glad to say that nothing in the settlement affects in any way the investigation being undertaken by the European Commission into alleged breaches of the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome. We were represented at the recent meeting of the Community's Competition Policy Committee which was investigating the so-called
  1546
  royalty rebate system which Roche had applied to a number of its customers in the European Community countries.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the part that she has played in exposing what is quite obviously another unacceptable face of capitalism. Is she not astonished at the level of profit that was made by these companies in the National Health Service, companies which depend to a great extent on the NHS? Would it not save the Government and the British people a great deal of time, trouble and money if we nationalised the drug industry or at least set up a nationalised drug industry of our own?
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: There is no doubt that the profits made by the Roche Company prior to the 1973 Order were exceptionally high. My hon. Friend will know that the other part of the question is not a matter for me.
  Mr. Penhaligon: Is it not the case that valium is now out of patent production? Perhaps it can be argued that a new price agreement is more to the advantage of the Company than of the British Exchequer? Is it not a fact that the drug is being replaced by another one which I understand is called diazepan, which is patented and is now being strongly promoted within the industry? Is there not a possibility that the whole business which has just come to an end could be started all over again? Will the right hon. Lady let the House know what is being done to stop such matters happening again?
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: I should explain that although the patent has run out for librium, it has not run out for valium. The price now being set for Roche will be below that of its competitors which supply these drugs in this country. I think that the settlement is a reasonable one, quite apart from the lump sum which has been repaid to the Department of Health and Social Security. With regard to whether the problem might arise again, I can only say that this sort of settlement should be regarded by any company that attempts to make very high profits as a suitable indication of what might happen if that path were followed.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: How confident is my right hon. Friend that there are not

  1547
  other numerous examples of this particular form of exploiting the consumers of the National Health Service and the public purse? What steps is she taking to investigate them? Will she confirm that the figure in the agreement that she has reached will mean that we shall be paying half the going rate in the rest of the world for the drugs concerned? That seems to be an unbelievable discrepancy.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: I think that my right hon. Friend is satisfied that this is an exceptional case. Indeed, the VPRS exists to prevent extreme profits being made. I think that the House will like to know the new price of librium. As a result of the settlement it will be half that of the price in France, a third of the price in Germany and about a fifth of the price in Australia. The new price of valium will be less than half the price in France and Italy, about a quarter of the price in Germany and a fifth of the price in Australia.
  Mr. Churchill: In view of the prima facie evidence that the right hon. Lady has produced this afternoon of gross incompetence within one or more Government Departments in tolerating such a situation and in signing such contracts with foreign drug firms, has she any intention of instituting an inquiry into the Departments concerned?
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: I think that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are problems about this administration making a retrospective inquiry into the Departments of another administration. It was in 1970–73 that these large profits arose on which repayment is now being made. I would wish to pay my tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East for having drawn attention to this matter. I am bound to say that it arose at the time primarily under his own administration.

  QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
  Mr. Speaker: I shall now deal with the matter of Privilege which was raised yesterday.
  I have considered the matter of the complaint made yesterday by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr.
  1548
  Ogden) of an article in the Liverpool Free Press newspaper. I am satisfied that this is a proper case for me to allow a motion relating to it to have precedence over the Orders of the Day.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Common (Mr. Edward Short): In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move:
  That the matter of the complaint made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
  I think that it would be in the interests of the whole House if it were decided that no further debate should take place at this point.
  Question put and agreed to.

  QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on another matter which may be one of breach of privilege?
  In The Guardian today there appears a report of the Patronage Secretary referring to the proceedings of the Select Committee on Wealth Tax and a vote taken therein.
  Perhaps I should tell you and the House, Mr. Speaker, that I have tried without success to contact the Chairman of the Select Committee—the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)—because I and, I think, all other members of the Select Committee were led to believe before we finished our proceedings late last night or in the early hours of this morning that all the proceedings were privileged, including any reports which might have been made to the Select Committee, any voting which might have taken place, and any discussion which might have taken place. until such time as the Report was published.
  I have since been informed that these matters are to be considered privileged until such time as the Report is laid and that any reference to them after that could be a matter of discourtesy to the House but could not be one of Privilege.
  As our proceedings in the Select Committee continued for some little time after the vote referred to in the report in The Guardian was taken, and as indeed we

  1549
  did not rise until about midnight, any question of Privilege which might arise would depend upon when it is alleged that the Patronage Secretary made the statement which is quoted in The Guardian. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to what is the present status of the proceedings of the Select Committee, reports which may or may not have been made to it and which it may or may not have voted down, and the details of voting and the details of proceedings.
  As the members of the Select Committee were warned that we must not discuss those matters even with our senior colleagues, it would be helpful if you would give us your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to what our correct line of conduct now is.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): In the early hours of the morning I was approached by the Press. I said that I had not any knowledge of the decisions or of the deliberations of the Select Committee to which the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) has referred. The member of the Press said that he understood that the Select Committee had rejected proposals for a wealth tax, to which I said I had no knowledge of this whatsoever. However, I said to the representative of the Press—we shall read all this later—"If that is the position, two Members of my party were absent from that Committee. They are on Commonwealth Parliamentary Association business. They were unpaired. Any decisions taken by the Select Committee would obviously have been taken by those who were in the majority but who, in my view, had no right to be in the majority."
  Mr. Speaker: The Chair is put in a slightly difficult position through this matter being raised without the Chair having had the chance of ascertaining precisely what the facts are. However, as I understand it, the Report was laid during yesterday's sitting. Therefore, I think that no question of Privilege can arise, though it is a matter of courtesy that we do not comment upon such Reports until they have been published and all hon. Members are equally able to discuss them.
  Mr. Peter Rees: Further to the point
  1550
  raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), may I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it might be a matter for the Committee of Privileges to determine how and at what time the newspaper in question or the journalist who contacted the Patronage Secretary discovered, if indeed it was the fact—obviously it would be a breach of Privilege for me as a member of the Select Committee to discuss what happened—that the report of the Chairman was rejected by the Committee?
  Mr. Speaker: This is, one hopes, the last day of this Session. I am not prepared to say off the cuff whether it is right for me to say that I shall rule next Session on a matter that has been raised this Session. If—I repeat "if"—I think that it is necessary, I may say something further about the matter today.
  Mr. Macmillan: I think I made it clear, Mr. Speaker—at any rate. I hope I did—that I was not suggesting that a breach of Privilege had been committed by the Patronage Secretary. I merely suggested that, if there had been a breach of Privilege, there seems to be some conflict in the attitude taken as to the status of the Report.

  LICENSING ACT (AMENDMENT)
  4.27 p.m.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 76(5) of the Licensing Act 1964.
  This has more to do with dancers than with doubles and with the palais than with pints. The Bill is designed to assist 6 million people who go dancing each week. It is aimed at safeguarding the employment of 100,000 people employed in ballrooms and dance halls and 150,000 people who help in the running of cabaret clubs. It would also help to protect the already difficult employment prospects of musicians and artistes.
  My Bill seeks to alter the damaging effects of a recent Law Lords ruling in the case of Carter v. Bradbeer. This means that a bar in an establishment with a music and dance licence and holding a special hours licence must not serve drinks

  1551
  after normal licensing hours, except by waiter service. More simply put, the Law Lords ruled that what millions of people have been doing for 14 years since 1961—buying drinks over a bar in a dance hall or club after normal licensing hours—is illegal.
  That decision was reinforced this week when the Lord Chief Justice and two other judges upheld in the High Court the decision of the Cardiff magistrates to ban over-the-bar sales at nine late night dinner dances in that city. Therefore in dance halls, cabaret clubs, entertainment centres, hotels and social and sports clubs people who like to mix and to buy drinks at a bar are now told that it is illegal.
  It is worse than that. Not only is waiter service decreed, but, for example, the Chief Constable of Essex had laid down that even waiter-served drinkers must be dispensed from somewhere other than the normal bar.
  My proposed Bill in no way seeks to extend the time legally allowed for drinking on licensed premises. Nor does it seek to increase the space allocated for drinking or to alter the minimum age of people permitted to drink. What it does seek is to enable millions of people who like a night out—often a late one, because of changed social habits and shift working—to continue to enjoy their entertainment in the same way as they have done for 14 years.
  Unless the present position is corrected and restored to what I believe was the true intention of the House, millions of pounds of investment in leisure services—much of it out of public money by local authorities—is at risk. The private sector too, especially in major cities and seaside resorts, faces cost increases which would threaten closures and redundancies.
  It has been estimated that to meet the full cost of a full waiter service after normal licensing hours in every dance hall and cabaret club could raise admission charges by half. It could mean 60p for a pint of beer and upwards of £1 for a gin and tonic or a whisky and soda. It is surely too ludicrous for words to contemplate such increases at a time like this.
  Hotels and other places of entertainment, some of which have been developed
  1552
  with grants from the English Tourist Board or the area tourist boards to provide cheap leisure facilities for tourists, will face crippling cost increases or will find businesses already on low profit margins becoming uneconomic. Making money out of our quaintness, as it is seen by some tourists, is one thing. Losing money by being quaint is ridiculous. It is the same with every palais and cabaret club in this land.
  The law requires that each drink after normal licensing hours must pass through two pairs of hands on its way to the hopefully patient customer—those of the dispenser and those of the waiter or waitress. Taking the drink to the table is bound to cost more and is socially undesirable, in my view, as well as being for many people uneconomic and impracticable.
  Six out of 10 marriages in this country still today are made in dance halls. People go there to mix, not to be pinned to a table.
  The state of the law at the moment means that jobs are threatened. The very existence of much-needed leisure facilities could be at risk with less provision at a time when people are being asked to work harder and need to play harder to compensate. The end of this road for many dance halls and clubs is to become bingo halls and so increase the scope for this form of gambling.
  To the man in the smart club, maybe this is of little concern. A snap of two well-groomed fingers summons an alert waiter. But for 1,500 or 2,000 dancers-wives and husbands, boy friends and girl friends—in a palais on a Friday or Saturday night that is not possible. Even if it were, is it desirable to employ vast numbers of extra staff at these unsocial hours?
  The hard-working factory, office or shop worker does not understand why a pint of beer can be bought across a bar in these places at 10.29 p.m. or 10.59 p.m. but not at 10.31 p.m. or 11.1 p.m., and to seek to impose this will bring the law into disrepute.
  It is for these reasons—reasons of both jobs and pleasure—that I ask the House for leave to introduce this Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Kevin McNamara.

  1553
  Mr. Bryan Gould, Mr. Bruce Grocott and Mr. Mike Thomas.

  LICENSING ACT (AMENDMENT)
    LICENSING ACT (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. RobinCorbett accordingly presented a Bill to amend Section 76(5) of the Licensing Act 1964; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 253.]
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
    PRICES
    That the Compensation for Limitation of Prices (Scottish Electricity Boards) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th October, be approved.—[Mr. D. Coleman.]
    PRICES
    That the Compensation for Limitation of Prices (Electricity Boards) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th October, be approved.—[Mr. D. Coleman.]
    CONTROL OF FUEL AND ELECTRICITY
    That the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 (Continuation) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1705), a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th October, be approved.—[Mr. D. Coleman.]

    SEA FISHERIES
    That the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970 (Relaxation of Time Limits) Order 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th October be approved.—[Mr. D. Coleman.]
    Question agreed to.

  LOCAL LAND CHARGES BILL [Lords]
  Lords amendment to Commons amendment considered.
  Lords amendment to Commons amendment:
  The Lords agree to the amendment made by the Commons in page 10, line 35, at end insert:
  "which shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament",
  but propose the following amendment thereto:
  Leave out "by" and insert "in pursuance of".
  4.34 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The amendment corrects a defect in the amendment, moved by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) at the Report stage of the Bill, which was accepted by the Government. Unless he or the House wishes me to go into an explanation, I have nothing further to say.
  Mr. Graham Page: I thank the hon. Gentleman for ensuring the correction of an amendment which he very kindly accepted from me on Report. It was entirely my fault that it was rather sloppily drafted, and I am very grateful that it had been corrected by their Lordships' House.
  Question put and agreed to.

  WELSH AFFAIRS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Coleman.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): As hon. Members will know, this is likely to be a curtailed debate. That should be borne in mind.
  4.30 p.m.
  Sir Raymond Gower: I am grateful to the Leader of the House and to the Government for having made possible this extension of a debate which commenced at a rather late hour some weeks ago. I express to the representatives of the Government who are on the Treasury Bench today my thanks for their having done this. Nevertheless, it is very undesirable that a debate on Welsh affairs or on any other subject should be broken into two parts, separated by such a long period of time. It reflects again on the unfortunate arrangements which were made this year for this debate. A number of speakers have commented on it.
  I sincerely hope that in the future there will be no repetition of what appears to be a relegating of the debate on Welsh affairs to the least convenient time at the last possible moment in a parliamentary Session. It is significant that we should be engaged on this debate at the very end of the Session.
  In opening the debate the Secretary of State for Wales said:
  "These are difficult times for all of us."
  He added, rather plaintively, I thought:
  "There is so much to be done, and the resources are so limited".—[Official Report, 23rd October, 1975; Vol. 898, c. 841.]
  Everyone must agree with him and sympathise with him to some extent in his predicament.
  At this moment, economic prospects for Wales—as, indeed, for the United Kingdom as a whole—are sombre, to put it in the most restrained terms. In the space of about 20 months, or about 550 days, we have travelled a very long way from the position which obtained when the Government took office in February 1974.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) stated in his
  1556
  speech, industrial production is significantly lower than then; manufacturing is at a decisively lower level than it was then the Government took office; inflation is very much worse; and unemployment is higher than in the lifetime of anyone less than 35 years of age. That is certainly the case in the Principality.
  I repeat to the Minister that it is a matter for some deep concern that unemployment in Wales is higher today—except for one or two limited spells due to extraordinary conditions—than at any time in the lifetime of anyone here who is less than 35 years of age.
  I regret that the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) is not here at present, because I recall that he made some comments about these matters. I do not wish to be highly critical of him but he complained of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke in mentioning the high unemployment. The right hon. Member for Anglesey said that unemployment is high in almost every country in the industrial world, and he said that it was largely due to world conditions and to world prices. I wish that he and his colleagues, including those of them who are here today, had taken that view when the Conservative Government were in office just before February, 1974. But they did not. They assailed the then Conservative Government, accusing us of responsibility for a level of unemployment which was far lower than that which our country must now endure. We heard little then about oil prices and about world commodity prices from any Labour Party spokesman.
  There would most certainly have been howls of anger, rage and passion if a Conservative Government were in power today about the present level of unemployment in the Principality. I can imagine one Labour Member after another asking Question after Question about the position. The Opposition have not acted in that way. Of course, we are deeply concerned about this vital matter, but we have not assailed and arraigned the Government at all stages because we recognise that a good deal of the trouble is international and that some of it undoubtedly arises from world conditions. However, I suggest that a considerable

  1557
  part of the trouble arises from Government action in the past 550 days
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: To be accurate, it is 551 days.
  Sir R. Gower: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I had not worked it out exactly. The Government are responsible in part because of their undue reliance on the social contract, which is seen to have been a dismal failure in the battle against inflation. I say that without relish.
  The Government must also bear responsibility for the way in which the economy was run between the two General Elections last year, when unchecked inflation created a spurious sense of comfort and well-being in the minds of many people, and when increases in salaries and wages were at quite unrealistically excessive levels and certain to stoke the fire of inflation.
  The Government are also responsible for the policies which have damaged, if not destroyed, confidence in industry at all levels, especially among those people who supervise, control and arrange the affairs of the smaller firms and industries in Wales. I do not wish to exaggerate the position. However, I can honestly assert that, throughout the years that I have had the honour to serve in this House, I have never been quite so anxious about the economic and industrial future of the United Kingdom as a whole and of the Principality in particular.
  Unemployment is now beginning to bite savagely in that part of Wales which some hon. Members have described as the prosperous coastal belt. My own constituency is part of that coastal belt. Our unemployment problems in the past have not been on the scale of those which have obtained in some of the industrial valleys such as North Monmouthshire and Rhondda, or in Pembrokeshire and North-West Wales. But in the circumstances that I have attempted to describe, this industrial difficulty and the accompanying unemployment are beginning to have a savage effect even in those parts of the Principality which hitherto have been comparatively fortunate.
  It is affecting established industries. I emphasise this because the Secretary of State took credit for and expressed some hope about the new and advance fac-
  1558
  tories being set up in Wales. However, the degree of employment which they may provide is limited, and it is even more regrettable that some which have been built, including some of those for which the previous administration were criticised, are not yet allocated. Many of them exist only on paper. Others have been built but are still not occupied. But, even when they are built and allocated to new tenants, the degree of unemployment which they can provide is limited by their size, which in some instances is relatively small.
  But we are now seeing a process where long-established major industries in the Principality are beginning to feel the effect of the present difficult conditions and are themselves being obliged to reduce their production. It is not that they want to do so, of course, but conditions are making them do so.
  It is affecting the smaller concerns especially, and I remind the House that some 63 per cent. of all the industrial units in Wales are reckoned to employ fewer than 10 persons. It means that the Principality perhaps more than other parts of the United Kingdom is highly dependent on its provision of employment in relatively small industrial units, and it is these which have been hit most savagely by continued inflation, by heavy and, some would say, excessive taxation, and by new administrative burdens with which all hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies must be well acquainted.
  We have had special debates on the position of the self-employed, and it may be, as was suggested in a recent debate, that there are some exaggerations. However, cases which have been brought to my notice reveal the extent of the burdens—the large amount of office work and the high cost of it all to the very smallest units. If we have many failures of these very small firms, the cumulative effect on employment in Wales could be very serious. I repeat that 63 per cent. of the industrial units in Wales employ fewer than 10 persons. They are very small units, and many of them necessarily are tender plants. They have not been long established. Some have been encouraged into Wales by the development area policies of successive Governments. Their growth owes a good deal to the initiative of those who started them, but

  1559
  they have not had sufficient time to put down deep roots, and they have not long-established financial resources.
  We adopt policies which bear heavily on such firms at our peril. There is a good deal of evidence that the policies which have been followed in the past 18 months and even, to some extent, those pursued by the previous Government have placed some of these firms in an extremely difficult situation.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I might remind the hon. Gentleman that I, too, am a tender plant. I deeply resent his reference to me in my absence for a few minutes at the start of the debate. A number of his hon. Friends were also absent. I hope that he will withdraw the unnecessary remark that he made.
  Sir R. Gower: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands completely the nature of my reference to him. I was being apologetic for having to mention him in his absence.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Nevertheless, it was uncharacteristic of the hon. Gentleman.
  Sir R. Gower: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position—[Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to me. I am trying to explain what happened. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is continuing a monologue which I cannot hear. I sought to refer to a comment he made at the earlier stage of this debate, and I realised suddenly that he was not present. I was apologising for referring to him in his absence.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: Perhaps I can be of assistance. I was present at the time, and I heard my hon. Friend's reference to the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend was being most courteous and was in no way critical of him. It is possible that the right hon. Gentleman was misinformed by his hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) about what occurred.
  Sir R. Gower: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What is more, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that you can confirm that my reference to the right hon. Gentle-
  1560
  man was an apologetic one—[Interruption.] I was in no way—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we can leave this domestic matter now and return to the subject under discussion.
  Sir R. Gower: I shall revert to my original point. The situation in Wales and especially in my constituency is dependent not merely on what we can do for the big units—the State-owned or large private industries—but on the help and encouragement we offer to reduce some of the excessive taxation and other burdens which bear heavily on some of the smaller units. We shall not increase the employing capacity of the Welsh industry solely by considering the big units. We must rely heavily on the smaller firms which comprise a formidable proportion of Welsh industry.
  I hope that the measures that the Chancellor has announced on a number of occasions will be successful and that in the months ahead we shall see the situation improve. However, at present the position is sombre and for many people it is filled with foreboding. There needs to be a collective effort and I sincerely hope that it will be forthcoming.
  There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that the employees of many Welsh industries who have perhaps suffered more from unemployment than people in other parts of the United Kingdom are aware of the position and have been cooperative is seeking to achieve agreements which will ensure the success of the industries in which they are employed. That is a gratifying sign which I have discovered in some of the industries in my own constituency. Perhaps it is a welcome and desirable relic of some of our past misfortunes. In general, some of the harsh labour disturbances and disputes which have discoloured and disfigured industry in other parts of the United Kingdom, have been absent in many parts of industrial Wales. I see that the Minister is nodding his head in agreement. I realise the bad position of Welsh industry, but all parties in Welsh industry are anxious to succeed.
  I have been encouraged by conversations which I have had with industrialists, the Welsh CBI, trade unionists and officers of individual trade unions in my own constituency. There is obviously a great

  1561
  deal of good will and determination in all parts of Welsh industry to succeed. The Government can cultivate that good will if the lack of confidence can be restored. There is also some lack of hope. Some people believe that the months ahead may be worse than those which have passed. Others believe that they cannot go on much longer. Bank overdrafts and the cost of credit play a major part in industry's prospects.
  However, I am not wholly pessimistic. I hope that the Government will refrain from any temptation to impose new penal taxation, because I do not believe that at present Welsh industry can bear any more taxation.
  I turn to the provision of alternative employment, which is a particularly difficult matter. I should like to pay a tribute to the work done by the Department of Employment and our other agencies. However, their ability to place people in suitable employment is limited. At present the vacancies are simply not available. I hope that the retraining which is taking place in certain centres will make a valuable contribution in this area, but again it comprises only a small part of the whole problem.
  We need a general upturn in the economy, but we cannot expect that for some time. However, we must be ready for it and to that extent any increase in retraining which can be arranged will be advantageous.
  I should like to refer to a matter which I have raised on a number of occasions—namely, the position of the airport at Rhoose which is in my constituency. I deeply regret that the Government were unable to answer or respond to the appeal of the consortium of Glamorgan county councils to give some grant to the vast capital expenditure which the ratepayers have had to bear without any Government assistance.
  Mr. Fred Evans: I have reminded the hon. Gentleman about this matter on a previous occasion. He must bear in mind that in the first instance his own county council, the Cardiff City Council, refused to support Rhoose Airport. Therefore it is rather late in the day to shed tears now.
  Sir R. Gower: Cardiff City Council has always been only a marginal part of
  1562
  my constituency. My constituency has generally embraced the Glamorgan area rather than the Cardiff area. I accept that successive local authorities and Governments have been at fault concerning this matter. I also accept that on a number of occasions the development of civil aviation in Wales has been despite the activities of Governments and not because of their activities.
  Last week I asked the Secretary of State for Trade some Questions. In his reply he quoted some figures which are indicative of how Wales has received no financial help concerning aviation. On 3rd November I was told by the Undersecretary of State for Trade that in England help had been given to all the municipal airports at Birmingham, Carlisle, Manchester, Newcastle and Teesside. The help extended to many millions of pounds and in the case of Manchester alone to £3 million. In Scotland the Glasgow airport had received £3½ million in the period since the last war. The Edinburgh airport had received £8 million. Aberdeen airport had received a grant, as had the airports at Inverness and other parts of the North of Scotland. However, Wales has received nothing. No Government have given a grant for any airport in the Principality since 1945, but large sums of money have been allocated to England, Scotland and, indeed, Northern Ireland. That information reveals that Wales has a special claim.
  I am not blaming this Government for the attitudes of all Governments which have preceded them. This Government are only one of several which are guilty in this respect. By refusing to give a grant this Government have joined the list of guilty Governments which preceded them. As so much money has been spent in assisting the development of airports in other parts of the United Kingdom it is surely reasonable that something, however limited, should be spent from public funds on airport development in Wales.
  The former Cambrian Airways also was developed without Government help by the initiative of local private business men who set up a Welsh company to offer air services from the Cardiff area. We are concerned that it has been gradually taken over by British Airways—formerly by BEA. We are worried,

  1563
  because although it is not a vast part of British Airways and may well be regarded by British Airways as a relatively small part of its operation—something on the periphery—that is not how we regard it. It is the only considerable civil aviation activity that we have in the Principality. If British Airways regards it as a peripheral matter and one which is likely to be dispensed with, it will bode poorly for the future of civil aviation in Wales.
  There is anxiety. This matter is important to my constituents, because 800 to 1,000 jobs are at stake at Rhoose Airport. People at all levels, including the trade unions concerned, are anxious about the matter. They are also concerned about the announcement that some of the administration of British Airways may be altered, because it will mean less employment at Rhoose.
  I sincerely hope that the Government will do all in their power, first, to reconsider a grant to the Joint Committee of Councils which administers the airport at Rhoose and, secondly, to influence British Airways not only in keeping some service at Rhoose, but in not taking any steps which will substantially or significantly reduce employment at the airport.
  I do not expect a reply to my next point today, but I hope that the Welsh Office will take note of it. There is great concern that when particular services have been sought by local industries—for example, services from Rhoose to Glasgow or to Brussels—the timetables and timing have been absurd and inadequate. Therefore, these services have not been supported as they should have been. There seems to be some substance in the statements which have been made to me about this matter. However, I must be fair. It is denied by those in British Airways to whom I have spoken and written.
  Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will consider this matter and do all in his power to help. We want a number of viable, scheduled services. We do not expect British Airways to run these services at a totally uneconomic level. However, when the services were run by Cambrian Airways Limited—an independent company—they increased yearly.
  1564
  Perhaps for economic reasons British Airways may have been unlucky in the last year or two. Certainly there was no increase in services last year. I believe that there has been a modest increase this year in movements in and out of the airport. We hope that the Government and British Airways are aware of the importance of this matter to Wales. We do not expect them to regard it as all-important in the context of the United Kingdom, but it is important to us.
  Aviation is a growth industry. We have far too little of it in the Principality. It would be a tragedy if the great efforts of many people should now be thwarted or that the industry should die an unnecessary death at this stage.
  I hope that when we next have an opportunity of debating these matters in general there will have been a better year than last year. Last year was a savage experience for this country. I hope that we shall not see another year like it.
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before calling any other hon. Member to speak, I should point out that if each following speaker takes 28 minutes there will be some very disappointed Members in this Chamber.
  5.3 p.m.
  Mr. Ifor Davies: The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) has raised the important issue of civil aviation, and in particular Rhoose Airport. I was a member of the Glamorgan County Council in the early days when it courageously took over responsibility for the airport. In the light of the delegations which we have met in recent days, I shall be glad to follow the hon. Gentleman on that subject later in my speech, because I sympathise with his argument.
  The hon. Member for Barry in his opening remarks analysed the economy. That was in keeping with the remarks made by the Secretary of State for Wales who, in opening the debate, stated that the background to the debate was the state of the economy and the problems of its management.
  It is equally important to emphasise today that the way these problems are dealt with will determine the degree of success that we achieve in coping with

  1565
  the primary task of overcoming inflation. Therefore, our first priority must be a planned economy. But, as always, there are bound to be many different reactions to planning.
  I believe that positive and constructive planning is an absolute requirement if we are to steer the economic ship of State through the sea of icebergs—ice-bergs in the form of the new, menacing, economic and inflationary problems referred to by the hon. Member for Barry. As I understand it, that was the timely message which came from the Chequers meeting with its new sense of urgency and unanimous call for a new industrial structure and investment.
  The central issue is whether and in what way the productivity of British industry can be raised. This afternoon I wish to address myself particularly to the situation as it affects the Principality.
  The level of employment in Welsh industry can be improved only by the introduction of new techniques and higher productivity. That implies the stimulation of investment, and that has been one of our great weaknesses in Wales.
  At this very moment we are confronted with the great dilemma facing our greatest basic industry—the steel industry—which is the lifeblood of all our industrial activities.
  The House will be aware that the British Steel Corporation, after a detailed and protracted study, produced its investment strategy, which accepted that, on economic, technological and sociological grounds, Port Talbot was the right place to expand to keep Britain competitive in the steel and tinplate markets of the world. The whole steel industry is still anxiously awaiting the Government's decision on that matter. We had evidence of that only yesterday when a delegation from Wales met some of my hon. Friends and myself. It was the widest representation I have ever seen in the House, being composed of local authorities, counties and districts, factories, trade unions and people vitally concerned with the industry.
  I fully understand the Government's difficulties regarding this matter. But time is not on our side. Indecision and delay in revitalising the British steel industry has already given our overseas compete-
  1566
  tors a huge lead in the international race. Last year Britain fell to eighth place in the international steel producers' league, and for the first time we were overtaken by France, Italy and China.
  Most of the big steel-producing nations are forging ahead with expansion projects in which production is concentrated on large coastal plants using the most efficient processes.
  In the hard world of steel economics, there is no sentiment. I saw this for myself recently when I visited Japan with a parliamentary delegation. A steelworks not far from Tokyo, with a similar work force to that at Port Talbot, produces three times the amount of steel, not because the workers are better or more skilled, but simply because they have been given the tools to get on with the job.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Would my hon. Friend confirm that the trade unions at Port Talbot have given firm pledges to reduce manning levels to get at least some way towards the current levels in Japan?
  Mr. Davies: Yes, I confirm that. It is an important development.
  I urge the Government, in the light of this situation, to give Port Talbot the tools to get on with the job by implementing the BSC's strategy. I am confident that management and workers will accept the challenge and will match up to any foreign competition.
  This is an issue which affects not only Port Talbot. It affects the whole of South Wales industry, which in one form or another is interdependent on steel. In addition to coal, our tinplate industry above all is vitally affected. I say "our" tinplate industry deliberately, because West Wales has been the home of the tinplate industry for more than 200 years. The Velindre plant in my constituency and Trostre in West Wales stand as proud reminders of our great tinplate tradition.
  The danger signals have gone up. Every day tinplate users are demanding better quality and closer tolerances, and the industry must meet these demands or lose the trade. The hot-rolled coil for the tinplate industry comes from Port Talbot and it is an absolute necessity to improve the quality of coil to meet customer

  1567
  demand. If this is not carried out, it is no exaggeration to say that the tinplate industry of West Wales will face disastrous consequences. The future of the tinplate industry is therefore inevitably and inextricably bound up with what is to happen to Port Talbot.
  In the light of the situation facing the tinplate industry in West Wales, I submit that development at Port Talbot takes on a new urgency. The issue is now of such grave national importance that it should be removed from the arena of any kind of battle as between Shotton and Port Talbot, a situation which I deeply deplore, and I am sure that I speak for the steel and tinplate workers of South Wales when I say that they, too, deplore it.
  Shotton has been given an assurance that its position is safeguarded at least until 1981—that is six years ahead. That was confirmed in Lord Beswick's interim report which is to be found at column 1164 of the Official Report of 4th February 1975. I submit that the Port Talbot development should be allowed to proceed forthwith, in accordance with the BSC strategy, and the Shotton position, in view of the time that it has in hand, should be re-examined in the light of the market situation as time proceeds.
  That, to my mind, would be the most sensible and realistic way in which to reconcile a difficulty which has arisen between North and South Wales, and is one of the causes for the delay in the Government's decision. The steel industry has suffered enough in the past as a result of delays and misdirected capital investment. I sincerely hope that the Government will be wise enough not to let this happen again in the present situation.
  I turn now to another important issue that has serious consequences for the Welsh economy. This concerns what the hon. Member for Barry said about civil aviation and the situation in Rhoose Airport in particular. A few days ago, some of my hon. Friends and myself met members of the airport committee and we were deeply disturbed regarding the situation. Rhoose is the No. 1 civil airport of Wales and has been developed to international standards. Its importance extends far beyond the three counties of Mid, South and West Glamorgan which now own and
  1568
  operate it. Its traffic is shared almost equally between scheduled services to many parts of Britain and Europe, linking up with world-wide services, and holiday traffic. There is also substantial executive travel linked with Welsh industry, and the airport has a vital role to play in the economy of Wales.
  The financial burden is at present borne by the three Glamorgan counties, whereas the economic and social benefits are felt throughout the Principality. It is totally unfair that the burden should fall entirely on the Glamorgan counties, without any assistance from the Government. In 1975–76 the total deficit is likely to be about £1½ million, of which about £750,000 will represent debt charges. I ask the Minister to tell us why other regional municipal airports in both England and Scotland are in receipt of grants and Wales is treated differently. The situation is illogical and blatantly unjust.
  The £5 million redevelopment scheme recently completed at Rhoose has made it among the most modern airports in Europe. It is capable, without extension or further expenditure, of handling up to 2 million and more passengers a year. I would remind the House that the industrial development of Wales has been due in no small measure to the attraction of new firms from other parts of the United Kingdom and from overseas.
  Foreign investment has played a significant part on that development, and there are now 150 foreign companies in Wales providing employment for more than 50,000 people. This flow of investment is vital to the future of Wales, because the number of firms from within the United Kingdom that will be expanding in the next year or two is likely to be modest. Every encouragement should, therefore, be given to new foreign investment, and airport facilities are essential for this purpose. Nor should we overlook the fact that in the event of oil development in the Celtic Sea the airport will have an even greater role to play. In the light of all those outstanding facts. I agree with the appeal made by the hon. Member for Barry. The Government's decision not to make a grant to Rhoose, the only major civil airport in Wales, is to be deplored and must be challenged.

  1569
  I remind the House of what is said in "Civil Aviation Policy Guidance", Command 4899. Referring to the Civil Aviation Authority, it says in paragraph 10:
  "It should encourage the provision by British airlines of services that will foster the development of the United Kingdom's trade and tourism and strengthen the balance of payments."
  I am convinced that Rhoose Airport answers those conditions. It has an essential role to play in the strenuous efforts being made to improve the economy of Wales and to implement the Government's regional policy. It would indeed be a tragedy if, through lack of Government assistance, such a valuable public asset as Rhoose Airport, started by the old Glamorgan County Council and continued by a consortium of the three county councils, was forced to close instead of being put to much more effective use in the national as well as the local interest.
  In support of this matter I quote the words of the Prime Minister at the Guildhall earlier this week:
  "We have to ensure that when world activity revives—and there are signs that this is beginning to happen—we are not precluded from putting forth our full efforts in export markets because of inadequate capacity in terms of investment."
  In the spirit of that message Rhoose qualifies for full Government backing and investment, and I urge the Minister to use every possible pressure to correct what is not only a grave injustice to Wales but a damaging blow to the development of our economy.
  In response to your appeal, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for brevity, I conclude by saying how much I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State this afternoon of a further programme of advance factories, amounting to a spending of £3¼ million, together with what he described as his new policy in that advance factories could be let to firms already in Wales which can offer satisfactory additional employment prospects.
  I have never understood why firms with excellent potential for growth have been stunted because they were operating in grossly inefficient premises and yet were prevented from being considered as candidates for advance factories. I am glad that this inflexible position has been changed. It should not pass unnoticed that the financing of this new programme
  1570
  has been made possible as a result of help from the European Regional Development Fund. I welcome the assurance given by the Secretary of State for Wales that the Welsh Office is now playing a full part in all aspects of our participation in EEC activities and developing close relations with the Commission.
  To this end it is a source of satisfaction that Mr. Gwyn Morgan, who was the Chef de Cabinet to Mr. George Thomson, has been appointed to the important post of EEC representative in Wales. I know that the House will wish him well. Mr. Morgan has a deep knowledge of Welsh problems and, with his wide experience in EEC, I am sure that we can look forward to his fruitful cooperation with the Welsh Office to the benefit of our own regional problems.
  5.23 p.m.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I am grateful for this opportunity of taking part in the debate at this early stage because it will give me the opportunity to refer to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Davies) on the steel industry. I echo his words on the appointment of Mr. Gwyn Morgan to his EEC post, which I am sure will be of great benefit to the Principality.
  The hon. Member for Gower made an eloquent case for going ahead with the British Steel Corporation's plans for Port Talbot. It is pertinent to point out that the Labour Party, and indeed the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales, voted against those plans. The Secretary of State is fond of taunting me about having voted in favour of the Shotton shut-down. I can equally taunt him for having voted against the provision of extra jobs in Port Talbot. However, that is all water under the bridge.
  The hon. Member for Gower said that we should not treat this as a Shotton versus Port Talbot issue. The trouble is that it is inevitable that it should be so treated because the Corporation's case for expanding Port Talbot is based on the rundown of steel making at Shotton. I have had no difficulty whatever in demolishing the figures on which the BSC based its case for making the hot-rolled coil at Port Talbot and transporting it to Shotton for finishing. I made my

  1571
  views clear in a letter that appeared in The Times Business News three or four weeks ago. The BSC figures do not for a moment stand up to expert analysis. But what worries me is that at a later stage those figures could be used by the Corporation to demolish Shotton's right even to finish the hot-rolled coil from Port Talbot.
  I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales in his reply this evening will say that he has no intention of letting up in the fight to keep steel-making at Shotton. Despite the great virtues in the Corporation's case, a case can still be made for maintaining steel-making at Shotton. This case is based on support contained in arguments advanced by the Corporation, on general social grounds and also on the ground of need to create employment. We now realise that the unemployment situation is not a temporary phenomenon brought about by the present difficult economic conditions, but that it may be a permanent condition of the British economy resulting from the massive transfer of manpower from productive gainful employment into service industries, local government and so on. In those circumstances it becomes more than ever important to examine every possible scheme aimed at the employment of large numbers of people in productive profitable work, whether in the public or private sector.
  I had intended in my speech to attack the Government for their dismal employment record—
  Mr. Ifor Davies: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of steel, perhaps I may be allowed to put this matter to him. The purpose of my speech was to draw attention to the serious effects on the tinplate industry in West Wales. I tried to make the point that the situation in Shotton and Port Talbot can be reconciled. I still believe that to be possible, and the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) will do a great disservice to industry in Wales if he ignores the tremendous effects on the tinplate industry and what will happen if we do not develop Port Talbot.
  Sir A. Meyer: The hon. Gentleman must not get my arguments wrong. I
  1572
  said that if we were to act on the basis of the Corporation's strategy, it would force us to make a choice between Shotton and Port Talbot. However, there does not have to be that choice, and expansion at Port Talbot can go ahead without Shot-ton's steel-making capacity having to be sacrificed. I want to emphasise the importance of creating additional profitable employment in asset-producing industry.
  I intended to launch an attack on the Labour Government for the way in which they had allowed unemployment figures to climb to record heights. I also intended to quote back at them some of the things by which they had abused the Conservative Government of which I was a supporter. However, I will leave those matters aside. I wish to make one vital point—namely, that it would be possible to make a dramatic impact on the unemployment figures if the Government—any Government—were prepared to give priority to the matter.
  We hear much talk about the disastrous levels of unemployment and we are told that we must deal with it at all costs. But nobody means "at all costs". It would be possible to create many new and profitable jobs in industry, though not by the kind of methods advocated by the Tribune Group with a form of Schachtian National Socialism, with import controls, rationing and all the rest of it. It would be possible to create those jobs on condition that our people were confronted directly with the need for a severe curtailment in their standard of living over the next two or three years. Such a curtailment in the standard of living not only implies that people will have less money to spend on drink or tobacco or foreign holidays but it means the necessity to tell people that they will have to take a cut in the social wage as well as face deteriorating standards in social services, educational requirements and almost the breakdown of the National Health Service. What I find very much less unpleasant is the imposition of charges aimed at bringing more resources into the provision of the social services.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock—
  Sir A. Meyer: I cannot keep giving way. I promised the Chair that I would be brief and I intend to be brief.

  1573
  Much could be achieved if the Government gave overriding priority to the creation of employment by releasing resources for investment and by making it possible for those who invest to look forward with confidence into the future and to invest profitably. In other words, the burden has to be shifted from industry to the consumer. This is a hard task, but it can be done. It might just be bearable. It would be unbearable if, on top of that heavy burden, the Government proposed to add the totally unnecessary burden of all its costly grandiose schemes for extending nationalisation. For example, the effect of the Community Land Bill, with its Welsh arm, is already being felt. Jobs are being advertised at a total cost of £500,000 per annum or more. There is also the gorgeous irrelevance of the Welsh National Assembly with its building, clerks, security guards, stenographers, canteen staff, cleaning staff and all the rest. All this is to be borne on the collapsing shoulders of the Welsh taxpayer and ratepayer.
  I have said that I will stick to the time I promised to take, and I shall do so. I reiterate that the jobs can be created. Shotton can be kept as a steel producer in addition to Port Talbot provided that the Government mean what they say and that they put the creation of jobs above all else.
  5.31 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) referred to the growth of the non-productive public sector in this country. He ended his remarks with an attack on the proposed Assembly for Wales and the employment of clerks, security guards, and so on. No Government have greater responsibility for building up the swollen superstructure of administration which is choking this country than the Government which he so slavishly supported between 1970 and 1974.
  The so-called reform of local government, which he supported, the so-called reform of the health service and of the water services and the tremendous employment that those services have given in a non-productive sector, together with the enormous increase in the cost—it has
  1574
  doubled in four years—is the secret of what is wrong with the economy.
  The world recession is, of course, a reason for the economy of the United Kingdom being sluggish. However, the truth is—and it applies to Wales as much as to the rest of the United Kingdom—that the non-productive sector has become out of balance with the productive sector. I am referring to the productive sector divided as it is between private and public industry. Wales—indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom—will never get back on its feet until productive industry is more in balance with the heavy superstructure that has been inflicted upon it. When I opposed the local government Bill which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government I said on Second Reading that we were imposing on the British economy a load which it could not bear. We are now paying the price for it.
  The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) referred to the tragic cuts of the past 18 months. Those cuts were inevitable because of what the previous Conservative Government did between 1970 and 1974. I hold no brief for the present Labour Government—do not be mistaken about that.
  Mr. Kinnock: They could not afford your fees.
  Mr. Hooson: I can afford it more than the hon. Gentleman. The truth is that the blame must be put fairly and squarely where it should rest. However much they might regret it, between 1970 and 1974 the Conservative Government put an impossible burden upon productive industry. What is the result? They can moan as much as they like about the self-employed. The self-employed are crushed by taxes which have inevitably been imposed to support that Conservative Government's superstructure. However good a job NALGO and the Civil Service unions did for their members—they did a super job for their members—they did more damage to the British economy in the process than ever the National Union of Mineworkers was capable of doing. That was a permanent contribution.
  I turn to the savage cuts to which the hon. Member for Barry referred. We see the fruits of this process in the cuts that are now being imposed. Where are

  1575
  they being imposed? Today no fewer than three examples of old people who have home helps have been brought to my attention. In the county of Powys a decision was taken at the Government's behest to cut down on all these services. There is to be a 25 per cent. cut across the board for everyone. It does not matter what a person's living conditions are like. I heard today of one lady who was deprived of some of the services of a home help on Monday and today she has been taken to hospital. It will cost the State more, but that is how the cuts are being imposed.
  What is happening in Powys is happening in other places. In the same county 120 road workers are facing redundancy. No decision has yet been taken but that may well happen. They will, quite rightly, receive wage-related unemployment benefit, social security benefits and various other benefits. However, it will cost the public quite as much as if they had been kept in employment. The whole process of financing should be examined. What do we do? We pay them wage-related unemployment benefit and social security benefits and let them remain idle? That is what it amounts to because in this country the right hand no longer is aware of what the left hand is doing.
  In education there are severe and savage cuts. For example, in my own county for the first time in my lifetime children are being charged 30p for a music lesson in school. If their parents cannot afford it, the children go without the lessons. This is one of the most retrograde steps imaginable.
  However, do the public services exist for the benefit of the public or for the benefit of the services? We are reaching the stage where the public services seem to give the impression that they are run for the benefit of themselves.
  Have there been any cuts in the swollen administration? None at all. Today who are the most protected against the effects of inflation? Officials, right across the board. It is the wage earners, the self-employed, and the productive workers who are bearing the brunt of all this.
  However, the truth is that in principle there is no difference in the exchanges between the Front Benches. They are
  1576
  pin-pricking exchanges as to who did what between 1970 and 1974. Basically, neither Front Bench has the guts or courage to tackle the real problem affecting this country, which is swollen administration. This is the added factor which makes it difficult, even if there is an upturn in world economy, for this country to pay for these services. Everything is already mortgaged, even North Sea oil. We are suffering greatly from over-manning.
  The hon. Member for Gower said that there are certain aspects of steel production in Wales where production would increase if the tools were available. Surely it is the way in which the tools are used that is important. Let us compare the production at Llanwern with the factory to which the hon. Member referred in Japan. Is Llanwern inferior because of the tools it has? No, it is inferior in the way in which they are used. We have a great deal to learn about this. Surely our experience of the past few years is that when something is working well, as is the case at Shotton, it would be foolish to do away with it. Whatever modern developments we have in industry, surely we have learnt enough to realise that good industrial relations are worth all the tools that we can manufacture. One may have the most sophisticated industrial tools, but if one has poor industrial relations one's factory is a paper tiger. I should have thought that there was an overwhelming case, therefore, for keeping Shotton as it is.
  I move now to another matter—Rhoose Airport. I believe that the Government need to take a longer-term view on this matter. In the present recession, although we realise how vulnerable we are in relation to so many things, it would be dreadful if we allowed the services which we shall need in a more prosperous day to fall into disuse. Rhoose is the only civil airport in Wales, as far as I am aware. There used to be another one, but it is no longer used except perhaps for private aeroplanes. However, Rhoose is the doorway from Wales for air services to Europe.
  Now that we are in the Common Market, surely we shall need much greater integration between the Welsh economy and the general European economy. Therefore, Rhoose Airport is

  1577
  important. Those of us who have visited Scotland—as I am sure you have, Mr. Deputy Speaker—have been amazed at the air services provided between the various airports in Scotland by light aircraft joining the main services elsewhere. Feeder aircraft of this kind could be used in different partes of Wales, such as at Valley in Anglesey and at Hawarden and Aberporth, to feed into Rhoose Airport.
  Then there is the M4. Surely there should be an extension of that to Rhoose to make available more easily the facilities for the development of that airport.
  The Government should not allow the only civil airport in Wales to fall into disuse. It would be a great blow to those who work there but obviously also a very bad blow for the future of the Welsh economy. Although I have no constituency interest anywhere near Rhoose, it seems to me from the national point of view that it is very important.
  I turn now to agriculture. Conditions in agriculture this year are very much better than they were last year. Nevertheless, the incomes of small farmers are still very low, as are the incomes of farm workers. It is only in the last few months, I think, that the Government have really appreciated what I have been saying for a long time. That is that food production has been dropping in Britain and that as production drops inevitably a shortage is created, and the greater the shortage the higher the price. The Government are now paying for their foolishness in their first year in office in relation to agriculture. Once one allows confidence in agriculture to be undermined, as with all other industries it take a long time to build it up again. Some people are still cutting down on stock on their farms. The fodder situation is still far from easy.
  What Welsh agriculture needs, like British agriculture, is a long-term statement and undertaking by the Government about what they want the farmers to produce and an assurance that they will sustain production. Whether the Government do this by better grants or the end product price in the shops is up to them. I do not worry about the method that is used to support Welsh agriculture and give it confidence, but what is absolutely certain is that this is needed.
  1578
  What is also needed is reassurance for farm workers. When one considers the importance of the job that they do, one can appreciate that their average wages do not compare with average wages in other industries. It is time that this matter was put right. It also affects small farmers. I know many small farmers who have lived on very narrow incomes, and many farm workers. It is necessary for the Government to put this matter right, by putting agriculture on a sound basis.
  I was all for a freeze right across the board, and particularly in the upper earnings bracket. I made no bones about that. If we had had such a freeze it would have enabled us to bring up the wages of farm workers and the income of small farmers to a more acceptable level in the country as a whole.
  In conclusion I make one or two points of special pleading. I take the view that it is necessary in Wales to have a very active and encouraged private sector. This is vastly important. The way that the private sector is taxed is also all important. But the public sector is also very important to Wales for industry production. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, no doubt have recollections of the days when you were Secretary of State for Wales and it was necessary in some areas—mine was one of them—to put in a good deal of public investment in order to encourage private activity there as well.
  A good deal of the work was done by the Welsh Industrial Estates. They have a very good record over the years. As I understand it, they are to be absorbed on 1st January 1976 by the Welsh Development Agency. I understand that the staff of the Welsh Industrial Estates are still extremely uncertain about their own future. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will make a statement today on the future of the staff of the Welsh Industrial Estates, along the lines of the recent statement of his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland. What will happen to the staff? It is very important that they be given reassurance about their future and that their expertise and contacts with Welsh industrialists should be utilised to the fullest extent under the new Welsh Development Agency.
  My last bit of private pleading is for Mid-Wales. At a time of recession there is a tendency to pull in the horns. However, my experience in this House—and I

  1579
  have seen recessions previously—is that one must prepare during a recession to make sure that when an upturn comes one can take the fullest advantage of it. The great danger today is that we are pulling in our horns so far that we are in danger of losing the opportunity for expansion when it comes.
  I have already indicated where I think a good deal of the economies should take place, in an area which has not been touched by the Government at present. However, the Government should also take steps, in an area such as Mid-Wales, to extend the remit of the New Towns Development Corporation. It has the capability of developing something very much bigger. It should be used in other towns. The previous Government refused to do this, although it seems to me such an obvious step. It would not entail the employment of any additional staff. They could simply extend their activities to one or more other towns. It seems a very sensible step to take, but the present Government and the previous Conservative Government have been stupidly unwilling to take it. It seems that they prefer something much more grandiose, which Mid-Wales does not really require. The tool is at hand. Why not use it much more sensibly than it is being used at present?
  5.49 p.m.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: Perhaps I may begin with a brief reference, even in his unavoidable absence, to the speech of the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), simply to place on record the fact that hon. Members on the Government side of the House do not accept any of the analyses he employed in his assessment of the present economic situation in Wales. The response to him is best summed up by repeating what has been said by the Confederation of British Industry. In August it was telling us—as it is telling us now—that the major reason for the downturn in investment proposals, the downturn in job opportunities and the general downturn in business confidence was the absence of buoyant demand. In the very same breath—indeed in the same paper, and, whenever one of the Confederation's leaders speaks, in the very same sentence as often as not—it tells us that it is not time to reflate.
  1580
  That is the oldest economic tale we have heard from the Opposition. On the one hand, the description of and reason for the difficulty is given as a deficiency of demand. On the other hand, and in the same breath, the Government are required to continue a savage control of demand. All that that illustrates is the total bankruptcy of any policies for resolving our particular crises, either in the Conservative Party or in the capitalist ethic.
  Here we are again, illustrating the idiocy of which Parliament is capable on some occasions. There is much talk of constitutional reform, and it is appropriate that we should be discussing this matter after having sat right through the night and in my case—and I am sure that this applies to other Members—having sat through the morning on a Select Committee and then at lunch time having attended a meeting affecting my constituency. Now we are discussing Welsh affairs at the very buttock of the parliamentary year. That seems to be the place to which Welsh affairs are relegated regardless of which party is in government.
  I can only hope that in future parliamentary Sessions we shall manage to elevate the discussion of Welsh affairs to a higher priority. The way in which we are treated in this respect and the way in which the media discuss devolution by referring only to Scotland is turning me into something of a crypto-nationalist. In fact, I shall never be a nationalist because obviously I am much too sensible to fall into that trap and I hold the interests of the Welsh people too dearly, but I can see how the more paranoic of my countrymen may be forced into that view.
  I want to discuss unemployment specifically in my county and the enormous additional difficulties which my county has encountered as a result of the rise in unemployment in the past 12 months. In Gwent, between September 1974 and September 1975, as the very useful "Employment and Industrial Trends" publication of the Gwent Planning Department informs us, unemployment rose by 97 per cent. to a figure of 13,760. Among juveniles it rose by over 100 per cent. between those two Septembers to 2,665. Although this latter figure is fall

  1581
  ing, thanks to the implementation of new Government expenditure policies, to the extension of the Community Industries Scheme and to the continual efforts of the careers service in Gwent, there is still a very large number of schoolchildren who left school in July hoping for a secure future in the county of Gwent but still have no firm prospect of a job.
  When that happens under a Tory Government, as the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) said, we on this side of of the House are loud in our condemnation of the Government. But however loud our condemnation, there is a kind of public resignation about a rise in unemployment under a Conservative Government. When unemployment rises under a Labour Government, whose commitment to full employment is far more resolute than that of a party whose major commitment is to a market system with all the vagaries, vacillations and whimsicality that that involves, we are not simply talking about a campaign to divert the worst aspects of applied Conservatism. We are talking about fundamental questions being asked about the policies which the Labour Government are pursuing.
  Labour Members of Parliament, whether they are in the Government or on the back benches, who do not ask these questions and who are not at least as resolute in their condemnation and in their searching for answers under a Labour Government as they are under a Tory Government are not fulfilling the interests of their constituents; they are not maintaining the interests of their class and they are not being true to themselves.
  What is apparent under a Labour Government is that the Government are approached ferociously by their own back benchers, in stark contrast to the general approach of Tory back benchers when a Tory Government are in power. I do not say that as a parliamentary debating point. I think it indicates a fundamental difference in the approach of our parties in this House to what we on this side of the House consider to be the overwhelming problem of our society—coming even before inflation in its need for resolution. I refer to unemployment among the people whom we represent.
  In Gwent there are any number of figures available to emphasise the novelty and the depth of the problem we face.
  1582
  In Blackwood in my constituency, unemployment has gone up from 8·4 per cent. to 14·9 per cent. In Risca the unemployment rate has gone up from 5·5 per cent. in this most serenely prosperous part of my constituency, to a unique and unprecedented figure of 14·4 per cent. The rise in total unemployment in Britain during those 12 months is 85 per cent. In Wales it is 72 per cent. As I said earlier, in Gwent it is 97 per cent.
  Obviously, there is a particular cry from the county of Gwent which has long been regarded as the prosperous southeast corner of Wales. But now it has obviously shown its lack of resilience in the face of the economic storm which we face. Not that there have not been successes. But in September this year I had the blackest weekend in my political life when in 24 hours I met the trade union representatives and some of the management of over 1,000 people in my constituency who were either directly threatened with or had the sack as a result of redundancies in firms in and around my constituency. Fortunately, some of them escaped the sack, but others have not been so lucky. The fact that we could come to that brink of disaster in a constituency like mine is a lesson in itself.
  I should like to know from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary whether there has been a final conclusion in what I hope will be one of the greatest success stories of co-ordinated activity between the Industrial Department of the Welsh Office and resolute trade unionists in the Rosedale factory in Bedwas. The probability is that there is a great success story there.
  I shall have to wait until the end of the debate to get a firm response, but if there has been a happy conclusion I would like to take this opportunity of paying a warm and genuine tribute to the outstanding trade union leadership in that plant and to the thorough and dedicated efforts of people in the Department of Industry in Wales before 1st July and those same people who are now part of the Welsh Office. I do not often hand out that kind of compliment to civil servants.
  I should like to ask a few questions. First, has the Welsh Office any specific policy for encouraging the refurbishing

  1583
  of the factory in Aberbargoed in my constituency, previously owned by Corah's, where 400 women's jobs were lost in the summer of this year, which was closed down despite the strenuous efforts of the local Labour Party and the trade union? Has my hon. Friend, in addition, any information about the vexatious problem of coal stocks in South Wales? I know that my hon. Friend has received deputations of coal miners and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is meeting the executive of the National Union of Mineworkers today. The NUM and other unions in the mining industry have made known their views on this problem in recent months. I hope the Government can give us a firm undertaking about overcoming this problem and removing the worries and fall in morale which accompanies the continual stockpiling of coal at pitheads in South Wales and at power stations.
  The Gwent report, a very intelligent piece of work, concludes that the Government are looking for an upturn in world trade in the New Year and that everyone concerned with the economy in Gwent must ensure that the county is in a position to respond to any upturn at the earliest possible opportunity. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said, the present depression must be used, unlike previous recessions, as an opportunity to promote structural and economic changes which will guarantee that future development is diversified and resilient enough to withstand any future economic difficulties. This is a tall order for any Government. It means the Government should not take refuge behind world trade difficulties or use the alibi that there are difficulties throughout the country, even in those areas with a traditional image of prosperity. The Government, especially the Welsh Office, must give special attention to creating opportunities for a take-off throughout Wales.
  I would like to outline how the Labour movement believes we can overcome our problems. There must be continued attention to improve the industrial and social infrastructure. This goes without saying, but if there is a pause in the progress we have made since the war, we shall have to pay for it in the absence of future opportunities for development. I realise
  1584
  that I am preaching to the converted, or perhaps even the desperate, but every hon. Member should take every opportunity, no matter how boring or repetitious it becomes, to stress that without improvements to the infrastructure in many parts of Wales, we are condemning whole areas to drying up and blowing away as living communities.
  We do not want from the Government a repetition of previous carrot and stick policies. Even in the improved form of the National Enterprise Board or the Welsh Development Agency they are not enough. We do not want policies of cajolery, bribery, exhortation and inducement. We want development policies and we also want decongestion policies. If we do not bring people out of the congested areas of the country which have become ridiculously, uninhabitably expensive—areas like the Midlands and the South-East—we shall never be able to get a major and permanent industrial development in the depressed regions of Great Britain.
  It is not enough to simply try to sponsor British capitalism which depends, in large part, on Government inducements and their underpinning, underwriting and guaranteeing of the funds which the private market is unwilling or incapable of raising for itself. As a Socialist Government we should be taking full advantage of this situation. We need a planned, organised industrial transition instead of the whimsical and sudden changes of the past. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) has for years called for intelligent anticipation of major industrial changes but has seen the process start only recently. Anybody could see these changes. A child of five could see them and indeed many children have seen them to their cost. Intelligent anticipation will enable us to replace industries as they close down.
  These are not dreamy Socialist aspirations or a romantic voice from the valleys. This is the only way communities in the valleys and other parts of Wales can be sustained. It is too late when the axe is hovering over the steelworks or the pit. We ought to be able to make five-year or 10-year forecasts of the needs and production potential of public enterprises. There should be no tolerance of sudden major industrial closures, especially in the public sector.

  1585
  Nye Bevan once said that there was no need to look into the crystal ball when one could read the book. The book for the people of Wales is their daily newspapers and what they see every time they look down the valleys of Wales. Surely it must be within the capacity of those who have decision-making responsibilities to see that instead of making academic assessments and analyses and setting up boards as the economy is collapsing around them, they get on with the job of doing something before disaster strikes.
  Improvements in the infrastructure, a policy of decongestion and development and a policy of industrial transition all add up to something that is anathema to many Members opposite—reflation.
  Many people suggest that this is the very last time that we should be arguing for an injection of further funds into the economy. But there are any amount of private funds not being used in the economy simply because there is no direct and immediate opportunity of a quick buck being made. This money goes into various kinds of Government securities, waiting for an economic upturn, and a Socialist Government should be mobilising those resources for the protection of the people for whom this party has historically cared.
  I am talking about making decisions. Are we a party whose answer to a broken finger is to amputate the whole arm or are we a party that will use the skill, intelligence and resources at our command to ensure that the finger is made as useful as it was before?
  That is the real difference between the two sides of the House, between those who would let the affairs of the world take care of themselves and those who seek to be elected and to attain power in order to control the world for mankind.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: I am always glad to participate in a debate after the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kin-nock) has spoken, and particularly to welcome his conversion to what he described as a crypto-nationalism. I shall see whether I can arrange for the Cardiff office to supply him with a crypto-membership form. We look forward to his support in the coming months, during the
  1586
  discussions on devolution. I am glad that he has at least identified himself as a warm supporter of devolution, both economic and constitutional.
  I agreed with the major theme of his speech on the basic issue of unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, will want to develop that aspect, but, without pre-empting what he might want to say, I agreed entirely with the analysis by the hon. Member for Bedwellty, particularly when he pointed to the experience of the more prosperous parts of Gwent which are now suffering what many areas in Gwynedd have had to suffer for a long period.
  The hon. Member mentioned the percentage increase in unemployment in particular areas of Gwent which have to face rates of 14 per cent. or so. There are areas of Gwynedd, such as Caernarvon, Holyhead, and Blaenau Ffestiniog, which have had to contend with unemployment levels of this kind under successive Governments. These towns have unemployment levels comparable with those that the hon. Member quoted for Gwent. Hon. Members, like myself, who have empty factories in their constituencies, who feel that they have been knocking their heads against a brick wall in the last two years in attempts to attract tenants into the factories—I mention the specific case of the Forgings and Fasteners factory at Blaenau Ffestiniog—want a specific date when the Welsh Development Agency will become fully operational. We are looking to that agency to provide the kind of public investment about which the Minister spoke and which has not been forthcoming from the private sector in large parts of rural Wales. Where it has been forthcoming, in all too many instances it has been with the kind of difficulties that have attended the firm of R. A. Good all, in Dolgellau, in my constituency. That company is a case in point—a company which can retain its existing level of employment for only a few more weeks, or, at best, months. It is that kind of company which could benefit so much from the flexible type of intervention which we are hoping for from the Welsh Development Agency.
  I want the Under-Secretary to tell us when he foresees the agency being fully operational, and to confirm that it will

  1587
  be able to intervene actively in situations of this kind. Does he agree that the setting up of production units in empty factories such as the one in Blaenau Ffestiniog should be a priority for the agency? Unemployment brings with it no only personal problems of redundancy but the problem of a sudden drop in income, when the earnings-related unemployment benefits run out. It also brings with it the social problems that we have faced for so long in large areas of industrial Wales.
  I am very concerned about the impact that the cuts in public expenditure will have on social policy in Wales. To be unkind to the Government, I could say that the major act of policy for which they will be remembered is cutting public expenditure. Such cuts go much further, in their effect on the lives of ordinary people, than do any other policy decisions. There are the young children who will not be able to go into nursery schools and the old people who have had cuts in their home help services. The personal social services, yet again, are being subjected to severe reductions.
  I am concerned about the unselective nature of these cuts, at the inability of Government to look at different districts to see whether there are areas of relative deprivation, and their failure to ensure that there will be no reduction in spending in development areas or special development areas. Instead, there is a blanket demand on all the personal social services in local authorities in Wales to reduce expenditure. There is no attempt to see whether the reductions will cause even greater social deprivation for specific problem areas than these areas have suffered in the past. I appeal, therefore, for greater selectivity and sensitivity in the reduction of public expenditure in the personal social services.
  In an attempt to find out what is happening I have contacted all the county councils in Wales asking for a full list of the projects that have been cut back. With the commitments imposed on the social services by higher unemployment, there are many areas in which social workers are dealing with families affected by unemployment. They face a massive case load. In those circumstances, their efforts will become less and less effective.
  1588
  In this kind of inflationary situation, the level of social security benefits is being increased from 17th November, but it is one thing to increase benefits and another to ensure that the level of services is maintained. This is a difficult choice for any Government. If, for example, we were globally to reduce the next pensions increase by 5p there could be a minimum transfer of about £20 million into personal social services throughout Britain. The Government must consider this point more closely. What is best for an old person in Powys or Gwynedd? Is it to have an extra 5p on the pension, or to have the home help for an extra hour or two each week?
  Families are experiencing problems which need social support work and family help. The higher incidence of relative poverty is exacerbated by unemployment. Thirty per cent. more people in Wales are dependent on supplementary benefit than is the case in the United Kingdom as a whole. We are greatly concerned that the Government appear to be following the traditional approach of their predecessors in introducing and continuing means-tested benefits for local authority services. The low take-up of the exemptions from charges for these services must be of concern to us all. The Government are persisting with the system of imposing charges and granting exemptions, which means in most cases that the take-up is only about 50 per cent. and occasionally up to 80 per cent. of what it should be. That means that a significant proportion of people who should be getting a service free are not benefiting. It is similar to what happens when one asks for a bilingual form. One has to make a special approach, and fill in a special form to get benefit or exemption.
  The Government are planning to introduce a new means-tested benefit in the form of the exemption from school transport charges. I was appalled by parliamentary answers this week from both the Welsh Office and the Department of Education. They imply that no work has been done on the costing of this new school transport policy, in real terms. I accept that it is only in the consultative stage, but I hope that the costing will be done properly. I see here another example of the Government's perpetuating the kind of charges policy, with the impact that

  1589
  it will have on individual families, which was the hallmark of the social policy of their predecessors.
  I wish to stress the concern felt by many of us that the primary school building programme will suffer next year in the same way as the nursery programme has already suffered. We had some defence of the primary school programme this year, but because of the higher percentage of children in Wales who have to go to older schools, particularly compared with the prosperous regions of the West Midlands and South-East England, the Welsh Office should make clear, in its negotiations with the Treasury on the school building programme, that there must be no cut-back, when it would mean more Welsh children remaining relatively deprived in the school buildings they attend.
  I also stress once again the position of teacher training in Wales, and the particular need of the Bangor Normal College. I am anxious that in the ongoing discussions, when the future of the institution is being reconsidered, those involved should take into account teacher training and the demand expressed in the recent Welsh Council report for nursery Welsh-medium teachers. They should be taken into account because it is from such an institution as the Bangor Normal that we have seen an outflow of highly trained Welsh-medium teachers. One might also speak of an outflow from that college of Under-Secretaries of State for Wales.
  Discussions are going on in the University of Wales on the possibility of setting up a Welsh-medium college in the public sector. That is likely to be recommended by a working party of the university. We have such an institution in existence in the Bangor Normal College. We do not want to destroy it and then have to re-create it.
  We have already had an opportunity, in another debate, to discuss the health service generally, but I wish to emphasise the impact of health service cuts on Wales. I have already referred in other places to the attitude that the Welsh Office, as part of its policy for reducing expenditure, has felt compelled to take towards the Gwynedd Area Health Authority, which has more or less been kindly told "If you want a new district general hospital in Bangor, you will have
  1590
  to slash community health provisions." That will particularly affect community health provisions in my constituency. It will not only effect the Blaenau Ffestiniog health centre; it will also severely curtail family planning services in Gwynedd. That is a regressive step, because it goes against what I would have hoped would be the attitude of the present Government, that wherever possible there must be a switch of resources from district general hospitals, from the hospital programme, into community health care and the personal social services.
  I talked about that matter in another debate, when I called for joint financing of health and personal social services, to enable that kind of switch of resources to take place particularly as it affects the mentally handicapped. When it considers the allocations of the area health authorities in Wales in the next financial year, the Welsh Office should look carefully at the effects of its cost-cutting policy, to make sure that we do not find our community health services being severely reduced in the coming year.
  A working party has been studying the reallocation of services within the health service in Wales. Will the findings of that working party form part of the new allocations for AHAs for 1966–67? That is an important question, particularly in Gwynedd, an area of historic under-spending under the old Welsh Hospital Board.
  I come to the major question in social policy, that of housing. When he opened that debate, the Secretary of State for Wales said that 5,000 houses had been built in Wales in the current year, and that that was an improvement of 114 per cent. on the record of his predecessors. We are all grateful for that improvement, but when we contrast the figure of 5,000 new houses with the 60,000 people on council house waiting lists in Wales we see the real shortfall.
  My party demanded, almost a generation ago—certainly a political generation ago—that there should be a yearly target of 25,000 in respect of new houses built in Wales. No Government have come near to achieving it. Not only have completions been cut; there are now cuts in the council house improvement programme. One estate in Blaenau Ffestiniog is suffering from those cuts.

  1591
  There has also been a cut in the improvement grants programme. The other Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones)—told me yesterday in a parliamentary answer that the finance made available to district councils for improvement grants in 1974–75, at £31·1 million, was to be reduced to £13·3 million for 1975–76. He added that the total value of applications made to district councils for improvement grants was not known, but it was estimated that total grants paid out by councils were £28·7 million for 1974–75. Although there is an increasing demand for housing improvement grants, the means for meeting that demand are being severely curtailed.
  In addition, in local government mortgages we have seen a further cut. We all welcome the £5 million that the building societies are putting forward, but from the correspondence that I have had with the building societies on the issue I am not satisfied that the 800 mortgages that will be forthcoming as a result will go to the people who would have had local government mortgages. A letter from the building societies indicated that there would be a plan whereby a person wanting to borrow could take a letter from the district council to the building society, and that that would be some sort of passport to lending.
  How will the plan work? Are the Government satisfied with the progress of discussions with the building societies? Are they satisfied that the £5 million will go to people who would have had local government mortgages? It is those people—people on low incomes, the self-employed, people who do not have a regular level of wages, younger people, first-time buyers, people going for older property—whom the Government have clobbered by the cut-back in local authority lending.
  I have been told that the £2·5 million that has been allocated to help the construction industry in Wales is going to housing improvement work, which is labour-intensive, and that it will be shared between the public and private sectors. The Department should be more specific and tell us exactly where the money will be spent.
  1592
  Over the next few months there will be a great housing debate in Wales, which will be the major issue as we come up to the May elections. I suspect that the Government have up their sleeve a plan whereby some great lendings will be promised in April, the beginning of the next financial year, that they may last for about a month, to tide the Labour Party over the district council elections, and then be cut later next year. If that is the Government's trick, I have trumped it by saying that.
  As we face a deepening economic and social crisis in Wales, the areas of historic deprivation are the ones which have been hardest hit—areas such as Blaenau Ffestiniog, and the valleys of South-East Wales. The valleys are being hard hit with housing and educational problems. The hon. Member for Bedwellty spoke of coming north recently. I have been south in the past few weeks, meeting people in the valleys. As I meet people there, I find the strong feeling that the next few months will be crucial in deciding the political future of Wales.
  The Government are being judged on their social and economic policies, and they are seen to be severely wanting.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Geraint Morgan: I shall do my best, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to respond to the appeal which you made at an earlier stage of this debate, bearing in mind that this is a truncated debate and that, very shortly, along with the parliamentary Session, it will be brought to an abrupt end. In the circumstances, I shall restrict myself to two subjects. I shall first deal with agriculture, a subject which was referred to briefly by the Secretary of State in the earlier part of the debate on 30th October and rather more broadly by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) this afternoon. I shall also refer to water, which, as far as I can recall, has not been referred to in this debate at all.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that he was not really all that concerned about methods of support. I do not think that we can leave the matter at that stage. I hope, in the course of my short speech, to make some specific suggestions for an improvement of the agricultural situation and to suggest some specific remedies.

  1593
  I dare say that most Welsh, and, indeed, English, agricultural Members would agree that the greatest problem that has beset farmers over the past two years—I accept that this goes back to the previous Conservative Government—has been the enormous escalation in costs, especially costs of feeding stuffs and machinery. Allied to that, there has been the problem of what has come to be known as the green pound. I appreciate that decisions to adjust the value of the green pound cannot be taken lightly. Such adjustments inevitably have an effect on food prices. However, making all allowances, I think that the Government have tended to pussyfoot round the problem. I do not think that the Government are grasping the nettle as firmly as they should. A realistic revaluation of the green pound would go a long way towards meeting the difficulties of the farmers without any further, or any further substantial, action.
  I can tell the Under-Secretary of State without fear of contradiction—I have no doubt that he will pass this on to his right hon. and learned Friend—that the farmers in my part of Clwyd, and, indeed, the whole of what used to be the county of Denbigh, feel more strongly about a realistic revaluation of the green pound than on any other issue. Therefore, first, there is an unanswerable case for the Government to take action immediately to close the gap that still exists between the green pound and the real pound. Secondly, the Government should arrive at a formula whereby the two pounds can be kept broadly in line thereafter.
  I want to be constructive in what I have to say in this debate. Of course, I hope that I am always constructive. In fairness to the Government, there have been four adjustments to the green pound during the past 12 months. The last adjustment amounted to 5·8 per cent. and brought the green pound more closely into line with its present real value, thereby substantially reducing the monetary compensation amounts. However, those adjustments have not gone far enough. The fact that there have had to be so many adjustments in the space of 12 months—they have all been as a result of pressure brought by the agricultural unions—serves only to emphasise the basic injustice of a system by which farm prices have been fixed by an
  1594
  artificially over-valued pound while the real pound has drifted inexorably downwards in value.
  I was pleasantly surprised to learn from an answer I recently received from the Secretary of State that the disparity between the green pound and the present market rate of the pound sterling has been narrowed to about 5 per cent. That is, however, the best argument for closing the gap altogther. I understand that the most recent adjustment of 5·8 per cent. is likely to have only the most minimal effect on the cost of living—namely, approximately a quarter of 1 per cent. Such increases in food prices as would result from the complete removal of the disparity between the two pounds would be a small price to pay to stop the trend of a declining home food production and the risk of soaring prices later. At the very least, one should be entitled to expect a review of the relative values of the two pounds every two or three months. I hope that the Government will be prepared to concede that at the very least.
  I think it is true to say that the urban public now appreciates the dangers that lie ahead and that jobs in agriculture and associated industries are unnecessarily at risk at a time of growing unemployment. One example can be drawn from my own constituency. As a result of the cut-back in milk production in the Vale of Clwyd, nearly half of a 100-strong creamery at Llandyrny, near Denbigh, will be laid off before Christmas. The possibility of that redundant staff being redeployed elsewhere in the Vale of Clwyd is remote in view of the continuing increase in the level of unemployment and the relatively few large industrial enterprises in the area.
  In tins context, we cannot leave out of account the fact that last September Welsh unemployment reached nearly 76,500, or 7½ per cent. Those are the worst figures since the Second World War.
  Were it not for the shortage of time I should be tempted to say more about the difficulties of the dairy farmers, who are, of course, the backbone of the Welsh agricultural economy. Suffice it for me to say, entirely without prejudice to the green pound issue, that the price of milk to the producer should be raised immediately to a level at least sufficient to

  1595
  arrest the current decline in milk production. That decline has been very marked in Wales, where the number of milk producers has fallen by no less than 7½ per cent. in the past year alone. It is doubtful whether the measures recently announced whereby there will be an increase in the price of milk in two stages this autumn will have that effect. However, giving the Government the benefit of the doubt, those measures will do little, if anything, to restore the level of milk production to that of a year ago.
  There are two further policies that, with respect, the Government could consider with advantage in an effort to assist agriculture. I have advocated one such policy many times in debates in the Welsh Grand Committee, but I do not think that I have had a reply to my suggestions so far. Bearing in mind that it is the meteoric rise in the cost of feeding stuffs more than anything else that has been the cause of agricultural difficulties in the past two years, there is a strong case in my view for the reintroduction of something like the old "feed formula". That formula was applied to pig production only, when it was in operation, but it could properly be applied as a temporary measure to other sectors of agriculture.
  I am conscious of the fact that the formula was abandoned by the previous Conservative Government as part of a package deal with the Community some two and a half years ago. If I may say so, it is not a move for which I would give the Conservative Government any very good marks. I see no reason for our not now seeking the permission of our Community partners to re-introduce, at least for a limited period between now and the end of the transition period, something similar to the feed formula.
  I would urge the Government to give favourable consideration to the recommendation made by the NFU in a recent statement, in which it said that the Government should commit themselves to the principle of intermediate reviews of agricultural support prices so long as the rate of inflation remains above 10 per cent. per annum. Unhappily, that is likely to remain the situation for some time. As the NFU has rightly pointed out, an arrangement of that kind will give
  1596
  to agriculture no more than the right enjoyed by other industries to apply to the Price Commission for increased prices when input costs reach a certain level.
  I turn briefly to the issue of water rates. It is especially appropriate that some mention should be made of the matter in this debate not only because we have suffered a far greater increase in the water rates in Wales in the past 18 months than in any other part of the United Kingdom, but more particularly because the report of the Daniel Committee appointed by the Secretary of State to examine the problem was let loose on the world a few days after the House rose for the Summer Recess. As yet, therefore, we have had no opportunity of discussing the Committee's recommendations.
  At the same time, there is intense public interest in Wales as to what steps, if any, the Government propose to take pursuant to the Committee's recommendations, and also in respect of the sewerage rates as they apply to premises that receive no mains sewerage services. There are many such premises in rural Wales. As evidence of this intense public interest, when I spoke to some ratepayers on this subject at Abergele in my constituency nearly 400 people attended, an appreciably higher number than came to all my last General Election meetings put together.
  The fact that the Judicial Committee of another place only recently considered an appeal on a matter of sewerage rates—it was a consideration of the legality of the levy of a sewerage rate in respect of premises in respect of which no service was being provided—and the fact that judgment has not yet been given in that case precludes me from expressing any view on the law as it stands.
  That in no way inhibits me, however, from asking the Minister for an assurance that, whatever the result of the appeal in another place, the obviously just principle of "no service, no rate" will be adopted, if necessary by means of legislation.
  To turn to the subject of water and water charges, I have great confidence in the integrity of the Secretary of State on this issue. When, at that meeting I have referred to in Abergele, I was asked

  1597
  whether I thought that the Government would implement the recommendations of the Daniel Report, I replied that I was sure that they would do so, because these astronomic charges have been a matter of grave concern to members of all political parties in Wales. I hope that my confidence was not misplaced, and that the Minister will be able to enlighten us, either during the course of this debate or in the near future, about the action the Government propose to take—if not immediately at any rate within the next few months—consequent upon the Daniel Committee's recommendations.
  One proposal made by the Daniel Committee which appears on page 65 of that brief report is:
  "consideration should be given to the early introduction of a revised scale of minimum charges to deal with the problem of those consumers who use small amounts of water and have to pay extraordinarily large sums because their present charges are based on the high rateable value of their premises."
  This would appear to be a highly desirable reform, not only in Wales but throughout the United Kingdom. It is particularly desirable in Wales because of the especially high incidence of water rates there. I am sure that thousands of Welsh ratepayers will be glad to learn what steps the Government are contemplating in this direction.
  I turn now to Recommendation (iv) on page 65 of the report which reads:
  "Consideration should be given to extending the use of meters to all consumers whose bills for water are large enough to justify the cost of metering."
  If I remember rightly, the Labour Party when in opposition did not take very kindly to the clauses on metering in the Water Bill while it was going through its processes in this House in 1973. I think I can say that this would be a reform that would commend itself to a large section of the people. I hope, therefore, that the Labour Party will have had a change of heart on this issue, more particularly as this change is specifically recommended by the Daniel Committee.
  The next recommendation I should like to refer to is Recommendation (vii), also on page 65 which, among other things, states:
  "consideration should be given to the need for giving the water authorities greater freedom of action in matters of borrowing."
  1598
  No Welshman has been more critical than I of the apparent lack of financial expertise on the part of the Water Development Authority. In fairness to the authority, however, it should be emphasised that it has been statutorily obliged, for reasons which I am bound to say I have never understood, to borrow money in the dearest markets. This is something that could be remedied swiftly by the acceptance of the recommendations.
  In my references to recommendations by the Daniel Committee I must of necessity be selective and I am only drawing attention to those which I feel could be the subject of early action by the Government. I do not intend to become enmeshed in the proposals that the Committee makes with regard to the powers or functions of a possible future Welsh Assembly with regard to Welsh water services, depending upon whether or not such an Assembly is granted executive responsibility over water. That is something which can be more properly considered when we discuss devolution in the next Session.
  I would like to ask the Minister for his observations on the last two recommendations in the report. The first of those is that if the Welsh Assembly is to have only advisory responsibility for water, or if the present organisation is to continue unchanged, the Secretaries of State for Wales and the Environment, respectively, should be given the power to direct a water authority to operate a levy subsidy scheme and to reduce charges to Welsh National Water Development Authority consumers to a level not more than 10 per cent. above the national average. What is the likelihood of such a scheme being adopted?
  I would like the Minister's views on the last recommendation—perhaps I might call it the sting in the tail of the report—namely, that as a strictly interim measure, an Exchequer subsidy sufficient to achieve that objective should be given to the Welsh Water Authority. I do not expect answers to all of these questions at the end of the debate but I hope that the Minister will accept that they are serious inquiries commanding considerable public interest. If the Minister cannot reply to them tonight I hope that he or his right hon. and learned Friend will do so by way of correspondence with me as soon as possible.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Fred Evans: The issue of unemployment has rightly played a considerable part in this debate. The area mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) lies within the catchment area of my own travel-to-work area at Bargoed. It has become a trite observation that for the person who is unemployed it is 100 per cent. unemployment, not 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. or whatever statistics we may want to fling about.
  One of the interesting things is that in this place there is a tendency to recognise the world situation while in Wales we have strident voices raised which pin everything on the Labour Party, whether in or out of office. It is the Labour Party which is responsible if there is a dole queue. If Mrs. Jones' sink cover is faulty, it is the local Labour Party that is responsible and so on.
  The problem of government in Wales will rest—when talking of the social services—on production, investment and the wherewithal to carry out the multifarious demands being made upon a Labour Government. Equally, the political institutions which may be envisaged for Wales will depend upon the economic base provided for those institutions. I have always believed—I welcome the fact that the Welsh Development Agency has some teeth—that we should have had direction of industry into the regions, regardless of the outcry—and that we should have had the establishment of Government-sponsored factories, not advance factories, long ago at the time of the setting-up of industries in the regions. When we look at the recognition of the world phenomenon of recession, and recognise the tragedy of the individual involved in probably one of the most traumatic experiences in life, that of being unemployed, we must realise that there are other areas which are also severely hit.
  While the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty are accurate and apply throughout the whole of the valley which he and I share as representatives, there is, nevertheless, in London a chronic situation with an unemployment figure, in Poplar, for example, of well over 12 per cent. It is not an isolated phenomenon for Wales. Those people in Wales who would like
  1600
  to treat it as such, and use the Labour Party as the whipping boy for any and every cause of disaster, do no good to Wales.
  The control of unemployment and of inflation are very important issues for Wales, but towering above these at the moment is the question of what is to happen to the political institutions in Wales.
  As you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there stands on the Order Paper, in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Bedwellty and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), an Early-Day Motion giving an opportunity to hon. Members to express some kind of opinion as to the road we ought to tread if we want to find a solution acceptable to the regions within this country.
  This Early-Day Motion has already attracted 60 signatures, drawn from Scotland, from Wales, and from every region of England. There are signatures from Members of Parliament in Wales and from expatriate Welshmen representing English constituencies, so that it is a widespread, representative view held in the House of Commons. It will, I do not doubt, attract further signatures, possibly realising about 100, which would be a very substantial representation of a point of view.
  This feeling has grown up because we have in Wales a very ambivalent attitude and a great ambiguity of speech in talking of these things. It is being openly claimed that a political institution such as a Welsh Assembly will be treated as something on the way not simply to a Parliament for Wales but to separatism for Wales. Most of the Welsh people will have no part in this. If evidence is required, I have letters here which I have received from all over Wales, which amply support my contention.
  I have one from a senior civil servant who, because of the terms of his employment, is unable to divulge his name. He has expressed his anxieties in a letter to The Times, which he sent to me. He is disturbed because he feels that the Labour Party has not more urgently and more frequently got over to there public the dangers of the drive towards separatism by elements in Wales.
  I have a letter from two professional people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans). I

  1601
  am glad to see that in this letter there is a willingness on the part of the writers to acknowledge some debt of gratitude for the benefits they have received. Although these people are Welsh, they were educated at London University. One is a doctor and the other a lecturer in a college of education. They are both highly qualified, and acknowledge the debt they owe to England for the provision of opportunities. They add:
  "Our two sons have been educated in England, at considerable sacrifice to us, because we were not happy about the educational system in our area. They are now at London University also, and have expressed their reservation about returning to Wales to work, in view of the increasing anti-English feeling which is being generated here by a small minority, influencing the apathetic majority."
  Whether that claim is accepted by hon. Members opposite or not, it is a statement in a signed letter from Carmarthen, therefore notice must be taken of it.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Would the hon. Member care to confirm that the doctor is on the short list for the Labour Party nomination in the Carmarthen constituency?
  Mr. Evans: I have no acquaintance whatsoever with this doctor. I can assure the hon. Member of that.
  Mr. Kinnock: He would make a very good Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Evans: I have a letter from Swansea, in which practically the same kind of argument is made. The writer speaks from personal knowledge of the Swansea area. He says that most people in the area object on grounds of principle and will not have any part in it. People are not backward in writing to my party, because they feel that the Labour Party has not done enough to point out the dangers.
  I have a letter here to the Minister responsible for producing any proposals, ticking him off for alleged dereliction in this direction. I am interested in the future prosperity of Wales and the greatest happiness of most of its people, and I am not over-concerned as long as we see clearly where we are going and the implications of what we are doing.
  We must pose the question whether the economic resources are sufficient to support a separatist Wales. It is being
  1602
  claimed by some that they are, as was shown by the speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen during the recess, in which he said that he is not anti-English but anti-British. On television last Friday, when asked by me about this, he said that he wanted regions in England to have the same good things as Wales, which was very magnanimous of him but did not tell us very much about anything.
  When it was suggested that a Welsh Assembly could bring education under its aegis, including the terms of appointment, salaries, and the negotiating powers of the teaching profession, the national daily, the Western Mail, carried a banner headline indicating that teachers were cool towards this idea. It quote the field officer of the National Union of Teachers in Wales as saying that for many years it had worked towards evolving a policy of comparable benefits, salaries, and so on, throughout the United Kingdom, and that any kind of attack on this policy would have devastating results.
  This week the National Farmers' Union in Wales has recognised that the whole of the United Kingdom is its market and that its members stand to suffer if the United Kingdom is not regarded in that light.
  Some very interesting questions arise from this argument. Recently, at the Guildhall, the Prime Minister stated something that a number of us on the Labour benches have been urging for longer than we care to remember—that the key to Britain's prosperity is the energy situation.
  I well remember the time when all coalfields operated on a regional basis, so that the wages and conditions of miners working in pits in Scotland, in Wales, in the Midlands and elsewhere were essentially different. It took a long and hard struggle, after nationalisation, before it was possible to evolve the National Union of Mineworkers and a system whereby miners were given grades and could move from one area to another, carrying their grade with them.
  Are we now to be faced with a situation in which, at a time when vast developments are taking place—such as the one at Selby, where there is a coalfield with 100 million tons of coal, and seams 12 ft. thick requiring a double cut—there is to be a return to the kind of regionalisation

  1603
  that we knew in former days, with differentials in wage structures, different trade union organisations, and so on? I believe that it is right that such fears should be expressed.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: I speak as an active member of the Transport and General Workers' Union. The hon. Gentleman has given us a catalogue of various organisations in Wales which are against devolution. Can he explain why the TUC in Wales has repeatedly supported legislative devolution, as has the NUM, and has now demanded greater economic powers for the Welsh Assembly?
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman must do his own research—but fears have been expressed by someone in that union who is a little senior to the Welsh Executive, about the effect of separatism on his union.
  We have to face this problem. We have farmers expressing their views. We have teachers expressing their views, and I have no doubt that all other public servants will follow. In industry, too, this is the point which must be brought home.
  I have read the studies produced by Plaid Cymru, and I have seen no hard documentary evidence to support any claim that the existence of a separate Wales would not be other than devastating for the country in economic terms. I am open to being convinced to the contrary. But what the Welsh people have to bear in mind is that the multifarious services for which a clamour is going up here tonight are such that Wales must depend on the economic base of that country, and that if that is unsound, all goes.
  The Welsh people had better start asking themselves some questions, just as certain trade unions are. They had better start asking themselves whether such an economic base could successfully sustain even the levels of social benefits for people who are unfortunate, like those referred to by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). That is a serious question. If people are laying claim to power, we are entitled to know what they intend to do with power. This has been preached by the Labour Party in Wales long enough. Let us see what alternatives can be produced. I am sure that many people re asking this question and are convinced
  1604
  in their minds that we shall see a drift towards a lower scale of social benefits such as those that we see in southern Ireland.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: Rubbish.
  Mr. Evans: It is all very well for the hon. Member for Merioneth to say that. People forget that it is not long since his party issued a pamphlet announcing to the Welsh people "A rich Wales, or a poor Britain?" I suppose that the hon. Gentleman's party thought that Celtic oil, provided that it was used greedily for one section of the country, would lead to an isolated prosperity inside a bigger entity. That pamphlet has been conveniently forgotten. People like me asked, "What oil?" Lo and behold, like a dream vanishing in the dawn, most of the oil rigs have been withdrawn from the Celtic Sea and serious doubts are being expressed about the volume of oil which could be found and its contribution to the total energy needs of the country.
  Mr. Wigley: Without going in detail after the oil, but bearing in mind that a member of the hon. Gentleman's party only yesterday made a major speech on its importance, I remind the hon. Gentleman that this year people in Wales will be £240 per capita more in debt as a result of the policies being followed by this Government. The Government may argue about whether we can establish a rich Wales. What is certain is that we are going towards a bankrupt Britain.
  Mr. Evans: In a world with shrinking communications, anyone suggesting that people can be isolated in little areas of prosperity is living in the same realm of fantasy as the man who spells his name with five or six "fs". A week ago last Friday, there appeared on the television programme "Outlook" a man who wanted to set up little enclaves in Wales with monoglot Welsh people. Then there was someone from Aberystwyth University who said, "No. Rather than that, we must penetrate every home in Wales." That is the kind of arrogant view that we hear expressed when these matters are discussed. I shall not be so unkind as to refer to the devastating article in today's Western Mail on the activities of that party and its language section, most of whom are members—
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that our party has a language section? May I remind him that ours is a political party which has been campaigning for 50 years—
  Mr. Evans: I have no doubt in my mind that nearly all the members of Cymdeithas Yr Iaith Cymroeg are members of the hon. Gentleman's party. There is a great deal of interlocking. It creeps out in all sorts of directions. There is this urge towards autocracy under the name of devolution, with a step to an assembly, another to a legislative assembly, and so on. Even during the sacred week in North Wales when we held a referendum on the question whether the pubs should open on Sundays, we saw on television lady members of the hon. Gentleman's party saying, "Wait until we get our Welsh Assembly. We shall close all the pubs on Sundays."
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) goes on long enough, he will close the debate.
  Mr. Evans: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Seriously, though, we must have an explanation, not from these benches, about various areas of public expenditure. In Wales, we want a detailed examination, by those who lay claim to power, of the way in which they could support what has appeared in so many of their declarations—the urge towards building up Wales as a separate entity.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Grist: I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) will forgive me if I do not immediately take up the main theme of his speech. However, I shall have one or two comments to make on it later in my speech.
  In present conditions, this is an extraordinary, if not a debilitating, debate. This is the first time that we have had a chance to review the performance of the Secretary of State and the Labour Government—apart from March 1974, which was what might be described as a starting point—and it is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. I am sure that everyone present will agree about that.
  Here we are, in this period of Labour Government, and every hon. Member has
  1606
  hair-raising stories to tell about unemployment, and about factories which lie empty in his constituency. In my own, I have a 50,000 sq. ft. advance factory lying empty. Unfortunately, I cannot see it being filled for some time.
  Everyone who can read and count will now realise that this Government have failed at every turn to take the right action until they have been forced to do so by the pressure of events and facts.
  First, we had the interregnum period last year, when there was a grovelling desire to seek office. It was not a matter of seeking power; it was simply a matter of seeking office. Now that reality is breaking through, I cannot think that anyone is surprised about the difficulty experienced by Labour candidates in South Wales in holding on to any local authority seat which comes on the market.
  The second reason for delaying action was the lack of capacity of a disastrously divided party to take any action until it could not escape doing so. At the time of the last election we heard Labour Members rabbiting on about the need for strong leadership and a clear majority. We then had a referendum on the Common Market, which certainly was no example of clear leadership and a determined use of a majority in the House of Commons. What a farce it was. At last we are receiving money from the Common Market to help Wales, which is probably suffering more than any other part of the United Kingdom, apart from Northern Ireland, from the present economic circumstances.
  I am surprised that the Secretary of State is not present today. There may be a good explanation for his absence. If so I should be glad to hear it. However, he opened this debate some days ago, and we are at present having a continuation of that debate. We are debating the Secretary of State's Department, and in my view he should have the courtesy—
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is leading a parliamentary delegation. I understand that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) is engaged in similar activities.
  Mr. Grist: That is most interesting. However, I take it that the Secretary of State has gone in another direction, because I saw him in the car park earlier this morning. I think I can guess where he has gone. Indeed, if I am correct in my assumption I rather envy him. In his February 1974 election address to his constituents the Secretary of State said that the Shah of Persia could call the tune and two Cabinet Ministers would go running to St. Moritz, Switzerland.
  I do not know whether that was an "Americanism", or his way of explaining to his constituents where St. Moritz was situated. We do not hear about the Secretary of State being concerned about Cabinet Ministers going to Tehran or bowing to princes at airports. Oh, no. We are grateful to have the loan of any money we can lay our hands on, to make sure that Welsh water flows.
  We should be grateful to the private sector in Wales. There has been an increase of 60 per cent. in exports from Wales during the past two years. That increase has been largely due to the private sector and not to the State sector.
  We must also pay tribute to the work done by the Development Corporation for Wales. However, still the Government refuse to face the facts or to take the steps which they will be forced to take in worsening circumstances.
  When shall we hear a clear announcement about the future of the steel industry? I believe it right that people working in that industry should be given a firm indication of what is happening. They have lived under a cloud of uncertainty for too long.
  The autumn edition of British Steel says:
  "Until the Shotton-Port Talbot decision is taken, planned investment at Port Talbot cannot be made, in the past year costs for the proposed Port Talbot development have risen by about £119 million".
  If that figure is correct, it indicates an incredible waste of money.
  What will happen to Rhoose Airport? At a time of soaring domestic and commercial rates, will the ratepayers of Glamorgan continue to bear the crushing and unfair burden of servicing the charges for their airport. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a satisfactory answer to this point.
  1608
  The people of Cardiff have experienced some enormous disappointments in the past year. For instance, there was the failure of British Rail to establish its western headquarters. Can the Minister give an assurance when, and if, the announced move of defence and other Civil Service staff to Cardiff will take place? There have been some extremely unsettling and disturbing reports on this matter, and they have not been aided by racialist statements by the Plaid Cymru representative in my own division. However, I doubt whether that will deter anyone.
  We should also be on our guard, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly warned, against a set of proposals which the Government are to introduce soon. I am obviously referring to devolution. We are of the opinion that the Secretary of State is one of the few Government Ministers who is deeply committed to a Welsh Assembly. When he wrote to his own constituents in February he described it as growing and developing as an instrument of government and spoke of
  "its powers being shaped in the light of experience and democratic needs."
  That is rather grand language, but what does it mean? In my view it means that it is anticipated that a Welsh Assembly would continue to grow and accumulate power—and that is one of the real dangers.
  Where does the Secretary of State envisage the eventual constitutional resting place for a Welsh Assembly? Precisely what is his Department doing when it asks the Cardiff City Council and the tenants of the Temple of Peace to scout around making arrangements for an undebated, unannounced and unknown Assembly? Indeed, I would call it an "unwanted" Assembly, because the Secretary of State has been told just how unwanted it is. That view was expressed by the Chairman of the Mid-Glamorgan County Council during an after-dinner speech, and he seemed to win the approval of his fellow councillors.
  The Welsh Assembly is a detraction from the real needs and affairs of Wales.
  Mr. Wigley—
  Mr. Grist: I shall not give way, because I do not have time. It is almost

  1609
  beyond belief that when jobs are increasingly in danger, inflation is rampant, the health, education and social services are visibly crumbling, and the country has to go on bended knees to our creditors, we should waste the time and money involved in this devolution argument. It will take up an enormous amount of time in the forthcoming parliamentary Session, and will involve all hon. Members who are present tonight. On my own behalf, I hope that it is a case of
  "Whom God would destroy He first sends mad."
  I hope that the Secreary of State remembers what he demanded of any proposals for devolution when he launched last year's White Paper. Indeed, White Papers on this matter are getting a little thick on the ground. At that time, the Secretary of State laid down four main principles. The first was that the taking of powers from any central body should meet a genuine need. Unless he believes that the Welsh Office is hopelessly inefficient, I cannot see any need for an Assembly.
  The second was that any proposals should be based on widespread public support. By now the Secretary of State must realise that he is crying in the wind if he wants to get widespread public support in Wales. He could always look at the recent poll in the Liverpool Daily Post. He could consider the survey of the Kilbrandon Commission and the experience of hon. and right hon. Welsh Members, all of whom could tell him that there is no public demand for this wretched Assembly.
  The third principle was that any changes should mark a clear and definite improvement. We shall all wait for proof that there will be a clear and definite improvement. I, for one, think that the Secretary of State and those who think like him will be rather hard pressed to prove anything of the kind. Fourthly, the Secretary of State said that any changes must be designed to provide a stable constitutional framework for the future. We have just reformed local government in Wales. Apparently, we shall have to uproot it if we have an Assembly. Is that providing a stable constitutional framework? I do not believe that it is.
  We know from what the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) has said in the past just how stable he views any
  1610
  Welsh Assembly. It would just be used as a spring-board for further advances and demands. Unless the Assembly had power to raise money for and to grant money to industry, every setback, and every failure to provide new jobs and employment, would be blamed on the tight-fistedness of this place. Inexorably, the power would have to be handed over little by little, more and more, faster and faster. The aim of people such as the Communist Party and Plaid Cymru is that, with an elected assembly—preferably a legislative assembly—the break-up of the United Kingdom will follow, as surely as night follows day.
  I believe that we shall have a long time to look at this proposal, but it ought to be stated that in the Chamber at the moment there would be a clear majority against an elected Welsh Assembly.
  It is clear that parliamentary time will be taken up fruitlessly debating something which may tear our country apart. It is sad, and it is certainly unnecessary. I hope that when the matter reaches the Floor of the House there will, so to speak, be hands across the Chamber in the service of the United Kingdom.

  QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
  Mr. Speaker: I ask the House to forgive me for intervening, but in the circumstances I must do so now.
  I wish to inform the House that I have given further consideration to the question of Privilege raised by the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) and the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees). The suggestion that information about the deliberations of the Select Committee on a Wealth Tax was disclosed during the course of yesterday evening before the Committee had laid its Report on the Table is something into which I must look further.
  Hon. Members have complied with the requirement of raising this matter at the earliest opportunity. The imminence of prorogation means that I shall not be able to give my ruling until early in the next Session. Under our new procedure, however, the Committee of Privileges remains in being and, should this matter be referred to it, it will be able to proceed

  1611
  with its investigation without having to wait for the nomination of a new Committee.

  WELSH AFFAIRS
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I should like to look beyond the immediate problems of unemployment, inflation and the cut-back in public services in Wales to the future of economic and political structures in the Principality.
  First, concerning economic structures in Wales, by far the most important development in this Session has been the creation of the Welsh Development Agency. It has been welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. But the big question which remains is this—if it is an Agency, what are the goals at which it is aiming? Is there a coherent strategy behind the Agency setting out the particular targets? If the targets, the goals, are unclear, the methods for achievement will be unclear. There is no evidence which I can see of any coherent plan. I suggest that a considerable degree of thought needs to be given to a plan for the Principality for the next quarter of a century.
  The basic facts are already known. We know, for example, the number of school leavers in the Principality in 1990. We know the scale of environmental dereliction and what needs to be done in that context. We need to co-ordinate groupings of industry in a more coherent and planned way. We need constellations of industry in the same broad area. We need a plan to get industries downstream from major manufacturing units. For example, we need to get downstream the aluminium manufacturing industry in North Wales and our steel manufacturing industry in South Wales. I look in vain for any coherent strategy which will indicate to the Welsh Development Agency its goals over the years to come. So much for the broader economic structures.
  I make one brief comment only on the steel debate which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Davies). Unfortunately, the debate has been bedevilled, even in this House, by the confrontation between Shotton and
  1612
  Port Talbot. The case for Port Talbot stands on its own. It depends on the international market for steel products and on the competitiveness of the United Kingdom's steel industry in the world as a whole. The delay has been costly, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist). There are substantial social effects in both North and South Wales. If this country is to be in business—the Prime Minister's theme at the Lord Mayor's banquet—we must build on the kind of success which we see in Port Talbot with its locational and industrial base advantages.
  The delay which has taken place has in many ways harmed Wales in the sense that the demand figures for steel production have now been scaled down. That portion of the cake which has been allocated leaves an even smaller portion for allocation between the various Welsh claims which are yet to come. But let us have a decision soon on steel investment in Port Talbot for Britain's sake.
  I turn now to the future political structure. Here I follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, North. The view of many Welsh Members is that over past months the mood in Wales has swung substantially against devolution. Clearly, it is premature, in advance of the White Paper and the many opportunities of which we shall no doubt take advantage, to go at length into the whole question of devolution. But there is a substantial groundswell in the Welsh people as a whole and in the Welsh Labour movement. As a party and Government, we refuse to acknowledge that groundswell at our peril.
  Many Welsh people fear that this is a staging post on the way to total separatism. They fear that they cannot meet the groundswell against bureaucracy by the creation of yet another layer of bureaucracy, particularly when the experience of local government is proving so disquieting in Wales.
  There is also the feeling that, like it or not, we are being pulled along in the groundswell behind Scotland. Scotland may have its own special problems. We ask only that Wales be looked at on its own merits and in relation to the views of the Welsh people on this problem.
  I would search in vain for many separatists in my constituency. My own correspondence and, I gather, that of

  1613
  other hon. Members from all parts of Wales reflects that growing feeling that the Welsh people are now waking up and asking questions which have not been asked before and which, as yet, have not been answered.
  We ignore the views on the Welsh people at our peril. If we go ahead willy-nilly without taking heed of their views, I fear for the future within Wales.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Roberts: I thank the Government for providing time for this resumed debate on Welsh affairs. It would be churlish to dwell on the Government's original reluctance to provide adequate time. I prefer to pay tribute to them for their prompt response to our criticism and Early-Day Motion No. 710. As a result, we have had a good and worthwhile debate.
  Not surprisingly, the issue of devolution and a devolved Assembly has been raised. This subject will be increasingly discussed in the next few months. I agree with the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that so far not many people in Wales have considered this topic seriously in depth.
  On the subject of proposed devolution, I make two appeals which I consider to be in the best interests of the people of the Principality. I appeal to the media for accuracy in the reporting of information and a sense of perspective in the emphasis given to devolution. Listening to the BBC or HTV or reading the Western Mail, one can be forgiven for forming the impression that devolution and a devolved Assembly are the burning topics of conversation in Wales. That is not so. When we congregate outside our churches and chapels after Sunday service the devolved Assembly hardly gets a mention. In the clubs and coffee houses devolution does not dominate the conversation. It is very low down on the agenda in Wales; so low that for the vast majority it is never reached, and until now it has been a very damp squib indeed.
  Although some people—and I recognise this—have been debating devolution with relish and enthusiasm for years, the Welsh people have not spoken on this matter yet. No doubt they will, and when they do it will be with a clear voice.
  1614
  It is important that the debate in the Principality is conducted fairly and without rancour.
  Mr. Leo Abse: In view of the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Assembly, with which I totally agree, may I ask whether the Conservative Party has considered whether the issue should be decided by a referendum in view of the fact that so many parts of Wales clearly wish to express an opinion? It is an opinion that will undoubtedly lead to the rejection of the view that there should be a form of devolution, which could lead to separatism.
  Mr. Roberts: I have never considered a referendum to be the only way in which people can make their views known. Indeed, I opposed the referendum earlier this year when it was put to the House.
  Of the Western Mail I would say that the least we can expect, as it treats devolution as a matter of prime importance, is that it will do its homework and get its facts right. As recently as a fortnight ago, in a major feature entitled "Count Down on Devolution", the paper listed with photographs, all the members of the Labour Party and stated, ex cathedra, where they stood on devolution. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) was depicted as a strong supporter of devolution and the paper ominously reported that "he would probably go further". I have always thought that the hon. Member for Caerphilly would go further, but I never thought that he would go in that direction, and I gather from tonight's debate that I am right. I have no doubt that, unfortunately, my appeal to the media to report accurately will fall on deaf ears. They will continue to project their prejudices, and the Welsh people will continue to ignore their conclusions.
  I hope, however, that my appeal to the hon. Member for Caernarvon—I informed him that I would raise this matter in today's debate, but he told me that he could not be present—to show some generosity and a little humility will not be rejected out of hand. The hon. Gentleman castigates, in grossly immoderate terms, all those who do not share his particular and minority views on Wales. He and his party show no understanding of those who think of themselves as British as well as Welsh. He said the

  1615
  other day that "we disgust him". I can only say that I am sorry that he finds so many of his countrymen disgusting. For hundreds of thousands of Welshmen—I believe the vast majority of them—great British institutions, such as the Palace of Westminster as the seat of Government, are thought of with affection and determined loyalty. That Plaid Cymru cannot recognise that this fundamental fact shows how remote it is from the majority of the people of Wales. A reasonable response from Plaid Cymru would ensure a much fairer and better debate, and I hope that its members will show themselves big enough to measure up to events.
  On the subject of devolution, I have one further observation to make. The Labour Party is clearly divided on this issue. There is nothing dishonourable in such division. It is, however, perhaps ironic to reflect that most of those who beavered away enthusiastically in 1970, 1971 and 1972 and committed the Parliamentary Labour Party to the policy that it now supports are no longer with us. It could be said that those who sold the pass lost their seats.
  I do not believe that the Welsh people have yet spoken on devolution. He would be a rash person indeed who would assume that there will be an overwhelming demand for any sort of Assembly at all.
  Mr. Wigley: On the question of having any sort of Assembly at all, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Conservative Party still stands by the policy which it advocated a short time ago and which the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) projected on television a week last Monday night, namely, to have an indirectly-elected Assembly, and not a directly-elected one?
  Mr. Roberts: At the General Election we said that we stood for an indirectly-elected council which would be there in an advisory capacity. I think that as the debate continues the people of Wales will tell us exactly what they want and I am sure that we, as politicians, will take note of their demands.
  I want to say a brief word about education and refer to the way in which our comprehensive schools have developed in Wales over the past few years. I pay tribute to the enormous achievements of
  1616
  those schools and to the teachers who have worked so hard to achieve so much. They have come under considerable strain, not least the strain that has been imposed upon them by the raising of the school leaving age. It would be foolish to ignore the fact that one pupil in six plays truant in our major industrial conurbations, and I suspect that that is an understatement of the true position.
  I believe that there is one way in which our comprehensive schools could be improved enormously, and that is if they were reduced in size. I think that this is probably the last opportunity that we are likely to get to make these schools, which, after all, are part of our pattern of education in South, North and Mid-Wales, work effectively. The opportunity comes with the falling of the birth rate. Figures for ILEA show that it will have 2,600 spare places for its children in 1977 because of a declining population. In Cardiff, a survey carried out by the director of the former Cardiff authority shows that admissions will drop from 4,631 in 1976 to 3,504 in 1984, a drop of more than 20 per cent.
  What I am afraid will happen is that where a whole new area is developed, instead of developing a comprehensive school for that area to serve that neighbourhood, to serve that community, vacant places in adjoining areas will be used and children will be bussed out to another area. This is not an attack on the principle of bussing. What I am urging on the Minister is that if we can use this opportunity of a declining birthrate to establish smaller comprehensive schools we shall be grasping the chance to make those schools work more effectively. I believe that this will probably be our last opportunity so to do.
  Finally, I turn to the economic outlook facing the Principality. Reference has been made to advance factories—and the Secretary of State for Wales referred to this matter on 23rd October. On that occasion the Secretary of State announced 22 new advance factories, but refused to respond to an intervention asking how many existing factories were empty. It is a sad reflection of the situation when we discover the number of such factories that are empty. Three factories have been empty since 1973—one from 1971 and two from 1970. Nineteen of the

  1617
  26 factories standing empty today have been empty throughout 1975.
  Negotiations are taking place to find tenants for nine of those factories, and we all hope that the news will be favourable so that as a result the number of vacancies will drop considerably. However, empty factories stand as a silent stricture on the Government's economic policy. It is no good people saying, "Because we are building advance factories, all is well with the Principality". It does not solve our problems when those factories stand empty. The list covers the whole of the Principality, including Pembroke Dock and Llandrindod Wells.
  The economic picture that faces the Principality is grim, and it was fairly summarised in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower). Industrial production has fallen to the level of 1967 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) pointed out, after 19 months of Labour Government we have the production of a two-day week achieved in five. When proper consideration has been given to the effects of world recession, when due recognition has been made of the international problems facing the Government, it is hardly a success story for the Secretary of State. His period of office has witnessed an alarming decline in Welsh industry and the strength of the Welsh economy.
  I wish briefly to refer to how this decline has affected people in Wales. I wish first to refer to the small business men—the self-employed. Wales has a large number of small manufacturing businesses, small retail businesses, corner shops and men and women engaged in service industries. They make an enormous contribution to the economy and the quality of life of the people of Wales. Today those people, who make such a large contribution to their communities, consider themselves to be under siege. They face high rates, multi-rate VAT—
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): The Tories introduced it.
  Mr. Roberts: They also face increased pension contributions and other burdens that threaten to squeeze them out of existence. I have not attempted to blame
  1618
  any one Government for the situation. I believe that the people concerned feel that they are under siege and are threatened by all these problems, including the imposition of capital transfer tax. When trade unionists take industrial action the Labour Party tends, and rightly so, to look with understanding at the cause of their grievances. The self-employed are not normally militant in our society, but they are up in arms at the present situation. I hope that the Government will look with understanding at those people who are victims of inflation. I hope that remedial measures will be taken before irreparable damage is done to those people and to the people who work for them. If no action is taken, they will swell still further the ranks of the unemployed.
  Finally, I should like to say something about the unemployment problem in Wales. We have not since 1946 suffered such unemployment as we are now experiencing. There were 70,000 unemployed in Wales in the month of October, and that is a huge sum in terms of human degradation and misery and of lost potential and opportunity. For the school leaver without a job it is a depressing and dangerous frustrating introduction to adult life. I shall spare Labour Members by not quoting the words they used against the Conservative Government when those Members were in Opposition and when much lower unemployment figures afflicted the Principality. But however loud their protestations of horror and revulsion at unemployment, they cannot evade their responsibility in part for the unemployment we now suffer.
  We must remember the Prime Minister's words in "A Policy for Survival":
  "One man's pay rise is not only another man's price rise: it might also cost him his own job—or his neighbour's job."
  The Prime Minister's words did not achieve validity on the day on which that document was published. Those words represent an economic truth that had validity throughout the period of the wage bonanza, fuelled for party political purposes by the Labour Party. To that extent the Labour Party is directly responsible for some of the unemployment in Wales. The people of Wales will see that it is made to accept its responsibilities.
  7.48 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts) that we have had an informed and reasoned debate. I thought that the hon. Gentleman, possibly for reasons of time, was uncharacteristically restrained tonight. When he seeks to lay strictures upon the Government's record over a period of 19 months, I must retort that I regard that record as a good one. I think that we took on a miserable inheritance from the previous Government and, what is more, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has under his belt the Welsh Development Agency and the Land Authority for Wales.
  The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower)—who apologised to me for having to leave before the end of the debate—mentioned in a thoughtful speech the arrangement of business in the House. The House knows that those arrangements are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, and the delay on 23rd October was a most creditable delay, since the debate followed proceedings on the Welsh Development Agency Bill which was before this House for 36 hours in all. Furthermore, we have also debated the Welsh provisions of the Community Land Bill and have attended a detailed programme of Welsh Grand Committee meetings—by my reckoning five such meetings. On only one occasion since the change of Government has the time allocated to Welsh Oral Questions been insufficient. That is surely a sufficient reply to the hon. Member for Barry and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) who raised some sincere matters in this connection.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty mentioned the Rosedale Industries. I said that I hoped to answer his query. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) has also mentioned this matter. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that this situation has now been resolved. Lin Pac Containers Ltd., a group based in Lincolnshire but already operating two factories at Cwmbran, is acquiring the Bedwas and Crumlin undertakings, and the Government will be providing financial assist-
  1620
  ance under the provisions of of Section 7 of the Industry Act.
  Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Will the Under-Secretary accept that the whole community in North Gwent will be most grateful for what he has just said?
  Mr. Jones: I am grateful for that interventon. The Government will provide financial assistance under the provisions of Section 7 of the Industry Act. I want to pay tribute to all who have been involved in achieving this welcome outcome, in particular, to the efforts which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery, in whose constituencies the two plants are located. They fought like tigers for their constituents' jobs. I am sure that many families in those areas who were worried are now relieved.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty made a cry about the refurbishment of the former Corah factory at Aberbargoed. I shall write to him with the information on this as soon as possible.
  The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) devoted some of his remarks to North Wales, an area that, like him, I know well. Some parts I know better, and in other parts I have a better welcome. Not many months after we had been in office a large area of Gwynedd was upgraded to special development area status. We have also sharply increased the rate of regional employment premium, which was of substantial benefit to all development and special development areas, in our efforts to combat the evils of unemployment.
  Despite the shortage of resources for the health service, we have been determined to preserve the place of the Bangor District General Hospital in the building programme. This is a £12 million scheme. Tenders for the first phase have now been invited, with a closing date of mid-November. It is hoped that building will begin early in 1976. This information will be useful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), as well as to other hon. Members in the area.
  We are pressing ahead with the Britannia Bridge scheme for a second road crossing of the Menai, and it is

  1621
  hoped that work on the approach roads will commence next spring.
  North Wales has done well out of the major advance factory programmes we have announced since coming into office. Including the announcements made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, on 23rd October, no fewer than 16 advance factories, amounting to 205,000 sq. ft. in all, have been allocated to a variety of locations in North Wales. Advance purchase of land for possible future factory construction is being undertaken at Caernarvon, Llandegai, Llanrwst and Rhyl. Nine Development Commission factories, totalling 34,000 sq. ft. have also been allocated at Penrhyndeudraeth, Bala, Machynlleth, Tywyn and Blaenau Ffestiniog. This is no mean record, given the nature and difficulties of these times.
  Hon. Members representing North Wales constituencies may be interested in the Dinorwic CEGB pumped storage scheme. This important project, which already provides employment for 780 people of whom over 70 per cent. are local, has a long history. I remind the House of the able sponsorship of the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Bill by the then hon. Member for Caernarvon, now Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and by others of my hon. Friends, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey.
  As has been reported in the Press, the CEGB has asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy for his approval for the next stage of the work. There are a number of detailed matters to be resolved, but my right hon. Friend is dealing with them urgently, as he is as conscious as I am of the importance of the project. There is certainly no threat to its future.
  Mr. Wigley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this part of the contract has now been waiting in the Department for seven weeks to be cleared? Under the Act of 1919, which is incorporated into the 1973 Act, it is normally cleared in three to four weeks. There is grave concern in Llanberis, because jobs may be threatened, due to this delay. Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the delay will not be for much longer?
  Mr. Jones: I have said that the business is being tackled urgently.
  I turn to the steel industry in Wales, because the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Myer), my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Mr. Davies) and Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the hon and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) have all made contributions on this important topic for Wales.
  I know that many hon. Members—no one more than myself—are anxious to see the vitally important issue of the British Steel Corporation's plans for Port Talbot and Shotton resolved. It is, however, because of its very importance, and the concern which is felt about the social and economic consequences for North-East Wales of any cessation of steel-making at Shotton, that the Government have been determined to undertake a thorough study of all the factors involved before coming to a decision.
  For this reason my noble Friend the Minister of State for Industry, Lord Beswick, decided in August to ask the BSC to prepare a full evaluation of the proposal which had been put forward for the installation of a new steelmaking plant at Shotton with a capacity of 1·8 million tonnes per annum. Lord Beswick has now received the BSC's reply, and it is under consideration. It has been made available to the trade unions at Shotton, and they will be given a further opportunity to put their own views forward.
  I cannot say definitely when a decision will be reached, but a number of hon. Members will know that Lord Beswick recently repeated to the West Wales Steel Development Committee his hope that this would be possible by the end of the year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty mentioned coal. Some concern has been expressed about the degree of stocking of coal in South Wales and at the two North Wales pits.
  Although the demand from the CEGB for South Wales coal has been low, the current level of stocks of all coals in South Wales, including stocks at power stations, is generally lower than in 1974 or 1973. Welsh power stations are, of course, specially designed to burn Welsh coal because of its low volatility. Experiments have, however, taken place in burning Welsh coal at a power station in

  1623
  England, namely, Fiddlers Ferry, which was not specially designed for this. The results with South Wales coal were not regarded as satisfactory, and the CEGB has no plans for continuing with this.
  Queries have been raised recently about the extent of the underground reserves of coal at Point of Air, in North Wales. On this, I understand that the known reserves are regarded as adequate for some years, and an investigation is now taking place near Talacre to establish whether there are more extensive reserves. The drilling that is now taking place in the area is to establish the fault pattern, and is part of the normal programme of research and exploration.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East and the hon. Member for Cardiff, North spoke in detail on devolution. So, also, did the hon. Member for Flint, West, who made a sharp flick or two. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) let fly a strong and typical blast in the direction of these devolution proposals. It is good to see him back in the Chamber, in good health and taking part very obviously in all our debates. I would point out, however, that the Government do not exactly agree with the statements that he makes about devolution. I am sure that the House will not expect me to go into detail tonight on this subject because in the very near future the Government will be presenting a White Paper setting out our detailed proposals for Wales and for Scotland. I am deeply aware of the great interest which hon. Members in all parts of the House take in this very important subject, but I do not think that at this stage in this Session it would be for me to go into greater details.
  The hon. Member for Merioneth put some rather suspicious questions about housing. He knows that I have not the time to make the full response I should like to make to him and other hon. Members. However, he should know that as a result of the announcement on 31st October, by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the injection of an additional £30 million to alleviate unemployment in the construction industry—of which the Welsh share is £2·5 million—it has now been possible
  1624
  to permit a limited relaxation. The money will all be applied to improvement work, half going to local authority houses and half to the private sector. In selecting this as our priority, we had in mind that improvement work is labour-intensive, so that the greatest possible benefit will be secured in employment terms.
  In the public sector, local authorities have, in consequence, received fresh allocations for council house improvements, or, in certain cases, major repair work. These cover the period to 31st March 1977 and will be supplemented from 1st April next by normal allocations, which we shall be able to make for the 1976–77 financial year.
  I can tell the hon. Member for Merioneth that we are already well advanced in discussions with the Council for the Principality on the way in which our resources for 1976–77 should be applied. Obviously, the money must go to the areas of greatest need.
  As regards privately-owned houses, the additional money which is to become available has been allocated so that local authorities will now be able to resume a limited amount of lending to cover that part of the cost of improvement work which is left after payment of grant. These grants take care of 50 per cent. of the cost, but this still leaves a substantial sum for the householder to find. Many have to look to their local authority to help them with a loan.
  The housing action areas programme is going ahead quietly and effectively. So far, 16 housing action areas, containing 5,784 dwellings, have been declared by 12 local authorities. The actual levels of new house building—the most crucial element of all—show a marked improvement, with over 11,000 new houses being provided in Wales this year. I say, therefore, that the record of the Welsh Office is more than good in this sector of activity.
  The hon. Member for Merioneth and the hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West both raised the subject of education. I have little time to take up the points made by the Opposition spokesman about the raising of the school leaving age and about truancy, which in themselves, perhaps, would form the subjects of debates for many hours. As a Department, however, we have maintained a very substan-

  1625
  tial programme. We have allocated about £33 million for the years 1974–77, and the bulk of the expenditure this year is in the secondary sector. There is to be a new secondary school for Mynydd Isa, and major extensions at Hawarden High School, in the county of Clwyd. There is a further instalment of the new Bodedern Secondary School in Gwynedd. There is to be a new secondary school in Bishopston, in West Glamorgan, and a major extension to the Llanharri bilingual secondary school in Glamorgan.
  The major priority in Wales is the 100 per cent. comprehensive secondary schooling system. We are now proud to say that already 84 per cent. of our children are educated in secondary schools which are comprehensive. Moreover, the Government, to indicate their commitment to comprehensive schooling, have allocated specifically, for the first time, £2 million for secondary school building.
  In another sector, many children suffer a mental or physical handicap. As a Government, we refuse to neglect these children; nor shall we disregard the real worries and the cares of their parents. It is a matter of real regret to me that this sector has been overlooked in years gone by and that we have considerable leeway to make up. For the years 1974–77, the Government have committed £3 million for special allocations for special schools in Wales. In the current financial year we have allocated £1¼ million for the nursery schools programme.
  The hon. Member for Flint, West, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the hon. Member for Merioneth raised matters concerning the National Health Service in Wales. I have but very limited time to reply to their serious questions. We may face a nil growth situation. We run the health service in Wales for the benefit of the consumer, but we are being driven deeper and deeper into the anguished argument about priorities. There will have to be careful but very painful adjustments, but in working these out we must never lose sight of our manifesto commitments. We shall safeguard provision for the elderly—those aged over 75—and we shall continue to care for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, who, in the generations gone by, have never had anything approaching a fair deal. It is our
  1626
  intention to commission the new hospitals at Rhyl, Withybush and Merthyr.
  Some would say that the health service in Wales may be reaching the point of collapse, but that statement runs far ahead of the Welsh evidence. The position in Wales is not as bad as it is sometimes made out to be, possibly because of the tradition, in the valleys, of social service and helping one's neighbour.
  Our opponents may care to present a catalogue of difficulties. Problems there certainly are, yet they are not problems of our making, as a Government. We have run into them, but we have shown that we do not intend to run away from them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower implied in his wise speech, a Government cannot change conditions overnight when those conditions are in part a product of our dependent relationship with the world economy and in part the product of past under-investment in industrial capacity. I think that we must now take steps to establish a strong economic base upon which we can build a society in which men and women in Wales can enjoy the fullness of life. I say to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty that this is what the Government are doing by directing savings into industry in order to create a strengthened economy based on the efficient use of our resources of people and of skills. I claim that the Government have achieved considerable support in Wales for their policy, and that the people of Wales, and, in particular, the people of our older industrial townships, know that there is no practical alternative.
  The ends which this policy seeks to achieve cannot be secured at a stroke. Neither can they be achieved without constraints elsewhere. Wealth must be created before it can be spent, and if industry must be a first charge on our savings for the years immediately ahead, it follows that the increased industrial budget must grow at the expense of other budgets. This we accept.
  I understand that distinguished visitors are approaching, and I am coming to the conclusion of my remarks. The importance of the Government's industrial policy is very real in its direct effects for the

  1627
  whole community and as the express condition permitting the achievement of social aims at a later stage. It is very encouraging that at Chequers last week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gower said, the TUC and the CBI gave their endorsement to the Government's broad approach to these crucial issues. We, as a Government, have set our faces against the introduction of economic policies that do not have a wide measure of support from those on both sides of industry on whom rests the main task of seeing that such policies succeed. Political leadership in a democracy is about consent—
  Mr. Hooson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not conclude his remarks without dealing with agriculture, which is vitally important.
  Mr. Jones: I am always happy to respond to interventions that are well intended, and on time. I have taken particular interest in the problems of dairy farming in Wales, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman does in a constituency such as his. We have recently taken action to assist the milk producers, and in doing so we have had to have regard to the overriding priority of bringing inflation under control. Nevertheless we should not lose sight of the fact that the guaranteed price of milk has been increased five times since the Government took office 20 months ago. It had then been fixed at an average of 26·27p per gallon for 1974–75, and the average price for the whole of the 1975–76 period is now 37·04p per gallon.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Will my hon. Friend explain to the House in greater detail the importance of increasing investment in industry in Wales to ensure the potential that we want to harness in the future?
  Mr. Jones: Perhaps my hon. Friend would first allow me to conclude my remarks on dairy farming—although, in any event, I fear that I am about to be interrupted by distinguished visitors.
  As I was saying, political leadership in a democracy is about consent. We should never lose sight of this fact, as our predecessors sometimes seem to do.
  In a moment, I suspect, we shall hear a knocking on the door of this honour-
  1628
  able House, It is appropriate that a Welsh debate should end this Session of Parliament, to which Welsh Members have contributed throughout the Session and, indeed, throughout history. I have good reason to believe, Mr. Speaker, that you yourself, as a Welshman, in the Chair and out of it, have made sterling contributions to this House over the years. Wales is pre-eminent in its contribution to the well-being of the United Kingdom.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  8.14 p.m.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;
  The House went:—and, having returned:
  Mr. Speaker (in the Clerk's place at the Table): I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  1. Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

  2. Iron and Steel Act 1975

  3. Sex Discrimination Act 1975

  4. Recess Elections Act 1975

  5. Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Act 1975

  6. Industry Act 1975

  7. Scottish Development Agency Act 1975

  8. Welsh Development Agency Act 1975

  9. Employment Protection Act 1975

  10. Children Act 1975

  11. Cinematograph Films Act 1975

  12. Petroleum and Submarine Pipe lines Act 1975

  13. Policyholders Protection Act 1975

  14. Local Land Charges Act 1975

  15. Community Land Act 1975

  16. Airports Authority Act 1975

  17. Port Askaig Pier Order Confirmation Act 1975

  18. Mallaig Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1975

  19. Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh Order Confirmation Act 1975

  20. Brookwood Cemetery Act 1975

  21. Shard Bridge Act 1975

  PROROGATION

    HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
    Mr. Speaker: I have further to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, one of the High Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command, as follows:
    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
    It was with great pleasure that My Husband and I visited Bermuda, Barbados, the Bahamas, Mexico, Jamaica, Hong Kong and Japan. We were very pleased to welcome to this country King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden.
    My Government welcomed Papua New Guinea's decision to join the Commonwealth on independence.
    I was pleased to be in Kingston for the important and useful meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government. Since then good progress has been made in pursuing the far-reaching proposals on world trade in commodities which My Government put forward at that meeting.
    My Government have participated fully in the Seventh Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly which continued its efforts to promote a more just world economic order.
    My Government successfully renegotiated the terms of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Economic Community. Their recommendation for continued membership was confirmed by the British people in the Referendum. They have made an important contribution to the evolution of Community policies, particularly those concerning its relations with the rest of the world.
    My Government have made a major contribution to the development of detente between East and West and warmly welcome the successful conclusion of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. Particular efforts have been made to improve bilateral relations and economic co-operation with the Soviet Union and other countries of Eastern Europe.
    1630
    My Ministers played a constructive rôle in the Geneva Conference which reviewed the operation of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
    Following a searching review, and after consultation with our Allies, My Government Slave announced reductions in our defence commitments and forces.
    In Rhodesia My Government have sought to bring all sides to an agreement by negotiation.
    My Government have continued to seek a political solution to the tragic situation facing the people of Northern Ireland. The Constitutional Convention set up to consider what provision for the government of Northern Ireland is likely to command the most widespread acceptance has recently completed its report. Legislative provision has been made to improve the standards of benefits in Northern Ireland in social security and other fields. The shipbuilders Harland and Wolff have been taken into public ownership.
    My Armed Forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary have continued to perform their difficult duties in Northern Ireland with devotion and with considerable success. An Act has been passed, to come into full effect when reciprocal legislation has been passed in the Republic of Ireland, to enable courts in Northern Ireland to try persons accused of serious crimes of violence in the Republic of Ireland. Following the recommendations of the Gardiner Committee, legislation has been enacted to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland. Legislation has also been enacted for the prevention of terrorism in the United Kingdom.
    Members of the House of Commons:
    I thank you for the provision which you have made for the honour and dignity of the Crown and for the public services.
    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
    My Government made clear their determination to reduce the rate of inflation. In agreement with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress they initiated measures for securing a voluntary fiat-rate limit on pay increases. The programme of subsidies on basic foods has been continued, to keep down prices

    1631
    paid by consumers. Grants are being made to encourage the provision of information and help to consumers, by the setting up of consumer advice centres and other means. A National Consumer Council has been established and measures to protect consumers have been passed.
    Measures have been taken to stimulate the development of efficient and profitable industry, and of industrial democracy. An Act has been passed to establish a National Enterprise Board to provide for public participation and partnership in industry. A system of planning agreements is also being set up. Development Agencies are being established to pursue similar objectives of economic development and to improve the environment in Scotland and Wales. As part of their programme of industrial support, legislation was passed for My Government to acquire shares in the British Leyland Motor Corporation.
    My Government have taken major steps to regulate the production of off-shore petroleum and to ensure that a fair share of the profits accrues to the community. Legislation has been enacted to establish a British National Oil Corporation; to provide for the acquisition and reinstatement of oil sites in Scotland; to regulate the provision of refinery capacity and the construction and use of submarine pipelines; to impose a new tax on the profits from United Kingdom petroleum production; and to close certain loop-holes in the taxation of oil companies. Measures have also been announced for protecting our off-shore interests in peace-time. Legislation has been enacted to permit easier access by the National Coal Board to coal resources.
    My Government have published a White Paper setting out guidelines and objectives for domestic agriculture and food production to 1980.
    My Government have made clear their intention of using the taxation system to promote greater social and economic equality by the redistribution of wealth as well as income. A comprehensive capital transfer tax on property in place of the estate duty has been introduced. Measures have also been introduced to end abuses arising from the "Lump".
    Legislation has been passed to protect and extend the rights of employees and to
    1632
    establish the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service on a statutory basis.
    The Health and Safety Commission and Executive have been established to secure the health, safety and welfare of persons at work.
    Over the past year My Government have taken positive steps to alleviate unemployment and to meet the longer-term need for skilled manpower. They have provided for expansion of the training programmes of the Manpower Services Commission and of industry, and for a job creation scheme to be administered by the Commission. The Employment Services have been strengthened, and a temporary employment subsidy and a recruitment subsidy for unemployed school leavers have been introduced.
    An Act has been passed to provide a new and improved earnings-related pension scheme to operate in partnership with good occupational pensions schemes. Measures have also been enacted to increase social security benefits and contributions; to make additional provision for the disabled; and to provide for a system of universal child benefits.
    The law on adoption and custody has been reformed and further provisions made for ensuring the welfare of children in care.
    Legislation has been enacted to enable My Government to contribute towards the National Coal Board's scheme for compensating existing pneumoconiosis sufferers.
    My Government have encouraged the abolition of selection in secondary education and made further progress towards a fully comprehensive system. Steps have been taken to bring to an end the systems of direct-grant schools in England and Wales and grant-aided schools in Scotland. Financial aid to voluntary schools has been increased and the arrangements for mandatory student awards extended.
    A substantial increase has been achieved in the provision of new housing, and significant progress has been made towards the stabilisation of mortgage funds. Legislation passed on housing rents and subsidies has restored freedom to local authorities to fix their own reasonable rents.
    Legislation has been passed to enable land suitable for development to be

    1633
    brought into public ownership, so that the community may exercise positive control over the development of land and may enjoy increases in land values arising from its own efforts.
    Legislation has been passed to protect policyholders of insurance companies which are unable to meet their liabilities, and to establish the Air Travel Reserve Fund.
    Discrimination on grounds of sex has been made unlawful.
    Acts have been passed to provide for the safety of spectators at football and other sports grounds, and to facilitate the promotion of lotteries by local authorities, sporting, charitable and cultural organisations.
    The Limitation Act and other measures have furthered the progress of law reform, and new arrangements have been made for the administration of criminal justice in Scotland.
    Financial provision has been made to assist Opposition parties in carrying out their Parliamentary duties.
    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
    I pray that the blessings of Almighty God may attend you.
    Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read; after which the Lord Chancellor said:
    My Lords and members of the House of Commons:
    By virtue of Her Majesty's Commission under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, we do, in Her Majesty's name and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Wednesday, the nineteenth day of this instant November, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to the nineteenth day of this instant November.
    End of the First Session (opened on 22nd October 1974) of the Forty-seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the Twenty-fourth Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.

ENVIRONMENT
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Road Making Programme
  Road Making Programme
  M25
  M25
  Disabled Persons (Housing)
  Disabled Persons (Housing)
  Ipswich (Southern Bypass)
  Ipswich (Southern Bypass)
  Fuel Saving
  Fuel Saving
  Clean Air
  Clean Air
  Nationalised Industries (Prices)
  Nationalised Industries (Prices)
  Driving Tests (Women Applicants)
  Driving Tests (Women Applicants)
  Battered Wives
  Battered Wives
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Timber Houses
  Timber Houses
  Tree Planting Year
  Tree Planting Year
  Economic Planning Staffs
  Economic Planning Staffs
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Roll-on, Roll-off Freight
  Roll-on, Roll-off Freight
  Improvement Schemes
  Improvement Schemes
  Local Authorities (House Buying)
  Local Authorities (House Buying)
  Harbours
  Harbours
  North West Water Authority (Chairman)
  North West Water Authority (Chairman)
  Water Supply (Ross-on-Wye)
  Water Supply (Ross-on-Wye)
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  Railway (Perth—Inverness)
  Railway (Perth—Inverness)
  House Values
  House Values
  Aerosol Containers
  Aerosol Containers
  Nottinghamshire
  Nottinghamshire
  Sport and Recreation
  Sport and Recreation
  New Palace Yard
  New Palace Yard
  Vehicle and Driving Licensing
  Vehicle and Driving Licensing
  Central Lancashire Development Corporation
  Central Lancashire Development Corporation
  Roads (Planning)
  Roads (Planning)
  Roads
  Roads
  Coastal Pollution
  Coastal Pollution
  Building Materials Industry
  Building Materials Industry
  Woodwool
  Woodwool
  Housing Finance Review
  Housing Finance Review
  Construction Exports Advisory Board
  Construction Exports Advisory Board
  Development and Demolition Control
  Development and Demolition Control
  Dwellings
  Dwellings
  Building Method (Design and Construction)
  Building Method (Design and Construction)
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Fauna and Flora
  Fauna and Flora
  Noise Abatement
  Noise Abatement
  Holbeach Bypass
  Holbeach Bypass
  Road Fund Licences
  Road Fund Licences
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  Rates
  Rates
  Local Government (Pay)
  Local Government (Pay)
  Tenants (Notices to Quit)
  Tenants (Notices to Quit)
  Transport Policy
  Transport Policy
  Housing Standards
  Housing Standards
  Railways (Administrative Staff)
  Railways (Administrative Staff)
  Local Authorities' Advertising (Industrial Developments)
  Local Authorities' Advertising (Industrial Developments)
  Newham Way
  Newham Way
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
  Agricultural Houses (Repairs)
  Agricultural Houses (Repairs)
  A1-M1 Link Road (London)
  A1-M1 Link Road (London)
  Rents
  Rents
  Road Hauliers
  Road Hauliers
  Merseyside County Council
  Merseyside County Council
  Dangerous Substances
  Dangerous Substances
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
CIVIL SERVICE
  Higher Executive Officers (A)
  Higher Executive Officers (A)
  SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY
  SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY
  POSTAL CHARGES
  POSTAL CHARGES
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Postal Costs
  Postal Costs
  Pre-Paid Envelopes
  Pre-Paid Envelopes
  Committee Work
  Committee Work
  TRIBUNALS
  TRIBUNALS
  GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
  GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
  STATUTES
  STATUTES
DEFENCE
  Boeing E3A Aircraft
  Boeing E3A Aircraft
  Jaguar Aircraft
  Jaguar Aircraft
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Sub-Martel Project
  Sub-Martel Project
  Dockyards
  Dockyards
  CROCODILES (IMPORTS)
  CROCODILES (IMPORTS)
ENERGY
  Oil Platforms Construction
  Oil Platforms Construction
  Road Lighting
  Road Lighting
  Tokyo (Visit)
  Tokyo (Visit)
  Circulars
  Circulars
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Public Relations Officers
  Public Relations Officers
  Pipelines
  Pipelines
  Nuclear Installations (Health and Safety)
  Nuclear Installations (Health and Safety)
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Offshore Oil (Exploration Licences)
  Offshore Oil (Exploration Licences)
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
  Coal Stocks
  Coal Stocks
  National Coal Board (Capital Expenditure)
  National Coal Board (Capital Expenditure)
  Electric Heating (Scotland)
  Electric Heating (Scotland)
  Northern Ireland (Territorial Waters)
  Northern Ireland (Territorial Waters)
  Isle of Man (Offshore Mineral Exploitation)
  Isle of Man (Offshore Mineral Exploitation)
SCOTLAND
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  House Building
  House Building
  Springburn
  Springburn
  East Fife Regional Road
  East Fife Regional Road
  Tied Houses
  Tied Houses
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Economic Prospects
  Economic Prospects
  Scottish Assembly
  Scottish Assembly
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Local Government Staffs
  Local Government Staffs
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  School Counsellors
  School Counsellors
  A75
  A75
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Timber Houses
  Timber Houses
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Teacher-Pupil Ratios
  Teacher-Pupil Ratios
  Football Violence
  Football Violence
  Sterilisation
  Sterilisation
  Factories
  Factories
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Housing (Ex-Service Men)
  Housing (Ex-Service Men)
  Timber
  Timber
  Foster Parents
  Foster Parents
  Local Authorities' Purchasing Preferences
  Local Authorities' Purchasing Preferences
  M90
  M90
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Dual Carriageways
  Dual Carriageways
  School Classes
  School Classes
  Road Lighting
  Road Lighting
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Pinkston Power Station
  Pinkston Power Station
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Bricks
  Bricks
EMPLOYMENT
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
  Statistics
  Statistics
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Bury and Radcliffe
  Bury and Radcliffe
  Fishermen
  Fishermen
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Cannock and Rugeley
  Cannock and Rugeley
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  School Leavers (Thanet)
  School Leavers (Thanet)
  Unemployed Building Workers
  Unemployed Building Workers
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Professional and Executive Register
  Professional and Executive Register
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Juveniles
  Juveniles
  Electoral Boundaries (Southend)
  Electoral Boundaries (Southend)
  Horses
  Horses
  Betting Levy (Collection)
  Betting Levy (Collection)
  Clubs
  Clubs
  Lotteries
  Lotteries
  Chileans
  Chileans
  Thefts and Recoveries
  Thefts and Recoveries
  Headingley Cricket Ground
  Headingley Cricket Ground
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Manslaughter
  Manslaughter
  Regina v. Lattimore, Salih and Leighton
  Regina v. Lattimore, Salih and Leighton
  Luton Airport (Policing)
  Luton Airport (Policing)
  Prevention of Terrorism
  Prevention of Terrorism
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Police Stations
  Police Stations
  Immigration (East African Asians)
  Immigration (East African Asians)
  Kent County Constabulary
  Kent County Constabulary
  Prostitution
  Prostitution
  Vehicle Drivers (Identity)
  Vehicle Drivers (Identity)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Medical Research Council (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
  Medical Research Council (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
  Medical Students
  Medical Students
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Teachers
  Teachers
  School Meals
  School Meals
  School Counsellors
  School Counsellors
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
  Teacher-pupil Ratios
  Teacher-pupil Ratios
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Special Schools
  Special Schools
  School Equipment
  School Equipment
  Independent Schools
  Independent Schools
  Social Science Research Council
  Social Science Research Council
  Schools (Expenditure)
  Schools (Expenditure)
  Student Costs
  Student Costs
  Science Research Council
  Science Research Council
  School Buildings (Thanet)
  School Buildings (Thanet)
  School Classes
  School Classes
  School Examination Failures
  School Examination Failures
  Lindley Lodge Young People's Centre, Nuneaton
  Lindley Lodge Young People's Centre, Nuneaton
  Agricultural Research Institutions (Wales)
  Agricultural Research Institutions (Wales)
  Schooling Costs
  Schooling Costs
  Psychologists
  Psychologists
  Truancy and Absences
  Truancy and Absences
  Antiques
  Antiques
  All Saints' Teacher Training College (North London)
  All Saints' Teacher Training College (North London)
INDUSTRY
  Departmental Car Pool
  Departmental Car Pool
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Postal Charge
  Postal Charge
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Post Office (Automatic Sorting Equipment)
  Post Office (Automatic Sorting Equipment)
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Post Office Review Committee
  Post Office Review Committee
  Advertising
  Advertising
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Taxation Yield (Wales)
  Taxation Yield (Wales)
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Treasure Trove (Water Newton)
  Treasure Trove (Water Newton)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Statutory Borrowing Limits
  Statutory Borrowing Limits
  "Public Loans from the National Loans Fund"
  "Public Loans from the National Loans Fund"
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Oil and Gas Revenues
  Oil and Gas Revenues
  Savings Bonds
  Savings Bonds
  Higher Incomes (Tax)
  Higher Incomes (Tax)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Borrowings and Deficits (Public Sector)
  Borrowings and Deficits (Public Sector)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Credit Expansion
  Credit Expansion
  War Widow's Pension
  War Widow's Pension
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  National Council of Social Service
  National Council of Social Service
  Company Profits
  Company Profits
  Price Commission
  Price Commission
  General Index of Retal Prices
  General Index of Retal Prices
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Medical Treatment (Denmark)
  Medical Treatment (Denmark)
  Huntington's Chorea
  Huntington's Chorea
  Amenity Beds
  Amenity Beds
  Doctors (Thanet)
  Doctors (Thanet)
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  School Doctors and Dentists
  School Doctors and Dentists
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Mental Hospital Patients
  Mental Hospital Patients
  Vaccine Damaged Children
  Vaccine Damaged Children
  Departmental Leaflets
  Departmental Leaflets
  National Insurance Benefits
  National Insurance Benefits
  Disabled Persons (Cars)
  Disabled Persons (Cars)
  Hospital Waiting List (Staffordshire)
  Hospital Waiting List (Staffordshire)
  European Community
  European Community
  Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes
  Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Hospital Closures (London)
  Hospital Closures (London)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Social Security
  Social Security
  Health Centre (Thatcham)
  Health Centre (Thatcham)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Departmental Accommodation
  Departmental Accommodation
TRADE
  Textiles and Clothing
  Textiles and Clothing
  Export Credits
  Export Credits
  Motor Cars (Imports)
  Motor Cars (Imports)
  Nation Life Insurance and Stern Group
  Nation Life Insurance and Stern Group
  Pianofortes and Organs
  Pianofortes and Organs
  Fishing Vessels (Safety)
  Fishing Vessels (Safety)
  Chipboard
  Chipboard
  European Community
  European Community
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Secondary Banks
  Secondary Banks
  Newsprint
  Newsprint
  Turkish Yarns
  Turkish Yarns
  Slater Walker Securities Limited
  Slater Walker Securities Limited
  Air Travel (Passengers' Compensation)
  Air Travel (Passengers' Compensation)
  Paper
  Paper
  Air Cargoes
  Air Cargoes
  Companies (Departmental Investigation)
  Companies (Departmental Investigation)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Birds (Imports)
  Birds (Imports)
  Timber
  Timber
  Timber
  Timber
  Rabies
  Rabies
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Fishery Limits (South-East Coast)
  Fishery Limits (South-East Coast)
  Mastitis
  Mastitis
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Harland and Wolff (Chairman)
  Harland and Wolff (Chairman)
  Dairy Herds
  Dairy Herds
  Mr. Leo Norney
  Mr. Leo Norney
  Homicide
  Homicide
  Internees
  Internees
  Dilapidated Houses
  Dilapidated Houses
  Terrorism (County Armagh)
  Terrorism (County Armagh)
  Vandalism, Holywood, County Down
  Vandalism, Holywood, County Down
  Rates
  Rates
  South Armagh
  South Armagh
  Long Kesh Prison
  Long Kesh Prison
  Bridges (Londonderry)
  Bridges (Londonderry)
  River Poisoning
  River Poisoning
  Londonderry
  Londonderry
  Beef
  Beef
  Finance Corporation
  Finance Corporation
  Calves
  Calves
  Social and Economic Policies
  Social and Economic Policies
  Health and Social Services
  Health and Social Services
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Spain
  Spain
  Diplomatic Missions
  Diplomatic Missions
  Diplomats
  Diplomats
  Diplomatic Missions
  Diplomatic Missions
  Diplomatic Service (Foreign Exchange Costs)
  Diplomatic Service (Foreign Exchange Costs)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Consular Offices
  Consular Offices
  Specialist Officers
  Specialist Officers
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Dependent Territories
  Dependent Territories
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Obligations
  Obligations
WALES
  School Counsellors
  School Counsellors
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Schools (Expenditure)
  Schools (Expenditure)
  Factories
  Factories
  CSE and O level
  CSE and O level
  Educational Psychologists
  Educational Psychologists
  School Medical Officers
  School Medical Officers
  School Dental Officers
  School Dental Officers
  Schools (Expenditure)
  Schools (Expenditure)
  Independent Schools
  Independent Schools
  School Classes
  School Classes
  North Wales Confederation of Engineering Workers
  North Wales Confederation of Engineering Workers
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Educationally Sub-normal Pupils
  Educationally Sub-normal Pupils
  Advance Factory, Blaenau Ffestiniog
  Advance Factory, Blaenau Ffestiniog
  Teaching Aids
  Teaching Aids
  Health Services (Management Staffs)
  Health Services (Management Staffs)
  Hospital Staffs (Charges for Meals)
  Hospital Staffs (Charges for Meals)
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles

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

BRUNEI: PROPOSED CONFERENCE
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 action they have taken to fulfil the request of the Decolonisation Committee of the United Nations that a tripartite conference should be held representing the administrative power in Brunei, the Sultan of Brunei and the People's Party of Brunei, with a view to fixing a date for the independence of the territory.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, Brunei is a sovereign State. We cannot therefore participate in a conference relating to constitutional development, since we have no responsibility for this, and we have so informed the Secretary-General. Our responsibilities, which are limited ones relating to defence and external affairs, arise out of treaties which are still in force.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister. Is it possible for him to say what has happened at the United Nations regarding this request, in view of the fact that Brunei, an old Commonwealth country, is still largely under the control of a Sultan, including the ownership of the oil
1790
revenues? May I further ask him whether we should not seek to influence Brunei at a democratic conference?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as I said, Brunei has never been a Colony. It is a sovereign State and its internal policies and arrangements are entirely for it to decide. The Fourth Committee has formally invited the United Kingdom to participate in its discussions on the future of Brunei. We have replied that as we have absolutely no control over its internal affairs, and as it is a sovereign country and has never been a Colony, we do not consider that we have any information which we could properly transmit to the Fourth Committee, formally, under Article 73E of the Charter. We co-operate informally with the Committee, but I repeat that it would be quite wrong for us to be formally a member of the kind of conference which the noble Lord has in mind. As to the conduct of affairs within Brunei, we may all have our views, this way or that, about them, but I repeat that we cannot interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign State.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not very difficult for us to influence this Fourth Committee—a Committee which has been consistantly hostile to us for years, and which has made the work of the United Nations and our work there much more difficult than it need have been?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend speaks with authority and experience, and I would not dissent from the central point that she has made. We have informed the Secretary-General that we do not regard it as appropriate or efficacious for us formally to be a member of a conference which the Fourth Committee has proposed. As to the motives of the Fourth Committee, or of certain members of it, in making this request to us when they must know that it is inappropriate for us, after the Agreement of 1971, to take part, I should not like to comment today.

MENTAL HOSPITALS: SCALDING ACCIDENTS
11.10 a.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: 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 how many serious and fatal accidents have been caused to patients in mental hospitals owing to scalding during the past five years, and whether they are satisfied that all reasonable precautions are taken to avoid such tragedies.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I regret that this information is not available centrally. Staff in mental hospitals are well aware of the dangers and the need for care in bathing patients; and the nurse-training arrangements include instruction in this matter.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord for that Answer and for having granted me an interview before the House sat. In paying a tribute to all the staff in these hospitals, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of a recent tragedy of scalding in a hospital in Epsom, on whose house committee I served for several years? Can the noble Lord say whether taps in the bathrooms of these hospitals are fitted with safety valves in order to decrease the risk of scalding, since this is the source of most of the accidents? Can he also say whether instructions have gone out to Area Health Authorities to ensure that radiators are protected with grills?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Lord of the safety measures in existence in the Epsom Hospital which he mentions. It is clear that the Department of Health and all the devoted people who are working to care for these very handicapped people are aware of the dangers from every kind of heater device, from boiling water to radiators. I cannot give him exact details, but I will write to him and give him the information for which he has asked.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for the answer he has given, which is satisfactory so far as it goes, may I put one further
1792
question to him? Bearing in mind that a coroner's appears to have taken place into the tragedy to which I have referred, can the noble Lord make inquiries of the Department concerned as to why, when coroners' inquests are held, and bearing in mind that the local and national Press naturally take an interest in these matters, central figures are not available?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords; I will bring the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to this apparent gap in the information available to us. I should have thought that a coroner's inquest was sufficiently important for the information to be recorded centrally and for it to be available.

CIVIL SERVICE PAY AND PENSIONS
Lord ORR-EWING: 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 Government Pay Research Unit when considering comparable pay between private sector staff and civil servants takes adequate account of the fact that Civil Service pensions are noncontributory and inflation-proof.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, the Pay Research Unit does not make these assessments. However, the outside pay rates provided by the Pay Research Unit are specifically reduced by the difference in amounts of superannuation contributions paid by outside analogues, and a further reduction is made to take account of differences in superannuation benefits. The national pay agreement between the Official and Staff Sides of the National Whitley Council further provides for the Government Actuary to reassess the difference in benefits following each pay research settlement, in order to establish whether any change should be made in the amount to be deducted in accordance with the agreement. This agreement has, of course, been suspended during the operation of the Government's counter-inflation policy.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that information. Exact details of the formula are not revealed, I think, and have not been revealed in the reply today. I wonder in a period of open government whether it is not desirable that the formula should be revealed, so that one can study the pros and cons. Does it not seem rather exceptional that civil servants should receive an index-proof pension at this time? Is the noble Lord aware that the Daily Telegraph states that the cost of this at the present rate of inflation is no less than £750 million on public funds? Does he not think that this is an area which should be closely looked at, and that it is a privilege which perhaps even civil servants themselves would not wish to have?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful for that supplementary question because, if the House will allow me, I will perhaps disillusion some who may think that civil servants are being treated in any abnormal way compared with those outside. Many large and medium-sized companies today have inflation-proof pensions. Some of them are in fact better than those available to the Civil Service. The inflation-proof scheme has been in existence for many years. It is true that before 1971 it was ad hoc. It was the Administration of noble Lords opposite which introduced a two-yearly review in 1971, and in 1972 they made the review for one year.
All Civil Service pay is a complicated matter, but my understanding is that an assessment was made prior to the last pay agreement—that was, in 1974—and there was an approximate lead of Civil Service pensions over the general analogues of about 1.75 per cent. That included a computation for an inflation-proof pension scheme. It is also well to remind noble Lords that, if one is comparing a Civil Service rank with a rank outside, and the outside person makes a contribution of, say, 6 per cent. to his own contributory pension scheme, 6 per cent. is in fact deducted from the Civil Service final rate of pay. So there is a good deal of similarity between Civil Service and outside pay. A fundamental part of this Government's policy, as it was of previous Administrations, is that we should seek to have fair comparisons and that the Government should seek to be, not
1794
necessarily in the lead but a good and fair employer.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if one cuts through the complications—and sometimes it is not easy to do that—one finds it has been authoritatively calculated that in the present position an inflation-proof non-contributory pension in the commercial field, so far as figures from which to judge are available, is worth £410,000 per person? I should have thought, however one tried to explain it away as to what past Governments have done or the present Government want to do, that that would seem to be generosity run mad.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord can make a statement like that but, when there is a scheme which has stood the test of time and one seeks to be a good employer, one does not chop and change according to present circumstances. Clearly, present rates of inflation put pressures upon the scheme, but I would again say to the noble Lord and to this House that the whole basis of Civil Service pay and benefits is fair comparison and they arc linked so far as possible with those in outside industry. There can be no question but that this matter is approached on the most scientific and the best statistical basis possible.
Lord CLITHEROE: My Lords, would it not be a good idea if, instead of speaking about "inflation", which we all do—journalists and the media do—we used the expression "debasement of the currency", which it what it is?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord may be quite right, but I do not think that that point properly arises on the Question before the House.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that, although there may be some companies which can afford fully to inflation-proof their pensions, these are very rare indeed and the great majority of industrial companies in this country cannot possibly fully inflation-proof the pensions of the people they employ? So it is the exception and not the rule. Furthermore, in view of this discussion, does the noble Lord not think that for a civil servant to receive 98.25 per cent. of his analogue

1795
in outside industry is over-generous, and that the country cannot continue to inflation-proof Civil Service pensions at this very high rate when public expenditure simply has to be cut?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is a much wider issue. This is a scheme which has been inbeing for a very long time. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate that when one looks at pensions one is not looking at them in terms of their cost or benefit over one year; a pension scheme is an operation for 60 years—40 years of contributions and 20 years of receipts. I will look at the matter again and send figures to the noble Lord. However, the advice that I received this morning was that of the companies which have pension schemes of the kind which we have in mind, at least half include an inflation-proofing component.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a related question? Civil servants receive a non-contributory pension, and probably a very well deserved one, and in addition they receive on retirement a non-taxable gratuity. However, in the private sector and in the case of employees of public hoards, at least a portion of their gratuity is taxable. Is there any justification for this?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I must admit that this is not a point which I have looked into in relation to this Question. Therefore, I could not answer it immediately. I know that in many pension schemes a cash amount is not abnormal, but I will look at the point which my noble friend has made and write to him. I hope the House will take note that the Civil Service provides us with a great service. There have been times when comparison with outside has been less fair, although, as a consequence of the recession, unemployment and many other factors, I suspect that today civil servants appear to be slightly better off than those outside. It is very much a question of the swings and roundabouts.

MALAGASY: CONSULAR VISAS
11.22 a.m.
Lord MERRIVALE: 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 how it is proposed in the future to issue consular visas in the Malagasy Republic, bearing in mind that receipts from visa fees in Tananarive totaled £2,423 for the past year 1974–75.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the largest proportion of visas issued by our Embassy in Tananarive were on behalf of independent Commonwealth countries not themselves represented in the Malagasy Republic. Alternative arrangements had been made to dispose of much of this work before we decided to close the Embassy. In future the honorary consul will forward applications for visas for the United Kingdom and dependent Territories for processing by the Office of the Non-Resident Ambassador. Visa fees will continue to be collected.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. May 1 say that I know that visas were issued by the Embassy in Tananarive and that they were mainly for Commonwealth countries? They were issued by our consul there. However, how do Her Majesty's Government propose, for visas which were issued in Tananarive, to forward passports for visas to be issued, for instance, at Dar-es-Salaam and how do they propose to collect the fees for such visas?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the fees will be collected at the office of the honorary consul. All the processing will be done by the accredited Embassy in some other country. The noble Lord has mentioned one possibility, but final agreement about it has not been reached. We are in discussion with the Malagasy Republic about the problem. As to his final point which related to countries of destination, perhaps the House will be interested to know that in 1973 some 3,200 visas were issued in Tananarive, of which 2,800 were for countries of destination in the independent Commonwealth.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that in future the issue of visas will be very complicated? What guarantee, too, has anybody who posts his passport that it will safely arrive in the country of destination? Does not the noble Lord feel that the question of a resident United Kingdom-based career consul should be looked into again?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the impeccability of the post anywhere is not a matter about which I would freely generalise. There is the same risk, or the absence of risk, of anything happening to a passport or visa as there is in any other part of the world.

DIRECT GRANT GRAMMAR SCHOOLS
11.25 a.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD rose to move to resolve, That this House condemns the Government's policy to end the present system of direct grant grammar schools and urges the Government to re-open the direct grant schools list. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the direct grant schools, which are the subject of this Resolution today, are varied in character. Over half of them are for girls, nearly one-third are Roman Catholic and about 10 are Methodist. Most of the rest are closely identified with the Church of England. Ten thousand of the places are for boarding pupils. It is fair to claim that they are a varied lot—perhaps not unlike your Lordships, some of whom have been direct grant pupils. Like this House, these schools believe deeply that they can make their best contribution if they are allowed to get on with the job. Each school must have at least 25 per cent, of free places. They then receive direct grants from the Government, while fee-paying parents are eligible for a fee remission scale. Therefore Governments, local education authorities and parents are involved in these schools in a kind of mixed economy which saves money for the Government and makes co-operation in education a reality. Yet on 30th July the Government had laid regulations before Parliament to end the direct grant system. In this unique act of destruction I must declare an interest, as chairman of two committees which represent all of the direct grant schools.
May I thank your Lordships for coming on the last day of this Session to speak in the House and ask whether it is too much to hope that the Government will heed a list of speakers which includes two former Ministers of Education, the General Secretary of the Association of Education Committees, two right reverend Prelates, one of whom, the Bishop of Worcester, served on the Donnison Commission, and noble Lords who are involved in university and secondary school administration. At any rate, your Lordships' words are not going to be forgotten by those who have been responsible for the avalanche of letters which have been received by many noble Lords from outside the House begging the Government to be persuaded to think again, nor by the 4,000 or more pupils and staff who, four months ago, converged on the House to lobby their Members of Parliament.
Why is there this intensity of feeling which is reflected in the Resolution before the House today? First, it is simply because these are good schools that are doing a valuable job at a time when both finance and the national interest dictate that we cannot afford to lose even one good school. It is as simple as that. The widespread sadness and resentment which are felt stem from this sense of quite unnecessary loss, for the Government have not made the slightest attempt to retain these schools for as wide a group of pupils as possible. Despite the protestations of Ministers, I do not believe that because of the cost Ministers have wished direct grant schools to become maintained. If one looks at the regulations, paragraph 3 stipulates that the only terms on which a direct grant school can become maintained is as a fully comprehensive school. Although I realise that this is the Government's policy, the effect of it is simply to put a gun to the head of each school and local education authority.
In Ipswich, which is only five miles away from my own home in Suffolk, there is one of the girls' public day school trust schools. With three forms of entry, this is a school where the headmistress and her staff know all the pupils, and yet there is a really strong sixth form. Despite close relations with the education committee the Government's terms have created an impossible situation for

1799
authority and school alike. With the best will in the world, the school cannot be included in local reorganisation plans, so that all the school has to offer will now be denied to pupils unless the parents can pay the fees. That story is going to be repeated again and again all over the country. Can there be anything in Socialist philosophy which approves of forcing some of the best schools in the country out of reach of the vast majority of children? It seems to me to be an act of incredible irresponsibility when, as never before, this country needs the skills and the talents of the younger generation.
But the intensity of feeling against the Government does not derive from opposition to comprehensive education. Indeed, this is not so. The trouble is that without heeding any of the attendant problems the Government have seized upon the comprehensive concept to the total exclusion of all other forms of education. Grammar schools, both voluntary aided and fully maintained, are to be placed under sentence of death, decreed last year by circular and now threatened to be included in legislation. Independence is not to be tolerated and under these regulations the direct grant schools are to go. But this total commitment is only reputable if it is certain that universal compulsory comprehensive education really is preferable to all other forms of competition. If this is so—and I do not accept that it is—that totalitarian argument has now become thoroughly disreputable because of the shortage of resources today. When authorities are at their wits end to meet ordinary items of current expenditure, how can they be expected suddenly to transform large numbers of schools? In effect, the Government are seeking to impose a contradiction. They are claiming that comprehensive education is all things to all men, when clearly this is not so, and I think this is a disservice to the people who are working in the comprehensive schools.
Some three months ago I attended a prize giving at a school which has served a Yorkshire city for over 450 years. Afterwards a pupil came to speak to me. He was the son of a Polish miner and he had just gained a university place to study aeronautical engineering. "I cannot understand", was the gist of his words to me, "why the Government are deter-
1800
mined to prevent pupils from coming to this school. For me it would have meant no university place, for, you see, I know that the science and the maths which happen to be taught at the school to which otherwise I should have gone would not have enabled me to reach the necessary standard". I should be interested to know what answer the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, would have given to that pupil. Of course to the House the noble Lord has given an explanation. On the 26th March the noble Lord said:
"We do not believe in the perpetuation of a privileged system like the direct grant school system in which, for the most part, well-off families are being subsidised by the State to buy, at much below the economic cost, what they regard as a privileged education for their children. In the last analysis that is why noble Lords opposite want to maintain it and are pledged to restore it; on this side of the House we want to provide real equality of opportunity for all our people."—[Official Report, 26/3/75; c. 1276.]
Is that really the answer that the noble Lord would have given to that boy? I wonder which would have rung the more hollow: the words "for the most part, well-off families", which would have been spoken to the son of a man who has found refuge in this country from a foreign land, or the words "real equality of opportunity", which would be spoken to a young man who owes the start of his whole career to a school which the Government are now seeking to destroy.
It was not for nothing that Section 76 of the 1944 Education Act provided the principle that,
"children are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents".
Children have different needs and parents have different aspirations. It may be strong sixth form teaching which is wanted, or a school which is of a religious foundation; or perhaps boarding education is wanted, or a single sex school. Your Lordships may remember that in our last debate my noble friend Lady Young spoke about girls' schools, which form the majority of direct grant schools, many of which have led the way in the cause of women's education.
But it goes deeper than that. Many parents today feel deeply about current teaching methods and objectives. They believe, not without reason, that sometimes the whole purpose of education is being put at risk. So you find some parents who desperately want a school

1801
where the approach to learning will be more traditional, and others who say: "No, we want one where it is more experimental". But what is certain is that the vast majority of parents want to have some influence on the education which their children are receiving. I think the tip of this considerable iceberg was revealed in your Lorsdhips' House some months ago in an exchange during Question Time on religious education. It was for this deeply felt reason that the Department of Education and Science some months ago set up what is known as the Taylor Inquiry into the managing and the governing of schools. What will the Government do if Councillor Taylor's Committee reports that indeed the direct grant system provides a unique bridge between the maintained and the independent sectors, and that part of the structure of that bridge is the element of parental involvement in these schools?
The noble Lord speaking for the Government has called the idea of a direct grant bridge a fallacy, but after all, these schools have their link with the Secretary of State and his control over finance and standards; there is the statutory representation of an authority on the governing body and there is the priceless element of independence. The noble Lord may be eager to make the direct grant system a memory, but I think he can hardly call it a fallacy. What conceivable case can there be for cutting down exactly those schools which are living examples of the co-operation which is so desirable in education?
May I here turn aside for a moment and say that on 29th October the Direct Grant Joint Committee visited the Department to try to resolve a whole mass of obscurities which still exist in these regulations, despite the fact that after just one hour's debate in another place the regulations are now law. I now ask for clarification on only two main issues—the welfare of pupils and the future of staff. May I ask the noble Lord what, after September of next year, is to be the position of a pupil who is occupying a free place, who transfers from one direct grant school to another? Will a pupil who is not in a free place, who transfers from boarding to day provision in the same school, become eligible for remission of fees, and what arrangements have
1802
the Government made to give any sort of guarantee of security to pupils who are occupying governors' free places? Each of those questions concern those who matter most—the children—but the position of staff remains a matter of very great concern.
I think I am right in claiming that when a local authority reorganises, the level of salary of serving teachers is always safeguarded. Why are direct grant heads and staffs to have no such guarantee? And what does Circular 7/75, which accompanies the regulations, mean when it asserts that in the case of a direct grant school becoming maintained it is the governors who may have to pay compensation if the local education authority is not able to employ all the staff?
I do not know whether I am right, but it has always seemed to me that the 1944 Education Act was like an open door through which schools in this country could pass with confidence; and it is a testimony to the foresight of Lord Butler of Saffron Walden and Mr. Chuter Ede that gradually through that door in increasing numbers have passed the comprehensive schools. I think this has been absolutely natural, and the inevitable desire of a free society to extend opportunity. But now all but comprehensive schools are to be pushed back across the threshold and the door is to be slammed in their faces. That will create a monopoly, and in a free society a State monopoly on education is surely something which ought to make any Government hesitate.
But a middle way could be found. During the summer, two articles have appeared in The Times Educational Supplement, one by the editor Mr. Maclure and the other by Dr. Harry Judge, the very successful former headmaster of Banbury Comprehensive School. Those articles have fundamentally questioned the Government's bid for a monopoly; both have followed the recommendation made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester and the former headmaster of Brentwood School, as members of the Donaldson Commission, and both have argued the case for a choice of school at the age of 14 years. That recommendation may be an over-simplification. I must say I rather think it is; but before it is too late I ask the Government to heed the

1803
call for expansion and not contraction of educational opportunity.
This might be achieved by some sort of free choice at an age to be agreed with the local education authority. It could be achieved by entry of pupils into certain schools for specialist subjects, by reopening the direct grant list, on a purely fee remission basis alone, or by the introduction of some form of voucher system. Indeed, some of these arrangements are already working in some parts of the country and with good will they could be developed.
My Lords, none of this can be achieved if the Government first betray their true intentions by destroying the direct grant schools. I must say I am surprised that the Liberal Amendment does not recognise this. In the real world, where parents know what they want and are going to do their best to get it, it really is no answer for the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, to accept that all direct grant schools should "come within the comprehensive system", and to offer as a bromide preservation of enough boarding places. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Wade, what, after all, are the views on his Bench on the religious issue which is enshrined in the whole of this question? What does he think is going to happen to Bristol Cathedral School, or to the two Worcester schools, to Hereford and to Norwich? Who does he believe ought to fight for women's education? I hope that the noble Lord will explain why it is that parents of boarders only are to be considered under the Amendment. Doubtless, he will divulge how direct grant schools are to contribute from "within the comprehensive system" when, with the best of good will, most of them are none the less too small to accept pupils of all abilities.
I believe a variety of schools can continue to contribute to national education. In Government, the Conservative Party will restore the direct grant schools, so that they can make their contribution. I ask your Lordships to support that policy today, by voting for the Resolution which I now beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House condemns the Government's policy to end the present system of direct grant grammar schools and urges the Govern-
1804
ment to re-open the direct grant schools list.—(Lord Belstead.)
11.43 a.m.
Lord WADE Lord WADE rose to move, as an Amendment to the above Motion, To leave out all the words after "policy" and insert "of ending the present system of direct grant grammar schools in the present economic situation without making proper provision for boarding needs and without providing time for agreement on the contribution these schools could make within the comprehensive system. "The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this stage I beg to move the Liberal Amendment which stands in my name. If the Motion were amended, it would read as follows:
"That this House condemns the Government's policy of ending the present system of direct grant grammar schools in the present economic situation without making proper provision for boarding needs and without providing time for agreement on the contribution these schools"—
and may I make the point that the words "these schools" refer to direct grant schools and not only to boarding schools—
"could make within the comprehensive system".
I cannot accept the view that that is a bromide.
Any of your Lordships who studied the Order Paper up to late last night will be aware that the Amendment was put down in the name of my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Obviously, it would have been very appropriate that he should move this Amendment, as he is our spokesman on education and he opened the debate in this House on 26th March this year. But owing to the change in the order of Business, for which this House is in no way to blame, the debate has commenecd at an earlier hour than was anticipated, and my noble friend Lord Beaumont is not yet able to be present. So it has fallen to me, at a few hours' notice, to step into the breach. I am very happy to do so although, whenever the words "substitute speaker" and "stepping into the breach" are used, I always recall the remarks of a chairman introducing a substitute speaker. What he said was well-intentioned, but might have been better expressed. He said he was delighted to welcome Mr. So-and-So; he was grateful to Mr. So-and-So for coming

1805
at such short notice as a substitute, and he assured him that they would have been very willing to make do with a less distinguished speaker, but they could not find one.
The Amendment is intended to pinpoint timing, where the Government are so very much at fault and are undoubtedly causing much worry to many parents who are trying to make future plans for their children. By "timing" I am referring not to the total period of the phasing-out of the grant, but rather to the period for a decision in principle on the direct grant schools. This is undoubtedly too short, and allows little time for negotiations between the direct grant schools, LEAs and the Government. This is regrettable. As to parents, this is not just a case of snobbishness, although there is always some degree of snobbishness in society. In a number of cases, there are very real problems for parents anxious to do what is best for their children. Before proceeding on those lines, may I just put one or two general propositions?
In the long debates that have taken place in Parliament and in the country on the subject of selectivity and the comprehensive principle, there has been a tendency to assume that the choice is between one hard and fast system and another, between an imperfect mixed system and a theoretically perfect comprehensive system which will provide the ultimate solution. I think that the very words "ultimate" and "theoretically perfect" are misleading, since they imply that something is static, whereas the educational system is always changing and evolving. I believe that in 10 years' time many of the arguments now taking place will be out of date. I believe that the comprehensive principle is a step forward, and a necessary step forward, but already many faults have been found in the comprehensive schools. At the same time, it is only fair to say that many exciting experiments have taken place in some of the comprehensive schools, but all the time new ideas are coming up. One of the most marked has been the change of opinion about size. All this points to the need for avoiding hasty action without adequate regard for local circumstances and special cases. I know that anyone who says we should go more
1806
slowly is always open to the taunt that one does not move at all, but I must risk that taunt.
The second proposition I would put is that there is all the difference in the world between a new purpose-built comprehensive school, and taking two or three existing and often old schools, sometimes separated by a considerable distance, lumping them together and calling them a comprehensive school. Too often that has happened, and it is all the more serious when finance is insufficient. Even in the case of the new purpose-built comprehensive schools, there are problems. I know of one school in Yorkshire which had a very fine start owing to the inspiration of that great educationalist, Sir Alec Clegg. He was head of education in the West Riding of Yorkshire. Alas, owing to local government reorganisation, the West Riding has ceased to exist and we no longer have the benefit of Sir Alec Clegg, and the school I mention is beginning to show some signs of becoming tarnished and not living up to the original hopes. Therefore, I stress the point that time is essential to avoid the danger that comprehensive schools may fall into disrepute; and there are always those who are only too ready to knock the comprehensive school.
My third general observation is that some of this latest Government action may be self-defeating in the sense that direct grant schools, because they have to make such quick decisions, have decided, or are deciding, to become independent and wholly fee-paying, thus increasing the number of fee-paying children rather than the reverse. I should like to make a brief reference to independent and public schools, although they do not really come within the terms of this Motion. I went to Mill Hill School, and after the war it adopted the idea of accepting 20to 25 per cent. of boys from the local authority, from the Middlesex County Council. It worked very well and, so far as I am aware, the idea is still operating. Unfortunately, as your Lordships know, that concept was not accepted generally throughout the country, partly because of lack of enthusiasm of Governments and local authorities, but it might have provided a bridge between the public schools, the direct grant schools, and the State system. That, however, is past history.
It may be that I have an interest to declare as I am a Governor of a small independent public school, the Headmaster of which is a member of the Headmasters' Conference, but it is very much smaller than the average public school. It is completely independent, and was founded to assist the sons of Non-Conformist Ministers, when the father, by the nature of his job, moves about from one part of the country to another. I mention that merely to show that there are special cases—and I accept that there are special cases. There cannot be complete uniformity, and I am not sure that it is desirable that there should be complete uniformity. I do not want to see a situation where independent schools grow and expand for the wrong reasons; namely, because parents are forced to pay because, in their view, the alternative offers so much lower standards than they would wish to see for their children. I want to see the comprehensive schools flourish and given every opportunity to compete with any other school. But I think that that will be impossible if the policy is pushed ahead without adequate time and without adequate finance.
I am keeping to my theme of timing, but I want to say a word about boarding schools, and I repeat that I am sorry if the Amendment appears to be concerned only with boarders—it is not. It so happens that all my children went to public schools. Three of them are married and have children, and I find that none of them wishes to send any of the children to public schools or boarding schools of any kind. Whether that indicates a change of attitude, I do not know. Nevertheless, there are special cases. For example, where parents are working abroad there is a strong case for boarding schools, and not nearly enough time has been given to solving that problem within the State system. Is it to be left entirely to public schools, and a few private schools, or what?
May I say a word here about the impression which has been created as a consequence—perhaps not intentionally —of directing all the political warfare against direct grant schools, and matters arising from that issue, and apparently playing down the subject of the public schools. Some young people are very cynical about what they choose to call "the Establishment"—and that does not
1808
mean any one Party. They say, "The attitude of the Establishment is, 'Let us keep the public schools for our own children, and it does not matter what happens to the rest' ". That may be unfair, but I think there is a danger in concentrating excessive attention on the direct grant schools as a political issue. The complaints which have been made are, I believe, in many respects justified, but I do not want to see that degree of cynicism.
To conclude my comments on the Amendment, what I think is sad is that the aim of many in the postwar years, to bridge the gap between class and class, and between paying children and non-fee paying children, has not been achieved. What I fear is that, by the way in which the Government are handling this matter, they are indirectly widening the gap. It may be that all this can be explained by ideological arguments. There is nothing inherently wrong in an ideology, or in being guided by it, but my plea today on this subject of the direct grant schools is: please, a little less ideology and a little more thought for the practical problems of parents and their children. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, as an Amendment to the above Motion, To leave out all the words after "policy" and insert "of ending the present system of direct grant grammar schools in the present economic situation without making proper provision for boarding needs and without providing time for agreement on the contribution these schools could make within the comprehensive system."—(Lord Wade.)
12 noon.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Crowther-Hunt): My Lords, at this point I should like to do two things. The first is to say broadly and briefly why we are ending the system of direct grant schools, and the second is to say how we are setting about doing it. I should also like to set out the existing factual state of affairs as a background for our debate which will follow. I will not, therefore, at this point seek to answer specifically the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade. With the leave of the House, I will deal with those later on. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was kind

1809
enough to send me notice of some of the points he raised, and I am grateful for that.
The regulations which were laid before Parliament in the summer, and which the House of Commons recently decided not to annul, implement the plain and unmistakable undertaking in our Manifesto for the October 1974 General Election to put an end to the system of direct grant grammar schools. The Government's case for making this change is based on our belief that any form of selection for secondary education is wrong. We believe that it is wrong to segregate children in this way on the basis of academic ability and it is fair to say that our desire to get rid of the 11-plus examination has the support of the great majority of parents and educationists. We want to ensure that each child, whatever its home background, ability level, aptitudes or individual speed of development, is afforded the maximum opportunity to develop its own particular talents to the full. We are convinced that this can be achieved only through a fully comprehensive system of secondary education and we have consistently encouraged local education authorities to reorganise their schools along comprehensive lines. Their success in doing so and their acceptance of the principle of comprehensive schooling may be judged by the fact that already about 2,000 schools in England—roughly half of all the maintained schools—are comprehensive and cater for at least 60 per cent., perhaps even up to 75 per cent., of the nation's pupils, with the proportion rising steadily. We have asked local authorities to extend the benefits of comprehensive education and all but a handful of local education authorities are now working towards this end.
At a time when secondary education was organised wholly or mainly on selective lines, the direct grants schools had a valuable part to play and, like other Ministers. I freely acknowledge the distinguished contribution they have made. But times change and with a primary objective of comprehensive education in the maintained sector, it would be inconsistent with our policy to continue to subsidise selective education from public funds by direct grant to what are virtually independent schools taking away some of
1810
the academically ablest children who might otherwise attend comprehensives. The subsidy from public funds takes two forms. First, there is the capitation grant which the school receives in respect of each pupil in the school, irrespective of whether his fees are paid by the local authority or by his parents; and, secondly, there is the fee remission grant which reduces the contribution required from parents, on an income scale, and I will say a few words about each.
First, the capitation grant. Parents who believe that the education provided in a selective system is better than that provided in a comprehensive system, are of course at liberty to send their children to a non-maintained school. One alternative is an independent school, but hitherto the direct grant schools provided a more attractive alternative; they provide selective education on the cheap because their fees are kept down by the State capitation subsidy. All pupils at a direct grant grammar school rank for a capitation grant of £79 for each pupil to the school and each sixth former qualifies the school for £84 in addition to this. Thus, for each pupil, whatever his parents' income, the school receives between £79 and £163 to be set against the fees being charged. The total cost of this is over £10 million a year and it works out at an average grant of about £100 per pupil. If parents believe that the education provided in a selective school is better than in a maintained comprehensive, they are free to choose the former but they should not expect the rest of us to pay for their choice. Nor is it logical that we, with our belief in comprehensive education, should go on subsidising a selective system for a few in what is effectively the private sector.
The second form of subsidy is the remitted fees grant. As prices have risen over the years, so has the cost of this subsidy, which has this year risen to about £5 million. This grant is most objectionable in those areas of the country where there are vacant secondary places in maintained schools. In return for opting out of the maintained system, even where places are available, parents are rewarded with a fee reduction as well as the subsidy enjoyed by all parents of children at direct grant schools through the capitation grants. What this means is that someone earning as much as £9,000

1811
a year can obtain a subsidy through the fees remission scheme from the Government towards the cost of educating his child in what is essentially an independent school. I repeat that because it stresses one of the extraordinarily objectionable features of this system: that someone earning as much as £9,000 a year can obtain a subsidy through the fees remission scheme from the Government towards the cost of educating his child in what is essentially an independent school. This is in addition to the average subsidy of £100 per year to all parents through the capitation grant.
It has been argued that the direct grant schools provide opportunities for the academic development of the children of working-class families. My answer to that is three-fold. First, comprehensive education can adequately provide such opportunities. Secondly, the direct grant schools are not evenly distributed throughout the country, and even it it were true that they provided special opportunities, these opportunities are not open to all, not even for those who live within reach of direct grant schools; there is still the selection test for admission and the sense of failure for those who cannot pass it. Thirdly, the proportion of working-class children in direct grant schools does not lend very much weight anyway to this argument or to the one that claims that there is a good social mix in these schools. The last authoritative research into the social mix, the Donnison Report, found a heavy preponderance of professional and middle-class children in most direct grant schools. This was true even of children holding places taken up and paid for by LEAs; more than 60 per cent. of these children's fathers were in professional or managerial occupations. Although this research was undertaken some time ago, the position does not seem to have changed very much over the last eight years or so. In a debate in another place on 27th October, the honourable Member for Chelmsford said that in Manchester Grammar School, presumably as a result of a recent survey, only 8.1 per cent. of children were from homes of industrial workers and 2.4 per cent. of these children's fathers were in unskilled occupations. The plain fact is that these schools—like selective schools generally—have afforded much greater opportunities to children from homes where standards of comfort and
1812
culture are already high than to equally able children who, to gain admission, would have had to overcome the deficiencies of their home environment and often the indifference of their parents.
We have no wish to close these schools. On the contrary, we would welcome every direct grant school into the maintained system if they could all be sensibly organised along comprehensive lines. Those which do enter in this way will bring with them their traditions and standards which they will, we hope, retain in the same way as have hundreds of former grammar schools, county and voluntary alike, which have become comprehensive over the last ten years. I repeat: we do not want to see any direct grant school close; but if some of them cannot or will not make their standards and traditions available to the whole community as maintained comprehensive schools, they will have to manage without Government money as independent schools. As to the phase-out arrangements, contrary to certain suggestions made in your Lordships' debate on 26th March, the schools have been given until the end of this year to decide where their future lies. I do not think that they can claim to have had to make their decisions in a hurry. They have known for years that something on the lines of what we are doing was to be expected; they have had notice of our firm intentions since 11th March and of the detailed arrangements since 1st May. I understand that the majority of schools will be making up their minds at Governors' meetings being held this term.
We have had discussions with representatives of local authorities and with representatives of the schools and so far as possible we have met their wishes. The regulations contain provision for the settlement of capital debts, subject to certain conditions, of those schools proposing to enter the maintained sector and for the treatment of schools with substandard premises who want to come in. We have not been able to meet all of the detailed points put to us by the schools and somematters—such as the approval of fees in the situation as it will exist in the next academic year and arrangements to protect the interests of the staff of direct grant schools—are still being considered. We have tried, however, to be as helpful as possible, and we have always had in the forefront of our minds the need to protect

1813
the interests of the children at present in direct grant schools. They will be safeguarded. The schools which choose to join the maintained sector will continue to receive grant in respect of every pupil, present and future, on the present basis until their change of status. So far as possible we hope that LEAs will see that employees of the school, both teaching and non-teaching staff, will be found alternative employment if their services are no longer required; consideration is at present also being given to compensation for those for whom alternative employment cannot be found. For those schools which decide to become independent, the pupils at present in them will continue to enjoy direct grant privileges—the capitation fee, the fees remission scheme—so long as they remain at the school. So that except in the very few cases where a school may decide to close, there will be no need for any parent of such a child to worry that he will have to transfer to a different form of education as a result of the phasing-out of direct grant.
My Lords, our case for the ending of the direct grant system, then, rests on the Government's conviction and that of the majority of the people in this country that individuals can best achieve maximum development through a comprehensive system of secondary education. Against this background it would not be appropriate, in our view, to continue to subsidise selective education for a few who choose to regard this form of education as superior to that provided by the maintained schools. We are trying to carry out our policy of ending direct grants in a way which will cause a minimum of inconvenience to those pupils at present attending direct grant schools, and we have given the schools every encouragement to enter the maintained system where they can share their traditions with a wider public. We hope that those who have not yet made up their minds will take the time still available to them before the end of the year to think carefully about the Government's invitation. For those schools which choose not to enter the maintained system, so be it. And those parents who wish to buy this form of education in the future will still be able to do so, but they can no longer expect it to be subsidised from the public purse.
12.13 p.m.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, it is not an unusual experience for me to find myself in disagreement with those who have already spoken, and to find myself in disagreement with both sides of your Lordships' House. It seems to me there is a real danger of confusing a number of quite different topics within this debate. The argument which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, submits, that these are extremely good schools and should therefore not be abolished, has equal application to maintained grammar schools; it is an argument in favour of selection as distinct from comprehensiveness, but it has no particular relevance to the principle of direct grant. It is really the subject of another debate.
I recall that the position before the War—certainly before the passing of the 1944 Education Act, in which maintained grammar schools were entitled to charge fees, and indeed many of them did so—was precisely parallel to the position of direct grant schools. A proportion of pupils were admitted without charge; the remainder were admitted and if they were appropriate for admission to the school the parents paid a limited fee, again with provision for remission, and public funds provided the rest. This was a situation exactly parallel to the direct grant structure, the essential difference being that in one case the local authority provided the additional support, in the case of direct grant Central Government did. The 1944 Education Act embodied a new principle. It denied the principle which previously obtained. It set out quite clearly that no fees must be charged in maintained schools and, in particular, in maintained grammar schools. That principle, in my judgment, justified at that time the discontinuance of the direct grant system, which was precisely parallel, and indeed I said so in 1945. But the direct grant schools were continued.
In 1955, since the direct grant schools were continued, I felt it reasonable to put a proposal to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Conservative Government, Mr. Harold Macmillan. The proposition was that it seemed equally reasonable that parents who sent their children to independent schools should be allowed a limited claim against taxation in respect of a proportion of the

1815
fee, perhaps with some correspondence to the costs involved in maintained schools. Mr. Macmillan—I presume he was speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party at that time—rejected the proposition on principle, and he stated the principle with his usual clarity. In his judgment, the proposition was to opt in or opt out.
The facilities provided by the nation were available if parents desired to use them. If they did not, then it was entirely right, and indeed a matter of individual liberty, which I fully support, that they should be enabled to make private arrangements for the education of their children. But, if they did so, they must pay the full cost; it was quite wrong that public funds should contribute in that situation. On that principle the principle of direct grant schools cannot be defended. I have, therefore, complete sympathy with the Government as to the principle of discontinuing direct grant; I have had since the 1944 Act was passed. To that extent, I am necessarily in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I have a great deal of sympathy for much that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said, and I shall come to that in a moment.
Where I am profoundly in disagreement with Her Majesty's Government is in the timing of the application of that principle. I do not dissent from the principle, but I can think of no more inappropriate time to apply that principle than the present time. Circular 10/75 places on local authorities, and particularly on local education authorities, the obligation not to increase expenditure in real terms; indeed it goes further. It says that in the two subsequent years—1977–78 and 1978–79—the Government will look for further substantial economies. In that situation to apply the principle proposed of abolishing direct grant schools is placing deliberately an additional financial burden on local education authorities, and is in complete conflict with the policy set out in Circular 10/75.
It is difficult to estimate the precise increase in expenditure. Obviously no one knows how many of these schools will become independent; how many will opt into the maintained system; how many children will be affected. I place the immediate cost in the first year at about £10 million and I do not think
1816
that the Department would necessarily argue with that figure, though it might say that it would be only £9 million. To place deliberately additional expenditure on local education authorities, when education committees' estimates are being severely cut at the present time, seems to me administrative irresponsibility. Therefore, I plead with the Government not to depart from the principle that the time must come when the principle of direct grant must be discontinued, if there is to be coherence in the policy adumbrated in the 1944 Education Act; but they should not do it now.
Indeed, there are many things which should be done before then. The great doubts that are expressed about comprehensive schools seem to me largely to be concerned with a fear that they will not be able adequately to meet the needs of the most academically able children. The first need is surely to establish that comprehensive schools can satisfy that requirement. That means more resources. Let there be no doubt that at the present time—and for a substantial period yet—the resources are not, and will not be, available to design comprehensive schools properly for their purpose, to staff them adequately, or to organise them to meet that obligation. For let there be no doubt that there are major problems in organisation.
If one set a limit to the size of a comprehensive school of, say, 1,000—which would seem reasonable—I should have no doubt whatever that each of these schools would be unable to sustain a sixth form of adequate size to provide the necessary range of opportunity; therefore some other organisation will become necessary. As some of your Lordships may know, I hold the view that if the principle of comprehension is right, it could be carried into the 16- to 19-year-old age group and tertiary colleges established, which would offer not merely the full range of academic opportunity, but the full range of educational opportunity, including studies in technical, or commercial, or other fields, leading to qualifications other than those which are available in schools.
The first need, my Lords, is to prove, and I do not say that it cannot be proved but to establish, that comprehensive schools can indeed provide full opportunity for all children, of all ranges

1817
of ability, and of differing aptitudes. That is the first task; and it has not yet been fulfilled. There is a long way to go and very great resources will be necessary. Thereafter, by all means let us apply this principle and give the option, which is right and proper, for direct grant schools to come within the maintained system or to opt to become independent. But I am bound to advise the Government that to proceed to apply this principle now is fair neither to the children nor to local education authorities; nor indeed is it in the best interests of their policy. It could very well lead many, who may have some hope and faith that comprehensive schools are the best and the right solution—if properly designed and built, and properly organised—to reject that policy because of the implications it would have, because of the failure to meet needs which are now being met in the direct grant schools. Therefore, my concern is simple. I am bound to agree, as I have done for 30 years, with the policy, as a policy in principle. The timing of its application may be politically expedient, but in my opinion it would be educationally disastrous.
12.26 p.m.
Lord BUTLER of SAFFRON WALDEN: My Lords, I regret that recently I have not had an opportunity of speaking in your Lordships' House. I have been preoccupied on my visits to London with my Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders. I am only too glad to say that that Report is now published, and I will be able to have a little more leisure in London to attend your Lordships' House. This may be a great sorrow to your Lordships, but it will be a great pleasure to me.
I was very interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, because we have worked together in the past; and we are all very glad to have so distinguished an orator, of so much administrative experience, addressing us. But I regret to say that I agree with only part of his speech; namely, that it is rather cruel of the Government to impose this additional burden on the comprehensive system. I do not agree with that part of the noble Lord's speech which said that the direct grant schools should be abolished; nor do I believe—and the noble Lord knows
1818
all about this—that it was the object at the time of the introduction of the 1944 Act that the direct grant schools should be abolished. It was an integral part of my policy as Minister—I was then called President of the Board of Education—to include this reform among the other ones.
I was very glad to hear the Minister (who is well known for his knowledge of education) talking about equality of opportunity. We recently had a joyous speech at Cambridge by Mr. Hattersley in which he dismissed equality of opportunity; everything had to be equality. Thus he differed from Napoleon, and he differed from all the propagators of the French Revolution, and, evidently, from the Government themselves. Therefore it is a great relief to know that we are all agreed about equality of opportunity. I regard the direct grant schools as an absolutely integral part of equality of opportunity. The object of education is not to be the sole instrument of reform of the social structure—as the Government sometimes imagine—but to bring out the best in every child, and to give every child, according to its own and its parents' wishes (and here direct grant schools come in) the opportunity to make its way in the world. That is the object of the 1944 Act.
A few moments ago I saw the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, sitting opposite. I should like to pay a tribute to the Labour members of the Administration under Sir Winston Churchill, who supported me at that time. One of them was Arthur Greenwood. No man helped me more, no man more backed the Education Act, no man more backed the direct grant schools portion of it. Another most distinguished member of the Labour Movement—perhaps the most distinguished this century—Ernest Bevin, actually offered to resign the Foreign Office if I was not reinstated in my position after being defeated by the Tory Reform League on equal pay in the course of the education debate. Those were two stalwarts. But there is another stalwart sitting over there; and that is no less a person than the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. I well remember a situation in the corridor in the House of Commons when I was in the midst of dealing with this Act, when he came up to me, patted me on the back and said:
"You have my full support in going through with a policy of equality of opportunity."

1819
I am very glad to see the noble Lord sitting in his usual place today, and I am always very glad to hear his speeches.
The first point I want to make about the Act is that I asked Sir Granville Ram, the then Parliamentary draftsman (or what we call Parliamentary Counsel) to draft the Bill, and to draft it in such a way that, as an Act, it would last for at least a generation. It has lasted a generation, and there is no reason why the reforms which the Government wish to put through should not be put through under the general aegis of the Act. I do not regard the Government action in using Section 100(1)(b) of the 1944 Act as illegal. I do regard their action as being against the spirit of the 1944 Act. I have had the opportunity of discussing this Act and its potentiality with every Minister of Education since 1942—that is, myself, then Miss Ellen Wilkinson and every Minister since—but I have not yet had a chance to discuss it with the present Minister; so, perhaps, if an opportunity occurs, my poor and simple knowledge of education might be contrasted with his and I might be able to have a discussion with him or with the noble Lord. I should be happy in either case.
But I think that this action which has been taken is contrary to the spirit of Section 1 of the Act, which provides for a duty on the Secretary of State
"to promote the education of the people of England and Wales"
by, in particular,
"a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area".
Those words are in the Act. In the White Paper of 1943 I deliberately foresaw the comprehensive system. I said:
"There is no reason why the variety of secondary education should not be included under one roof and there is nothing in the comprehensive system which in my opinion is contrary to the spirit of the Act".
What I think will be extremely difficult—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill—is to impose on the comprehensive system a half-baked idea of amalgamating direct grant schools in a great hurry and in the present financial situation. Personally, I do not think it will work, and in that I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken.
Not only is the Government's action contrary to Section 1; it is also contrary
1820
to Section 36, which imposes a duty on parents to cause their child
"to receive efficient full-time education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude…".
That is precisely where the direct grant schools come in. It is also contrary to Section 76, which says that in the exercise of all powers and duties under the Act it is the duty of the Secretary of State to
"have regard to the general principle that, so far as is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents".
That section, Section 76, has, alas!, been forgotten, not only by many of your Lordships but by the country as a whole, and the sooner we get back to remembering that that was the original idea, backed by a Coalition Government, by myself, by Mr. Chuter Ede, by the noble Lords I have mentioned and by others in the Labour Movement, the better.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has asked one or two questions, and I want to add mine. Some of them have been answered already in the speech of the noble Lord the Minister. Will pupils in the schools be able to continue the course of study which they arc undergoing? I believe that to be the case. Will fees continue to be paid during the tenure of place by the present pupils? I do not think that is quite clear, because I believe the fees will stop at the date the schools stop. What arrangements will be made for displaced staff? That question has not yet been answered, and will be answered later. What will be the cost? Miss Lestor, in another place, has given a great variety of estimates of the cost, and I have never heard a sane or reliable one up to date. Perhaps this debate will produce some idea of the cost. Lastly, how many schools will be closed? What I think is rather typical of this Administration is that this action of theirs in proposing to close the direct grant schools will be counter-productive. My own information—and I travel about the country a good deal on educational matters—is that at least half, and possibly 100, will go independent. This will therefore produce an even greater gulf than exists at present, and instead of there being a bridge you will find that the result of these 100 or so schools going independent will be divisive and counter-productive of what the Government really want. If, during this debate, the Minister can give us a figure

1821
of how many he thinks will go independent, we shall be very grateful to him.
I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, mentioned The Times Educational Supplement. I have also read this document regularly. There was a very damaging article by Mr. Maclure, who was mentioned by the noble Lord, in The Times Educational Supplement of 18th April. He criticised the comprehensive system. Unlike Mr. Mulley, the Minister, who has been to America, he regards the American system as having not proved itself yet. I believe that to be the truth, and I believe it also to be the truth that the British system has not proved itself yet, either. What the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said is perfectly correct: that if you push together a variety of schools separated by some distance or another you cannot get the same result by way of a comprehensive school as you can from a compact, special-built school.
I am gratified by the shortness of the speeches in your Lordships' House, but before concluding may I sum up the points in favour of retaining the direct grant system. These schools provide an invaluable and necessary bridge between the independent and the maintained sectors. They are a contribution to the variety of schools, and enable parents to have an element of choice in the education of their children. They are probably—and this is a phrase used often by the Secretary of State in a Labour Government—the most socially-integrated schools in the country. They are centres of academic excellence. No less than 32 per cent. of direct grant schools have leavers going to university places, as compared with only 20 per cent. in the independent sector—the independent sector, my Lords, with all the marvellous teaching which is given there! Then, 32 per cent. of the children go on to other forms of education as well, with the result that there are no schools in the country which have such an academic excellence.
I am Master of a very large institution which is completely open in its entry. We have people from every sort of school, and I am glad to say that we are beginning to take in comprehensive school boys and shall shortly be beginning to take in comprehensive school girls. But
1822
what I should like to point out is that by far the most academically suited to our extremely high standard at Trinity College are those who come from direct grant schools—and that is more true of Cambridge as a whole than it is of my college. We find that the standard of excellence is unbeaten by any other form of education in this country; and although we may talk about equality, surely for a moment or two today we could talk about quality, because without quality this country is ruined. We have a terrible import situation. Our only real riches are our talent, our wealth and our skill. For goodness sake do not destroy any schools which have such high academic records as the direct grant schools.
I follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said about boarding. When I was Minister of Education, what to do about boarding was always a great problem for me. Some 9,000 places are provided in the direct grant system. Where else are they going to be provided? These schools make a special contribution to girls' education, and when I study the position of girls' education up and down the country I am very distressed to find a comparative lack of standards in the pool of girls available to go to higher education. These schools provide higher education for girls at a moment when we very much want that education to be encouraged. Lastly, these schools save public money, because many parents pay fees, which amounted to just over £10 million in 1974.
For all those reasons, I would ask you to support the Resolution moved by my noble friend Lord Belstead. Owing to your Lordships' preoccupation with other matters in which I have not been engaged, there has not been a chance to have this debate earlier, so it is a little late, and it is perhaps rather late to talk about prayers. However, at memorial and funeral services it is often the case that a prayer by John Donne is used and I should like to make a parody of that to conclude my speech on this sad occasion:
"Instead of a search for quality,
We are to have a drab equality.
Instead of a search for skill,
We are to have a dull conformity.
Instead of independence,
We are to have a condoned uniformity."
That is the sad prayer I would utter and I ask the Government to reconsider their decision and to let these schools continue.
12.41 p.m.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I feel somewhat daunted but very privileged to have a walk-on part in the star-studded cast of this debate. However, I welcome this opportunity as another chance for us to thresh out the differences that exist between us and to try to understand each other's point of view, because, so far, despite a list of brilliant speakers including the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, I still feel that the gap is almost unbridgeable. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, took an extreme point of view and I deplore the terms in which he put down his Motion. He simply went through a great deal of out-dated propaganda put out by the Conservatives which is now no longer true. It seemed to me that he supported those in the Conservative Party whose attachment to the vestiges of privilege amounts to an addiction.
My noble friend Lord Crowther-Hunt has given us some of the statistics, and I shall try not to repeat them, but we are speaking of 104,000 children in direct grant schools and 10 million in maintained schools. That is in the public sector. That puts the size of our education needs and problems into its proper perspective. In the 170 direct grant schools, children obtain, as has already been said, the equivalent of an independent school education at less than the actual cost. The difference is made up by local and national taxpayers. The cost of the direct grant schools is twice as much for the taxpayers as it is for the parents. I am very confused by all the different figures which are put forward, but I read that the Education Minister, Mr. Mulley, had said in the Commons that he reckoned that he could save about £30 million if the proposed changes were instituted.
The important and central issue in education is, I maintain, not just economic. It is not just a question either of saving or of spending. We really need to spend far more on education today than we have ever spent in the past. The importance turns on mobilising the means for expanding and spreading more opportunities towards more equality or equality of opportunity—call it what you like. We know what we mean by this. The tripartite system of education in this
1824
country is not only out-of-date but, because it is socially so divisive it wastes talent and reduces potential in the majority of children. We are still regarded as a class-ridden society and a class-ridden country. A few weeks ago, I heard on the radio that Chancellor Schmidt of the Federal German Republic thought that one of the reasons for our industrial difficulties is that class distinction is still so prevalent in this country.
The direct grant schools have done a very good job. We all know that and we do not wish to say otherwise. They have attained an academic standard of excellence we can all acknowledge and praise. The Conservative Party has claimed the credit for this—I do not quite know why—and has been leading the propaganda in favour of these schools. At the same time, it has been denigrating comprehensive education and comprehensive schools. We all know that there are good and bad schools of all kinds. I used to go round the country with my husband and for my husband to speak we visited comprehensive schools, secondary modern schools and every kind of school, though we did not go over some of the public schools. There are good and bad schools of all types. Slowly, however, the arguments and statistics which have been put forward are beginning to be shown to be false when people use them to defend the direct grant schools. We now know that the bulk of the direct grant does not help poorer parents. Quite the contrary. It simply reduces the fees paid by better-off parents. The idea that direct grant schools have a wide social mix is disproved by the facts and the Conservatives have been standing these facts on their heads. Children from unskilled and semi-skilled backgrounds attending direct grant schools amount to only one in 13. In Manchester, the home of the most famous direct grant school in the country and probably in the world, 55 per cent. of the population have skilled or unskilled jobs. In that most famous school only 8 per cent. of the pupils are the children of working-class parents.
It has been established for some years that our tripartite system of education puts many of our children at an educational disadvantage. Noble Lords need not take my word for it; they need look only to Plowden, Newsome, Crowther and many others and they will see from

1825
the reports in question that what I have said is true. These experts have been pleading for positive discrimination in favour of schools where there is educational privation and where the need is greatest. It is to these schools that we have to turn our attention. We need not worry so much either about the direct-grant schools or the independent schools. If people want private, independent education, they must pay for it and they should not receive anything off the rates or from the taxpayers. We in the Labour Party really believe in equality of opportunity and particularly in education. It is an article of faith with us and we want to see a real shift in the priorities in education. This is crucial at a time when our resources are at a low ebb. Despite feeling complete sympathy with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, when he suggested that now we have so few resources we ought to keep the old system going I fear that that was where I parted company with him completely; because it is just at this time when resources are few, when we need more education for more people, that a change, however difficult, must be brought about. This is what the scientific and technological age demands from all of us.
The separation that sprang from selection at 11-plus was inimical to the changes required by our industrial society and, in any case, no change is painless when it comes to education or when it comes to the industrial parts of our society. We have a very complex society and we have a long way to go before we are satisfied and can place our education system so as to reduce the divisions in the educational system.
When resources are scarce in education there are no panaceas and we have to make sure of the priorities. That is what we have to stress. We should constantly review the share of our national resources that we allocate to education; we might do something about that. Technical progress requires an increasing number and proportion of trained and skilled manpower and women power. Few can believe that there are not still untapped reserves in our society among our children. We owe a duty to educate all of our children, not just a few.
The private sector is still the most divisive element in education. We have
1826
arrived at a position where social divisions poison relationships between different groups in our society and cause stress and strikes and even lead to violence. I would not outlaw the independent schools; but, as I say, I do not support cut-price educational establishments with relief from the rates. As for the Conservative Party's pledge to reopen direct grant schools if they come to power, they would be heading for trouble if they stopped the progress towards a nonselective system of secondary education and prevented the comprehensive system from being improved and made to work properly.
Looking round the world, people seem to be blind to the need for spreading more educational excellence instead of maintaining a hit more privilege. Finally, my Lords, we speak of investing in our children. Does that mean that we have to invest in very few of our children, when investment should go as much as possible to as many as possible?
12.54 p.m.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: My Lords, I shall speak as briefly as possible about this subject. That is not because I do not care about it deeply, because there are few subjects that I care more deeply about: nor is it because I do not think it is important, for it is. It raises issues that go far beyond the fate of a limited number of schools or of a hundred thousand pupils. The noble Baroness who has just spoken seemed to think that 100,000 is a small number of children. I think it is quite a lot. It raises issues of the reconciliation of quality and liberty and of the importance of intellectual excellence, and of the opportunities which we ought to provide for the young people on whom our future largely depends. I shall not say much partly because virtually everything that can be said has been said at one time or another, and, this morning, by people with greater knowledge and eloquence than mine. But, partly, one fears, too, that whatever the arguments one deploys they will not affect the issue; for it is decided.
Yet at the risk of repeating oneself and others, something must be said at best to try to find some kind of saving compromise between apparently irreconcilable positions, or at least to emphasise yet again the significance of what is happening; because I do not think people

1827
who are not "in the trade"—if I may put it that way always realise the precise effects of what has been decided over the past few weeks. Also one must say something because one owes some response to all the parents and teachers who have written, often so movingly, to enlist one's help. Like many of your Lordships, I have received over the past few weeks dozens of letters asking that the opportunities now open to children should not be removed. It would be wrong to answer by saying that we have said it all before, that we have fought and lost and to leave it at that.
My Lords, let me summarise in a few sentences what is happening today and how what is happening today appears to one who has spent his whole life in education; this will be familiar to a number of your Lordships. We have a number of schools within the State system—do not let us forget that—that are accessible to any boy or girl who is qualified by ability to enter them, irrespective of their parents' income or social position. They have over the years increasingly come to discharge a particular and vital function by providing an education of high academic standard. Their organisation, their buildings—incidentally, they paid for those buildings—and, above all, their staffs are designed for that purpose. A number of them provide boarding places (which as we have heard are all too few elsewhere within the State system) and because they bring together many of those with special academic aptitudes and abilities over wider areas than most schools, they can offer opportunities to study minority subjects such as Greek and advanced mathematics that it would be impossibly absurd and uneconomic to provide otherwise.
Further, because in large cities they are not neighbourhood schools, they provide unusual and often unique opportunities for social mixing. They include an unusually high proportion of good schools, in the widest sense of that term, schools that have been held up by foreign observers as almost unique examples of a reconciliation between democratic accessibility and excellence. They are not the only such schools. There are others, voluntary-aided and maintained schools which fall outside the scope of this debate but which often share their achievements and their reputation and, today, share the
1828
threat which has become a reality. The threat is simply that of destruction of their essential character. There is no use in answering that they are not being destroyed but merely altered by becoming part of a provision of secondary education which, by Government edict, is to become universally and uniformly non-selective, whatever the local circumstances or the local desires.
Yet such an imposed uniformity is in many cases equivalent to destruction. Consider, for example, a school of 600, one of the best girls' schools of its kind in the country, distinguished by the size and quality of its sixth form, which is told that it must become an all-ability school for children from between 11 and 16 and that the staff will be retrained for their new tasks. Can one imagine a more ludicrous waste of a very scarce resource? We know that something of this kind will not always happen; that the schools will go independent. But to some of us this is, in itself, a kind of destruction. It is a destruction of what to many of us was at the heart of our work; the principle that led us to prefer to stay in that kind of school rather than to move to the independent sector; the principle that our schools were not for the well-off, not for those who could afford fees, but for all who could profit from the kind of education which they needed and which we could provide.
At this moment in our history when we are striving to increase opportunity, to open doors rather than to close them, when we are simultaneously facing an economic and social crisis that threatens our very existence as a civilised democracy, why are we forcing through changes in our educational system by the will of a minority of our citizens, and in opposition to the majority of teachers in every kind of school? Is it to save money? Well, in our present circumstances that would, at any rate, make sense; it would be comprehensible, if short-sighted. It has been pointed out this morning that it is as yet difficult to draw up an accurate balance sheet. But there is much evidence to suggest that these changes, particularly in areas like the North-West where there are many direct grant schools, will impose a considerable burden on the taxpayer, and still more on the ratepayer, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, who knows more than almost

1829
anyone about local authority finance regarding education. After all, if one removes 100 schools, with their laboratories, gymnasia and workshops from the State system to the independent sector, one has to create others or impoverish our resources. If local authorities have to buy places in independent schools to maintain their provision of secondary places, as some undoubtedly will, what happens to their budgets at a time of nil growth? The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, has told us.
But it is not, and could not be, economy that prompts these changes. It is rather in the first place this vague but strong belief that they are privileged and middle class schools. What a muddled argument that is! —an argument that arises because they are usually lumped in with the independent schools, although their methods of recruitment are totally different. In what way are they privileged? Their staffing ratios are no better than other schools; their salaries are no higher. But what of their class structure? It is true the unskilled working class is "unrepresented"—whatever that means. But that is not the will of the schools, many of which fall over backwards to make their selection as independent as maybe of social background. It is the result of deep social forces and it is disingenuous not to admit that the poorest backgrounds are under-represented in any institution recruited by intellectual performance, whether it be the universities or sixth forms of comprehensive schools or, if it comes to that, to the Cabinet itself. We must not talk as though the direct grant schools selected boys from middle-class homes. It is the last thing they would do. The remedy, if there is one, lies not in destroying what opportunities there are, but in the endless struggle to improve the social circumstances of all our citizens. If the unskilled are under-represented, let us not forget the great numbers of those from homes which could not conceivably afford fees, which could not be called privileged or comfortable: the clerks, the workers in the lower ranks of local government, the technicians, and some teachers, too, whose children form such a large proportion of those in many direct grant schools. It is those that we are going to exclude and deprive.
1830
I have said I have received dozens of letters from parents, and I know that that is true of many other noble Lords. I wish that those of your Lordships who persist in labelling these schools as middle class would look at some of those letters and ask whether they come from middle class homes. If they do, the word has lost any meaning it ever had. But most important of all in the suggestion in the campaign against these schools, is that they are selective, not by money, not by neighbourhood, not by class, but by ability. It is a commentary on our society—and perhaps one reason for our decline—that selection by intellectual ability should be, of all kinds of selection, the most profoundly distasteful to so many people of good will.
I have discussed selection before in your Lordships' House and I will not do so again. I will simply say this: I believe that much of the odium attached to the phrase "11-plus"has rubbed off on to the whole idea of academic selection and, in particular, to the direct grant schools. I should imagine that none of your Lordships is really opposed to some kind of selective education. After all, the Government themselves admit the necessity for early selection for those gifted in ballet and music and, increasingly, in sport. Noble Lords of all Parties demonstrate that they are not opposed to selection as such by very often, and quite properly, sending their own children to highly selective schools. It is largely the comprehensible and humane dislike of an irrevocable and impersonal decision at an early age—an idea that in practice is now largely out of date—that leads to this willingness, even this desire, to destroy so many good schools.
This leads me to my last and most important point. It seems to me that we have reached an altogether lamentable and unnecessary position. The Government are committed to abolish the 11-plus. But cannot that obligation be honoured without taking a course that will in effect, if not in intention, at the present time restrict opportunity and impoverish our educational provision? We all know that many of their own supporters are deeply disturbed about what is happening. This should not be a Party matter. It is a matter affecting the lives of thousands of children, and also it is

1831
affecting our national prosperity, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, pointed out. It is a conflict to which people of knowledge and good will should—indeed must—be able to find a solution.
The truth is that the direct grant schools have never really been properly examined in complete isolation from the different problems of the independent schools. They have borne the stigma of being regarded as privileged on the one hand, and that of the hated 11-plus on the other. It cannot be too late for us, in a way that we have not accepted before, to examine their place in the whole changing educational system as schools fulfilling a particular and necessary function.
That they are selective schools is admittedly of their very nature. But a belief in selection does not mean acceptance of 10 or 11 or 12 as the appropriate or only age. It might be that a cool and expert examination would recommend new and flexible methods of selection, perhaps at a variety of ages. It might well involve a different relationship with local authorities. It could be that it would recommend the elimination of preparatory departments, as I did myself at Manchester. It could be that such an examination would show that the existence of some such schools would actually strengthen a general pattern of comprehensive education by removing one of the greatest difficulties of those schools, the problem of dealing with the very gifted child. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, raise that particular point, which is far too seldom made.
I believe that if we looked afresh at the nature and contribution of these schools, not in terms of slogans or sentiment or preconceptions, then we should find it at the present time in the national interest to preserve them in one form or another. Simply to abolish, without further detailed thought, with no examination of varying local circumstances, some of our best schools, or to drive them into an unwilling independence, is surely an act of doctrinaire vandalism unworthy of those proposing to do it. But to say that, without withdrawing their pledge to abolish the 11-plus, they will re-examine how best the undoubted qualities and the
1832
unquestioned contribution of these schools can be preserved and extended, would be an act of conciliation and statesmanship. Is it too late to ask now for such an act?
1.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of WAKEFIELD: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long, because so much of what might be said about this subject has already been said. I should like to say how much I regret that there seems to be about this issue an element of a class war. This constant harking back to middle, upper and lower class, the suggestion that we, of all places in Europe, are class ridden, I cannot accept. I have now lived for many years and I do not see signs of this class war. In the last 30 or 40 years, I have seen a wonderful reduction in the barriers between those whom we say are in one class or another. I wonder when one stops being working class, and starts being another class. These words are so easily bandied about in a semi-political way, but I do not think this issue is political. We are concerned about young people, and about the best possible education for them. So often when we get into assemblies of this kind, we forget that our real concern is for young people. Very often we tend to get lost in a kind of political bickering, when it is the young who are at the receiving end.
I personally have a great admiration for comprehensive schools. I have a number of them in my own diocese which I visit. When they have been designed and built from the ground as a comprehensive unit, I have nothing but praise for them. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about various units here, there, and everywhere, simply being designated as a comprehensive school. I have in my diocese at least two excellent direct grant schools, and I must say that the proportion of children in those schools from areas in which the main industry is mining is very high indeed—much higher, I should have thought, than the national average. I am in close contact with the products of this system and I see their academic excellence. As I see these young people going out from those schools, I am bound to ask myself: can the nation afford to lose this stream of young men and women going out with such obviously high

1833
standards of academic excellence? I do not think it can.
For that reason, I support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, which is before the House today. We know it is too late, but perhaps the expressions of opinion of your Lordships might cause the Government to think again about this subject. A number of my brother Prelates would have been here today, were they not engaged in another legislative assembly not more than 200 yards away. Many of them will be concerned with our Church schools, some of which are direct grant schools, and we would venture to speak also on behalf of the many Roman Catholic schools which will find the withdrawal of a direct grant a great hardship. It is for those reasons that I support the Motion put by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
1.14 p.m.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, this debate shows how vain it is to try to keep politics out of education. Society, acting through Parliament, shapes the system of education and the system of education shapes society. That is what politics is about—the structure of society—and right honourable ladies and gentlemen in another place will always be tinkering with the system of education, trying to keep it in step with the kind of society which they describe in their Manifestos.
It is the same all over the world. Wherever one looks, one sees political principles conditioning the schools. In the United States, the schools have always been used as a melting pot in which the children of immigrants learn to be Americans. In Communist countries, as I hope the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Southwark knows, the child is taught to serve the Party and the State, and no other god. And yet in this country we often say, and often wish, that education should be taken out of politics. My Lords, we cannot say that any more. The Labour Government's determination to destroy the direct grant and grammar schools compels us to reconsider the politics of education, and perhaps I might preface my remarks with some reflections on that underlying issue.
After the war and the passing of the 1944 Education Act, which was the work both of my noble friend Lord Butler
1834
of Saffron Walden, and of the late Mr. Chuter Ede, the political aim of British education was more or less agreed. We wanted to strengthen the unity of the nation, sharing and spreading culture throughout the length and breadth of the land and opening up opportunity for all children. It was quite clear at the time of the passing of the Act, that both Parties saw that that aim required that the maintained schools and the independent schools should be brought closer together. I think we realised—and here I agree with the Party opposite—that the pre-War education system had helped to keep society divided. Therefore, the urgent practical question was how the schools could best be reorganised to overcome that division. As your Lordships know, there were only two ways in which this could be done—either by levelling up or by levelling down. Sad to say, the political Parties. while agreeing about the aim, could not agree upon the method. They chose opposite ways of bringing the two systems closer together.
My Party made vast new resources available for education, in the confident hope that the standards in the maintained schools would rise so fast that those parents who could afford fees would soon have little reason to prefer an independent school on educational grounds. Of course, they might prefer a boarding school to a day school, or one with a special bias, be it religious or academic: or they might choose a school for health reasons. That, we thought, was implicit in the status of the family in a free society. We believe that to allow a family to spend money on a motor car or a holiday abroad, but not on the education of their children, would be to put politics in front of people—and that is precisely what the Government are doing in this case of the direct grant schools. Our policy was to keep the choices and options open for parents, while at the same time making as sure as we could that children would have as good a preparation for passing exams in the maintained schools as in the direct grant and independent schools.
My Lords, I have to admit that progress in levelling up was slower than we had expected, and it was for reasons beyond anyone's control. It was numbers that defeated us: numbers and movement

1835
of children about the country. It followed that the supply of teachers had to he increased faster than was compatible with the improvement of standards. Secondly, our permissive generation began to behave in ways that brought problems of discipline into the schools much more damaging to educational progress than any of us had foreseen. These difficulties did not pass unnoticed by the levellers-down. They began to say that if the maintained system, and in particular the comprehensive schools, could not do better, then one reason must be the continued attraction of the independent and direct grant schools; let these and all the grammar schools be destroyed and then the comparison could no longer be made. That, my Lords, is the main reason why we are having this debate today.
Unfortunately, the category of independent schools, or if you like semi-independent schools, easiest to destroy is the direct grant schools because the Secretary of State can sign an order for their execution and does not need to come to Parliament for a new Act. I say "unfortunately" because in the direct grant schools we have a working model of a well-designed bridge between the two systems. These schools face both ways: they look towards the independent schools and they look towards the local authorities. They keep open the road along which from both ends the two systems can meet and work together. But now, by forcing the direct grant schools to choose between independence outside or comprehension inside the maintained system, the Secretary of State cuts the link and sharpens the divisions in our society. He outrages thousands of parents whose concern for their children's future the Government treat with shameless contempt. He puts at risk the quality of sixth form education and, as I shall show in a minute, he may intend to undermine the religious character of many aided schools.
The standards of education will be damaged in more than one way. The clever children—we have heard this from noble Lords already—are bound to suffer because it will be impossible to re-create the sixth forms in quality and in spread of subjects in the new, small, botched comprehensives. Perhaps an even greater weakness will be in the education of able children in the years before they reach
1836
the sixth form. The idea that most of these children can learn as fast and give of their best in classes of mixed ability is rejected by experienced teachers—by all the experienced teachers I have spoken to, except those with an obvious political axe to grind.
In passing, I would ask your Lordships to realise that many graduate teachers who have given splendid service to the direct grant and grammar schools are unwilling to transfer to a comprehensive. Why is this? It has little or nothing to do with political bias. Their reluctance is a compound of experience and temperament. They feel they could not cope with the disciplinary and teaching problems in classes of mixed ability. They hear from their friends in the profession what conditions are like in other schools and they are now applying in markedly increased numbers for sixth form vacancies in the independent schools. If the Secretary of State has any doubt about that, let him make his own inquiries and publish the facts for all to know.
This reluctance to transfer will increase the weakness of the sixth forms in the comprehensives and widen the educational gap between the two systems. This will affect the able children coming from poorer families—and that for a reason that is only now becoming apparent. The staffs of many comprehensives—and all credit to them—are deeply concerned that in examination results their schools should not fall far behind the independent, direct grant and grammar schools. The senior staff are therefore concentrating upon the minority of pupils who might obtain "O" and "A" levels. That is good in itself, but inevitably it involves some neglect of the less gifted children who constitute so great a teaching problem in the very large comprehensives.
Just how much damage is being done to the lower forms in the comprehensives it is impossible for anyone outside the Department to say. So I would ask the Secretary of State to order a survey of all comprehensives so that we can know to what extent the sixth forms are unacceptably weak; to what extent the senior staff are concentrating on sixth forms to the detriment of the average child; and to what extent both these distortions are to be found in one and the same school. Ratepayers, taxpayers and parents, not to

1837
mention your Lordships and Members of another place, ought to be told these facts.
Now I turn for a moment to the religious character of those direct grant schools and aided grammar schools which are being forced to become comprehensive. I assume that these schools which are now religious foundations, can opt to become aided comprehensives. Then arises the question: will all the rights of the managers be preserved intact when the new aided comprehensives come into being? I am going to give your Lordships three examples although I am well aware there are others which are equally significant. First, assuming that the majority of the managers will still be nominated by the Church, be it Anglican or Catholic, will they have full powers to appoint the head teacher? Secondly, will the head teacher still have the right to interview children for admission and give preference to those whose parents express a wish for a denominational school? Thirdly, will the managers retain the right, which is essential to the character of the school, to recruit over an area wider than their immediate neighbourhood; that is, to recruit over an area defined by themselves and not by the local authority? I have to ask for an assurance that these rights are not going to be whittled away. Some local authorities are already hinting that the admission procedures will have to be modified. Of course, the game is to get these schools into the comprehensive box and then to start taking away their legal rights.
However, it appears that certain local authorities—whether they are egged on by the Secretary of State I do not know, and I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, to tell us—want the head teachers of the ex-direct grant and aided grammar schools to accept without demur lists of what they call a balanced intake of pupils. These lists will be prepared and handed out by the local authority, and if the head teacher is allowed to interview at all it will be only children on the list. It is most unlikely that these lists will include all the children of parents known to the school who want religious background for their children; for example, the children of past members of the school who may not be living in the immediate neighbour-
1838
hood. This simply will not do. Your Lordships will see how the denominational value of these schools could be undermined by restricting the intake to a small area, and to lists provided by the local authority, and by twisting the arms of the managers every time they wished to reject the advice—"advice"is the local authority word—that comes to them from county hall. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate is no longer with us. I doubt whether the Anglican Church realises how serious could be the threat which Socialist-controlled authorities are holding over the new aided comprehensives.
I do not think that I need to tell right reverend Prelates that the parents of children at direct grant and aided grammar schools, supported by militant groups of old members of the schools, are far from satisfied that the Church of England has fought hard enough to save her best schools. I was much heartened by what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield had to say, and I look forward very much to what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester will shortly be telling your Lordships.
My Lords, I have taken up too much time, so may I sum up my argument as follows? The hasty and politically motivated destruction of the direct grant and grammar schools will lower the standards of British education and widen the division between the independent and the maintained schools, at a time when we ought to be raising the first and overcoming the second. I shall support the Motion which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Belstead if the matter is pressed to a Division.
1.32 p.m.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very pleased indeed to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, because he has raised a number of issues that serve as an introduction to my remarks. Therefore, I think that I can shorten them. He was quite right when he said that education is a matter of politics. We ought to remember that when the order went before the elected representatives of the people in another place it was approved. It is the vote, not merely the total of the Members who voted,

1839
which ought to be taken into consideration. Only Conservatives opposed the order. It was supported by Liberals, Welsh Nationalists and the Northern Ireland Social Democratic Labour Party. If they were truly representative of their electors, that would represent 16½ million voters in this country apart from Scotland. Therefore, there is general support for what the Government are doing by introducing this order.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Gaitskell for bringing out so clearly another point that I was going to dwell upon; namely, the bad consequences of the selective system for the mass of children in this country. We must abolish it and I am glad that it is being abolished. I am sure that even noble Lords on the other side of the House will no longer continue to defend a selective system for the general run of children in this country, regarding those who happen to pass the 11-plus as successful children and those who do not pass it as failures. Whether they are potentially good or bad academically has nothing to do with the examination; it has got everything to do with the places in the schools that are open to them if they pass the 11-plus. The great majority of youngsters in this country who were labelled as failures at the age of 11 were quite as good and competent as those who were given places in the schools for which the examination was set. They did not get into those schools simply because there were no places for them. Surely we must look at the deprived majority rather than at the successful minority.
I should like to make a personal point. When the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, opened this debate, he looked at the list of speakers and said that some Members of your Lordships' House who are here today must have been to direct grant schools. I do not know into which category of schooling the noble Lord would put me, but mine finished at the age of 14 in what was known in those days as an elementary school. As a result of that kind of experience, I have some regard for those children who are deprived of a good education when they possess the ability to benefit from it. The views which have been expressed during the debate about this country's educational system bear no relation at all to the kind of system I know. I do not mean the old-
1840
fashioned elementary schools. For instance, we are told that there are opportunities for children generally if they possess the ability to go to direct grant schools; but there are very large areas of this country with no direct grant schools. So what happens to the children of ability in those areas?
May I deal with some of the very questionable views which have been put forward by looking at what I believe to be the first major local authority to go fully comprehensive. It has been fully comprehensive for five years. That means that the youngsters who are now leaving the fifth and sixth forms have been educated entirely within the comprehensive system. Many of the prejudiced views which have been put forward about comprehensive education fall down completely when one looks at the results. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, made the very good suggestion that we should make a careful examination of what these comprehensive schools are doing. The evidence is there. Such a survey has been carried out in Sheffield, not by the local education authority, although it had got the information, but by educationists. The results were outstanding and extremely encouraging.
The problem that we face is not whether we can continue to provide places for 100,000 children in direct grant schools, but whether we can continue to provide them when we have a fully comprehensive system. From my own background and this experience in Sheffield I am quite convinced that one cannot have existing side by side a selective and a non-selective system. They are contradictory. Since the non-selective system will be the comprehensive system to which 90 per cent. or more of the children will go, it is that which we must look at. We must look at the question fairly and without prejudice and ask ourselves whether we can infuse into that kind of system the selective element of the direct grant schools. It just will not work.
Let me say a few words about Sheffield. Sheffield began to move towards a completely comprehensive system 10 or 15 years ago when they provided two large, purpose-built comprehensive schools. They were experimental. As a result of the experience of those comprehensive schools, and particularly of the experience of the very good grammar schools

1841
in Sheffield, the local authority, with the full support of the teachers in all of the schools, went wholly comprehensive. Some 50 schools are now brought together to form 31 comprehensive schools, and I am sure the noble Viscount will be pleased to know that the Roman Catholic schools have come in, too. They have gone comprehensive without any trouble whatsoever and they will happily be part of the city's comprehensive system.
If we are speaking about numbers, there are just over 107,000 school-children in the city of Sheffield, so that we have plenty of children to consider. There are 31 comprehensive schools of all shapes and sizes, with a great deal of autonomy being given to the headmasters and their staff and to the governors. We make sure that industrialists and professional people arc represented on the boards of governors, which is a point I will come to again in a moment. What the comprehensive system has done over the last five years in Sheffield has been to give every child a full opportunity to develop his or her potential, free to choose the subjects they wish to follow and which arc best suited to their talents, and free to pursue their education without any artificial barriers of segregation and selection. There are, of course, university and other examinations at the end, and tests of progress throughout, but those tests of progress do not prevent anybody going ahead. There is no division between successes and failures; they go ahead to pursue the courses that they want to pursue and the results are extremely encouraging.
I will give one or two figures. In the five years of these schools going fully comprehensive, the number of external examination subject entries per student has increased from just over two, five years ago, to nearly six and a half now, which is an increase of 300 per cent. The number of subject passes has gone up from 1.4 to 5.2, which is an increase of nearly 300 per cent. All the other statistics for examination successes—this will be the test—are on the same scale.
There is another aspect to this which follows from what the noble Viscount said about the difficulties of getting progress in classes of mixed abilities. I should like to give him the examples of
1842
one school which is a difficult school because it went comprehensive by joining together two secondary modern schools which were about half a mile apart, so that it had difficulties in regard to transportation. In the first year of going comprehensive only nine students started a fifth year and took the CSE examinations; last year there were 64. Not only that but because of the starting difficulties the headmaster decided that a student could take only six CSE courses out of the numbers that were available to them. This is the interesting thing that is going on all over the city. It was the students who rebelled and insisted on seven, eight and nine courses, and now 80 per cent. of the students who took the CSE examination last year received awards in all these subjects, and 95 per cent. of them received awards in six or seven.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to ask whether this is at "O" level?
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think it must be. It is the CSE examinations of last year, at the time when they come to the end of whatever their entrance year is for the other school. The point I was making is that they are going ahead in classes of mixed abilities that have not been streamed. I am not saying that all the comprehensives in Sheffield are unstreamed. A tremendous amount of experimentation is going on, but these results are typical of the change that takes place when one goes fully comprehensive. Of course, this is in direct contrast to the direct grant schools which usually do not open their facilities. The point I am trying to make is that when we go ahead from this situation, and the children want to follow courses that are not available to them in their own schools, they can pass on to other schools. There is a tremendous amount of interchange of schools throughout the city, and again I say, this is in sharp contrast to the direct grant schools, which usually do not open their facilities to students from other schools.
As for the examination results and the students going on to polytechnics, there has been no reduction—if this is how we are to measure success—from the grammar schools that we had before.

1843
There has been no reduction in the number of good examination results, and we had some very good grammar schools which produced people who now occupy leading positions in industry, in our Civil Service and in other places. The important thing is that now we are going to give all these opportunities to all the children, and for the life of me I cannot see how you can include a system of selection for direct grant schools in this situation.
I should like to make one last remark about this parochial view of Sheffield. We have one direct grant school—a girls'school—with a yearly intake of about 60 as compared with a yearly intake of 7,000 into the comprehensive schools. If there is no order for the change which the Government propose and if the Conservatives (as promised) come back, I suppose the local authority will be compelled to provide 15 places—one quarter of the 60. What use is this? Surely, in a city with 31 comprehensives and all the opportunities that are available for even esoteric courses, the direct grant schools cannot offer a better education than can be provided in the ILEA schools. So why go on with it? It is socially divisive and, in any case, surely the local authority ought to be allowed to choose.
If anybody suggests that closing the direct grant schools will be a very unpopular move, I will give your Lordships another example. When it was announced that Sheffield was going completely comprehensive a group of—I will not describe them as "class-conscious notables"—notable local people got together to raise a fund to start a boys' independent day school. They wanted £175,000; they did not get a quarter of it and they abandoned the project. I am willing to guess now, with some confidence, that if such a scheme were launched at the present time they would not get much more than would cover the postage for sending out the appeals
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, that would not surprise me in the least, considering the present cost of postage!
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, this is not a joke. The industrialists who were being appealed to for help are now involved in the comprehensive system. That is the
1844
point I was trying to make earlier. They are involved in it and it works extremely well. I am sure that the Tory promise to enforce the opening of the direct grant school on reluctant local authorities will never be carried out. It does not make sense.
But I sincerely hope that, when we are discussing the future of education, we can get some of the prejudices out of the discussion, even those which I expressed. Let us do as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has suggested: let us have a good look at all these schools, but from this point of view. If we are to continue with non-selective comprehensive education the question is, how can we fit them in? How can we have a selective system alongside a non-selective system? My view, for what it is worth, is that the system will not work. Therefore, I fully support the Government in now introducing this order and I am not quite sure whether I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, that the timing is wrong. The educational advance we need means that we have got to have this order in operation fairly quickly.
1.50 p.m.
Lord WOLFENDEN: My Lords, I should like to underline very briefly two only of the many points raised in this debate. In each case I do so from personal, direct experience, so I am not weaving educational hypotheses or spinning sociological theories. I do, for once, think that I know what I am talking about.
My Lords, I was brought up in the then West Riding of Yorkshire, in one of the schools which are under discussion, and I have never, I hope, been lacking in my recognition of the debt which I owe to it, and that on two main counts. We have heard this morning a good deal about social mix and social mobility, and about the desirability of providing for them within our educational system. In my personal experience, there is no better background for the so-called mixing of the so-called classes than a direct grant grammar school.
My father was a clerk in local government service. Among my classmates I remember the sons of doctors, chemists, solicitors, photographers, shopkeepers, farmers, tram drivers and coalminers—if I had a better memory, I could obviously

1845
lengthen the list. I knew them all on absolutely equal terms. We visited each others' houses and homes as a matter of course, and got to know each others' parents and brothers and sisters. As far as I can remember, there was never any social embarrassment, or so-called class-consciousness of any kind—perhaps because nobody had ever told us to expect it. Part of the reason for this was the wide catchment area. One would not normally find coalminers or farmers in a city—still less, if you did, would you expect to find them living in the same part of the city as the professional middle class.
I have no wish to be controversial, but I find it hard to believe that the neighbourhood school, by whatever name it might be called, can be as socially mixing as a direct grant school with a reasonably wide area of recruitment. A neighbourhood school in Stepney or in Hampstead is, I submit, less likely to afford a social mix than was the school where I was brought up. We came from a variety of homes, but we had one thing in common—all our parents wanted us to "get on in the world". I make no apology for those words, or for the hopes and fears behind them. Each of us had to make his own way in the world, and the kind of education we individually and collectively received was deemed to be the most effective preparation for our individual futures. I am not now concerned with the curriculum or the actual content of what we were taught. I mean simply that the kind of education provided by that school was what would most help us to "get on in the world".
Of course, there was an element of plain, straightforward ambition about it, both in our own minds and in the vicarious aspirations of our parents. And why ever not? We moved, many of us, up an educational ladder which led us towards new experiences, to wider and sometimes quite considerable public responsibilities, and, if you care to put it so, into a higher social class than that into which we had been born. That is what I understand by "social mobility" and I, for one, am not prepared to kick down the ladder by which I have myself climbed up.
Your Lordships will probably be relieved to hear that I now propose to abandon these embarrassing senescent
1846
reminiscences. I will jump 50 years, to the present day. Here I must declare an interest in that I am Chairman of Alleyn's College of God's Gift; that means, in twentieth century English, that I am Chairman of the Governors of Dulwich College, and also eo ipso Chairman of the Governors of Alleyn's School. Dulwich College is, of course, an independent school and therefore out with the terms of this debate. Alleyn's School is a direct grant school and, therefore, very much within them.
As a responsible body of Governors, we were confronted with an extremely difficult decision. The dilemma is this. Should we, as the phrase goes, "take our place within the pattern of the local education authority", or should we, on the other hand, go independent? In relation to the former of those alternatives, there are two relevant considerations. The first is whether the past history and present nature of a school fits in with the overall structure of the pattern of the local education authority for children in the Dulwich area. The answer is that it clearly does not. A long-established grammar school, annually recruited to carry out what has for long been recognised by a substantial number of LEAs as its specific academic purpose, does not easily transform itself overnight into a comprehensive school to serve a limited catchment area. Even if it could do that, with extraordinary metamorphoses of staff and objectives, there is no evidence whatever that any local education authority would be prepared to absorb it. So the dilemma is resolved, your Lordships may say. Yes, but at what cost? Alleyn's School has no option, whatever its wishes might have been, but to go independent.
Doctrines and ideologies apart, what does this mean in real life? It means that there will now be in Dulwich two independent day grammar schools, one of 1,300 boys and the other of 800 boys, within a couple of miles of each other. It also means that in order to maintain Alleyn's as an independent school its fees, with the removal of direct grant, will have to be put up to something like those of its consistently independent neighbour, Dulwich College. What sense does it make to have over 2,000 places in independent boys' grammar schools, at independent school fees, in one district of South London? We, the Governors of Alleyn's

1847
School think it makes no sense at all, so we are intending to make Alleyn's into a co-educational school. Then, in the Dulwich area, there will be an independent boy's school, Dulwich College, an independent girls' school, James Allen's School, and an independent coeducational school, Alleyn's. We thereby increase the range of parental choice for those who live within day school reach of one or other of the three, but we do so at the cost of making all three of them independent schools, with the fees, which viability for an independent school inescapably requires. To put it another way, the opportunities which were open to me 50 years ago are now being denied to what might be my grandsons if their parents lived in Dulwich.
I confess that I cannot see any educational or social sense in driving deeper the gulf between the private and public sectors in education. When I was headmaster of an independent school, 30 years ago, the Fleming Report advocated closer relationships between the two. There were some of us in the independent schools who passionately believed in this closer relationship. The noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, will remember the zeal with which the headmaster he then served pressed this project. It is proper in this context that the name of Spencer Leeson should be remembered. At Shrewsbury, at that time, I did what I could to translate these ideals into fact. At one time there were 30 boys in the school, each one of whom might have been myself of 30 years before. We tried, genuinely tried, to bridge the gulf between the two sectors. There were of course difficulties. These did not—I repeat emphatically not—arise from the boys themselves or from their parents: they arose from the problems which the local education authorities understandably had in selection and finance. But, my Lords, here in the direct grant schools is, laid on, the already established, well-tried, accepted bridge between the two sectors. I find it difficult to understand why that bridge should be deliberately destroyed, and I therefore associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
2.1 p.m.
Lord BLAKE: My Lords, I, too, like the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, was educated at a direct grant school, and I should like to associate myself with
1848
everything that he has said about social mix and so on. I do not have his memory for various categories of parents of boys who were educated with me, but I have little doubt that they were on very much the same kind of scale. Like the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, I am a head of a college, a smaller college and in another place, if I can use that expression without its being ambiguous, but it is also a college to which a number of boys from direct grant schools have come. I think because of the North country connection which Queen's College, Oxford, has, there have perhaps been rather more than in many Oxford colleges, and I can entirely confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, has said about the quality of the boys who come.
I am glad that this Motion has been put down by my noble friend Lord Belstead. I myself regret, I must admit, that we have not prayed for the annulment of the direct grant regulations, and I think the fact that this has not been done—though I understand the reasons for it—will give rise to a lot of disappointment in some quarters. There was a general expectation that this would be done, and I think many people will he very sorry that it has not been done. But half a loaf is certainly better than no bread, and I hope that the House will carry my noble friend's Motion by a large majority. I also hope that we shall not accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wade. Of course, I agree with him to the extent that the timing, pace and lack of consideration displayed by the Government in this matter is a particularly odious feature of their conduct and one that merits special reprobation. Nevertheless, I believe that we on this side of the House feel that the principle of direct grant is something more than just an ephemeral matter; we would not agree that it is simply a matter of timing, though we might well agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, whose speech was a very striking one, that the timing and economic circumstances make it peculiarly insane.
My Lords, we debated this question, on a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on 26th March this year, and most of the arguments for and against the Government's policy were

1849
deployed then. At that time, the Government reiterated, through the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, their determination to go ahead with their, as I consider, disastrous policy, and this has been done despite petitions signed by, I believe, over half a million people and despite the very widespread doubts which are felt throughout the country by people who are very far from being necessarily Conservative supporters. This is an issue which cuts much more across politics than is fully recognised.
The direct grant schools have been, or are in the process of being, by a sort of ultimatum, bidden to make up their minds whether to remain independent or accept the offer to go into the LEA system. I do not know how many have accepted that offer, but I know that a large number of famous schools have not. As many of your Lordships predicted last March, these schools have reluctantly decided to remain independent. The Government are thus well on their way to success in achieving a curious objective for a Government which ostensibly believe in providing opportunity for clever children in poor families. They have opened a gap between the independent sector, parents who can pay, and the rest who cannot, which is now wider than ever before. The chances of children from a relatively disadvantaged background getting a first-class academic education have been diminished by this piece of doctrinaire folly. Let us make no mistake about that.
Like many of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, I have had a number of letters about this matter from people I do not know at all. I have been much moved by their nature. There is a very real sense of distress among parents who, from the way they write—and I confirm what Lord James has said—obviously do not belong to the category described by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, as,
"…well-off families…subsidised by the State to buy, at much below the economic cost, what they regard as a privileged education for their children."—[Official Report, 26/3/75; col. 1276.]
The sort of letters that come in, or a great many of them, clearly are not written by parents who could reasonably be described in that way. They are
1850
people whose children are bright and clever but who themselves have, for whatever reason, not had the chance of getting the sort of education to which they aspired, and who will not have the means to place their children in the sort of schools in which they believe if the direct grant is to be withdrawn. They see all this prospect cut off—and why? It is because the almost fanatical hatred of selection has become one of those doctrinaire shibboleths which obsess the guilt-torn middle class intellectuals.
My Lords, what is it, in the end, which alternately distresses and enrages one about the Government's policy towards the direct grant? I think it is this. Here is a system which, however illogical, untidy, unplanned, actually works very well. If I may refer to our last discussion of these matters, the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, said, quite rightly in one sense, that "the direct grant system was never planned, but just grew out of history". She seemed to regard this as in some way a bad thing. But a great deal of what we value and cherish in this country has grown "out of history". Of course, some things that grow out of history become barnacles of a kind on the hull of the State, and it is time to remove them. But the mere fact that something is the product of historical accident is not a count against it. The system may be illogical, and the civil servants in the Department of Education and Science would no doubt never have put it into a blueprint, which is precisely why they hate it so much, but it is, for the many reasons which have been advanced in this discussion and in other discussions in your Lordships' House, a success. That is to say, these schools are successful in terms of certain values—academic quality; openness to all who have the talent to get in, irrespective of class or means; a long tradition of service to the local community, and an alternative and, perhaps, a stimulus to the LEA system. But, of course, my noble friend Lord Eccles put his finger on an important point when he said that, in a sense, it is just this success which makes them suspect. By a curious irony, what really lies, at least in part, behind the Government's policy is what can only be explained as profound misgiving about the system of non-selective schooling to which it is now so deeply committed.

1851
The noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, made this clear enough in our last debate—he has an engaging ability to release cats from bags—when he said that:
"the continued existence of direct grant schools side by side with the maintained comprehensive system weakens that system by taking away some of the ablest pupils."—[Official Report, 26/3/75; c. 1266.]
Precisely, my Lords! But is the comprehensive system so frail, feeble, dubious, shaky and insecure that the competition of the direct grant schools—of which there are, after all, only about 170 in the whole country—will menace their whole future? My Lords, this is rubbish, and there is evidence to show that it is just that.
I referred last time we discussed the question to the investigation made at Bristol, which has an exceptionally large number of direct grant schools. I shall not weary your Lordships with the details, but it went far to prove the opposite of what the noble Lord said. But if it were true, how much worse the Government's case becomes. Surely they should welcome competition to keep the LEA comprehensives on their toes. Surely they should regard an alternative category of schools to which boys and girls can go, irrespective of means, as a challenge to be met by endeavour, not as a threat to be met by suppression.
My Lords, I feel very sad, as well as indignant, about the Government's policy. This will be a blow to parents and potential parents who had hoped much for their children in this type of school. They regard the decision as incomprehensible. No doubt they are a minority, but minorities count for something. They can affect elections, for example—and I hope they will. I also feel sad for the headmasters, headmistresses, and their staffs who have believed—and believed rightly—that their schools were, in a very real sense, diminishing social divisiveness and providing a career open to the talents, and they have been right. We shall be told that their personal careers are safe whether their schools opt to stay independent or to go into the LEA system. This may or may not be so. We shall probably hear more of this later this afternoon. But there will be among them this melancholy sense of being unwanted, of having been part of something which a Government, backed by a great political Party which once had
1852
noble ideals, have decided to reject. People respect Governments, even this one. When they see it bent on the destruction of institutions in which they sincerely believe, they will not lightly forgive or forget what seems to them to be a doctrinaire decision based upon obsession, jealousy and malice. I hope very much that we shall carry this Motion by a very large majority.
2.13 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, this debate, I fear, is rather like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. After one debate in your Lordships' House I was interviewed by television in the South-West and the interviewer suggested that it was a waste of time attending or taking part in debates in your Lordships'Chamber. I replied that maybe he was right, but since I had the luck (shall we say?) to have a platform I felt it my duty to express opinions on matters on which I—or those who look to me, however misguided their hopes—have opinions. In this case it is only because I have, like so many other noble Lords, received so many letters, all from my co-religionists, on this subject, that I venture to intervene in this debate. I shall therefore confine my comments solely to the position of the Catholic direct grant schools and how they are affected.
Historically, during the persecution times there was little education. Those who could afford it sent their children abroad to institutions such as Douai. But back in this country the education of the less well-to-do had to be of a semi-underground nature. My family started a small school in 1730 which served what few Catholics there were within reach, and the estate workers of the family. When the last teacher retired, I closed it down. But until the last war we always sent two of the most promising pupils to Catholic grammar schools. Of course, death duties killed all that.
At the French Revolution, with its rabid anti-clericalism, the teaching orders started to come back to this country, and some of the older and better-known Catholic schools date from that period. After the Catholic Emancipation Act the tempo increased and a big impetus was given by the Christian Brothers and other teaching orders for schools now operating all over the country, and with great

1853
predominance in the North-West. There has been a magnificent tradition of Catholic education for the less fortunate, and it is from the North that most of the pleas that I have received have come. My knowledge mainly comes from the South-West. About a third or more of the direct grant schools are Catholic, out of all proportion to our number, and they differ from other direct grant schools because they are part of the Catholic school system in their areas which has grown up in the way in which I have tried to point out to your Lordships.
The Church, officially, is not opposing the general proposals put forward by the Government, though individuals and individual school organisations certainly are. Most attention has been paid to the pros and cons in general. The proposals provide for the possibility of direct grant schools becoming maintained comprehensive schools. How this will be achieved gives rise to the main question. There has been no "dummy run". The regulations are laid down at the outset. Will they cover all the points as they arise? Will there be sufficient flexibility? Will the Government give us a guarantee that regulations will be extended to cover these problems as they arise?
Some of the schools to which I refer are boarding schools. If they are to be maintained, they have to be maintained as at present, by one local education authority. But for boarders, boarding schools serve much more than one local authority; their catchment area is wider. Take, for example, in Plymouth a school called St. Boniface's. In the boarder element and in the day element, many come from Cornwall from across the River Tamar. Will the Government ensure that the Cornwall Education Authority continue to support it after this change has taken place?
Catholic schools are not alone in this. The Methodist Colleges of Edgehill and Shebbear, also in the South-West, are affected. The Secretary of State said:
"No authority would be put in the position of maintaining a school it does not want."
But it seems that the authorities wish to avail themselves of these boarding facilities. How can the Government assure us that bringing direct grant grammar day schools into the maintained system as
1854
comprehensive schools will not do irreparable damage to the small number of direct grant boarding schools? Surely this is a case where the regulations should be amended before the damage is done.
If schools are to become comprehensive, how will the Government deal with the adaptation of building? If a school is now mainly academic it will not have the facilities, like extensive carpentry and engineering shops, if it is to become mainly non-academic. Who is to pay for it? And while on this subject, who is to service the loans which these schools have raised for their present building programmes? Are the religious orders to be left holding that baby? If a school has been developed and extended in a way that does not suit the Government's new arrangements, surely the Government must bear the cost; that should apply to capital debts, too. What about the staff? What about those who are prejudicially affected by these changes? What compensation has been arranged? I bet the Minister will say there is a scheme under consideration, but that is not good enough. This has been rushed so quickly that we must have something definite, and very soon.
I have so far tried to be objective, as I believe the Catholic Education Council has been, when dealing with the Government and I have dealt with the problems envisaged by those schools which are going comprehensive. With many others, I believe that quite a few Catholic schools will go out of existence—as the Scarborough Ladies of Mary Convent has already—because many of them cannot afford to go independent and do not fit in with the Government's scheme. The less fortunate will suffer as most of the Catholic direct grant schools have such a large proportion of free places.
Sister James, headmistress of the well-known Bar Covent at York, says:
"I think we also go along with this"—
that is the hierarchy's approach—
"and are prepared to go comprehensive under direct grant status…but the greatest worry for schools is the question whether standards can be maintained, and this seems doubtful."
I read on the tickertape outside the Chamber a news flash that nine out of 10 London schoolboys are involved in theft by the time they leave school. I apologise for that aside, but it seems to follow on from what that headmistress

1855
said. The whole of the diocese of which I form part—which is Devon, Cornwall and Dorset—has signed a protest right across the social and political board in this respect. The Notre Dame Convent at Crownhill, to which I have referred, is a most formidable institution, as I know to my cost; several years ago I had the honour to make the speech and present the prizes. It has an extremely high standard of educational achievement and the headmistress there, Sister Veronica, says:
"The attack on fundamental freedom is still, in my opinion, the most dangerous aspect of the Ministry's policy."
Think of having to send one's child to a Tyndale. In Plymouth the situation is bedevilled by the fact that the city is not yet ready to reorganise and the difficulties for the Catholic schools are obvious if they go it alone. The "Levellers" of the Government tend to make a mockery of those who talk about parental freedom of choice, but they should remember that for we Catholics the Vatican Council has enacted:
"Since parents have conferred life on their children, they are acknowledged as the first and foremost educators of their children. Parents require the help of the State in carrying out this task, but it is help. The State should act in accordance with parents' wishes, not against them."
It goes on:
"Parents, who have the first and inalienable duty and right to educate their children, should enjoy full freedom in their choice of schools. Therefore, the State must keep in mind the principle that its function is to help parents so that no kind of school monopoly arises. Governments are the servants of the people, not tyrannical masters."
The Government may not like that, but, then, Henry VIII did not like what the Vatican said about divorce, and the result of that disagreement meant that we Catholics had the best part of 300 years as outcasts in our own country. It was harder for us to build up our school system than for others and demanded more sacrifice. For 300 years no one would touch us with a barge pole, so we had to pull our educational system up by our own bootstraps. For that, if for no other reason, I beg the almighty monopoly, the Government, as of right and permanence, to maintain some educational flexibility and allow this minority the freedom of choice as has been laid down by their spiritual leaders. I could go on for hours quoting people who have
1856
written to me about their various schools and problems, but that would be too much. I end as I began, by apologising to your Lordships for inadequately inflicting on the House a sectional minority case.
2.27 p.m.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: My Lords, there seems to be an equation between a defence of the direct grant schools and an attack on the comprehensive schools; all that is needed to refute any argument in defence of the direct grant is to restate the long-accepted case for the comprehensive schools. I refute this equation. The real issue is freedom of choice; the right of a parent to choose, and recognition of the value of variety of schools. These schools show a standard of excellence which is a lasting shame to our destructive reformers. Education for all in Hastings, where I live, has grown from private fee paying and individual experiment. Today, we have a system in Hastings second to none, better than it has ever been before and far better that most. I could say this particularly of a London deprived of its independent schools, the best it has; show me a better school than Emanuel at Wandsworth.
About 22 per cent. of Hastings' children are recommended as suitable for grammar school or academic education. The others, who in the past might have been labelled 11-plus failures—there is no 11-plus in Hastings; today the children are selected from headmasters' reports—can now choose their own path. To waste one's opportunity is unfortunately one of the choices at any school, but most can attain success in other ways or, after "O" levels, at about 16, the grammar schools are open to any child inclined or wishing to pursue its studies. This is not a catchphrase but a fact. Many Hastings people have benefited, my daughter among them, from the opportunity to develop at a gentler pace at a secondary modern school and then to find that the gates of higher learning are wide open to them to pursue any subject of their choice in ally school. The people of Hastings find themselves, like the scholars past, present and future of the direct grant schools, powerless spectators of destruction. Their wishes, whether for or against the change, are of no account. Hastings, like Emanuel, is on

1857
the block—its crime, excellence. People throughout the country who know from their own experience the value of these schools earmarked for destruction look to us for a last protest before the demolition starts.
I am not against comprehensive schools. That is an argument that was settled several years ago. But there is also an acceptable argument for special schools for special children in the case of the educationally subnormal, the deaf, the blind, the mentally handicapped, and so on. These, apparently, do not affect the comprehensives. What about the educationally super-normal? Their case is different, closed and not to be considered. The real issue here is not just the ending of the direct grant, it is another step towards the anthill society. Everything we hold sacred and most beautiful in life is second always to Party approval. Let Westminster Abbey itself lie in the way of a Party Manifesto and we shall be able only to raise our voices in its defence. The machine rolls on, its so-called "moderate" driver at the wheel, deaf to the entreaties of millions. Like justice, democracy should be seen to be done.
2.31 p.m.
Baroness BROOKE of YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, the greatest need of this country today is excellence in every sphere, and excellence is achieved only by hard work and continual discipline. Where should these virtues start but in the schools where our children are being educated? Since the 1944 Education Act, it has always been the right of parents to exercise some choice as to the sort of school they wanted for their children's education. Some chose comprehensive schools. Some chose secondary modern schools because they knew that their children's bent lay in the practical rather than the academic field. Some chose grammar schools because they were ambitious and because they wanted their children to have a chance to develop and be academically stretched by the teachers in charge of them and by the intelligent boys and girls with whom they would be working.
I happen to be chairman of the governing body of a girls' voluntary-aided grammar school which is being forced
1858
into the independent field by pressure of circumstances. The voluntary-aided schools, the direct grant schools and many of the Church grammar schools provided the excellence of education and the mental discipline necessary to get the utmost value out of their pupils. They were schools which demonstrated their true value by the results of their efforts; but, most important of all, they were schools in which children from all sorts of home backgrounds, rich and poor, came together to learn the excitement and stimulus of subjects presented in such a way that it was an inspiration to be taught and, moreover, to be taught to work and read and think alone as well as in the company of one's contemporaries.
Then, the idea of comprehensive education came, I believe, across the Atlantic from the United States of America. It was seized upon by the Labour Party as the one means of ensuring educational equality for all boys and girls of school age. "Equality" became the battle cry. "End selection." But one cannot do just that. Selection is inevitable at some stage of a child's life, because children differ immensely in their mental and practical ability and in their powers of understanding and absorption. If selection on academic grounds is abolished, as is the avowed intention of the Government, selection will be based on parental income, neighbourhood, religion, or some combination of all those.
Who stands to lose most by this determination to seek equality by seeking to maintain those voluntary-aided and direct grant schools which insist on academic potential as a key to entry, regardless of the home background from which the pupils come? Without a doubt, children from the poorer homes whose parents will not be able to pay the fees which must be asked when the local authority or State maintenance ceases. I, too, have been inundated with letters from just such parents. They are people who see only too clearly what the future holds for their children educationally if the grammar and direct grant schools are excluded from the State system and can no longer offer free places to children old enough to profit by them. Your Lordships have heard much about these letters. I shall venture to read two of them:
"My lady, I am a painter and decorator by trade. I have two children who are very

1859
clever and are now near 11 years old. Our local schools are going to go comprehensive and this means my children will have to go to the local school which I am telling you is no damned good at all! If the schools were not going to be changed my children would have gone to the grammar school and I know would have done really great, and I know would have made it and gone to the university. Hundreds of my pals and workmates agree with me. They don't want to see the really good schools go. We have got to have grammar schools for the bright children and these schools are open to everyone. Local neighbourhood schools won't work. It is OK if you can afford to live in an expensive area, but if you can't then it is hard luck. As far as I am concerned it is cockeyed. I agree with "comps", but don't ruin the others. I hope the Lords of this land can do something about this. I am telling you that if the working class who care about things are done down there will be a lot of trouble and unrest so we shall open the door for real troublemakers to get going. Do your best to keep our good schools. I hope you don't mind me writing to you. Best of luck."
The letter is signed. The second letter reads:
"Dear Sir, I am not an educated man and I have never written to a Lord before but I am doing so to ask your help. I have two lads at a grammar school who entered on scholarships and they are doing great. It has not been easy to keep them there but I have done it and I want to continue doing so. I think I have the right to spend my money as I wish. I pay my taxes and my rates and what is left over is mine to spend as I wish. I choose to spend it on my boys' schooling and that means doing without a lot of things. I have been told that the school to which my boys go is to become a comprehensive school and if that—
and I leave out the adjective—
"man Mr. Mulley has his way, not only this school hut lots of other schools in the country are to go comprehensive. What, my Lord, are you going to do about it? Millions of families like mine will suffer and our children will not have a real chance in life if these schools are messed up. I beg you to help ordinary chaps like me. Please get your other Lords to do the right thing and stop this happening. Otherwise the country will be in an awful mess."
Comprehensive education is a comparatively new experiment in this country. It has not yet had sufficient trial to justify its acceptance as the sole instrument of free education. Let the experiment continue, but let it continue side by side with those schools that are the outcome of years of experience so that all that is good is not wantonly imperilled in the search for equality.
What the Labour Party has done is to oversimplify the problem of the educa-
1860
tion of our nation. It has taken the principle of equality and is attempting to subordinate to that all other questions in education. How simple would life become if one could apply one single principle to every problem of conduct! But human life is not like that. In every human situation there may be two, three or four principles which are relevant, and wisdom consists in balancing these various and often conflicting principles wisely one against the other.
It is the failure of the Labour Party to realise this that threatens to downgrade the quality of many of the best schools in the country, some of them among the best schools in the world. Its policy will also rob children from underprivileged homes of the quality of education which their brains deserve. To guarantee these children a first-rate education is just as important a principle in the national interest as to abjure selection. What sickens me about Labour's educational ideas is that they talk and act as if the abolition of selection at 11—they approve of selection at 17, mark you—is of such outstanding educational value that all other values in education must yield to it.
My Lords, this is dangerous nonsense, and it all flows from the false idea that only one principle of conduct and policy needs to be taken into account, whatever disaster that may bring down upon the children with good ability from poor homes. That is why the Labour Party's obsession with equality to the exclusion of every other consideration seems to me to be near criminal; not only folly, but in the present state of our nation, criminal folly. I could develop my theme at great length, but I am not going to do so. Others have spoken more ably than I, and the case for the retention of these excellent schools as part of the State system has been made. All I say in conclusion is that in ceasing to maintain the direct grant schools and the aided grammar schools, the Government will be dealing this country a mortal blow from which it may never recover, and for which they may never be forgiven.
2.42 p.m.
Lord ENERGLYN: My Lords, permit me to echo the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, who asked this Government to pause and think again before this step becomes a permanent

1861
one. It seems to be a curious feature of the pattern of human behaviour that when something good has been created someone wants to tamper with it or destroy it, and it appears to me that this is the situation that faces us now. The noble Lord, Lord Butler—with great authority—and others have shown how these schools have developed to a standard of excellence for which there has been no competitor. Nobody would wish to impede this really interesting experiment in comprehensive education, but it seems to me a little illogical, and certainly not pragmatic, to destroy schools in order to make way for schools that are not yet built, because we have seen ample evidence that the coagulation of adjacent schools never creates a sensible educational unit.
With some modesty, I suggest that in this remarkable system of education that we have built up in this country there is one blot. I feel very strongly about this blot, which is the size of the individual classes, the units of little girls and boys being taught. They are far too large. They do not give the teacher any opportunity to exercise her or his attention to the little child who may be suffering from some physical defect, which is, apparently, described as backwardness. The bright girls and boys will succeed under any system; this is obvious. It is the little girl or boy who needs this rather special attention that can be given only through small classes. It seems to me that this is where we should be going, creating smaller and smaller classes, with the individualism of the teacher able to deploy itself with skill, honesty and integrity.
The noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, may perhaps be placing upon me a label, labelling me possibly with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden. I should be very happy to have that label, but I have not the distinction, because I have emerged from the opposite end of the spectrum. But not a single word did the noble Lord utter that created discord in my mind. There was opportunity; I had opportunity, limited though it might have been. Frankly, I do not wish to discuss this question of opportunity at any length because it does not get one anywhere. But what does get one somewhere is this: the figures quoted by the
1862
noble Lord, Lord Darling. If I heard him aright, he stated that 60 girls are going into the former direct grant-aided school in Sheffield, but into the 31 comprehensive' schools there are to pour 7,000 girls; that is, units of 200. Therefore, if your Lordships accept my figure of 20, there will be needed 10 classrooms per intake. It is physically not on! So it does not make sense to destroy good schools, to lay an imperfect pavement of cobblestones towards comprehensive education.
The noble Lord, Lord Darling, also said—if I heard him correctly—that this was a political issue, and I make no apology for thrusting the characteristics of politics that are involved in this picture. Uniformitarian education is a weapon that I should not like to place in the hands of any Government. We have seen what has happened in countries where there has been uniformitarian forms of education. Your Lordships may be disgusted by what I am to say now, but in this week of remembrance let us not forget the Brownshirts and the Blackshirts who are the products of that kind of education. I am not going to say that it could happen here; it could not happen because we will apparently still have centres of educational excellence which would be independent of politics.
But this raises another ghost that may materialise. If we follow logically the argument of removing direct grants from these schools, it seems to me that the same argument could be used to remove all direct grants from every kind of educational institution in this country; the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, will perhaps share this fear. This could mean ultimately the removal of the direct grant from our glorious universities, and the day that happens, the sun will go down upon their independence. The noble Lord, Lord Darling, says that this is a political issue. I ask the Front Bench whether they can prove to us that these direct grant schools have been a blot on our educational system, and if that cannot be proved, I suggest that this is an illogical, unnecessary piece of political vandalism.
2.48 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I am not one who is 100 per cent. anti comprehensive schools. I believe that there are

1863
some cases, and some neighbourhoods, in which these schools can function quite well, but that does not alter my opinion that the Government's present policy is very wrong. It is founded on the idealistic desire to look upon all children as exactly equal, needing the same education, having the same problems and the same abilities, and so forth. Nothing on earth could be less true. In fact, I think it is safe to say that no two children are exactly alike in their needs, their abilities or their problems. It seems to me to follow from that, my Lords, that selection of some sort is necessary, because not everybody in the country deserves higher education, or needs it.
My Lords, the public feel very strongly on this point. I think I have had a heavier mail on this subject than I have ever had on any other. I have had over 30 letters from various parents, whom I have never met, urging me to support the direct grant schools. To go back to selection for a moment, I think one noble Lord condemned it on the grounds that those who did not pass felt a sense of failure. My Lords, we all feel a sense of failure at some time or other in our lives. I feel a sense of failure every time I put my name down as a speaker in a debate in your Lordships' House and find myself eighteenth on the list. We all have to face the fact that we cannot do everything that we would wish to do; but that does not make it true that selection is not desirable. However, I would not provide for selection at a fixed age—11 years as it is at the moment—because some children develop more slowly, and they should be able to change their school, if necessary, at any period during their education.
My Lords, the scholastic achievements of the direct grant schools are very high indeed. Every year thousands of girls leave these schools with many "A" levels to their credit, and many of them go on to universities. I wonder whether that could be said of the comrehensive schools? What is it, then, that the Government have against direct grant schools? Can it be anything else than their desire to have everything conform to a given pattern, regardless of what the needs or the talents of the child concerned may be? I was amazed to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell—I am sorry she is not here at the moment—make two
1864
quite astonishing remarks. One was that these schools were socially divisive. My Lords, if there is one thing that they are not, it is that. Your Lordships have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, describe the mixture of origins in the school to which she was referring. It is quite true that they all mix on an absolutely equal level, and there is no social difference. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, also said that if we continued with the direct grant schools we should be going back to the non-productive. Non-productive, my Lords! If any class of school has produced more eminent people in this country than the direct grant schools, I should like to know what it is. Of course, it is not yet time to know whether the comprehensive schools can do as well, since they have not being going for long enough, but I shall be very surprised if, in 20 years (if I am still alive), the same can be said of them.
My Lords, I think the most astonishing part of this move on the part of the Government is the fact that they are really cutting off their nose to spite their face, as it were. They are removing from the very children whom one would have thought they were out to protect—namely, those children from poorer homes—the chance of a really first-class education. Whatever is said, children will not get a first-class education at a comprehensive school; they can get it only at a direct grant school.
2.55 p.m.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, in Scotland we call them grant-aided schools. We have only about 26 of them but, like the English grammar schools, some of them have very great traditions indeed. In Scotland, these schools have never been socially divisive. They have a good social mix—laird's son, ploughman's son—and there is little or no social difference between them and the parish schools set up by John Knox as a result of the Reformation. In fact, these grant-aided schools, such as Dollar Academy, have prided themselves on the absence of discrimination by sex, race, colour, wealth, creed or intelligence. That school stands now with roughly a third of its pupils drawn from the village, a third from the surrounding area and a third comprising the children of people who are serving overseas. That, I think, is a very

1865
important point, which has been touched on by one or two noble Lords but not, I think, fully appreciated as yet—the importance of providing education for the sons and daughters of parents serving overseas.
My Lords, we can say that the other grant-aided schools in Scotland which have come into existence in the past hundred years were not so much founded for social reasons as because of the fact that in some urban areas the quality of education at certain of the State schools was very much lower than at the old village schools, where the dominie brought on the lad o'pairts right up to university standard. It has been said that in Edinburgh the chief industry is education, and this is due, so far as school education is concerned, very largely to the Merchant Company, which is responsible for running some of these grant-aided schools. The Merchant Company has decided to close one of its girls' schools, Mary Erskine, with 1,100 girls, to sell the school to the local authority and to distribute the girls among its boys' schools. At the same time, another grant-aided school of considerable antiquity is closing down completely. The closure of that school means 400 less school places; and the phasing out of the Mary Erskine Girls' School, which is now educating 1,100 pupils, and the turning of it into a comprehensive school, with all the requirements of the comprehensive system, will reduce its capacity to about 800 school places.
As a result of this action by the Government about 800 school places will have to be provided for by the local authority. In addition, there will almost certainly be a number of parents who cannot afford the fees in the grant-aided schools as they go independent; and that will add to the provision required of the local authority. Our rates in that area have trebled and the local authority has yet to provide places for (shall I say?) 1,000 new places. How quickly can it be done? The expense of this exercise—and for figures I am quoting only one place in Scotland—is tremendous, and obviously in the first instance it will be to the detriment of the pupils.
My Lords, I want to say one thing to continue a point raised in the speech of
1866
my noble friend Lord Belstead. He emphasised the variety of the direct grant schools of England. I would say that we have equal variety among the grant-aided schools in Scotland. Variety in education, in the systems of education and in the methods of education, is to my mind fundamental to any progress whatsoever in education in this country. We have heard arguments about education in the USA as compared with education in this country. Who can say which is right? Let us experiment and find out! But we will not experiment if we have only one type of school or only two types, the completely independent and the State schools.
My Lords, I am talking as a biologist and not as an historian like my noble friend Lord Blake. He said the historical value of the schools was great but that the barnacles had to be taken off. May I speak as a biologist and say that the system of education has grown up in the same way as my noble friend Lord Blake described. It has evolved in a natural way and where it has not succeeded it has gone out; because parents have not supported those kinds of school that were not any good. There can be no better way of getting progressive education for the varying needs of the different sections of the community, for the different objects of education, than by continuing these direct grant schools.
3.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of WORCESTER: My Lords, some apology is probably required from those of us who sit on the Bishops' Benches for apparently rather arbitrary attendance this week; but, having a second legislative body sitting at the same time, it is not always easy to make the two coincide. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for the manner in which he outlined the spirit of the Education Act 1944—a spirit that enabled a developing situation in education; an Act that permitted growth, an Act that permitted adaptation. The permission of adaptation and of growth within the law is not always recognised, but it was in that Act. The steadily developing situation in the educational field in the last 30 years has been very remarkable. It has changed radically, although the Act itself has not been called in question. This opportunity to grow in educational values and in educational methods is what I would particularly ask for.

1867
If I may say so as a member of the Public Schools Commission Mark II, commonly called the Donnison Commission, the terms of reference that we were given by the first Labour Government of some six years ago was that we should inquire into the movement towards integration of the independent and direct grant schools. We wrote, if I may say so, a rather good Report. Two or three of us wrote a Minority Report, to which I put my signature, asking for a slower movement towards integration—not asking that there should be no integration, but that there should be a slower one. What we are faced with now is the sense of a guillotine. Although there is a wide range of schools of different size and standards, I would point out to your Lordships that the principles underlying the system of direct grant originated at a time when schools of this sort provided nearly all the secondary education available to children coming up from elementary schools. The fact of their founding about 100 years ago was of very great importance. It is true to say that both the grammar schools and now the comprehensive schools have largely taken their pattern from what has been developed on an experimental basis in the direct grant schools.
It is now being said as a matter of complaint that these direct grant schools soak up local resources and central funds. I would ask the question: What is inherently wrong with the concept of a central direct grant? The University Grants Committee not only works admirably but contains this essential freedom of central aid to local initiative. Are we to lose this local initiative in a changing educational system? What is socially wrong in subsidising many schools that are still leading the way in educational experiment? It was my privilege to visit some 20 such schools as a member of the Commission, and I think the most remarkable element in many of them was that they were free to develop patterns of teaching, patterns of teacher-student relationship and patterns of partnership between parents, authorities and pupils which was not happening in the commonly-called maintained sector. Therefore, I put considerable store by the principle that underlies the concept of direct grant schools which was outlined in the Report of the Commission, by those who
1868
signed it and by those who signed the Minority Report.
Consequent upon that, I think it is true to say that at the moment there are two groups of direct grant schools, and it is important to differentiate between the two. First, there are what are called the regional schools: the large, great, famous schools in some of our great cities drawing pupils from a wide area. They may be driven to going independent and many of them will, as at present arranged, go independent. By so doing, they will increase social divisiveness. But what is so sad, to my mind, is not the fact that we are driving these schools into independence, but that we are creating a wedge between the different elements of education that are all moving towards a greater freedom and a greater sense of comprehensive education. These great direct grant schools are all willing participants in the slow and gradual move towards comprehensive education as we see it, as a vision for the future.
Secondly, within the present group of direct grant schools, there are what we might call "denominational schools". I must apologise for the fact that I did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, say a word about these schools, particularly I presume in Lancashire which I was able to visit. These schools are smaller in size and much less selective than regionally maintained schools. They are looking after the needs of particular localities. Socially they are less selective than boarding schools. I should feel very sad if the Roman Catholic development of education in Lancashire was cut off at this stage, at a moment when they are ready to talk seriously about the period of the next five years or so—and you cannot hurry educational development—and about the integration of those schools into the system. I insist that there is this conviction among the supporters of direct grant schools that there should be a movement towards total participation in comprehensive reorganisation. That is not in doubt. The question is the speed at which we try to create that situation.
Too much attention has been focused on the theory of comprehensive organisation in education, and too little on the care of these 169 schools. There has been too much attention to theory and too little care given to the schools that are

1869
themselves setting these interesting patterns of education, and to the part they can play in the movement towards reorganisation. For example, they encourage more children to stay longer at school. One of the sad facts about our scholastic situation at the moment is the mis-match between the life of the schools and life at work. There is a serious mis-match in parts of the industrial areas from where I come, where the schools have been unable to prepare boys and girls for the type of work available. I believe that direct grant schools are making much more radical experiments in relating the requirements of work to the syllabus of education.
At the moment, school leavers' unemployment is not directly dependent upon the economic state of affairs; it is partly dependent upon the fact that the schools are not preparing boys and girls for work that is available. This is a sad fact. The direct grant schools are, in general, encouraging proportionately more children to stay longer at school and prepare themselves more adequately for trades, professions and skills. They offer a valuable opportunity to clever boys and girls from poor and culturally deprived homes. The Minister gave us some statistics earlier in the day of the number of children who come from artisan homes. These statistics are very misleading. We are moving, fortunately, to a society that has a far greater local acceptance of equality; and to make a rule of statistics as to those who come from culturally deprived homes is, I believe, misleading. In these schools there is a substantial proportion of children from economically deprived homes, just as there is elsewhere.
In conclusion, I should like to say that neighbourhood schools suffer from the severe social limitations of any school confined to a locality, and the great advantage of much secondary education is in having a much wider catchment area, thereby creating different levels of recruitment over an unspecified area of the county or township. Therefore, I hope that the movement towards comprehensive reorganisation will be allowed to go at the pace of educational experience and not at the pace of political requirement.
3.16 p.m.
The Earl of SWINTON: My Lords, it was certainly not my original intention to speak at all in this debate. I took part in the debate of the noble Lord, Beaumont of Whitley, on 26th March. At this stage in the afternoon, I am beginning to regret that I decided to speak; I feel I little like the man who comes in after the Lord Mayor's Show. We have had so many distinguished speeches from academics and educationists that I am regretting my decision. Like so many others in your Lordships' House, I have received many letters from parents and others interested in direct grant schools. I should say that there were many which were not just photocopied ones. I recognised one of those which was read out by my noble friend Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte. I had a lot of others besides, so I thought I really must speak.
I find myself agreeing with a great deal of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. I am sorry that I cannot see him in his place at the moment. May I say what a pleasure it is to have him in your Lordships' House. For many years, that splendid, deep, gravel voice has awakened me in the mornings at educational conferences, speaking with his usual clarity. What a wonderful and clear speech he made. I should like, to agree with him on one main point. What a terrible time this is to inflict more expenditure on local education authorities, when, at this stage of the crisis which we are in, every penny counts.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, referred to Circular 10/75 which tells us—I say "us", as I am a member of a local education authority that we must not spend more than we did last year. Ministers make statements criticising local authorities about overspending. Yet, day by day, those Ministers churn out more and more legislation which puts more and more duties and expense on local authorities. The meeting of my full county council last week considered four new Acts and passed them on to committees of the county council for implementation. They were the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Reservoirs Act 1975, the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and the Conservation of Wild Crea-

1871
tures. and Wild Plants Act 1975. I am sure that all those Acts are most important, but they all place more and more additional work, and more and more expense, on local authorities.
One of Her Majesty's Ministers, talking about local authority expenditure the other day, said, "The party is over". So far as my local education authority is concerned—and I am afraid that I speak with only 15 years' experience as a member of that education committee, unlike several of your Lordships who have had a great many more years concerned with the subject—we look forward to the party beginning. My mind goes back to the halcyon days—I do not know how many years ago—when I came down with a deputation from the then North Riding of Yorkshire to see the then Minister at the Department of Education and Science, the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon. We came down to protest that we had only two or three primary school replacements in the educational building programmed. I see that my noble friend Lord Belstead is looking at me; I protested to him at one stage. Perhaps those were the halcyon days when there was a party. In the coming year my local authority, which has grown in size, will not be able to afford a single replacement primary school in the whole of this area.
I would go farther than the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, when he talked about money which must be spent on the comprehensive situation before "mucking about" with direct grant schools. There will be an enormous amount of money to be spent, and I should like to see it spent on primary education. After all, I think the experts would agree that the primary school stage of a child's education is the most important of all. It develops his character and also, if the child starts off in a cheerful, bright, new modern primary school, he or she is much more likely to be interested in education, to be bitten by the bug and to stick with it for the rest of his educational career.
We have been "mucked around" certainly, in my own authority and I am sure that is true of many others, also—by such things as the raising of the school-leaving age and the debate on the reorganisation of secondary education. Perhaps, if we had been allowed to spend more money on old primary schools and
1872
not so much on raising the school-leaving age, we might well have found that many of our secondary schools would not be in quite the mess they appear to be in at the moment. However, that is altogether another point. For the practical reasons I have given, I support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Belstead.
Where I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, is on a matter of principle; but before enlarging on that perhaps I might say just a word in a semi-official capacity to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, both as a Governor of the Bar Convent of York and chairman of the schools subcommittee of North Yorkshire, where York comes. I am delighted to say to him that I do not think nine out of 10 of our secondary school children take to crime in York. If I might make a personal statement—and I am not in any way speaking in my official capacity on behalf of my committee—I have always been very pro comprehensive education, because I can see no justification whatever for the compulsory selection of children by an examination of any sort taken at the age of 11 or 12. My recent experiences as chairman of the appeals committee of my authority, which sits on borderline decisions in part of my area where selection is still carried on, has only strengthened my belief that there should be comprehensive reorganisation.
I was delighted that my noble friend Lord Butler brought out some of the principles underlying the 1944 Education Act. On the other hand, if parents wish to opt for this sort of selection procedure because they consider it to be in the best interests of their children to go to a direct grant school, I cannot see why they should not be allowed to do so. Therefore, both on the practical point and on the point of principle, I strongly support today the Motion of my noble friend Lord Belstead.
3.23 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I intervene from these Benches with some degree of reluctance and only after prolonged and careful deliberation. I do so because I have been deeply committed on this issue for many years—almost the whole of a lifetime—and my convictions have only deepened with the passage of time. For well over a decade now, as Chairman of

1873
the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children, I have pleaded for special educational facilities to be provided for children who are mentally retarded. I am glad to say that over the years our pleas have been recognised by successive Governments and they are now engrained in our educational system so that every child who is mentally handicapped is entitled as of right to special education long before he reaches the age of 11-plus. And so we have created special schools for the mentally handicapped all over the country. We have trained special teachers and promoted special courses in this highly specialised educational field.
To me it seems utterly illogical that with all the efforts we devote to the mentally handicapped, we do not provide at least equal facilities for the other end of the scale. It may be argued that merit will always win in the end, whatever the obstacles, that character and ability cannot be supressed and that indeed the test of ability should be the overcoming of obstacles. This may be true in the case of the individual, but, in this highly competitive world, it becomes positively dangerous if applied to the wider interests of the State. Therefore, however fervently we believe in equality of opportunity, as we all ought to do, this principle becomes self-defeating if it results in the narrowing of opportunities, for then we restrict our children as individuals, and in the wider field, we restrict ourselves as a nation.
The whole case for the phasing-out of direct grants seems to rest on two arguments: the unfairness of selection and on Labour's Election Manifesto. While loyally accepting the latter for the most part, I find it impossible to swallow the whole of the 39 articles, and of them all, this one for the phasing-out of the direct grant positively sticks in one's throat. As politics in this country tends to become polarised into the two great political Parties, there must always be some issue for which even the most faithful cannot show an equal enthusiasm. I can only say that on the issue of the grammar schools I have received letters from friends who are lifelong Socialists, imploring me to take a stand against the Government's policy. In my home town
1874
of Oxford—an area not altogether removed from my noble friend—nearly 17,000 signatures were collected in a short period of time, pleading against the phasing-out of the direct grant. As it is now, happily, represented by a Labour Member of Parliament, I simply refuse to believe that these 17,000 signatures all came from members of one Party. And at a time like this, in the midst of the gravest economic crisis since the War, it is, to say the least, unfortunate that such a divisive issue should be inflicted on our community by any Government in power. That is where I join with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, in his plea of, "not now".
I come now to selectivity. If we are opposed to the creation of an elite in education, then the Government's policy is self-defeating, because most of the 173 direct grant schols—I give way to the right reverend Prelate on the issue of four, so that one may call it 169—including my school in Newcastle-on-Tyne, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, well knows (and causes like this can make the strangest bedfellows of all of us!) in line with other grammar schools such as Manchester and Leeds, are determined to go independent and so become more selectivist and elitist than ever before. No, my Lords; the wise course would he for the Government, while continuing the direct grant, to encourage those schools to become wider in their outlook and to draw their intake of pupils more evenly from all sections of the community.
On grounds of economy, likewise, I believe that the Government's case has yet to be made. I hope that my noble friend who is to reply for the Government will say precisely how many millions of pounds the Government will have to spend after the direct grant has been phased out. He has told us how much it is likely to save. He gave the figure of £10 million, or £15 million overall, and the cost to each child of £100 a year. That sum of £100 a year is the cost of fewer than four days' stay in a hospital. Even in times of the most stringest economy, four days' stay in hospital equates to providing for a whole year's education at one of our grammar schools! How mean can we possibly get? I should like to hear from my noble friend when he comes to reply what the outlay is expected to be after the final withdrawal

1875
of the direct grant has taken place; his answer may yet decide in which Lobby I shall vote. Let me also add this: any saving of the direct grant may be offset by a stifling of intellect and the uprooting of valuable traditions that may prove a false economy in the long run.
So we come to the only argument, as I see it, in favour of the phasing out: the unfairness of selection at the tender age of 11. I do not see how we can eliminate selection in early school age and avoid it altogether at a later age, on entry into university when wider national considerations become involved. I fear that in their pursuit against selection the Government are chasing a will-o'-the-wisp. Indeed, the physiological strains of puberty which a boy undergoes at age 14 or 16 may render the results of competitive examination then far more unreliable and capricious than a simpler examination held at the age of 11 or earlier. My noble friend Lord Darling of Hillsborough spoke of children being branded as failures at age 11. What about failures at 14, 16 or 18? Is not the psychological trauma far greater, and the potential loss to the community as well infinitely greater? He singled out the case of Sheffield. Could ever a stronger case be made out for selection than the case of Sheffield as a successful instance of the comprehensive system? Would anyone here suggest that Sheffield is being repeated all over the country? Surely, if we speak of grammar schools being available to only a small section of the community—as my noble friend Lady Gaitskell said, some 100,000 as against 10 million—no one can pretend that the excellence of the comprehensive system in Sheffield can easily be repeated—and I welcome any instance of it in any other similar towns throughout the country.
If we accept that selection and élitism must apply at a later age because, as has been said already, we cannot all expect to be equally mentally equipped, let us also remember that nowhere does this principle of selection operate more unfairly than under a dictatorship, and nowhere is selection exercised more ruthlessly than in the Communist States. A demand was made only recently at one of the Party conferences for members of the Cabinet to be selected by delegates at the conference, instead of by the Prime Minister. That was surely an instance of selection or democracy gone mad. And
1876
not so very long ago at another Party conference, as some noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite may still recall, a vacant premiership was being hawked about for selection by the delegates. That was surely a case of selection only a little less mad. But in addition, a very strong case can be made out for the retention of schools that are smaller in size than the comprehensives, just as a very strong case can be made out for the smaller colleges in universities, as against larger ones such as Trinity in Cambridge—I refrain from following this argument too far in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden—or smaller medical schools where tuition is far more intimate and personal, or smaller universities, as distinct from the pattern now found so widely in the United States, or for smaller businesses or smaller nations. Or else, why are we all arguing now about the case for devolution into smaller political units, which this Government already seem to have accepted in principle?
We might do well to heed the advice of an American correspondent in one of our provincial papers who warns that a comprehensive system in England would be a retrograde step. He goes on to say that at 15 the average English school child is as advanced as the 18-year-old American, and that the English "O" level of the GCE is harder than the university entrance examination in America. I have seen, again and again, American university graduates whose level of intelligence is well below that of the average sixth former in our English grammar schools. That is why in America exasperated parents of very moderate means go to inordinate expense to send their children to private schools—because they are so completely disenchanted by the low level of education prevailing in their comprehensive schools. It is because we need to maintain the highest possible standards of education in every direction that our grammar schools are worth retaining, and worth a heavy national sacrifice to retain.
I am all in favour of our grammar schools. To abolish them would be to abolish something of intrinsic value in our national life. And with what do we intend to merge them? With huge comprehensive schools, sometimes with more than 2,300 pupils, where the headmaster,

1877
in the natural course of events, is unable to get to know each of his pupils individually, and will fail to leave the impact of his personality on the character of the school—a most important factor in many of our grammar schools today. If we feel deeply about a cause it is not enough merely to sustain it. The Latin motto of my old grammar school, if I may lapse into rather doggerel Latin, is borrowed from the City Arms of Newcastle, Fortiter Defendit Triumphans—he stoutly defends and triumphs. Although the Opposition have no need of my vote in the Division Lobby—their ranks opposite amply demonstrate that—this is an issue on which I cannot remain inert, aloof and indifferent.
My Lords, I believe that the Government's present policy towards the grammar schools to be a mistaken one. It is unjustified in principle, and harmful and destructive in its application. Torn as I am in going against the loyalties of a lifetime, I feel that this is a cause which has to be stoutly defended, and a cause which will triumph in the end.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, may I interrupt the debate to make a short announcement about Statements. With the leave of the House, my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement on the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill as soon as I have finished this announcement.
A further Statement is being made in another place on the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Hoffman-La Roche Company. With the leave of the House, and following agreement through the usual channels, I will arrange for this Statement to be included in the Official Report.
Following is the Statement referred to.

HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE GROUP: PRICES SETTLEMENT
"I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a Statement about a settlement which has been reached between the Government and the Hoffman-La Roche Group concerning its ethical pharmaceutical products, including librium and valium, the prices of which have since April 1973 been controlled by Order.
"The House will recall that following a report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which was a landmark in the history of Monopoly policy, the then Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, the right honourable and learned Member for East Surrey, made a Statement on 12th April 1973 accepting the Commission's recommendations and announcing the making of an Order reducing the price of Librium to 40 per cent. of the 1970 price and the price of valium to 25 per cent. of the 1970 price.
"Under the procedures of another place the Roche Company applied to the Special Orders Committee for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the Order. This application was rejected and the Order was approved by Parliament. Subsequently the company started proceedings in the High Court against the Government and the Commission, alleging unfairness and breach of natural justice and applying to have the Order declared void.
"In April 1974 out-of-court negotiations began about the price of the drugs in question to see whether a settlement could be reached. It was desirable to bring Roche back into the Voluntary Price Regulation Scheme of the DHSS as early as possible. During the course of the negotiations we obtained from the company a great deal more information than they had given to the Monopolies Commission. I am glad to inform the House that agreement has now been reached as a result of which:
one, the company will repay to the Government the sum of approximately £3¾ million, in addition to the payments made earlier in respect of the years 1967–69; the figure of £3¾ million is an overall settlement which takes account of excessive profits over the period 1st January 1970 to 23rd April 1973, the date of the coming into force of the Order. In respect of that period the sum is £12 million, but we for our part have accepted that since the Monopolies Commission reported the Order prices have become unduly low and that under normal VPRS guidelines an offset of £8.25 million is due to the company. The figures on both sides include interest payments;
two, the company will come back into the VPRS for all its ethical pharmaceutical products;
three, the company have accepted that the new prices of librium and valium will be put at approximately half the 1970 level, which was the baseline from which the Monopolies Commission inquiry started, and they will settle with the DHSS price changes for their other medicines within the provisions of the VPRS; the new prices of librium and valium will still be less than half those ruling in therest of the world;
four, the company have informed us that they intend to continue their research and investment in the United Kingdom and that they plan to spend several million pounds on improved research, production and administration facilities both at Welwyn Garden City and at Dalry, Ayrshire and thus continuing their valuable contribution to medicine. They are also considering a further major expansion at

1879
Dalry of their vitamin and chemical production facilities for Europe and other world markets. five, the company has undertaken to withdraw its legal action against the Crown and the Monopolies Commission together with any allegations of impropriety.
"This Agreement is clearly incompatible with the continuance in force of the Order and consequently is subject to its effective revocation.
"I believe this to be a satisfactory resolution of our differences with the Hoffman-La Roche Group of Companies and under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act I am publishing the statutory notice of my intention to make an Order to revoke the 1973 Order.
"In conclusion I wish to pay a particular tribute to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for the important work which they have done in this case. I believe the solution will be in the interests of the public both here and abroad."

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
3.39 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, with the permission of the House I will repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment about the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill in another place. I will use his own words:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill. In particular I should like to say a few words to the House in explanation of why it has not been possible to reach agreement between the two Houses.
"First, the Government have not been able to agree to the proposals put forward in another place because we considered that it was quite inappropriate to provide that breaches of the charter should be taken to the courts in the way suggested. That is our objection in principle. The fact that the particular proposal which the other House has put to us involves the use of a concept which was described by my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor as not only unusual, but fraught with difficulty and obscurity, has been a further complication. Lord Goodman yesterday described his own proposal as unquestionably uncertain, unquestionably obscure and unquestionably open to argument. It is that proposal which he asked us to put on the Statute Book.
1880
"Second, I must make absolutely clear that we were unable to agree to the proposals put forward by another place because our aim has been to achieve, as quickly as possible, arrangements within the industry which would provide effective safeguards against any risks to the freedom of the Press which might be thought to be involved in the passing of the Bill. We, therefore, could not ignore the possible impact on the attitude of the parties within the industry of insisting in advance that the charter included a number of rights favoured especially by one side to the discussion. The majority in another place have, most unwisely, disregarded that risk altogether.
"I do not wish to make a detailed Statement about all the issues which have arisen, but a large number of controversial and misleading comments have been made.
"First, it has been suggested that all the attempts at a compromise have come from Lord Goodman and his associates and that the Government has been obdurate. No one who has followed what actually occurred could believe that. I welcomed the idea of a charter when the possibility was first raised. I suggested when the House debated the issue on 12th February on the Report stage of the Bill that if the parties wish to have it incorporated in some code of practice the Government would certainly be prepared to consider it. We welcomed Lord Houghton's Amendment immediately it was made. The matters which the charter should cover have been made more specific. The charter will now be relevant to all proceedings before courts or tribunals. The ground which the Secretary of State can cover if he has to make a charter without the agreement of the parties has been limited—a concession which Lord Goodman himself has described as substantial. The Government have genuinely sought a sensible settlement and I repudiate all Lord Goodman's statements to the contrary. He accused me in the House of Lords of bad faith and I think on reflection he would wish to withdraw any such accusation.
"It is particularly alleged that the Government withdrew a compromise offer at virtually the last minute yesterday and that we were very close to an

1881
agreement. This Statement, repeated in the Times today, completely misrepresents the position. The Lord Privy Seal rightly and immediately made clear in another place that no firm proposal was made. Certainly exploratory discussions took place following a brief meeting between Ministers and Lord Goodman. A draft was drawn up in an attempt to see if there was room for agreement on a provision about public policy which would meet both the Government and Lord Goodman. There was a good deal of discussion; but in the end Lord Goodman rejected the Government's preferred version. However, it is quite wrong to see this as the only outstanding issue. At the meeting Lord Goodman made it clear that there were a number of other issues on which he wishes to insist, and that the Government should make major changes. In particular, he insisted, as he did in another place yesterday, that the provision relating to the coverage of the charter must contain a right of journalists not to be unreasonably expelled or excluded from a union. The Government do not think it necessary to set this out as something which must be included in the charter. Nothing in the Bill prevents the exercise of existing Common Law rights in this field. The Government believe that when Section 5 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act is repealed the TUC's proposed independent review committee will provide adequate machinery to deal with any cases which cannot be satisfactorily resolved within the machinery of individual unions. Moreover, the NUJ's own machinery means that no member can be expelled without the agreement of the National Executive, and within the union there is also appeals machinery. Nevertheless, this is the point on which Lord Goodman is now placing so much emphasis and on which he was demanding a change even if some compromise had been possible on other issues, although it is a very different proposal from those put to me originally by the editors which were about the position of editors in the closed shop.
"On the constitutional question, it is necessary to recall that this is the
1882
first time for many years, indeed it is one of the rare occasions in several decades in which the House of Lords has gone to such lengths to frustrate the will of the House of Commons. Yet who will claim that this is the most controversial of all measures introduced in the period? The Bill is itself a repeal of the Industrial Relations Act of 1971 which was passed through this House under the guillotine and which now by general consent is necessarily to be repealed. Yet the House of Lords never invited the Commons to reconsider a single controversial provision of the 1971 Act.
"But the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, by contrast, was a measure passed through this House in all stages without any resort to the guillotine and with increasingly large majorities in a House of Commons where the Government commands no such considerable majority of its own. And yet the House of Lords have intervened and used their residual power to prevent us placing on the Statute Book a measure for which we have a good majority in this House and a mandate at two elections. At a time when respect for Parliament and more especially this elected Chamber is of such supreme importance in overcoming our national problems I believe everyone in this House should join in condemning this challenge to democratic authority. Consequently, the Government have every intention of reintroducing this Bill in the next Session."
My Lords that completes the Statement.
3.47 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for having repeated that non-controversial and un-tendentious Statement. A great deal of it was concerned with the disputes between Mr. Foot and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and I do not intend to concern myself with that matter. I know that he was told by both the noble Lord opposite and the noble Baroness that this Statement would refer to him, but the noble Lord did not find it possible to be here. I am not in any way criticising

1883
the Government for that. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is perfectly capable of looking after himself and if I am there I shall be interested to see the next round.
I do not intend to say very much because we had a long debate yesterday on the subject, but there are two points which I must make. Mr. Foot is quite wrong when he talks about this House "frustrating the will of the House of Commons." He is quite wrong when he says that what this House has done is a challenge to democratic authority. Also, he is quite wrong when he says that we are preventing the House of Commons from placing this measure on the Statute Book. Yesterday your Lordships decided by a large majority to exercise the rights which were given to this House by the Parliament Act 1949. That Act makes it absolutely plain that after the period of time laid down in that Act the will of the House of Commons shall prevail. This House has been using the power which the will of a Socialist Government in the House of Commons gave to us and it is absurd to pretend that we are thwarting the will of the people.
3.49 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, first may I commiserate with the noble Lord the Leader of the House in having to repeat that Statement to your Lordships. There is so much in it which is so petty-minded that it does not deserve comment. I suppose it is due to the end-of-term frustration from which many people suffer at this time of the year. Certainly I follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in not commenting upon the different interpretations of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the Government regarding what happened over a period of five hours ending at two o'clock in the morning. However, it is clear that all parties were very close to agreement and there is no reason why further talks should not take place in the very short period of delay which will occur at the beginning of the next Session. I would hope that this is a course on which the Government would embark.
But I should like to reiterate from these Benches that we place on record our total unacceptance of the Secretary of State's opinion that this House has frustrated the will of the House of Commons. We
1884
have done nothing of the sort. We have exercised our legitimate powers to uphold a principle on which Peers on all Benches—Liberal, Conservative, Labour, Cross-Benches, and I hope there are one or two Bishops in the Lobby, although I am not sure, but certainly it was the feeling of the House, and not merely of one small section of the House, that this was a matter of fundamental principle—thought it right to protest. In my view, the Secretary of State's Statement comes oddly from a member of a Government which has the support of only 28 per cent. of the electorate. I am not going to indulge in a long discussion on electoral reform, but every time I hear "manifestitis" coming in, it makes my blood boil, from a Government who are occupying seats in another place which do not really belong to them.
3.51 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, one fact of life is that there is a long corridor between your Lordships' House and another place. It is true that some took a long time getting here—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: And some went back again, my Lords!
Lord SHEPHERD: Yes, my Lords, some went back and, whether it is our fortune or misfortune, they returned. But, seriously, your Lordships yesterday exercised the residual rights under the Parliament Act; that is as we see it. Of course, as between Members in another place, who sit there as a consequence of an election as opposed to creation under the Life Peerages Act or, like myself, solely because of a twinkle in a father's eye some fifty-seven years ago, there is a marked difference concerning our respective authorities. Therefore, particularly as this is a matter that had been going to and fro between the two Houses, I suggest it is well understood that another place should consider that the decision which was taken in your Lordships' House last night to be frustration.
If the Amendment which was voted on had any real merits—if it was not, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, himself referred to it "obscure"—I might have thought that your Lordships' House had acted with sense; but bearing in mind the description by the noble Lord, Lord

1885
Goodman, of the Amendment on which noble Lords opposite voted, I do not think the House did great credit to itself as a revising and legislative Chamber.
How close we were to agreement. I think I used the phrase yesterday that the tide flows and the sands move. There were times when one thought that one was close to agreement, only to see that agreement ebb away. Speaking personally, if there were to be further discussions—and whether further discussions are possible I do not know—I would certainly wish to see them conducted in a more formal way than in the last few days. I say this quite deliberately. I do not want to go over the ground covered yesterday in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. He is not present today although, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, I made an effort to see that he should be here, and therefore I will not deal with his speech. But when I read the leading article and the report in The Times newspaper—and we were talking about the freedom of the Press—it is about time we started talking about the basis, the confidentiality, and the honesty of reporting. I do not want to say anything further on that subject.
3.54 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I wonder whether I may say another word from these Benches. I have played a little part in the events. First, may I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the relatively conciliatory tone—all but the last few sentences, which were not aimed at us—in which his words were uttered. I accept, of course, and endorse exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and my noble friend said about the constitutional issue, but there is another point which I should like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to consider and, perhaps, convey to his colleagues.
I personally resent—and I expect a great number of people in this House will resent—the rather ungracious and unmannerly tone in dealing with this House after what has been going on for the last three months. It is not simply a question that we have not—for the reasons given by my noble friend—"frustrated the will of the people" or "challenged democratic authority" because democra-
1886
tic authority is defined in and protected by the Parliament Acts, and I cannot complain that the Secretary of State has done the very thing which in a sense the House will remember I invited him to do last night.
What I resent is this: Ever since last July this House, which is not remunerated by salary, has been putting itself to very great inconvenience—all of us have—in one measure after another of a highly controversial, intricate and difficult kind. I personally have suffered a good deal of inconvenience, but in fact I have probably suffered much less than most noble Lords who have been much more diligent in their attendance to things like the Community Land Bill, the Industry Bill and the petroleum Bill, all of which are much more difficult and lengthy than the Bills for which I have been responsible. Not only have we not frustrated the will of the people or a democratic authority, but we have put ourselves out in order to assist the Government to get their business through. I think probably both the noble Baroness—I was going to call her the Captain of the Queen's Horse, but I will call her instead the Chief Whip—and the Lord Privy Seal know perfectly well that, not only have we not held up Government business or frustrated the will of the people, or challenged democratic authority, but we have gone to extreme lengths to facilitate the passage of Bills even though we felt free to amend them and to criticise them. I hope it will he conveyed to the Secretary of State that he has been most unfair to this House—not simply misleading on a constitutional issue, but unfair to it on a question of morality.
3.57 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like to respond to the noble and learned Lord. Sometimes I think my noble friend is the captain of the cavalry; indeed sometimes I think she must feel that she is captain of the Queen's elephants! The pressure is very hard when it comes to questions of duty.
I do not believe in counting chickens before they are hatched, and there is still a major piece of legislation to be finished this afternoon; but in the light of what the noble and learned Lord has said and in anticipation of the House continuing in its co-operative mood and spirit, I

1887
should like to say that I was looking at some statistics the other day and I noticed that your Lordships had passed Bills this Session that, on average, had come from another place every five weeks, which is a relatively short time. Bills which were introduced in your Lordships' House naturally took a little longer, but the average time taken was seven weeks. I fully and freely concede to the noble and learned Lord—and if his Chief Whip had been present, more directly to him—that we on this side of the House have had nothing but the fullest co-operation on the timetable and we are, indeed, grateful. It is perfectly true that if we had not had this degree of co-operation between the two sides this very heavy legislative programme could not have been completed.
I am also conscious of the very special burdens that have been placed on a relatively few people, because at the end of the day the leadership of legislation has to be conducted by a relatively few from the Front Bench opposite. If it were not for the Front Bench opposite, then the House as a whole would not deal with legislation as it should be dealt within Committee and on Report. I fully acknowledge that. I had intended doing it on a more convivial occasion after the gracious Speech, but having been invited to convey the views of the noble and learned Lord to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, I thought I would take the opportunity of expressing them here. Not only will I convey what he has said, but I will also show personally to my right honourable friend what I have said to this House, it being on the record.
My Lords, I would only say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who knows my right honourable friend over many years in another place, that he is a very charitable man, a very great friend and a very great Parliamentarian. No doubt I have a sense of his feelings that a Bill which he has tried to get through on two occasions has again been frustrated. But I said to him very early this morning that I thought that when this Bill came back to your Lordships, Your Lordships' House would not obstruct it but, perhaps reluctantly, would see it through, if that is so, I do not believe any harm has been done.
May I say, too, that if in Parliamentary language some words are rougher than
1888
others—and yesterday I had to listen to one who was not all that pleasant to listen to—as Parliamentarians I think we have to take it. It was Mr. Truman, I believe, who said that if the kitchen is hot, get out of it. I suggest there is no harm done in the exchange of language of that sort. We know the spirit in which it occurs. May I repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and other noble Lords opposite—and particularly to my own colleagues who have supported the Government during this difficult time—that we are indeed grateful, myself particularly, for the co-operation received in seeing through this legislative programme. If you have made one mistake, my heart is big enough, and I will forgive you.

DIRECT GRANT GRAMMAR SCHOOLS
Debate resumed.
4.1 p.m.
Lord STAMP: My Lords, in intervening in the final stage of this afternoon's debate in support of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I do so with one thought uppermost in my mind; that is, what is the use of it all? With, it would seem, most of the minds of those on the Government Benches firmly made up, and the ultimate decision arrived at in another place, one might just as well save one's breath. Yet how can one keep silent, in view of the vital importance for the future of the country of the issue we are debating, one that has stirred up such deep feeling not confined to those from one political Party, as we have heard from several noble Lords, even if what one says can have no influence in altering the decision of the Government? At least some historian of the future, taking the relevant volume of Hansard with its red lettering from the shelf, and reading the debate, will know that there were many in your Lordships' House who protested to the last about a decision they believe will have the most serious consequences for the future of our country.
Incidentally, reverting to Hansard, one cannot help wondering whether the change from gold to red lettering which occurred eight years ago had any political significance. Whether or not that is so, I feel that red is what the historian

1889
will see as he reads of the madness (I think that is not too strong a word) of those who, in the name of egalitarianism, destroyed one of the main foundations of our country's future: the means of educating to the highest possible standard and under the best possible conditions so many of our most gifted children who form one of our country's most priceless assets. They come so often from poor homes, with parents who cannot afford to send their children to an independent school—particularly nowadays—however much they may scrimp, scrape and forego all luxuries to do so, and the grammar school which caters for them has long been, and still is, an essential part of our educational system which the comprehensive school, however good it may be, cannot replace.
My Lords, the advantages of a grammar school really need no emphasis: a high level of teaching standards with academic excellence as the goal; the spur to healthy competition; an emphasis on discipline, the need for which is only too evident in these days of slackening standards. There are also personal relationships that are so much easier to establish when schools and their classes are not unduly large, and which play such an important role in the formation of character, as does also religious education. In my view, it is nothing short of wicked that any school with a basic religious foundation and outlook, the need for which so many parents feel deeply, should be abolished or forced to go independent, with all that means, or even be closed down.
In considering the advantages of the direct grant school, there are few who would maintain that there is no room for improvement. The method of selection for entry referred to by other noble Lords is a case in point. Nor would I wish to minimise the value of a good comprehensive school education. But can anyone maintain that such schools can provide all the advantages of the grammar school? If all the children of the country cannot enjoy these, must none? Even the Soviet Union no longer believes this. The fact of the matter is that on the continued existence of the grammar schools depends to a large extent the full development of the brain power of the country, and the provision of future leaders in all walks of life. This is the
1890
measure of the issue before us, as I see it.
My Lords, whatever misgivings some of those on the Government Benches may have with regard to the decision of the Government—and I cannot believe, particularly after what has been said today, that all of them approve of it, although, when it comes to a vote, I suppose while there may be a few exceptions; and I am glad to hear that one of them will be the noble Lord, Lord Segal—Party unity will prevail.
My Lords, one point made in support of the Government is that their decision reflects the will of the people as represented by the vote in another place. What humbug this is, in view of the iniquities of the present electoral system, and also the fallacies inherent in the package deal of policies known as the Party Manifesto. But even if such a "take-the-lot-or-leave-it" attitude has to be accepted by the electorate on grounds of political expediency, must the Manifesto be regarded as sacrosanct, even though the situation facing the country has come to be quite different from when it was drawn up? The financial circumstances that the country now finds itself in are a case in point. This has been referred to by other noble Lords as a reason for second thoughts.
My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships any longer. All the other points I intended to make have been dealt with repeatedly, and far more eloquently than I could hope to do, by other noble Lords. While I take no satisfaction from the Government's decision, I am glad to have this final opportunity of recording my protest against this in the Division Lobby this evening.
4.8 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, after such a lengthy and impressive list of speakers it is difficult not to impose unduly on your Lordships by a lengthy reprise or by embarking on a new line of argument, and your Lordships will sympathise with me as I try to do neither. I should like to start out by taking up the questions which were asked of the Minister earlier this afternoon and the requests for assurances on a number of matters. He replied briefly to my noble friend Lord Belstead on the question of the continuance of grants during the phasing-out period, but we have had no assurance that the value

1891
of the capitation grant will not remain fixed, as it already has done for some time, in the face of galloping inflation; because to continue capitation at a fixed sum—a fixed number of pound notes when every year those pound notes buy less—is not to honour more than the letter of the undertaking which Her Majesty's Government have given on that issue.
I should like also to ask why it should be that the governors are expected to be liable in some cases for paying compensation for dismissal of teachers in their employment, when that dismissal is rendered inevitable by Her Majesty's Government's action. That was a question posed by my noble friend Lord Belstead, and if I did not hear an answer that was given I apologise. Like my noble friend Lord Eccles, I should like to ask what will be the powers of boards of governors as regards the appointment of teachers in schools which go into the maintained system, and, with Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, I have doubts as to the effective impact of catchment areas on the spread of intake and the power of the governors to see that the character of the school, at least in its religious aspects, remains unchanged. He, like many other noble Lords, picked up the point which appears at the beginning of the Liberal Amendment to this Motion and asked—and I ask again and I should like an answer—what is the Government's provision for boarding need, not merely at present, but what is the intention towards those nine or ten thousand places at present provided by the direct grant system of which it appears that more than 50 per cent. will cease to be available to the maintained sector in the near future.
I should like to pass on from there to pick up a point which the noble Lord opposite made, and which was echoed at other times from the Benches behind him, which referred to selective education on the cheap. My Lords, I am a simple man; I may be innumerate, but I do not understand the arithmetic which is applied in this case. As I understand it, Her Majesty's Government have a statutory duty, either in the person of the Government themselves or embodied in the local authority, to provide education for every child of educable age in this country. All of us certainly pay rates and taxes towards that end. Some parents, having paid those rates and taxes which
1892
entitle them to a free place send their children none the less to direct grant schools to which again they have to contribute to the tune of £14 million. I do not think that is a subsidy of the State to the parents any more than it is a subsidy by the parents to the State. It seems to me that the argument must fall. In any case, when we consider that the amount expended, we are told, on unemployment benefit is running at £13 million per week, maybe we can look at the thing in closer perspective. But can we? What will it cost Her Majesty's Government for each place to be provided anew in the maintained system as a result of this draconian and unwelcome regulation?
One other speech I should like to refer to, in, as it were, the sequence in which it occurred, is the powerful and interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, who seemed to me to rest an important argument upon a rather narrow base, but who was so completely answered by my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden that I merely wish to remind your Lordships of the arguments my noble friend then put forward.
My Lords, we are talking, if we are farmers, of the seed corn of this country; if we are industrialists, we are talking about the productive capital of this country, because it is only in the originality, the independence and the agility of the minds of future generations that their survival can repose. We in the Conservative Party can never consent freely to the destruction of established, beneficial, and effective institutions on the grounds not that they are too bad, but that they are too good at their job. In the words of the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, "Hastings has its head on the block, its only crime being excellence."
We never can consent freely to a programme which will inevitably ensure that while some such schools will, albeit reluctantly, be absorbed wholesale into the maintained sector, a great many more will, with equal reluctance, be forced to go wholly outside it. They will thus effectively, finally, and, as a direct result of Government policy, deny to the very children whose interests Her Majesty's Government profess to have nearest to their heart, precisely those advantages and opportunities of which they declare them

1893
to be most sorely in need. Was it not on this very ladder which was provided that many Members of Her Majesty's present Government began their own ascent? Is it not that ladder which they are pulling up behind them? I refer to a most illuminating speech—illuminating in many respects—by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, for which I was sorry to see that neither the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, nor the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, were able to be present, since it bore much on what they had to say. In this respect, it cannot be denied that the direct grant system provides access to benefits to those who would not, under another system, have them. Was it not, incidentally, Harold Wilson who said in 1966 that the grammar schools would be abolished only over his dead body? And where is his body now? A Government who express concern for disadvantaged children by sweeping away the principal means by which, if they are academically gifted, they can be helped to overcome that disadvantage, express the same depth of sympathy as that expressed by the Walrus to the Carpenter about the oysters.
To what are these "oyster" children to be committed—to an established, proven, and successful alternative? Far from it. There is at this present time both a widespread and a justified concern over the standards of both conduct and learning in a large part of the maintained sector. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, referred to this in very apposite terms. Many of your Lordships present in the Chamber will recall our debate on educational standards in October last year, in which great concern was expressed in this field. The system to which the "oyster" children are being transferred is not therefore entirely admirable. It is also subject to an administrative uncertainty among educational theorists and administrators about what exactly is a comprehensive school and how big it should be, even at this late stage in the day.
The Inner London Education Authority's about-face towards mini-comprehensives, as yet not supported by a reliable body of detailed arrangements for putting it into practice, is still working its way through during its assault upon the voluntary-aided grammar schools which
1894
surround this House. So what have we in prospect? Some of the "oyster" children will indeed go into excellent schools, and I must emphasise that we on this side are not carrying a torch or a lance against the comprehensive system as such.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: That is a change.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the noble Lord says that this a change. He must speak of matters as he sees them. I can only say that what we have always been concerned with in our Party is the interests of the child, with excellence of standards, with the preservation of tradition, with independence of outlook, and that these can be established in many different forms. What they cannot be produced in is a system which is the subject of dictatorial dogma. It does not follow that because education takes place in a particular organisation it is good. It has to be seen to be good, and then the organisation in which it is taking place can be given the authority and support which the State can give to it. Your Lordships will forgive me for digressing with some heat, but some of these "oyster" children will not go into—
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for intervening? Why must he keep on referring to the 10 million children who are not going through the direct grant school system as "oyster" children? Does he not understand that many of the children who do not get there are not cut out because, as I said in my observations, they are sub-standard, but because there are no places for them?
Lord ELTON: My Lords, there are two misconceptions here. The first is that the "oyster" children are the children who arc being swept out of the grammar schools which are proven and excellent, some of them into schools which are thought to be not so proven and not so excellent. May I ask the noble Lord to repeat the second part of his question?
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, not all the parents who make application for their children to go to direct grant schools on a non-fee paying basis, being looked after by the local education authority, are cut

1895
out because they do not pass the examination; they are cut out because there are no places for them.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for explaining again what he said, which is, in effect, that if one cannot have absolute choice for all, one should have no choice for anybody. We on these Benches feel that because choice is good and because good education should be given to children who are able to profit from it, there should be more opportunity for them to do so and not less, and that the direct grant list should not be curtailed but expanded. I shall come to this later in my speech.
Other children will go into schools of a size which, in spite of the introduction of the tutorial and house group system inevitably inflicts anonymity upon them, and I have taught in such schools and I have experience of it. Others will go into split site monstrosities, no more one school than Siamese twins are one person; schools which cause staff or pupils or both to walk long distances after registration in rain and wind and slush, thus promoting both influenza and truancy almost as briskly as they promote learning in socially acceptable behavour.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: Like Eton, my Lords.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, might I refer the noble Lord to the present discursus, going on in the Burton group, or to Croydon, where, in a comprehensive which is made up of a technical school and a secondary modern school half a mile apart, one of the teachers is called upon to start teaching at one end of the complex five minutes after he has finished teaching at the other? That is what we refer to as a botched-up scheme and it seems that administrative botchery and educational butchery are the twin symbols of the programme we have before us.
What of the expense? Her Majesty's Government have, I believe, provided £25 million for carrying out this regrettable piece of reorganisation. It was not conjured up out of a magician's hat or even at first remove out of a sheikhly pocket. Your Lordships will have noted that the Conservative allocation of £30 million for nursery provision has sunk to £9 million, at which
1896
figure prudent councils cannot take it up because its very inadequacy poses a further and unacceptable burden on a rating system which, as my noble friend Lord Swinton said, is hideously overloaded. That £25 million will not cover the cost of providing reasonably acceptable accommodation for the new breed of schools. The inevitable result of the combination of penury and haste under which the change is being brought about will he numbers of split sites, two and three-form entry schools with inadequate sixth form provision and other botched-up schemes.
I called this earlier an untimely exercise, and this brings me to the Liberal Amendment. I sympathise with, and indeed congratulate, the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for coming late and valiantly to the rescue of his Party. Some of the things he said were understandable and, indeed, a little acceptable to these Benches, but he finished up by saying that what was wanted was a little less ideology and a little more thought in the conversion to a totally comprehensive system. I recognise the difficulty of the Liberal Party, but T do not think that their Amendment altogether solves it. Their difficulty is that in another place they actually voted in favour of the regulations which have given rise to this debate, and in the course of the debate their educational spokesman said:
"As a Party, we support the principle of the Government's decision to phase out the direct grant from Autumn 1976."
That puts reasonable people who share our view that this is a disaster in a very difficult position.
What does the Amendment say? It does not condemn the ending of the direct grant as such, but the ending of it before provision has been made for boarding need and before agreement has been reached on the role of the direct grant schools within the comprehensive system. I shall not dwell too long on this, except to hope that those of your Lordships who may have been thinking of supporting such an Amendment will have paid as careful attention as I have to the debate to which your Lordships' House has been treated this afternoon and in the face of which it will be difficult for your Lordships to vote for the Amendment. This reorganisation, which is being undertaken at a time of acute

1897
public financial hardship and of inadequate funds—and those purchased at the expense of other constructive programmes —is something which I do not believe the House can readily accept. It has been undertaken by a Party in search, not of equality of opportunity, but of equality of product. It is not on its own that we should see it, but as part of a broad and ponderously advancing front which is moving across the country and which is gradually being forced on the people, who are numbed by its economic results and by its political insensitivity.
My noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden pointed out that this is an assault on the spirit of the Act and cited Sections 1,36 and 76 as being those in which the regulations are in breach. In particular, he referred to the way in which the wishes of parents are no longer to be catered for. But is this only a beginning? We have had reassuring words, but does the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, really not want to see a single direct grant school closing as a result of the Regulations, as he said? My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was unable yesterday to elicit any assurances from Her Majesty's Government that, when hounding the grant-aided schools of Scotland into the independent sector, they would not later pursue them and seek them out there for extinction. Thirteen months ago, the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, avowed that the end of the direct grant system was but a preliminary to the end of the independent educational sector which he at present supports. He quoted his Party's Manifesto in aid.
The new Regulations break the bridge between the maintained and the independent sectors. Can the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, tell us that the breaking of this bridge does not mean the beginning of a siege or has he changed his mind in the last 13 months? Are the eyes of his Party not fixed on private education with the same calculating glitter with which they look at private medicine, private ship-repairing, private industry and private profit? Is not this iniquitous Regulation part of the great blurring fog which is being breathed out across the land from the doors and windows of Transport House in the spirit of what I would term "monolithism"?
1898
I should like to expand on the subject of monolithism, but I am keeping your Lordships too long. It is merely a philosophy which imposes the belief that everything must be the same for everybody and done by the same machine, whether it be teaching, cure, building, mending ships or running factories. Today, the shadow of the axe swings over the direct grant schools. It is already in motion, with a Socialist hand on the handle and, I hope, not too many Liberal fingers raised in blessing, to put an end to a valued and productive system. But this will not be forever. It will be 1984 before the phasing-out is complete—some of your Lordships may think the date significant—but, before then, we shall have deserved a change of Government. Our Party is committed on its return before that date to re-open and extend the direct grant list, thus extending the chance of advancement to more disadvantaged children. It will admit to it not only those schools which are currently upon the list, though they will clearly have priority, but other suitable schools as well, and it will build into the system a statutory position which cannot be removed by order that is, without the certainty of adequate Parliamentary debate.
The vast volume of correspondence which many noble Lords have received from all parts of the country and all walks of life bears witness to the great public pressure on us to express the widely held and fully justified feeling of alarm mixed with outrage at the Government's policy with regard to this Regulation. My hand is cramped with writing it. Ours is a policy of bringing the maintained and independent sectors together, of rebuilding the bridge. It is our policy to build and to give opportunity. It is up to the noble Lord opposite to prove that it is not his policy to cramp and to destroy.
4.30 p.m.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, by the leave of the House I should like to try to answer the many points which have been raised in this far-ranging debate which has gone very much wider than the question of direct grant schools. We have ranged from nursery school provision through to the universities, and I think the only thing that we have left out has been adult education. I do not want to weary the House too long in trying to reply to all these points.

1899
I want to start by paying my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, and his 1944 Education Act. I had a kind note from him a short time ago explaining why he could not be here at this moment. Nevertheless, I want to pay my own small tribute to that Act which provides so much of the imaginative framework within which the Department of Education and Science still operates. I should be very ready to accept his kind and friendly invitation to a tutorial on these matters—which I think was broadly how he couched his remarks at that stage—in his own Cambridge college, my own Cambridge college, or my Oxford college. No doubt we can arrange that in correspondence subsequently.
So many points have been raised that if I do not manage to take up each one of them (although I shall do my best to take up the most important ones) I shall write to noble Lords more specifically. If I omit to answer particular points either by accident or—I was going to say, "by design", but it is not in fact my design to omit any of the more substantial points —I shall write.
I start with the matter which has been much raised, that by ending the direct grant system we shall be reducing the educational opportunities, particularly for working class children. As I have already made clear, we do not accept that argument. First—as the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, emphasised—because in the direct grant schools it is usual to find a very heavy weighting of children of professional and managerial parents and very few children of unskilled workers. Nor do we accept that good educational opportunity exists only in selective schools. We feel—and general educational opinion on all sides agrees with us —that opportunity for all children can be very much better in comprehensive schools, and this is especially true for those children who happen to be late developers.
I now come to the assertion that freedom of choice will be reduced. This was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, and a number of other noble Lords. I wish to stress in this context that the direct grant schools give no freedom of choice to those—the vast majority, that is—who fail the 11-plus. The argument arises from
1900
a desire to perpetuate selective education for a few, and subsidised by the State, rather than from a desire for freedom for all parents to choose between one school or another. As I have already emphasised, direct grant schools are by no means evenly spread. Their geography, like the grant system itself, arises from an accident of history. Therefore, whatever choice they may offer is by no means universal. For the great majority of parents, where selection still operates, freedom of choice is an illusion. They have in practice no option but to send their children to a local secondary modern school if they fail the 11-plus.
A fully comprehensive system will, in our view, open up new choices, not only between schools, where this is practicable, but also within schools. This is not—and here I am taking up specifically a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—a totalitarian approach. We are not here adopting a totalitarian principle which will cut out all choice. Not only will there be choice between the different schools in the comprehensive sector, but there will continue to be choice between the maintained sector and the independent sector. Here, I should like to reply specifically to a point which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just made, when he said that the independent sector was next on our list for abolition, and appeared to quote from something I had said on an earlier occasion in this House. My Lords, I have never stated that at all. I have not got the quotation in my hand (I have not had the opportunity to refresh my memory on this, but this is what I hope I said). I believe I said that this Government had, as an essential part of their policy, the abolition of the charitable status so far as independent schools are concerned. There is a great deal of difference, my Lords, between the abolition of the charitable status of the independent schools and the abolition of the independent schools themselves, and it is no part of our policy to abolish the independent schools.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord of the next sentence? If I may refresh his memory about the paragraph I was referring to, in Hansard of 31st October 1974, at column 268, he said:
"It is in this context that I want to emphasise that the Government fully intend to carry

1901
out the commitment in the Party Manifesto, which said:
"…the next Labour Government will stop the present system of direct grant schools and withdraw tax relief and charitable status from public schools as a first step towards our long-term aim of phasing out fee paying in schools"".
I do not know how the noble Lord interprets that.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I reiterate what I said a moment or two ago; our policy is to end the charitable status of the independent schools. The noble Lord may well be accurate in quoting what he has; I may not have put things as precisely as I ought on that occasion.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord then withdrawing what is said in the quotation from the Manifesto and saying that it is not a step towards their long-term aim of phasing out fee-paying in schools?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I refuse to be drawn on the question of the longer-term aims of Party policy. The point about longer-term aims of Party policy is that these are renewed from time to time, as the noble Lord knows, and fortunately—and it is a very good fortune—everything that has been in Conservative Party Manifestos has certainly not been enacted. This country would be in a most terrible mess if it had.
My Lords, I think I made the point that, with the abolition of the direct grant system, there would still continue to be freedom of choice between the maintained system, on the one hand, and the independent system, on the other. I should like to come next to the argument that good schools will be destroyed and lost. This was a point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, the noble Lord, Lord James, and a number of others. We are not setting out to destroy any schools. It is the grant which is being phased out; and I hope that many of the schools will join the maintained system as comprehensive schools and will bring with them their traditions and standards, which we hope they will retain in the same way as have hundreds of former grammar schools, county and voluntary alike, which have become com-
1902
prehensive over the last 10 years. If they are not prepared to serve the community in this way, they may become independent, but in that case they cannot expect help from taxpayers' money.
It is at this point, my Lords, that I come to this question of a bridge of which so much has been made in this debate; the direct grant schools forming a bridge between the maintained sector, on the one hand, and the independent sector, on the other. This seems to me one of the phoniest and most misleading arguments which have been used in the course of today. A bridge, my Lords, is not something you actually stand on; it is there for you to move across. The whole point of a bridge is that you move from one side to another. When noble Lords say that the direct grant schools are a bridge between the maintained and the independent schools, are they saying that they therefore expect to see people from the independent schools move across the bridge into the maintained school sector, or are they saying that people will move from the maintained sector into the independent sector? That is the essential concept of a bridge, and it makes nonsense to use that concept of a bridge in any other circumstances. Since noble Lords, I am quite sure, were not saying either of those things, then the concept of a bridge is something which it really is not worth dealing with any further.
My Lords, I come to the point that some of the direct grant schools may not find a place in the maintained sector. This was a point which was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the noble Lord, Lord James. We do not yet know whether this will be a sizeable problem. The problems are no greater for the direct grant schools than they have been for the grammar schools which are already in the maintained system. The direct grant schools may, if they become maintained, contribute to a comprehensive system of secondary education in a number of different ways. Because of the specialist facilities which they often provide, for example in their science laboratories—and this might deal with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made about the son of the Polish immigrant—they might most suitably be used for a concentration of sixth form work, either as sixth form colleges or as 11 to 18 schools

1903
providing sixth form facilities for a number of 11 to 16 schools which are without their own sixth forms. In other cases, they may function most suitably simply as 11 to 18 schools alongside the existing maintained schools with a similar age range. All this is a matter for discussion with the local authorities.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, before the noble Lord goes on, may I ask for a clarification of one matter? The noble Lord said that there is no difference between the problem which a direct grant school may experience in trying to go into the maintained system, and the difficulties that there may be in a maintained grammar school becoming a comprehensive school. Would the noble Lord like to reconsider what he said on that? Am I not right in saying that under Section 13 of the 1944 Act, if a maintained grammar school is to become comprehensive, the proposal for this is from the local education authority itself. The distinction is that here you may get a direct grant school wanting to come in and wishing that the proposal is made by a local authority which may, with the best will in the world, say, "We are sorry but this is not possible."
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I accept the distinction that the noble Lord is making. But in the discussions that we are having with the local authorities, and in the discussions that they will have with the schools every effort will be made—and this is what we want to achieve—to bring the direct grant schools into the maintained system.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening again. I accept that, and I am certain that the Department will be using their considerable powers to carry out what the noble Lord is saying. But on the last occasion when your Lordships' House discussed this—on a Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley—the noble Lord said that in the final analysis it may be that the schools in the direct grant sector will not choose to become maintained. Today, the noble Lord has said that it may be that schools in the direct-grant system will not be prepared to become maintained. I would ask the noble Lord to rephrase that, because in some cases I do not think this is an accurate representation of the truth.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I will try to rephrase it, but it is not always easy to respond off the cuff to delicate nuances of phraseology. The Government and the Department are hoping that as many of the direct grant schools as possible will find a place within the maintained system. We shall do all in our power to try to bring about a situation to produce that end.
My Lords, what I should like to turn to now are some of the different problems that have been raised about religious schools and the question of religion in this area. The point has been made that the religious schools might suffer. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, raised a number of points on this question. There were points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead; and the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Wakefield and the Bishop of Worcester also raised points in this regard. We do not expect the religious influence to diminish in any way by the phasing out of the direct grant schools. Those denominational schools which opt to join the maintained sector will do so no doubt as voluntary-aided schools, in which the governors will have no less power than they have at present in determining the part that religion shall play in the schools.
Turning to the points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, the fact is that there are thousands of denominational schools operating satisfactorily now as voluntary schools. The functions of their governors are prescribed, partly by Statute and partly by the articles of government made by the Secretary of State which are virtually in standard form, a form in which they have been made for the best part of 30 years. They have in common certain of those functions with the governors of county schools. These are at present under review by the Taylor Committee appointed earlier this year by the Secretary of State. Other functions are peculiar to governors of voluntary schools. They derive from the special relationship of the schools-providing body to the LEAs and the Secretary of State, and they will not be reviewed by the Taylor Committee, although it will be open to the Secretary of State to review them in consultation with the bodies concerned in the light of the Taylor Com-

1905
mittee's conclusions and recommendations. Pending any such review, the governors of voluntary-aided schools will continue to have the same special functions and powers as they now have.
If I may turn to the particular points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, on the position of Catholic schools, the Catholic Education Council have ample experience of the way voluntary aided schools are conducted within the maintained sector. It is expected that most direct grant schools which opt to become maintained will wish to do so in a voluntary-aided capacity. The 1975 Cessation of Grant Regulations provide for the settlement of capital debts incurred by these former direct grant schools which become maintained, subject to certain conditions. When the schools become maintained, they will benefit from the normal arrangements for aided schools by which improvements are paid for by the proprietors with the help of an 85 per cent. grant from the Government. It would, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, will appreciate, be contrary to the law and indeed the essential nature of the dual system, if the Government were, as he suggested, to bear all the costs of improvement.
If I may next turn to the specific points which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, raised—and of which he was kind enough to give me some advance notice—the first point was: what will be the position of a pupil with a free place in a direct grant school who transfers to a different direct grant school? At present a pupil who leaves a direct grant school at which he has a free place has no automatic claim to a free place in another direct grant school. If the governors of the school to which he is transferring, or the LEA, are prepared to give him a free place, he will be no worse off by moving between schools. If neither the governors nor the LEA are prepared to give him a free place, he will have to pay fees to attend the direct grant school. The alternative will be to transfer to a maintained school. The position will be no different so far as the pupil is concerned when the phasing out of direct grants begins, but as the school will not receive capitation grant for him the fee will be higher than it will be under present
1906
arrangements. There will be no fee remission at the Government's expense.
The next point the noble Lord raised was whether a fee-paying pupil who transfers from a boarding to a day place within the same school would continue to be eligible for fee remission. Boarding pupils are not now eligible for fee remission under present arrangements. If, during the phasing-out period, a boarder in a year group in which day pupils are eligible for fee remission becomes a day pupil in the same school, he will be eligible for fee remission.
The last two points about which the noble Lord asked referred to whether there will be any assurance that the level of the salary of any member of the staff in a direct grant school which enters the maintained system will be guaranteed, and what does the last sentence of paragraph 19 of Circular 7/75 mean? Will the school governors have to make compensation for the termination of employment where the LEA are unable to find appropriate employment for all members of the staff? I cannot at this moment enlarge on what has been said in Circular 7/75. Discussions are taking place, and my right honourable friend hopes to have some proposals to put to the Direct Grant Joint Committee at about the turn of the year. It is certainly his intention that the position of staff should be safeguarded as far as possible.
I come now to the question of cost, which was raised by a number of speakers, including the noble Lords, Lord Butler, Lord Balerno, Lord James, Lord Alexander, Lord Segal, and the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. It is still not possible to estimate exactly what the financial consequences of the phasing out of the direct grant will be. There may well be some savings and additional cost to the public purse. The final balance does not seem likely to be big one way or the other. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said in answer to a Question on 30th June, no firm estimate of cost is available. If all the direct grant schools were to enter the maintained system as voluntary aided schools, as would be expected in most if not all cases, local education authorities would have no responsibility for capital expenditure on their premises. Any effect on current expenditure under those circumstances would depend mainly

1907
on, first, the size and age range of each school in its new role and, secondly, how many of its pupils were children who, if its status had remained unchanged would have attended it or other non-maintained schools at some expense to their parents.
At the moment it is not possible to estimate these factors which involve many thousands of separate decisions by local education authorities schools and individual parents. The latest estimate of the maximum increase in current public expenditure would be about £14 million. At the other end of the range of possibilities, there could be a saving to local educational authorities of £23 million or more, and a total saving to public funds of at least £38 million, when account is taken of Central Government expenditure also. We shall have a better idea when the schools have all made their choices by the end of this year, but the final balance will depend on very many individual decisions made in the years to come.
I accept that local education authorities could be faced with some additional expenditure as a result of this phasing-out in any one of several ways. First, some authorities may well have no practical alternative but to take up new places at these schools for a number of years to come, even where the schools are moving towards independence. They may otherwise be unable to make suitable provision for all the children in their area. The LEA will then have to pay fees representing the full economic cost of such new places in the future in those circumstances. The element represented by the capitation grant which will not be payable for those places will be transferred from Central Government to local government expenditure. I emphasise that although it may be significant in some areas for some time to come, it is a limited problem and one which should disappear fairly soon.
The second way in which additional expenditure may arise is that some children who would otherwise have gone to direct grant schools without any cost to their LEAs may no longer be able to do so, either because the school has closed —that is not likely to happen in many case—or because the parents find themselves unable to pay the necessary fee. The LEAs may well have spare capacity in their maintained schools, so the arrival
1908
there of some additional children will cause no embarrassment. Where they do not, some additional provision may be required. Again, I would emphasise that this is a limited problem. We do not know—I say this quite frankly—how many additional places at maintained schools might be required in these circumstances. Everybody is entitled to his own guess. The Government's guess is that it will be very small and nowhere near the massive increase suggested in some quarters. We shall have to wait and see but whatever additional expenditure might be necessary in these limited respects, the Government see no reason for thinking that, taking the operation as a whole, there will be a significant net addition to public expenditure as a whole in the foreseeable future.
I shall now take up the suggestion that some boarding places might be lost —a point which was made by the noble Lords, Lord Wade, Lord Butler and Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. It is too early to assume that the number of boarding places will be significantly reduced if direct grant boarding schools enter the maintained sector or become independent. We shall not know the likely position here until the schools and local education authorities have made their decisions. Although there are over 7,000 boarding places in direct grant grammar upper schools, this should be seen in proportion. There are over 10,000 boarding places in maintained secondary schools, and more than 58,000 secondary boarding places in independent schools.
Local education authorities which see a need to provide pupils with boarding education can do so by sending them to any of the types of school I have just mentioned. I have no doubt that local education authorities will consider very sympathetically any proposals by the proprietors of direct grant boarding schools to become maintained. Wherever it is helpful, officers of my Department will be glad to join talks between school proprietors and local education authorities, but the final decision on entry must rest with the local education authorities. If, in the end, the direct grant boarding school cannot find a place in the maintained sector, there is no reason why it should not continue to provide boarding education as an independent school. If it attracts sufficient boarding pupils

1909
at the present time, there is no reason why it should not continue to do so if it becomes independent. Boarding provision has never been subsidised by direct grant, and boarding costs at these schools should not rise because of the withdrawal of the direct grant, whether they become maintained or independent.
The Government are anxious to provide ample time for discussions to take place between the proprietors of schools and the local education authorities, and if a school genuinely wishes to enter the maintained sector organised on comprehensive lines the proprietors should sign the declaration of intent and forward it to the Department. This will give the school a further year in which to pursue its negotiations with the local education authority in whose area it is situated, or with a group of local education authorities if that seems to offer better prospects of a desirable outcome.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that part of his speech, may I ask him for a piece of information? In the take-up of places in either independent or direct grant schools, will local education authorities in future be expected to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to do this?
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, will the noble Lord speak a little less fast? Some of us find it rather difficult to follow.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, the answer to the second question is easier than the answer to the first. The answer to the second question is, Yes; I will certainly go more slowly. I was not wanting to trespass too long on the time of your Lordships' House when I have to cover so many points. I should like to write to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, about the first question, because I cannot answer it "off the cuff".
I should like now to deal with the point which has been put forward, that the deadline is too tight; that we are asking people to take their decisions too quickly in this area. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. A good deal has been said about the lack of time given to schools to decide where their future should lie. Although
1910
we did not make a formal announcement on the subject until 11th March this year, it has been known for a number of years that the withdrawal of direct grant was "on the cards". Since 11th March we have spoken to the representatives of local authority associations and representatives of schools to ensure that the withdrawal of grant can be carried through smoothly.
At the direct grant schools' own request, we gave them advance notice on 1st May of the provision to be made in the regulations, and we were criticised for this by Opposition spokesmen. We have now asked the schools to let us have a decision by the end of this year, in principle, as to the direction in which their future appears to lie. Those which express a bona-fide wish to enter the maintained system will continue for a short time under the present arrangements until they can be brought into the maintained sector as comprehensive schools. Governors of schools have had since 11th March to focus their minds on this subject, and I understand that many of them will be taking their decisions—indeed, for the most part in governors' meetings to be held this term.
It has been said that some pupils will suffer during the transition—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, made. We are taking very great pains to protect the interests of pupils who are already m these schools. There is no reason why any child who is now in a direct grant upper school should have his education upset because of the withdrawal of grant, except in the very few cases where a school may decide to close in the near future. We intend to continue the capitation and fee remission grants in respect of these pupils, whether they hold free or fee-paying places. Our intention not to change the level of capitation grant does not imply financial "starvation" for the schools. Here I wish specifically to reply to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked me to deal with a short time ago. Their sources of income will remain essentially unchanged. If the costs of the schools increase, their fees, payable by local education authorities or parents, will rise as necessary to meet their needs. Parents who already pay fees will continue to pay according to their means, with the Department's fee remission grant meeting the difference where it exists

1911
between the parental contribution and the full economic fee.
These pupils will not be affected by a decision of the Governors to seek independence. Where schools decide to come into the maintained system, and we hope that very many of them will, the Governors and local education authorities can be expected to do everything possible to ensure that the education of the selective pupils remaining in the schools will not be prejudiced. If it is argued that holding capitation grants steady will cause the fees to go up more than otherwise would be the case—this is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, made—the answer is that through the fee remission scheme the Department will meet the cost in respect of those parents for whom the increase is too heavy a burden.
In the defence today of the direct grant schools, very many points have been made. We have heard about the virtues of selective education. We have heard about their academic excellence. Many of the arguments have been not so much in defence of the direct grant schools, as in defence of the maintained grammar schools. However, in this defence of the direct grant school system it seems to me that nobody has said why better-off parents should be specially subsidised for a form of education which they prefer, and which they will be able to continue to buy at its true cost in the independent sector in the future.
In the end, it seems to me to come down to this. Like the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I believe in equality of opportunity. Like the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, I believe in quality and excellence, but we differ on how best these objectives can be attained. But we believe that without real equality of opportunity the possibility of achieving the very highest standards will be reserved for the very few. We further believe that the maintenance of privilege is the enemy of equality of opportunity, and that so long as it exists we shall never get real equality of opportunity.
Therefore, in our view the perpetuation of a privileged system like the direct grant school system in which, for the most part, well-off families are being subsidised by the State to buy at less than economic cost what they regard as a privileged education for their children,
1912
is the enemy of equality of opportunity. In the last analysis that, my Lords, is why noble Lords opposite want to maintain it, are pledged to restore and extend it and to extend the subsidies thereby produced for middle-class and better-off parents. We on this side of the House want to provide real equality of opportunity for all children. Our policy of phasing out the direct grant schools is an important part of that programme. This is the policy upon which we are embarked not only with pride, but in the sure conviction and knowledge that what we are seeking to achieve has the support of the great majority of the people of this country.
5.5 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, as we embark on the twelfth hour of debate on this general subject in this Parliamentary Session, I know your Lordships will be pleased to learn that I shall not make a long speech. If there are any noble Lords who are misguided enough to want to know what I think about this subject, I refer them to the rather long speech that I made during the previous debate in March. But it would not be right to end without my first having had the opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for standing in for me when I was unable to be here owing to the rearrangement of Business, and I know that noble Lords will be grateful that it was he who spoke and not myself.
In this debate there have been many good speeches and many valid points. There has also been a certain amount of special and tendentious pleading. I listened with great interest and pathos to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, talking about the influenza from which people would suffer when they had to move about between different buildings in schools covering a wide area. I notice that his bronchial tubes do not seem to have suffered by attendance at Eton, where that happens the whole time.
We tabled an Amendment to this Motion to register once again, as we were not able to do in another place, the distinctive attitude that we have to this problem at this time. We were the first Party to put a comprehensive system of education into our Party Manifesto and programme. Unlike some other

1913
people, we do not think that you can have a comprehensive system which is not comprehensive, and we do not think that you can refrain from attacking the comprehensive system if you plead for separate and selective schools. Nevertheless, we do not think that the matter should be tackled in this way at this particular time. We thought that the Report of the Public Schools Commission was an extremely good one and should be implemented. I never cease to wonder why we appoint so many experts to report on a matter and spend so much time on it, and then pay absolutely no attention to what they say.
Various very good speeches have been made today, a number of which have supported the Liberal point of view, and although I do not say that he was doing that specifically, I shall certainly want to read the Report of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, who, with his great experience, put his own point of view. Noble Lords on these Benches have given consider-
able consideration to what we should do now. In fact, we have no legislation before us; we are not dealing with a Prayer against the order. This has been a general debate, and we have come to the conclusion that it is probably best, and most in the tradition of your Lordships' House, that a debate like this should stand on its own and that people should be able to read the speeches and weigh up the arguments. For that reason, I shall ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment and I shall advise my noble friends to abstain if there is a vote on the main Motion, because I do not think anything more will be shown than has already been shown in the speeches by a mere tramping through the Lobbies this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 131; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Elton, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Amory, V.

Energlyn, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Margadale, L.

Balerno, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Merrivale, L.

Barrington, V.

Gage, V.

Mersey, V.

Belstead, L.

Gainford, L.

Middleton, L.

Berkeley, B.

Garner, L.

Monck, V.

Blake, L.

Gisborough, L.

Monson, L.

Boothby, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bourne, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Moyne, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Goschen, V.

Nairne, Ly.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Greenway, L.

Newall, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Grenfell, L.

Northchurch, B.

Burton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Caccia, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Carrington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Chelwood, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Pender, L.

Chesham, L.

Hawke, L.

Piercy, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hood, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Redesdale, L.

Cowley, E.

Inglewood, L.

Robbins, L.

Craigton, L.

Ironside, L.

Rochdale, V.

Crawshaw, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Croft, L.

Kemsley, V.

St. Davids, V.

Davidson, V.

Killearn, L.

Sandford, L.

de Clifford, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Sandhurst, L.

de Freyne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sandys, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

London, Bp.

Segal, L.

Digby, L.

Long, V.

Selkirk, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Sempill, Ly.

Eccles, V.

Loudoun, C.

Shannon, E.

Effingham, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sherfield, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elles, B.

Lytton, E.

Somers, L.

Stamp, L.

Swinton, E.

Vivian, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Tenby, V.

Wakefield, Bp.

Strathcarron, L.

Teviot, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Wolfenden, L.

Strathspey, L.

Tranmire, L.

Wolverton, L.

Suffield, L.

Verulam, E.

Worcester, Bp.

Swansea, L.

Vickers, B.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Aylestone, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Melchett, L.

Balogh, L.

Hale, L.

Pannell, L.

Beswick, L.

Hall, V.

Ritchie-Calder, L

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brockway, L.

Hunt, L.

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

Jacques, L.

Shepherd, L. (L Privy Seal.)

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B.

Crook, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Cudlipp, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gardiner, L.

Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

COMMUNITY LAND BILL
5.19 p.m.
Returned from the Commons, with certain Amendments agreed to without amendment, with certain other Amendments agreed to with amendment, with certain other Amendments disagreed to and Amendments proposed in lieu thereof, and with certain other Amendments disagreed to for the Reasons assigned.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments, Commons Amendments in lieu of certain other of the Lords Amendments, and Commons Amendments to certain other of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments, Commons Amendments in lieu of certain other of the Lords Amendments and Commons Amendments to certain other of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Birk.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos.1 and 1A.]
Clause 2, page 3, leave out lines 27 to 29.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is important to retain maximum flexibility in establishing joint boards.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No.1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered No. 1A. First, this is a limited power. It is a subsidiary power which can only be used to make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient. Secondly, this is a necessary power. The need to include modification of other legislation arises from the fact that the Bill does not include new powers for local authorities to manage and dispose of land.
There is a further point which noble Lords opposite may not have appreciated when the Amendment was originally made; that is, that the power may be needed also to protect the position of the constituent authorities. The loss of that power would clearly be undesirable, and I hope that the House will not insist on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Melchett.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we come to the end of this very long and complicated proceeding. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, the Reason that the Commons have given. I suppose that we must be grateful that at least we are able to read this in the Commons proceedings of yesterday, because on going through the information that was handed to me originally in a cyclostyled document at the end of the morning, I was told that that was all we had, and that if we wanted to see the other relevant parts of Hansard, they were typewritten with handwritten Amendments only for viewing in the House of Commons Library. This is of course the state to which we are now reduced on what the Government themselves have called one of their most important pieces of legislation. The whole arrangements to which we have been subjected over this last few weeks have been a disgrace, and I am bound to say that this is the final insult.
We have done our best, under once again exceedingly difficult circumstances, to try to struggle through. The only thing that I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is that of all the rather unconvincing reasons for not accepting our Amendments, I think that his is slightly better than some of the rest. I am not prepared not to accept it tonight because it is rather a technical matter and, as I say, we shall not argue this. There are other Amendments on which one can make great play later on, but we shall wait until we get to those points.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 2 and 3]
Clause 3, page 3, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 40.
Schedule 1, page 51, line 21, at end insert—
("4. Development consisting exclusively of the building of a single dwelling-house.")
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because the power of authorities to acquire land should not be unduly limited.
5.23 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 3A.
1918
While I sympathise to some extent with the noble Baroness in the comment she has made about the speed of this procedure, nevertheless all the way through Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading we clearly indicated where Amendments were matters of principle. We also emphasised that while we accepted them, it was without prejudice to what would be done in another place, and gave extremely broad hints about the likely outcome.
These Amendments would remove the building of a single dwelling-house from excepted development and place it in exempt development. It was argued in support of the Amendments that they were necessary to make clear in the Bill the exclusion from the land scheme contained in paragraph 34 of the White Paper for the building of a house for owner-occupation on a single plot which was owned by a prospective owner-occupier on White Paper day. There are two objections to this premise. First, virtually all the exemptions from the scheme dealt with in paragraphs 34 to 35 of the White Paper are being dealt with through excepted development. The only significant exception to this is agricultural development. There is no reason in logic to treat the single plot exception any differently from the other White Paper exceptions. Secondly, what the Amendments would achieve goes far beyond anything contained in the White Paper because no time-limit is imposed on the ownership of the plot, so it cannot be claimed that the Amendments are necessary to implement what was contained in the White Paper. Further, there might be circumstances in the future when it would be right for an authority to buy land for building a single house. We have recognised, by putting the building of a single house into excepted development, that such cases would be rare; but, equally, within the terms of the land scheme, if there are such cases, then an authority ought to have the power to buy land for such development.
As in the previous arguments on this point, the Opposition cannot have it both ways. If they accept that local authorities already have powers to buy land for a single house as they do under the housing Acts, then what objection can there possibly be to bringing such development within the scope of the new

1919
acquisition power? If, on the other hand, they say that what the Bill provides is an extension of authorities'powers—that is, that the present powers do not run to this—our answer must be that we want to give authorities wider powers, which is obviously part of the fundamental basis of this Bill.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 3A.—(Baroness Birk.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I regard the reason in this case as one of a sequence of quite extraordinary statements that we have heard over this Bill. The reason for not agreeing to the Amendment which we inserted in the Bill is that the power of authorities to acquire land should not be unduly limited. The first reason why one finds this an extraordinary statement is that it suggests, as the noble Baroness rightly said, that this is to be an extension of the powers of acquisition of local authorities, but it comes in a place where the White Paper deliberately, in paragraph 34, exempted the single dwelling plot. When we come to write it into the Bill we now find that it is to be taken out and treated as excepted development, where, of course, the powers of compulsory acquisition are still possible. We find at the same time that it is included as the rights of individual owner occupiers automatically and absolutely to have a right to object to a compulsory purchase order are to be taken away.
Many people will regard this not only as an attempt to deceive the public—to deceive those who own single plots—but as a very sinister application against the rights of individual owner occupiers throughout the country, and this is not something that will be forgotten in a hurry. I consider that the argument that it will be impossible for local authorities to get together a number of pieces of land because they may be dotted around with owner occupied plots a singularly weak argument when the Government have deliberately excluded the owner occupied house from the disposal notification areas; if one principle applies in one case it ought to apply in the other, so the Bill is being inconsistent. We shall not, of course, insist on our objections, but this is not—I draw this to everybody's atten-
1920
tion—a matter that will be forgotten in a hurry.
5.24 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 4 to 7]
After Clause 3, page 4, line 8, at end insert the following new Clause A:
Outstanding material interests
("A.—(1) A material interest in land shall be treated as outstanding for the purposes of this Act unless—

(a) it is owned by an authority, a local or new town authority, a parish or community council or, in Scotland, the council of a district within the area of a general planning authority, or

(b) it is owned by a charity, or

(c) it is of a description specified in an order made under this subsection by the Secretary of State.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a material interest in land shall be treated as owned by any person mentioned in that subsection at any time if, at that time, that person—

(a) has entered into a binding contract for its acquisition, or

(b) subject only to completion of the administration of a deceased person's estate, is entitled to it under the terms of the deceased person's will.

(3) An order under subsection (1) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
The Commons agreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendments thereto:
In paragraph (b) of subsection (1), leave out ("it is owned by a charity") and insert ("during the whole of the period beginning with 12th September 1974 and ending with the relevant time, it has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout)")
In paragraph (a) of subsection (2), after ("has") insert ("or had")
(In paragraph (b) of subsection (2) after ("is") insert ("or was").
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 to the Lords Amendment No. 4, and it may be convenient in discussing those numbers also to speak to Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 19A. I understand that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has no objection to this discussion in that way.
The Amendments which were made by your Lordships were returned to us as unacceptable by another place. Amend-

1921
ment No. 4 to Clause 3A would provide that all charity land, irrespective of when it came into the ownership of a charity, would be exempt from the acquisition duty of authorities and from the consequential suspension of planning permission. Your Lordships' Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 to Clause 25 would provide in addition that charities would receive compensation at market value for all their land in perpetuity, irrespective of when it was acquired by a charity. Secondly, they would reduce to one year the qualifying period during which land must have been in charitable ownership and use in order to qualify for the assessment of compensation at prevailing use value. Thirdly, your Lordships' Amendment No. 19 would allow charities the option on the second appointed day of assessment for compensation at whichever may produce the greater amount as between market value and prevailing use value, even where, apart from the provision in Clause 25, a lesser amount would be payable under the Land Compensation Acts.
As has been said more than once in our debates on this matter, these Amendments do not agree with the Government's stated aim that, while special provision should—as has been done—be made for charities, that must be consistent with the basic principles of the Bill. That view has now been taken in another place. I do not believe that at this stage and at the end of long discussion of these matters I should detain the House by repeating in detail an account of the special treatment which the Government have given to charities. However, I should like to make one point and I believe it to be an important one. A great deal has been said by noble Lords about the damaging effects which they believe—the Government think wrongly —the community land scheme will have on the work of our charities. They believe, for example, that the effect of the provisions of the Bill will prevent the charities from undertaking their work and from ever introducing innovatory schemes. That I do not believe to be the case. In most instances, charities will be able to continue their activities as before, simply because land is not a factor in their operations or, if it is, it by no means follows that it will be required for
1922
development. I repeat that this Bill is concerned with development land. It is only in that context that any land—not just charity land—will be affected by the scheme.
This is not a Bill to bring all land into public ownership, only development land. What the Government have sought to do is to give extensive protection to land owned by Churches and charities on White Paper day. The Government's objective is to ensure that the change from the present to the new land system in relation to development land is made as easy for the Churches and charities as is possible within the principles of the scheme. May I remind your Lordships that there will also be complete exemption from development land tax for land owned by a charity on White Paper day, which is to be provided for in the separate Development Land Tax Bill?
I therefore ask the House to accept the Commons Amendments to your Lordships' Amendments No. 4, which will include in the definition of a material interest in land which will not be treated as outstanding for the purposes of this Bill, a material interest which was owned by a charity on White Paper day and has continued to be owned by a charity until the date of acquisition. As your Lordships will know, this will have the effect that such material interests will not be subject to the acquisition duty on authorities nor to the consequential suspension of planning permission.
The Commons Amendment to your Lordships' Amendment No. 17 will allow charities to receive prevailing use value rather than market value for their land after 11 years or after the second appointed day, whichever period ends later. This rate of compensation will apply to land which they owned on White Paper day and to land which has been acquired after White Paper day where, in each case, it has been in continuous charitable ownership and use (though not necessarily that of the same charity) for a minimum period of seven years. The Commons agree with your Lordships that the qualifying period should be reduced from the 10-year period which was originally proposed. It is reduced to seven years. No doubt the right reverend Prelate will compare this concession to the pea which the Devil is said to have set before St. Anthony for his supper, when the Saint

1923
said that it was good so far as it went. I am sorry that the morsel—which will possibly be the language of the right reverend Prelate—will not be more substantial. But, at any rate, it moves somewhat in the direction which he proposed, which was to reduce the period to one year. The Government cannot accept that, because they do not think that a period as short as that would be enough to make sure of establishing the bona fides of charitable use.
Charities will thus have the option, in the circumstances I have explained, after second appointed day, of receiving compensation at either prevailing use value or current use value. The rules on equivalent reinstatement value will of course continue to apply where appropriate. The Commons Amendment to your Lordships' Amendment No. 19 introduces a provision which will ensure that compensation payable under this section will not be payable if, apart from this section, compensation would be for a lesser amount. This is necessary in order to avoid the possibility of a landowner receiving a larger amount in compensation as a consequence of this Bill than that to which he would have been entitled under existing legislation.
I invite the House to accept these Amendments which give effect to, and indeed go further than, the special provisions for Churches and other charities which were announced by the Minister in another place on 15th July. The Government are confident that these provisions will be sufficient to ensure that the transition to the full stage of the land scheme will not only be as easy as possible for charities, but will, in recognition of the unique service which we recognise they provide to the community, place them in what will be indeed a favourable position compared to that of other owners of land. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 to the Lords Amendment No. 4.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
5.38 p.m.
The LORD BISHOP of LONDON: My Lords, I was much mystified by the reasons which are given for the Government's action on Amendment No. 4. First, I was delighted to read that the Commons agreed to this Amendment, and then I
1924
was much surprised to discover that they were immediately proposing an Amendment which completely defeated the object of the Amendment to which they told us they had given their agreement. This seems to me to be another instance of the old Alice in Wonderland principle that a word has the meaning which one attaches to it. We have already had an example of this in what is meant by a "tax", and now we have another example regarding what "agreement" is.
In fact, the Amendment which the Government are proposing is a deletion of the Amendment which your Lordships passed with such an overwhelming majority when we recommitted this Bill. I am sure that the Government will appreciate that their action will have caused very bitter disappointment to the Churches and to the charities, for whom I have had the privilege to speak. As I have thought about, discussed and examined this situation more and more, it has come to my mind that the Government have completely forgotten the existence of the Churches and charities. There is no reference to them in the White Paper on land; there were very serious disabilities to their interests when the Bill was originally published; and it has been only as a result of representations persistently made from the highest quarters that the Government have made a certain number of concessions.
We have not been asking for privileges under this Bill. What we have been doing is seeking to amend the Bill—not in any way to destroy it, but to amend the Bill —so as to make provision for the Churches and the charities, which had obviously been forgotten in the original thinking about and planning of this Bill. I would remind your Lordships that my Amendment had the fullest all-Party support in this House, and was passed by an overwhelming majority. It is in no way a wrecking Amendment. It has sought to strengthen the Bill; and I observe from the Hansard of another place that, with all the Whips on, the Government's action in this respect was sustained by a majority of only eight. If the Whips had not been on, there can be no doubt that our Amendment would have received the support of another place.
It is true, of course, that concessions have been made; and there is also, as the noble and learned Lord who

1925
sits on the Woolsack has told us, a further concession about this business where prevailing use value will apply to land which came into the ownership of a charity after White Paper day. Instead of "ten", we may now read "seven". I have been much mystified by the logic, such as there may be, which has decided that one is wrong, ten is too much and seven is right. I can only presume that Her Majesty's Government accept the old legend that the number seven is the perfect number, and therefore, possibly, on some future occasion, perfection may be seen in the lessening of this period.
My Lords, one of the things which has worried me during the debate on my Amendment is that I have heard no proper answer to the argument which I have put forward, which is that the treatment of charities under this Bill is a reversal of the traditional treatment by successive Governments of the rights of charities. They have, in the past, been protected—protected for 400 years; protected by the creation of the Charity Commissioners, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and so on—and left to get on with their own job. How much easier it would have been in the whole of this matter simply to have accepted my Amendment, and to have taken them out. It would have done no harm; it would not have upset the working of the Bill in any way; and it would have achieved the object which I think most of us wish.
I believe that the Government have missed a great opportunity to gain the confidence and support of the charities, and that, instead, they have left a legacy of dismay and disgruntlement, and fear for the future. I should have been greatly tempted to divide the House again on this matter, because I believe my Amendment represents the mind of Parliament and of the country, but I understand I should not receive the same kind of support as I did when I first moved my Amendment. So I shall not press my point of view to a Division again, but look for the time when justice can be restored to the interests of the Churches and the charities.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I do not know whether I am in order—no doubt I shall be told if I am not—but I
1926
should like to express both admiration for the way in which the right reverend Prelate has handled this matter and appreciation of the courtesy of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack in his difficult task of trying to sell the Government's policy in detail. I should also like to say a special word of appreciation to those Members of your Lordships' House who, knowing a good deal about the subject of charities, rose to speak in favour of the Amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate.
There was one remark made by the noble and learned Prelate who sits on the Woolsack on which I should like to comment; and as he strayed into metaphor, to stray into it myself. He expressed regret that the morsel was not big enough. I venture to suggest that that is not quite the right metaphor. It is that if you have fallen off a ship and are swimming in the water and ask for a lifeboat, you no doubt express real appreciation for a sandwich; but it is not what you asked for.
My last comment is that where the Government seem to have fallen into a double error was, first, to forget about Churches and charities—and one could expand on that a great deal, no doubt to the embarrassment of the Government —and, second, that they were unquestionably seized by a doctrine which even they did not fully understand. Perhaps we could devote one of these long evenings to a short debate on the subject of "What is the community?" The result has been that, somehow, the Churches and charities, people who save the community some money and do it voluntarily themselves, have been "defined out" of the community.
I associate myself wholeheartedly with the right reverend Prelate in what he said at the end of his speech. This legislation will no doubt be revised and a piece of reactionary legislation will, ultimately at least, be modified and, we hope, completely changed.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I thought I would be in order to say just one thing. I want only to say that I can speak for my own part of the country and I know that the decision of the Government against the Churches and charities will be received with dismay and anger. As I

1927
now feel, after 38 years in the House of Commons, that I can speak for my own part of the world, I should like that put on the record—and I believe in speaking my mind in things I know that my own part of the world believe. I have got to be fairly polite in this place, and although I have very strong language myself, I will refrain from using it; but at the same time I know that my part of the world will be dismayed and angered. I hope that one of these days we shall be able to show this Government, who appear to have little regard for the Churches and charities, what we in the North of England think of their decision.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I was about to congratulate the noble Baroness on her restraint until she came to her final words; but I should like to express my admiration of the way in which the right reverend Prelate presented his case. May I also say, "Thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, for describing me as a noble and learned Prelate. Several of my eminent predecessors were so and, as a result, four of them were canonised as saints. Several of my predecessors were not saints.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 8 to 10A]
Clause 15, page 14, line 20, leave out from ("any") to end of line and insert ("development land").
Clause 15, page 14, line 21, leave out sub-section (2).
Clause 15, page 14, line 24, leave out ("any") and insert ("development").
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because the power of authorities to acquire land should not be unduly limited.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 en bloc to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 10A.
These Amendments would limit the acquisition power under Clause 15(1) to acquiring development land only; that is, land which, in the opinion of the authority concerned, is needed for relevant development within 10 years. If these Amendments were accepted, authorities would no longer have power under the Bill to acquire land for excepted development. The Govern-
1928
ment's proposals are to define the scope of the scheme by reference to the potential scope of the duty, leaving excepted development outside this category but still within the scope of the acquisition power. The whole concept of excepted development is based on the assumption that though it will not normally be right for authorities to acquire land for such development, there will be circumstances where they should do so. For example, use of the acquisition power might be the only way of ensuring that desirable recreational development was carried out. Second, they should be able to buy land for excepted development in order to achieve better planning. For instance, there could be cases where an authority would need to buy land for rebuilding within the terms of Schedule 8 to the 1971 Act because this would be the only way to achieve the best result in planning terms.
The present Amendments would remove the power for such acquisitions. They would thus wreck the whole concept of excepted development, and destroy the whole carefully constructed basis on which the land scheme now rests. I therefore hope that the House will reconsider the position in the light of this.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 8 to 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 10A.—(Baroness Birk.)
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, if the Government could not see fit to accept the previous series of Amendments, but only, as the noble and learned Lord said, could offer a pea, I suppose it is not surprising that the Government have decided that they could not accept these Amendments, but instead flick the pea back. The reasons why we moved these Amendments were precisely because of the reasons which the Government have seen fit to reject them. The Government say that they reject these Amendments because the power of authorities to acquire land should not be unduly limited. We moved these Amendments because we believed the powers of local authorities have been made far too wide. They have been gargantuan powers; they have never had such big powers, and they will be ill-equipped to carry these out. Whether these powers, if they carry them out, will

1929
be in the interest of the so-called community remains to be seen. We believe they will not be in the interests of the individual. However, we would not deem to alter the Government's decision not to accept these Amendments. We believe that the powers which the local authorities have been given are far too big, but if the Government wish it that way, then they will have it that way.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 10B to 10T]
Clause 16, page 15, line 18, leave out ("the area of each county authority") and insert ("each county area").
Clause 16, page 15, line 20, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area").
Clause 16, page 15, line 23, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area").
Clause 16, page 15, line 41, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area").
Clause 16, page 16, line 7, at end insert—
(""county area" means the area of a county authority or, in the case of Derbyshire, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, Staffordshire or Cheshire, such part of that area as does not fall within the area of the Peak Park Joint Planning Board").
Clause 16, page 16, line 8, leave out ("or the Greater London Council") and insert ("the Greater London Council or the Peak Park Joint Planning Board").
Clause 16, page 16, line 20, leave out from ("section") to end of line 23 and insert ("an authority shall be regarded as an authority in any county area if any part of their area falls within that county area").
Clause 16, page 16, line 25, after second ("to") insert ("the area of").
Clause 16, page 16, line 26, leave out ("the area of that authority") and insert ("that area").
Clause 16, page 16, line 28, leave out ("their") and insert ("that").
Clause 16, page 16, line 29, after ("to") insert ("the area of").
Clause 16, page 16, line 31, leave out ("the area of that authority") and insert ("that area").
Clause 18, page 17, line 32, leave out ("the area of a county authority") and insert ("a county area").
Clause 18, page 18, line 27, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area").
Clause 18, Page 18, line 35, leave out ("authority") and insert ("area").
Schedule 5, page 72, line 33, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area").
Schedule 5, page 73, line 3, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area").
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because the Amendments are unnecessary having regard to arrangements which can be made by the authorities for the six areas concerned.
5.58 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 10B to 10S en bloc to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 10T. It may be convenient if I also speak to the Commons Amendment No. 35C to your Lordships' Amendment No. 35B, which is consequential to the above Amendments. These Amendments will achieve a single object: they would have provided in the Bill for there to be a separate land acquisition and management scheme for the area of the Peak District National Park. I do not suppose even in this House I could claim, that there was a complete consensus approach between both sides of Parliament to this non-controversial and reasonable Bill. But in this case I think it can be fairly stated—although I am not sure that we have the support of the Sand and Gravel Association—that we have the support of the Opposition Front Bench in another place, and I hope that noble Lords will not insist on these Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 10B to 10S, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 10T—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, these arrangements referred to in 10T, as opposed to the arrangements set out in all the other Amendments that we are now talking about up to 10S, are arrangements of the kind that 25 years' experience and all the contemporary evidence have shown are not conducive to the achievement of the very purposes for which the National Parks were set up. As I explained at an earlier stage, and therefore have no intention of explaining again, they bear no correspondence to the powers already conferred by Statute on the Peak Park Planning Board.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 11 and 11A]
Clause 16, page 15, line 32, leave out ("31st December 1975") and insert ("29th February1976").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is necessary for land acquisition and management schemes to be made in good time.
5.56 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 11A. This Amendment would postpone the date for the making of land acquisition and management schemes from 31st December 1975 to 29th February 1976.
We have been over this ground many times. This date has been in the Bill since it was introduced, and authorities have had ample notice. By now, informal preparations should be well advanced and once the Bill is enacted authorities should be able to translate into formal schemes the agreements that have already been reached. To change the date at this stage could only encourage unnecessary delay. Where there are genuine problems, the Secretary of State, as I have said before, will be prepared to consider individual applications for an extension of time on their merits. But there is no good reason for a general change of date. Prudent authorities will have begun to give thought to their LAMS on receipt of the Department's guidance note which was issued in May 1975. Indeed, there have been consultations between the local authorities and by local authority associations since October last year.
There is nothing new in authorities preparing well in advance of new legislation —indeed, the 1972 Local Government Act provides a recent example—and I repeat what I have said on a previous occasion, that this is an area in which Parkinson's law operates; the more time people are given, the longer they take to produce their plans. There is nothing that concentrates the mind and activity so much as having a given date on which one has to be prepared. Directly this Bill reaches the Statute Book, I am quite certain that activity, where it has already started, will proceed, and action will begin
1932
where perhaps it has not yet begun. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 11A.—(Baroness Birk.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, when I first read this Reason I thought that, although this is really rather a serious matter, the Reason must be somebody's idea of a joke. The right reverend Prelate said that we ought to have a definition of the word "concession", and, although it is a very long time since I studied philosophy, I recall once having to write an essay entitled, "What is time?" One might well ask, "What is good time?", which seems to be the answer for putting the date as 31st December. No doubt someone in the Department of the Environment could answer that question—I was going to say in the twinkling of an eye—but to give as a Reason for doing something that a scheme must be made "in good time" is a rather sloppy explanation, if I may say so. I was very glad that the noble Baroness expanded on this in her statement. I do not agree that it will be at all easy for a great many local authorities to produce their schemes by 31st December, and I think that for these important matters a rather better Reason might have been given.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 12 and 12A.]
Clause 17, page 16, leave out lines 39 to 43 and insert ("the desirability—

(a) of securing the proper planning of their area and

(b) of bringing development land into public ownership and of developing that land themselves or of making it available for development by others in accordance with such planning.")

The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would alter the structure of the clause in a manner detrimental to the performance by the authorities of their functions.
6.0 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 12A: Because it would alter the structure of the clause in a manner detrimental to the performance by the authorities of their functions. The effect

1933
of this Amendment was to reverse the order of the two points in the general duty provided for in Clause 17(1). The first objection to the Amendment is that it is really turning the formulation of the general duty on its head. We have emphasised that public acquisition is to be seen as going hand in hand with planning, but that does not mean that this Bill is in itself a planning Bill. It is specifically a Bill about public acquisition and it is therefore entirely right that public ownership of development land should be mentioned first in the statement of the general duty in subsection (1).
It was argued that it is downgrading planning to put it second to land ownership. This is not so. The two parts of the duty are of equal force whatever their order. The Government believe that it is right to mention public ownership first because that is the principle of this Bill. As I understand it, the Opposition in another place felt that if this was to remain in the Bill at all, over which I gather there was some slight disagreement, the order in which it appeared did not make that much difference. It is our view that, in fact, a change in order could do some positive harm and I hope the House will not insist on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 12A.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, if it was possible to have a more fatuous Reason than the one before, No. 11A, this is it. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London was saying just now that the charities and Churches had been completely overlooked in the Government's approach to this Bill in their White Paper; and he was right in that. But they were not the only ones to be totally overlooked by the Government in their headlong and blinkered pursuit of this bizarre doctrine. The planners and planning also were totally overlooked. This part of the Bill was not there at all originally. Now that they have been remembered, they are not occupying their rightful place in the Bill; they are left dangling upside down on Clause 17(1)(b).
This confirms our worst suspicions and those of the planning professions, of the
1934
planning authorities, and of the amenity societies that talk of land acquisition being planning led, which emerged in the Report stage in another place but has since got buried, is just a lot of eyewash. If it is inspired by anything at all, this acquisition is just inspired by Socialist dogma, and outworn dogma at that.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 13 and 13A]
Clause 23, page 22, line 22, at end insert ("; provided that in the case of land on which there is at least one dwelling-house such resolution shall not be passed unless the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 12(1) of the Act of 1971 or paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 10(1) of the Scottish Act of 1972 (publicity in connection with the preparation of plans) have in the opinion of the authority been adequately achieved by the steps taken by the authority.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is unnecessary, having regard to the publicity which will have already been given in connection with the planning decisions on which the resolution is based.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 13A: Because it is unnecessary, having regard to the publicity which will have already been given in connection with the planning decisions on which the resolution is based. This Amendment provides that an authority could not declare a disposal notification area which would include any dwelling-house unless they had first carried out adequate public participation as defined in Section 12(1), paragraphs (a) to (c), of the 1971 Act which deals with publicity in connection with the preparation of local plans.
We have had a great deal of discussion about DNAs and I believe, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said when the Amendment was discussed in Committee, that there has been a genuine misunderstanding of the purposes and the effect of disposal notification areas. In providing for some prior procedure before a DNA can be declared, the Amendment assumes that the implications of declaring such an area would be wider than they in fact are.
The Amendment also appears to overlook a vital point which has been kept

1935
in the forefront of the Government's thinking in drafting this Bill. If procedures for considering the planning merits of acquisition were built into this legislation, then there must be a tendency for them to develop a significance of their own, quite apart from the procedures provided for in the planning Acts. If there were an opportunity for authorities to carry out public participation and then declare a DNA, some of them might claim that the planning issues had been adequately dealt with by this process and that therefore there was no need for further public participation or for a public inquiry under the planning Acts. The Amendment, therefore, weakens rather than strengthens the safeguard for owners of property in areas that are likely to be declared DNAs. As I have said, I believe that this is a genuine and basic misunderstanding of the proposals contained in the Bill and that rather than protect the planning system, which is one of the points upon which we are all agreed, the Amendment would weaken it. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords opposite will not press the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 13A.—(Baroness Birk.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I accept the good faith of the noble Baroness when she says that there has been a genuine misunderstanding about DNAs. I am also prepared to accept that I may not completely have understood this Bill, but I do not believe that when the DNAs arrive there will be much public misunderstanding as to what they are all about. I do not find convincing the argument that because there has already been public consultation over a planning issue there need not be any further public consultation. I have always taken the view that as this is a Community Land Bill it would be so nice if the community could be consulted regularly about what is being done in its name. We are, of course, glad that some of the Amendments have been accepted by the Government. I am only sorry that this Amendment has not been accepted as well.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 14 and 14A.]
Clause 23, page 23, line 29, at end insert ("and as if an interest qualifies for protection notwithstanding its failure to comply with section 192(4) of the Act of 1971 or section 181(4) of the Scottish Act of 1972").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would not be appropriate, in this Bill, to extend the categories of interests qualifying for protection under the blight provisions of the Planning Acts.
6.12 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 14A, because it would not be appropriate in this Bill, to extend the categories of interests qualifying for protection under the blight provisions of the planning Acts. The reasons which another place have given for disagreeing with some of the Amendments have been criticised but I hope that noble Lords opposite will accept—as I think another place did because there was no Division on this Amendment and, indeed, only one speech upon it—that the illogicality of having special blight provisions for DNAs has been clearly recognised by another place. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will not be insisted upon. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 14A.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I will not go into the main arguments again but may I point out with regard to this Amendment that here we have one of two classic examples of Socialist ideas of justice. There are two examples in this evening's proceedings. We have the Government's idea of justice at compulsory purchase inquiries; only those who can pay for legal assistance shall have it. Those who cannot afford it will not get legal aid when the Commons Amendment is agreed to. This is another idea, equally unjustifiable: that property owners blighted by DNAs can obtain redress if their rateable value is £2,000, but that they cannot obtain it if their rateable value is £2,500. To my mind, that is not justice of the kind that we ought to be administering.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, perhaps I may just reply to that. I am sure my noble and learned friend will deal with one aspect of what the noble Lord has said, but I should not like any impression to be gained that we do not have considerable sympathy with people who suffer from blight. Of course, people suffer from blight at the moment. Any change in the provisions would require hard evidence and we would be willing to consider such change should evidence be forthcoming that the blight provisions are generally inadequate, even after the recent improvements made by the Opposition's Loan Compensation Act of 1973. If I may say so to the noble Lord, so far as I am aware hard evidence of that kind is so far conspicuously lacking.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, noble Lords go on speaking as though the situation under this Bill will be as it was when we introduced the Compensation Acts, or when they enacted the planning Acts of 1968. This "land grab" measure that they are now introducing completely alters the circumstances.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 15–16]
Clause 25, page 24, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("that") in line 1 on page 25 and insert—
("(2) For the purpose of assessing the compensation it shall be assumed—

(a) subject to subsections (3), (3B) and (3C) below, that planning permission would not be granted for any development either on the land or on any other land, and

(b) subject to subsection (3B) below").

The Commons agreed with this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment thereto:
In paragraph (b), leave out ("3B") and insert ("3C").
6.6 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these matters were discussed in relation to the debate on Amendments Nos. 4 to 7. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16 to the Lords Amendment No. 15.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16 to the Lords Amendment No. 15.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 17–18]
Clause 25, page 25, line 20, at end insert—
("(3B) The assumptions in subsection (2) above shall not be made where at the date mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) above, the interest in land is owned by a charity.
(3C) Where during the whole of the period of one year immediately preceding the date as at which compensation is to be assessed—

(a) the interest in land has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout), and

(b) the land (as distinct from the rents and profits thereof), has not been used otherwise than wholly or mainly for charitable purposes,

then, for the purposes of assessing the compensation it shall be assumed, if the charity entitled to the compensation so elects, notwithstanding subsection (2)(a) above, that planning permission would be granted for any development by virtue of which the use of the land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails in the case of contiguous or adjacent land.
(3D) For the purposes of subsections (3B) and (3C) above the interest in land shall be treated as owned by a charity at any time if, at that time, the charity—

(a) has or had entered into a binding contract for its acquisition, or

(b) is or was indefeasibly entitled to it under the terms of a deceased persons' will.").

The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment to the Bill in lieu thereof:
Page 25, line 20, at end insert—
("(3B) Where during the whole of the period of seven years immediately preceding the date as at which compensation is to be assessed—

(a) the interest in land has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout), and

(b) the land (as distinct from the rents and profits thereof) has not been used otherwise than wholly or mainly for charitable purposes,

then, for the purposes of assessing the compensation it shall be assumed, subject to subsection (3C) below, that planning permission would be granted for any development by virtue of which the use of the land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails in the case of contiguous or adjacent land.
(3C) The assumptions in subsections (2) and (3B) above shall not be made where—

(a) during the whole of the period beginning with 12th September 1974 and ending with the date mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) above, the interest in land has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout), and

(b) that period is a period of not more than eleven years.

(3D)For the purposes of subsections (3B)

1939
and (3C) above the interest in land shall be treated as owned by a charity at any time if, at that time, the charity—

(a) has or had entered into a binding contract for its acquisition, or

(b) subject only to completion of the administration of a deceased person's estate, is or was entitled to it under the terms of the deceased person's will.").

The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree to the Commons Amendment No. 18 in lieu thereof. These are similarly placed to the matters that I have just put before the House.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree to the Commons Amendment No. 18 in lieu thereof. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 19–19A]
Clause 25, page 25, line 28, after ("section") insert ("other than subsection (3C) above")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would, in certain cases, increase the amount of compensation payable under the Land Compensation Acts.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 19 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 19A. These have already also been discussed in the circumstances I have indicated.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 19 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 19A.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 20–20A]
Clause 25, page 25, line 30, at end insert—
("(6A)(a) The assumptions in subsection (2) of this section shall not be made where—

(i) during the whole of the period beginning with 12th September 1974 and ending with the date mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) above, the interest in land has been owned by an approved pension scheme, and

(ii) that period is a period of not more than eleven years.

(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) above, the interest in land shall be treated as having
1940
been owned by an approved pension scheme at any time if at that time the approved pension scheme has, or had, entered into a binding contract for its acquisition.
(c) In this subsection "approved pension scheme" means a retirement pension scheme approved by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under section 222 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 or a super-annuation fund approved by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the purposes of section 208 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is unnecessary to make special provision for approved pension schemes.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 20A, because it is unnecessary to make special provision for approved pension schemes. I am aware of the concern that noble Lords opposite have shown over the position of pension funds and the effect of the scheme on their investment in property, but for the reasons given by my right honourable friend in another place last night the Government consider that the fears of the Opposition have been based on misconceptions. In the light of what we have already decided about the position of Churches and charities, I hope noble Lords will agree that it would not be sensible to make a special case out of pension funds and to give them advantages over and above the Churches and charities, and that they will not insist on their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 20A.—(Lord Melchett.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, as I have already indicated, I have been unable to read the proceedings in the Commons after 10 o'clock last night, so I am afraid I am not aware of what the Minister said on that occasion when this Amendment was discussed. I can only say I am deeply disappointed that the Government have felt unable to consider the case of approved pension funds at all. The Amendment may not have been correctly drafted, it may even have gone too far, but it seems a pity that on such an important matter there was no point

1941
at which we could have found a compromise or gone any way to meet the fears of approved pension funds. I think the point to be borne in mind always is that they are looking after other people's money. They are in a quite separate category and not—I accept this—in the same category as the Churches and the charities which have been protected by law for hundreds of years. They have a very important role to play. I am very sorry that the Government have not seen that they themselves are in a special category.
6.15 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 21–24]
Clause 27, page 26, line 9, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
Clause 27, page 26, line 11 at end insert ("before the second appointed day")
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments but proposed the following Amendments to the Bill in lieu thereof:
Page 9, line 25, after ("when") insert ("(a)")
Page 9, line 26, at end insert—
("and
(b) a draft of regulations under section 27 of this Act establishing one or more financial hardship tribunals, or conferirng on one or more existing bodies or groups of bodies the functions of financial hardship tribunals, has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.")
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 to which the Commons have disagreed and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 in lieu thereof. Another place has made a drafting alteration to these Amendments passed by your Lordships, which required that the regulations setting up financial hardship tribunals should be made before the second appointed day. The Amendments made in this House were made to Clause 27 and not to Clause 7, which contains the main provisions concerning the second appointed day. The other place have kept the Amendments passed by your Lordships but have put them in the appropriate place in the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 to which the Commons have disagreed,
1942
and doth agree to the Commons Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 in lieu thereof.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, it is very disappointing that the Amendments which would have provided for the setting up of at least one financial hardship tribunal in time for the second appointed day have not been accepted. I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of the Government, any more than there is in ours, that there will be cases of hardship after the second appointed day. We felt there should be provision to deal with such cases promptly, and that unless one had tribunals in being—not just draft regulations—
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord. Lord Middleton, I think he is under a misapprehension. Before too much of that misapprehension is placed on the record, it might be convenient if I put the matter straight. The Government have accepted these Amendments, but have merely transposed them to the suitable clauses. The Amendments were made in your Lordships' House to one clause, Clause 27, and the other place have moved the Amendments and put them in Clause 7. The Amendments have been accepted.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, this is not how it appears to me. It appears to me that all that is being put into Clause 27 by Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 is that a draft of regulations under Amendment No. 24 will have to be approved by Resolution of each House. There is no mention of the setting up of a tribunal. The original Amendment made it mandatory that a tribunal shall be set up before the second appointed day.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 25–25A]
Clause 41, page 39, line 29. leave out Clause 41 and insert the following Clause C:
Disposition of material interest by an authority
("C.—(1) The Secretary of State may make Regulations prescribing the terms under which an authority may dispose of any material interest in land acquired under this Act;
(2) Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the Regulations has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would unduly restrict the scope and flexibility of the Secretary of State's control over disposals of land by local authorities.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 25A. As I and my colleagues have already explained when the noble Baroness, Lady Young, moved her Amendment, it is unacceptable to the Government to draw a distinction between land acquired under the Bill and land acquired under other statutory provisions. Local authorities will continue to be able to use their existing powers, for example under the Housing and Planning Acts, to acquire land for private development.
Given that, it would be quite unacceptable to have a situation under which the disposal of land acquired under this Bill and disposed of for private development was subject to control, whereas land acquired under other powers and disposed of for the same purpose, was not. It is clear that the intention is to issue general consents to disposals which will give authorities wide flexibility to dispose of land without the need for specific reference to the Secretary of State in individual cases. Where a local authority wish to dispose of land on terms not covered by the general consent, they will be free to come to the Secretary of State and seek his consent to other terms. This approach combines the advantages of giving a wide measure of discretion to local authorities with flexibility to deal with special cases on their merits and by reference to the particular circumstances of the case. I think it is of some interest that this Amendment was not pressed in another place, and indeed there was virtually no debate on it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I detected that the noble Earl, Lord Middleton, was perhaps wishing to speak on Amendments Nos. 21 to 24. I am sorry if I failed to notice that. I fear we have now passed Nos. 21 to 24.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. There does seem to be a complete misconception between us over the amendment of that particular clause.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: It will have to be a matter for subsequent conversations between the two noble Lords.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 25, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 25A.—(Baroness Birk.)
Baroness YOUNG: By Lords, I really cannot accept the argument that because there was very little discussion in the other place, or a vote was not taken, they did not regard this as an important matter. I have no doubt by the time they got to Clause 41 they were in the same state as we were when we got to Clause 41 in Committee; it must have been in the very early hours of the morning. Therefore one cannot say that because it had little discussion it was something that they regarded as not important. They, like us, have been working under acute time table difficulties, and as this was an Amendment which was moved at Third Reading only the day before they no doubt had the same sort of difficulties that we have had.
Again I am very sorry the Government have not accepted this Amendment. It was certainly something the local authorities would have welcomed, and I believe it would have made much better the financial workability of the Bill.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I only mentioned the matter because the noble Baroness has said several times that she was under some disability in not being able to get a note of what happened. I thought it would be helpful to her to have that piece of information.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 26–28A]
Schedule 4, page 56, line 28, after ("development") insert ("of a kind consistent with the purpose specified as that for which the land is required")
Schedule 4, page 56, line 33, after ("approved") insert ("after a local inquiry or hearing")
Page 57, line 46. at end insert—
("( ) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order consists of a dwelling-house and the occupier of the dwelling-house duly objects to the order and that objection is not withdrawn, the Secretary of State shall not rely on the foregoing modifications made by this paragraph.

1945
( ) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order comprises a dwelling-house together with other land and the occupier of the dwelling-house duly objects to the order and that objection is not withdrawn, then, if the Secretary of State relies on the foregoing modifications made by this paragraph, he shall not confirm the compulsory purchase order without excluding the dwelling-house from that order.
( ) Where the land comprises in a compulsory purchase order consist of, or comprises with other land, a dwelling-house, the Secretary of State may disregard for the purpose of Schedule 1 any objection made by the occupier of the dwelling-house which in the opinion of the Secretary of State amounts in substance to an objection to the provisions of the development plan defining the proposed use of the dwelling-house or any other land.
( ) In this paragraph "dwelling-house" means any building or part of a building in which a person is residing, and includes any other building or part of a building in which a person normally resides but from which he is temporarily absent.")
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because the Secretary of State's discretion to dispense with a public local inquiry or hearing should not be unduly restricted.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 26 to 28 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 28A:
"Because the Secretary of State's discretion to dispense with a public local inquiry or hearing should not be unduly restricted."
I have proposed that these three Amendments be discussed together because the point at issue in each case, and the point on which the Commons have disagreed, is that they would restrict the Secretary of State's discretion under sub-paragraph (3) to dispense with a public inquiry or hearing. Amendment No. 26 was originally moved in Committee here. It would provide that the Secretary of State would have discretion to dispense with an inquiry on the basis of a planning permission (head (a) in sub-paragraph (3)) only where the permission was for development of a kind consistent with the terms specified as that for which the land was to be acquired.
Amendment No. 27 would restrict head (b) so that the Secretary of State could dispense with an inquiry on the basis of a local plan only where there had actually been an inquiry or hearing into such plan and not merely the opportunity for such an inquiry or hearing.
1946
Amendment No. 28 deals with the position of residential occupiers generally, and seeks to qualify the whole of the new paragraph (4) in Paragraph 3 of the Schedule so as to provide a different basis for disregarding objections by residential occupiers, and thus dispensing with an inquiry in such cases, as is provided in the case of other types of occupiers. We discussed details in Committee and at the Report stage, and I do not want to go over that same ground; I do not think noble Lords would thank me for doing so. But I should like to emphasise two points made by my right honourable friend in another place when he was dealing with the Amendments.
First, as I myself stressed at the beginning of our debate on Schedule 4 in Committee, there is a strong divide of principle between the two sides of the House. Noble Lords opposite are basically against any change in compulsory purchase procedures. We on this side believe that some shift in the balance between public and private influence is justified. This is a fundamental difference of principle, and, I suggest, not one that can ever be resolved however long we spend in discussing individual Amendments.
Secondly, my right honourable friend emphasised that the provisions in the Bill as introduced in your Lordships' House have been accepted by the Council on Tribunals. Far too little weight has been given to this very important factor in the debates both in your Lordships' House and in another place. The best way that I can emphasise the importance that attaches to the views of the Council on Tribunals is by asking the House to consider what view might have been taken if the situation had been the reverse. If the Council on Tribunals had disagreed with the Bill, I feel sure that we would have heard far more about their views from noble Lords opposite. Having given rather a synopsis of these three rather complicated Amendments, I think for the moment I shall leave it there.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 28A.—(Baroness Birk.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to say that

1947
there is a fundamental disagreement of opinion about the balance between public and private influence. One has only to look at the Reasons given by the Commons for disagreeing with our Amendment to see how that balance has shifted. In Reason 3A it says:
"Because the power of authorities to acquire land should not be unduly limited."
In 10A it says:
"Because the power of authorities to acquire land should not be unduly limited."
All that we sought to do in these Amendments that we pressed to a Division in this House was to maintain the rights of people at present at public inquiries into compulsory purchase orders which will affect their property.
It is appalling that Parliament should have taken away people's rights; that they have shifted the balance to the duty and rights of authorities to acquire people's land and property, and have taken away the right to object. Although on every occasion we have had this argument that the Council on Tribunals is satisfied, I have taken the opportunity to find out much more about the composition of the Council on Tribunals and the kind of issues to which it usually addresses itself. Although I am not in any way wishing to denigrate it, I was surprised to discover that a majority of its members are not lawyers. When dealing with something as technical as Schedule 4, it seems to me that if you wish to get a really effective answer which protects individual rights, you must seek the opinion of people professionally qualified in the law.
I am quite certain that in other matters the views of the Council on Tribunals are invaluable, but on this occasion I suggest that they could be mistaken, and this ought to be made quite clear. I cannot accept that the Government are right on this matter, but at this stage it is a fundamental division of opinion.
6.29 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, some of us went along to another place last night for part of the time. I cannot claim to have been there at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, but I was there to quite a late hour, and in the minds of those who were listening there is no doubt whatsoever that the question of individual liberties and rights to a public inquiry was the most fundamental point about which the two
1948
sides of another place disagreed. There is no question or doubt that this has occurred again and again. Some of your Lordships will remember the deep disagreement over a decision on the Packing-ton Estate made by a Minister of Housing and Local Government, the late Mr. Richard Crossman in 1965—a situation which the Council on Tribunals were much concerned with at a later stage. This point is so fundamental that we wish to register our very great disagreement with what the Government have done in steamrolling their opinion through another place.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, it appears that we have not achieved the amendments that we considered necessary to Schedule 4, but at least we now have it on the record that where the convenience of the Secretary of State and the rights of individual owners, hitherto secured by Statute, are to be balanced one against the other, this Government will consistently favour the convenience of the Secretary of State and leave the private owner defenceless and without redress under the law. The Bill now leaves it completely to the discretion of the Secretary of State, as the confirming authority of a compulsory purchase order, to judge for himself whether the publicity, the public participation and the public inquiries leading to the adoption and approval of a local plan have or have not been good enough to justify the abandonment of the citizens' proper safeguards established under compulsory purchase procedures for the past 30 years, and all this under conditions far less threatening and menacing than they will be under this Bill.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I must, first, say that while the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and I very much appreciate the fundamental difference of principle that has divided us all the way through on this Bill, it is not true to say that people will not have the right of objection. We are saying that we believe there are ample safeguards in the Bill as drafted. The Opposition are saying that they do not think there are. That is the difference. It is not that we are saying that we do not believe there should be any safeguards or that they are unnecessary. We believe that the safeguards for individual liberty—for their right to object—are in the Bill, whereas the Opposition would

1949
rather have them written into it in a different way.
I must refer to the comments that have been made about the Council on Tribunals. I am advised by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that the lawyers on that Council are extremely distinguished. I might add that on other occasions those of us who are not lawyers are quick to comment and criticise when we feel that there are too many lawyers about the place. I believe that the best kind of such council is one with a small number of distinguished lawyers but amply diluted by people of other disciplines.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, lest it be thought that I meant any disrespect to any of the distinguished lawyers on the Council on Tribunals, I hasten to point out that I have no doubt that they could not be more distinguished if they tried. My point was that we are dealing with a highly technical matter and that not all the members of the Council are qualified in the law, which seems a correct prerequisite for a full understanding of Schedule 4.
6.34 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 29 to 32]
Schedule 4, page 58, line 2, leave out ("the development plan in sub-paragraph (3)(c) and insert ("a local plan in sub-paragraph (3)(b).")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendments to the Bill in lieu thereof:
Schedule 4, page 58, line 2, leave out ("to the development plan in sub-paragraph (3)(c)") and insert ("in sub-paragraph (3)(b) to a local plan adopted or approved under Part II of the Act of 1971")
Schedule 4, page 58, line 32, leave out ("reference to") and insert ("references to Part II and")
Schedule 4, page 58, line 33, leave out ("a reference to") and insert ("references to Part II and").
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 29, to which the Commons have disagreed, and agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 en bloc in lieu thereof. I hesitate to say again that these are drafting matter but I am advised that, as
1950
with Amendments Nos. 23 and 24, this is merely a redrafting of an Amendment passed by your Lordships. There is no doubt in my mind about this, just as there was no doubt in my mind about Amendments No. 23 and 24. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 29, to which the Commons have disagreed, and agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 en bloc in lieu thereof.—(Lord Melchett.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 33 and 33A.]
Schedule 4, page 58, line 40, at end insert—
("Where an owner, lessee, or occupier of land comprised in an order made under this Act has made and not withdrawn an objection to such order, he shall be entitled to legal assistance and representation under the Legal Aid Act 1974 for the purpose of making representations at any public local inquiry held for the purpose of considering such objection.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 33, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 33A. The effect of the Amendment carried in your Lordships' House was to give an objector to a compulsory purchase order the right to legal aid for the purposes of making representations at any inquiry into the order. We discussed the matter in a good deal of detail, and I hope I may deal with it briefly on this occasion. There are a number of points of principle to be made against the Amendment.
First, it would be anomalous to provide legal aid for representations at public inquiries into compulsory purchase orders under the Bill, but not for inquiries into orders under other compulsory purchase orders. Secondly, it is important that the question of legal aid for representation at all forms of statutory inquiry should be considered as a whole, and there are many aspects to be examined in depth; for example, there is the probability that

1951
the availability of aid for legal representation could change the whole character of local inquiries from relatively informal proceedings to the formality of a court of law and could lead to more, and longer public inquiries. Also, it may he wondered whether legal representation is necessarily appropriate where the issues are almost entirely concerned with policy and merits, rather than matters of law; and whether legal advice and assistance in the preparation of an objector's case, which is already available to those within the limits of eligibility under the green form scheme, is not adequate.
It should be borne in mind in considering this matter that the inspector conducting the relevant inquiries will do his best to assist objectors and to ensure that their representations come across properly. Too little has been said previously about the role of inspectors at public local inquiries. In discharging their responsibilities, they have earned much praise and little criticism and there have been many tributes to their efficiency and impartiality. I believe that any suggestion that the small man who cannot afford a lawyer's fee for representation against an authority which can employ the best advocacy at the public expense is gravely prejudiced, and underrates the good sense of the inspector, who is not without experience and who will have developed an instinctive appreciation of where the heart of an objection lies, and will not be over-impressed by the range of legal or other professional advocacy arrayed against the objector who is conducting his own case.
I should also remind your Lordships that full legal aid is not available under the legal aid legislation for representation before any statutory inquiry; nor, indeed, is it available for any tribunal apart from the Lands Tribunal and Commons Commissioners. I have studied sympathetically and have much regard for the report of my Legal Aid Advisory Committee which recommends that legal aid should be made available for tribunals. Unhappily, in the present economic situation, in which public expenditure must be limited rather than added to, I am afraid that it would not be practicable at this point of time to implement their recommendations. We are very much in the field of priorities so far as the legal field is concerned, there are the priorities
1952
created by the serious unmet need for legal services in many neighbourhoods, and I have commissioned a full-scale study into that problem and expect to receive its results in the very near future. We shall then be in a better position to assess the priorities and decide how funds should best be allocated.
I can say that it would not be cheap to extend legal aid to compulsory purchase order inquiries under the Bill. It is not possible to give an exact estimate of what is would cost, because one cannot foresee how many inquiries there will be or how many people will be making objection. But it would not be an inconsiderable amount. After all, there are other priorities calling urgently for public expenditure, to remove squalid housing, old and inadequate hospitals and medical services, and old schools, and there is pressure for wider social security benefits. All these are knocking at the door and one must keep a sense of proportion about the priorities, much as I, as a lawyer, would naturally like to give top priority to the extension of legal aid. Therefore, looking at the matter as a whole, we feel that to select one area alone of statutory inquiry—namely, compulsory purchase orders—for a special provision for legal aid would not be satisfactory, and I hope that for the reasons I have given the House will not insist on this Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 33, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 33A.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave a much fuller explanation than is given in this schedule before us. I should have hoped, if he believed, as I do, that in principle legal aid was right under this Bill, that he would have taken the opportunity to try to find a way to meet this Amendment, if not at the moment then at least when the Bill is fully operational. It is deeply disappointing that he has felt unable to do so. With regard to the Reason that it would involve a charge on public funds, of course I accept that it would cost money. But it will be very interesting to see, when by this time next week we have heard what is contained in the gracious Speech, what the Government decide are their priorities

1953
on spending money and why this is not among them.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it would be most improper if I were to give a forecast of what may be the contents of the Queen's Speech, and the noble Baroness must contain herself in patience and expectation.
6.43 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 34 and 34A]
(Schedule 4, page 59, line 32, at end insert—
("Special Parliamentary Procedure
6A.—(1) For paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 there shall be substituted the following paragraph: —
"12. A compulsory purchase order, in so far as it authorises the purchase of land being, or being the site of, an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest, or of any other land of a nature specified by an order of the Secretary of State, shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure unless the Secretary of State certifies that the acquiring authority has entered into an undertaking with the Secretary of State to observe such conditions as to the use of the land as in his opinion are requisite having regard to the nature thereof."
(2) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament an order specifying the land to which paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 shall apply.
(3) An order made under the last subparagraph shall not be effective until a draft has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4) Before making the above draft order the Secretary of State shall consult with the Statutory advisory bodies concerned, and such other bodies as may seem to him expedient.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would not be appropriate, in this Bill, to extend the categories of land the compulsory acquisition of which is subject to special parliamentary procedure.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move, that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 34 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 34A. This Amendment would have the effect of applying special Parliamentary procedure to various types of land not already covered by that procedure in the Acquisition of Land Acts. It was argued in support of the Amendment that with all that had happened in
1954
the years since the Acquisition of Land Acts, by way of designating various kinds of area of important environmental significance, a review of the application of special Parliamentary procedure was long overdue, and that the Bill, which does so much to promote and indeed to require the compulsory acquisition of land, ought to be the basis for stimulating that review.
As I said on a previous occasion—I think it was Report stage—when this Amendment was moved and carried in this House, it was most improper for it to take its place in this Bill. I quite understood the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who moved it, using it to fly a kite or to "have a go" with it, but I must say that to press it to a Division was absolutely ridiculous. I said the same thing on Third Reading, and I still feel the same way about it. It is a complete irrelevance, and I hope that the House will support the Commons Reason for disagreeing. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 34 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 34A.—(Baroness Birk.)
Lord SANDFORD: Well, my Lords, No. 34A is an absolutely delicious Reason. When could it possibly be more appropriate for Parliament to consider whether the most cherished parts of our land—now happily designated in various ways—needed to be specially safeguarded? What more appropriate moment could there be than when we have before us a Bill inaugurating the most extensive piece of State acquisition of land in the history of the Kingdom?

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 35 and 35A]
Schedule 4, page 65, line 5. after ("suit") insert (", or in Scotland the instance,").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the provision does not apply in Scotland.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 35 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 35A:
"Because the provision does not apply to Scotland".

1955
This Amendment was accepted by the Government in an excess of zeal for Scottish definitions which was no doubt engendered by the enthusiasm of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, but I regret to say that we went slightly too far.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 35 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 35A.—(Lord Melchett.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 35B and 35C]
Schedule 5, page 73, line 9, at end insert—
"(2) As soon as practicable after a scheme has been made or revised, the county authority shall send a copy of the scheme (or the scheme as revised) to every parish council whose area comprises any part of the county area.
(3) As respects Scotland sub-paragraph (2) above shall not apply but, in the case of a scheme made or revised for the area of a general planning authority, that authority shall send as soon as practicable a copy of the scheme (or the scheme as revised) to every district council whose district comprises any part of that area."
The Commons agreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment thereto:
In sub-paragraph 2, leave out "county area" and insert ("area of the county authority".
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35C to the Lords Amendment No. 35B. We discussed these Amendments when we discussed Amendments 10B to 10T. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35C to the Lords Amendment No. 35B.—(Lord Melchett.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 36 and 36A]
Schedule 6, page 73, line 29, at end insert ("and shall draw up and publish annually a five year programme of the development land that they propose to acquire in the course of the following 5 years. The authority shall indicate in the programme the relevant plans or planning factors that support such a programme of acquisition.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would not be appropriate to provide for such matters in the Bill.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 36 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 36A:
"Because it would not be appropriate to provide for such matters in the Bill".
This Amendment would put the preparation by authorities of five-year rolling programmes on a statutory basis. There is no argument between us as to whether there should or should not be rolling programmes, or what they should contain. The point at issue is a narrow one; whether or not there should be a requirement laid down in the Bill. We cannot expect rolling programmes to remain immutable. In time, they may be superseded by new techniques for controlling expenditure. It would be quite wrong, therefore, to write into this Bill, and this Bill alone, the mechanism by which local authority expenditure—in this case on the land scheme—is to be controlled. To write rolling programmes into the Bill is both unnecessary and potentially dangerous. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 36 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 36A.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, when this Bill begins to bite, I think Parliament and the citizens of this country will soon agree readily enough that it is far more dangerous to take out this provision. There is no argument between us that there have to be these rolling programmes. There is no question of them being immutable; a new programme has to be devised every year. What this Amendment to our Amendment does is to confirm our worst suspicions: that, so far from seeking in the Bill to give the community any insight as to what is being done in their name or spent in their name, or providing any opportunity for people to see the way in which the acquisition programmes are related to the planning factors, this whole business can go on, and probably will go on, and be planned and executed in secret and behind closed doors. That is the danger we fear.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 37 and 38]
Schedule 8, page 82, line 45, at end insert—

PART IIA
Disposals of which notice may, but need not, be given
3A.—(l) This paragraph applies to a disposal by an individual of a material interest in land which is the whole or any part of his private residence.
(2) This paragraph also applies to a disposal by trustees of a material interest in land held in trust where—

(a) that land is the whole or any part of a person's private residence, and

(b) that person is entitled, under the terms of the trust, to occupy that residence or to receive the whole of the income derived from, or from the proceeds of sale of, the material interest.

(3) In this paragraph—
"disposal" includes a contract for a disposal
"dwelling-house" includes part of a dwelling-house,
an individual's "private residence" means—

(a) land comprising a dwelling-house which, at the date of the disposal, is that individual's only or main residence, and

(b) land which at that date he has for his own occupation and enjoyment with that dwelling-house as its garden or grounds up to an area which, when aggregated with the area of the site of the dwelling-house, does not exceed one acre or such larger area as may in any particular case be required for the reasonable enjoyment of it as a residence, in the opinion of the authority, regard being had to its size and character;

and a person's "private residence" shall be construed accordingly.")
The Commons agreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment thereto:
In head (b) of sub-paragraph (3), leave out from ("acre") to end of head.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38 to the Lords Amendment No. 37. As I explained to the House at Report stage, the point at which one draws the dividing line between those owner occupiers who need not notify a disposal and those who must is of no major significance in the operation of the land scheme. The reason for exempting owner occupiers of houses standing in plots of less than one acre was to remove the compulsory notification requirement in cases where notification would be unlikely to bring any benefit to
1958
an authority; that is, because at the one-acre limit and below there would be no DTL payable by the owner and thus no question of a high base value being established before the authority come to acquire.
One acre is thus a convenient and certain limit to use. If the limit is expressed as a variable it would give rise to uncertainty in people's minds. Those with larger plots would need to write to the local authority for their decision whether the intended disposal needed to be notified, the authority would then need to consider the matter—possibly with a visit to the house—and give their decision. Even if they then decided the owner need not notify, he would still have been involved in as much work to establish his "exemption" as he would have been if he had simply notified the disposal in the first place; and of course the authority would, by then, be fully informed of his intention to sell anyway. On purely practical grounds, therefore, we think the words inserted at Report and Third Reading are self-defeating and unnecessary.
At the risk of annoying the noble Baroness opposite I feel that I ought to point out that, again on this Amendment, not only did the other place not divide but nobody spoke on it. There was no debate. Yet this was an Amendment considered of such importance here in the interests of the owner occupier.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38 to the Lords Amendment No. 37.—(Baroness Birk.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, once again I shall have to take the word of the noble Baroness whether or not the House of Commons said anything about this. As I have not had the opportunity to read Hansard on what happened at six o'clock or seven o'clock in the morning, I do not know. It may be that everybody was feeling rather tired at that stage. Whatever may or may not have happened in another place does not alter the fact that we in this House felt that this was putting into the Bill something which was only doing justice to those people whose gardens might measure just over one acre as compared with the people whose gardens measured just under one acre. If I may say so, I think that this is a very good example of Socialist spite against

1959
somebody who has just a little more than somebody else.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, having been in another place, not at the hour mentioned but at an earlier hour, I feel very strongly about this because it is quite clear that the rights of individual citizens were very much in the minds of another place. Here is a case where a purely doctrinaire view has over-ridden the very sensible Amendment which my noble friend Lord Kinnoull brought to your Lordship's attention. It is not only in the interests of the owner occupier, it is very beneficial for conservancy in our towns and cities and so on. It has wide implications, probably wider than the Government realise. I dispute the way in which they have knocked it out of the Bill.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord that here there is nothing to do with conservation at all. When he is talking about the rights of the individual, I think he should bear in mind that the majority of people in this country do not own even a scrap of an acre or any land at all. Those who do own far less than a quarter of an acre including their house and garden. What we are talking about are the rights—and I think they should have been rights as well but they are very well protected in the Bill—of what is a small minority. I do not think we should get the whole thing out of proportion.
6.54 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 39–42]
Schedule 10, page 90, line 32, leave out ("shall cease to have effect and") and insert ("for the words from "that" to the end there shall be substituted the words "at the beginning of the period of twenty-one days ending with the date of the application, no person (other than the applicant) was the owner of any of the land to which the application relates", (b) in subsection 1(b) for the words "given the requisite notice of the application to" there shall be substituted the words "obtained consent for the making of the application from" and for the words "service of each such notice" there shall be substituted the words "each such consent", and (c.)")
The Commons agreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment thereto:
Leave out head ("(b").
Page 91, line 11, leave out ("shall cease to have effect and") and insert ("for the words
1960
from "that" to the end there shall be substituted the words "at the beginning of the period of twenty-one days ending with the date of the application, no person (other than the applicant) was the owner of any of the land to which the application relates", (b) in subsection (1)(b) for the words "given the requisite notice of the application to" there shall be substituted the words "obtained consent for the making of the application from" and for the words "service of each such notice" there shall be substituted the words "each such consent", and (c)").
The Commons agreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment thereto:
Leave out head ("(b)").
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 39 and 41 to the Lords Amendments Nos. 40 and 42. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I moved these Amendments en bloc because they really are interwoven. The parts of the Amendments made in this House only mons have disagreed have the effect of requiring the prior consent of the owner to the making of planning application by a third party.
The Government see no reason to go as far as the Amendments now do to give an owner of a material interest an absolute right of veto over the making of a planning application on land in which he has an interest. The Government are therefore prepared to agree to the amendments made in this House only with the deletion of paragraph (b) in each case. In our view, the inclusion of paragraph (a) alone affords adequate protection to the land owner. The planning Acts already require anyone applying for planning permission on land which he does not own to serve notice on the owners. There is then an opportunity for the owners to make representations to the local planning authority, who can take them into account in reaching a decision on the application.
There is specific protection for an owner's position in the "prior right" provisions in paragraph 2 of Schedule 6. Under these provisions, anyone applying for planning permission may have a prior right to negotiate to carry out development on the land if it is acquired by an authority. Paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 6 specifically provides that a person making a planning application shall have the benefit of the prior right provisions only where his application to carry out development on the land is accompanied

1961
by the written consent of all those with a material interest in the land.
The Government therefore accept that there is a need to protect the position of the landowner when there is a planning application from a third party; but they maintain that this protection is afforded by paragraphs (a) of Amendments Nos. 175 and 176 together with the prior right provisions, and that paragraphs (b) of these Amendments are unnecessary. For these reasons, I hope your Lordships' House will agree with the Commons disagreement.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 40 to the Lords Amendment No. 39 and to the Commons Amendment No. 42 to the Lords Amendment No. 41.—(Baroness Birk.)
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, these Commons Amendments to our Amendments leave us with another suspicion reinforced. If these are taken out, as the Government wish, there is nothing to stop either the Department or the authorities encouraging people in their pockets to go around putting in applications on land of unwary owners without their consent, getting planning permission from the authorities and thus setting in motion this whole compulsory acquisition process. That has not been possible before. This can now happen before the owner, if he is not absolutely alert and vigilant, is barely aware of what is happening to him and his property. It was to safeguard that position that we put in these Amendments. With this shabby little tailpiece, we come to the end of a very bad Bill by a very bad Government at the end of a very bad Session. I am glad we are now in sight of the end of the Session: I hope we shall soon be in sight of the end of the Government. It is a consoling thought that this Bill will bring that closer. We shall then certainly see the end of this legislation.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I will answer some of the points, some of the errors, made by the noble Lord when he spoke to the Amendments. He spoke as though this was an entirely new situation, about the bar on a third party planning application without owner's consent. The present situation has existed for many years, and successive Governments
1962
have never thought it necessary to go beyond providing for owners to be notified so they may make representations to the local planning committee. If a consent was intended to protect owners, this objective could easily be circumvented even with the Amendments that have been put down by the noble Lords opposite.
If a horde of developers are trying to "pinch" land, all they need do is write to an authority to ask them to make a CPO. In fact, they can do that now. What happens, as we know perfectly well, is that inquiries are made and the person whose land is affected can then object. If the Opposition really believe that there is a danger of owners being harried in this way, then the Amendments are ineffective. If they are going to push their point to extremes, I think one would say that nothing more could be achieved than what may be achieved now by third party applicants. If local planning authorities were prepared to co-operate in such manœuvres, the effects could have been achieved at any time during the past and at present. In fact this is not so. The Amendments are unnecessary and not viable. I am delighted that we have come to the end of these proceedings. They have been very long, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, like many of us, probably has been under some strain, otherwise he would have spoken with a more Christian-like attitude about the whole thing.
I am delighted that we are about to see this Bill reach the Statute Book. I do not for one moment believe that all the terrible results which have been prophesied will come to pass. In fact, I believe that once the uncertainty has been removed and this measure, radical, I agree, is on the Statute Book, local authorities and individual developers and so on—if you like, individual capitalists —will want to make sure that once something has become law, it will work properly for them. I certainly wish it luck, and the only word I can say, finally, is "Hooray"!
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, before we conclude the proceedings, I would take this opportunity to answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, about the Government's Reasons for not accepting the Lords Amendments. As

1963
the noble Baroness said at an earlier stage, the fact is that this is completely new legislation, introducing us into a new world. The quite consistent argument that we have heard from the Government when we have objected at various stages that, "it might be possible to do this now", does not mean that it is necessarily going to work in the same way in the future, because we are in a different world. I am bound to say that I do not share the optimism of the Government. I once described the Government's attitude to the nationalisation of land as being rather like their other nationalisation schemes, a triumph of hope over experience. I think this will be the case here and that as the Bill begins to work numbers of individuals whose rights have been taken away from them will begin to realise that this is not in the interests of the community.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, there is only one thing I would say. I have sat here and watched with admiration both Front Benches as they have prognosticated the dim and dismal future, but when I consider the weight of this Bill, all that it does and the seriousness of it, I am simply amazed that the other side divided the House yesterday on what I consider to be a frivolity, while letting this massive legislation go by.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I have the final word by congratulating all who have been concerned on both sides of the House on the triumph of endurance over exhaustion!
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
[The Sitting was suspended front 7.4 p.m. to 8.10 p.m.]

LOCAL LAND CHARGES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the Lords Amendment to the Commons Amendment agreed to.
  CHANNEL TUNNEL PROJECT
  CHANNEL TUNNEL PROJECT
  LEAD CONTENT OF PETROL
  LEAD CONTENT OF PETROL
  M4 FOG DETECTOR INSTALLATIONS
  M4 FOG DETECTOR INSTALLATIONS
  CONCORDES 01 and 002
  CONCORDES 01 and 002
  EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER
  EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER
  FOREIGN STUDENTS
  FOREIGN STUDENTS
  DRIVING OFFENCES AND PRISON SENTENCES
  DRIVING OFFENCES AND PRISON SENTENCES
  LAW OFFICERS
  LAW OFFICERS
  ROYAL COMMISSION
  ROYAL COMMISSION
  PROROGATION: HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH
  PROROGATION: HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH